Busting the 4 biggest myths about stealth aircraft!

The complexity and secrecy surrounding the latest advancements in stealth aviation tend to make the topic ripe for both disinformation and misinformation, and that leads to misconceptions that become so pervasive, many just accept them as true.
So, let's poke some holes in the 4 biggest myths about stealth fighters and bombers that we see in the comments just about every day.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollings. .
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
Citations:
www.airandspaceforces.com/art...
books.google.com/books?id=MSa...
airandspace.si.edu/multimedia...
airandspace.si.edu/research/p...
arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.20...
www.historynet.com/horten-bro...
www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Pe...
mirtitles.org/2022/05/02/meth...
nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSA...
avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Ben%...
books.google.com/books?id=pM6...
www.washingtonpost.com/sf/bra...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
news.ncsu.edu/2021/05/tougher...
www.amamcotool.com/media/docs...
www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
theconversation.com/the-f-35-...
www.airandspaceforces.com/art...
researchdirect.westernsydney....

[@HubertofLiege]

That guy at Home Depot can be pretty stealthy when you need him, to be fair.

[@WhiteOwlOnFire_XXX]

Fact: we’ve given Ukraine 2x more money than we spend on our own infrastructure. Enough is enough. No more money to Ukraine while our politicians and their politicians make bank while US TAXPAYERS GET NOTHING!!!!

[@Solixite]

true loll

[@nickparkin8527]

Fucking gold

[@mattmcc7930]

Fifth generation customer service.

[@hanrockabrand95]

Russia needs to hire him so they can pump out all those missing Su-57s

[@jajssblue]

Its hard to describe how difficult predicting or simulating radar return was in the early days, including materials science. Electromagnetic calculations can get intractable in all, but the most simplified models. The growth of computation is such a huge contribution to progress.

[@lukedye8208]

Yeah I've heard with the development of those early stealth demonstrators, workers just pointed a radar at random shapes to see what reflected or not.

[@baomao7243]

If i recall my grad school electromagnetics correctly, Piotr’s work focused on scattering from EDGES vs from surfaces. Reading that work, one realizes that the EDGES had become THE major generator of radar return. And with “edges” dominating the scattering, RCS computations become the sum of scattering calculations along lines (not entire surfaces), so the computational requirements drop exponentially (while - bonus - Moore’s law is delivering exponentially more compute power).

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

I think it's going to be interesting what stealth vehicles we'll end up with thanks to machine learning...

[@baomao7243]

@@DUKE_of_RAMBLE Agreed. We used to run electromagnetic solvers as batch jobs where we varied only one or two variables. After a weekend of running the jobs, you knew which dimensions of your geometry yielded best results. But it relied on an a priori design that was just tweaked. AI-generated stealth may well be quite interesting.

[@jacobh9487]

Pyotr Ufimtsev's FIRST EVER mathematical formulations leading to stealth should not be underestimated. The difference between monkeying around with building series of models again and again and again, versus using computer optimized surface solutions from the start based on mathematics is night and day. Give the guy his WELL DESERVED credit.

[@jona.scholt4362]

I never get tired of seeing B-roll footage of an F-35/F-22/F-16/F-15 Elephant Walk. It just looks so badass.

[@cruisinguy6024]

Even a C-17 or KC-135 elephant walk looks badass. There’s just something about elephant walks

[@jona.scholt4362]

@@cruisinguy6024 It's a "flex", no doubt. Just imagine if the government had an official propaganda department like the PRC. China tries to make their military look tougher with all those parades and displays of a military that hasn't been in an actual conflict since WW2. Just imagine a picture that showed every active supercarrier not in drydock. Imagine 5 or 6 Nimitz/Ford with 10 LHDs and a couple dozen attack subs and boomers and a couple dozen Arleigh's with 10 B-2s flying overheard. THAT would be awesome!

[@teddy.d174]

Did you see the recent B-2 elephant walk? Pretty impressive.

[@debbies3763]

ya CGI IS AMAZING.

[@BrapBrapDorito]

@@debbies3763obvious bait comment is obvious, try harder

[@ProfessorJayTee]

You are 100% correct about "fighter generations," "organic" and similar terms being twisted to death by marketing.

[@Peter_Morris]

Some cars might be a tad stealthy, except for the Dodge Stealth, which had an enormous radar return.

[@thrashandburn10221]

The dodge stealth is doing as advertised: dodging stealth!

[@teddy.d174]

As well as a giant heat signature.

[@billynomates920]

👍 pp 😃

[@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg]

Dodge can't Dodge!. (A former charger owner)

[@billynomates920]

2x👍pp 😃 gradius *and* mutley! @@teddy.d174

[@shannonkohl68]

"Stealth wasn't even on Ufimtsev's radar." Good one!

[@Chuck_Hooks]

The biggest myth is that the Su-57 is a stealth aircraft.

[@SCH292]

Don't forget about Mig41 and SU75 checkmate. Lol

[@kevinporter5146]

LMAO... Vladimir fooled the world... I believe that Xi has as well, with his cheap copies

[@forfun6273]

Well neither the su-57 or J20 have stealth engines. I think the J20 is about to have new engines for it that are better for stealth. But it doesn’t seem like either are close to the F-22 or F-35 in stealth. Apparently the F-117 has a smaller radar return than the F-35 and F-22 too. Kinda crazy how far advanced American technology is compared to the rest of the world. I think Japan will be able to produce a jet as capable as the F-22 come 2030 when they release their jet. I think they’re working with the UK too.

[@RandomloserDK]

It is... It's never been spotted by Ukraine's radars... 😂 Before anyone else waste their time replying. This is a joke.

[@chriscentini6947]

Whoa calm down.....yes American tech is at a high level but to say the US is years and years ahead is stretching it, especially considering how they spent so long lagging behind in avaition compared to Germany during ww2 ! And later playing catch up to Russia and great Britain. Your entire space program only existed because of Von Braun a nazi scientist captured with many many others at end of war. The USA is a great nation but to say they have always been ahead and lead the way is ludicrous and very misleading.

[@ughettapbacon]

The Horten's both lived into the mid 1990's so there is more than zero chance that one or both of them heard The Who... I'll see myself out.

[@2ndhendrix631]

You get to stay, that was great!

[@rogerdodger1790]

No he doesn't, get out now.

[@davidpalmer4184]

Hi Alex, your comments about "military grade" brought back memories of going through Army school of infantry. Our instructors went to great pains explaining that it was important tp look after our equipment as it was bought from the lowest priced bidder the Army could find. It always made me shudder whenever the rifle had a gas jam.

[@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg]

Always keep both your guns clean

[@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.

[@okcstormchaser]

I'd also appreciate some kinda info on our new IFVs that'll be replacing the Bradley's. I hope the Abrams X makes its way into production after they figure out what gun systems the Army wants, plus finally upgrading to an autoloader would cut down on needing that extra person and cut down on loading munitions, shrug. They definitely need a new Abrams regardless so hoping they're actually testing that product demonstration model, it looks fuckin awesome for a tank and running in silent mode should be a huge plus for IR. Just be sitting there running the required systems without the loud diesel running yet, all tankers need their own drone like it has plus having a microwave killing kamikaze drone in each platoon would be awesome too! GDLS (general dynamic land systems) has awesome stuff on their KZbin page. Alex, hook us up on land system that we don't know yet for the Army so we know they're updating just like the other branches please!

[@mnorth1351]

Commenting so he sees it.

[@pyro1047]

​​​​@@okcstormchaserAn MBT autoloader doesn't give as much of an advantage as people think it does, for instance yes that's 1 less man in the tank so you can make the crew space smaller, but that's also 1 less man to help perform routine maintenance, stand watch, take-over if a crewman is injured, etc. That's why the French Leclercs despite having an autoloader, are still followed around by a bunch of vans with the 4th crewman😂, safely behind the front/combat of course. In addition, autoloaders do not have all-angle loading. This is why T-64's through T-90's and similar high caliber autoloading tanks "salute" their gun after each shot, that's the autoloader moving the gun to its fixed "reload" position. And finally, autoloaders are much harder to use blowout panels with. Which is why the ruskies just gave theirs a spall liner and called it good. You can use both autoloaders and blowout panels, but this requires either a crew capsule design like the T-14/M1TTB, or a small door on a bustle loader extending the ass of your turret. (Easy for an Abrams which already has a THICCC turret since it uses bustle stowage primarily with a small hull stowage area. Yes, it exists; even has its own blow out panel. Compared to the T-64/90's which stow ammo directly under the gun/turret complicating retrofitting an autoloader. And no, the T-90M doesn't have a "Blowout panel Autoloader" either, they just stuck all the spare ammo in a new bustle with blowout panels at the back of the new turret instead of unprotected all around the turret and hull interior where a fallen cigarette could ignite them. They didn't even have the Challengers "protected" stowage bins, just rounds and charges hanging ass out right in the open which is what actually "pops" their lids 99% of the time. It's not the carousel, it's the extra rounds being hit, THEN setting off the carousel via sympathetic detonation by conflagration in a confined space. This is why "Smart" countries (Also smart War Thunder players) like Finland, limit their T-72's to carousel ammunition only, no hull/turret "extras". The US has had an autoloading Abrams since the 80's, it could use either a 120mm or 140mm gun and used "Frickin laser beams" to fire its ammo, no really, novel propellants could be used by igniting them with a laser through a window where the primer usually is instead of using an electrical or percussion primer. Officially the test bed was the Component Advanced Technology Test Bed or CATTB, but grunts just dubbed it the "Thumper". This was only is test bed though (Like Abrams X) and we just haven't thought bringing it past the prototype we built and tested has been worth the trade-off yet. We've also had a "T-14 Armata" Abrams since then as well, called the M1TTB (Tank Test Bed) also known as the Surrogate Research Vehicle. All 3 crew were in an armored capsule at the front, and new reduced profile turret had an autoloader magazine in the hull below it. If anything the Russians copied the Armata off the US, they just made it shit. In comparison to the Russians which tout their autoloader being capableof "manual reversion" (BMP-1 even got a "Loading stick"), the M1TTB autoloader had to be able to load then unload and return to stowage every single round in the magazine 20 times without a single mark on the combustible case to pass testing, which it did. Even on the offroad simulator where they took the turret and autoloader and just shook and bounced it around everywhere to simulate loading while moving over rough terrain, it took 40,000 rounds loaded and unloaded before 1 failure... Whereas Soviets... Loading stick. (Russia is even worse actually, if the gun on the T-14 Armata jams it has to be removed/fixed by an Armorer back at base😂).

[@pyro1047]

​@@okcstormchaserWrote a similar comment on how IMO a new Turbine engine would be better, and compareing numerous aspects between Turbine and diesel engines, but the app crashed right at the end and I don't feel like rewriting all that. Basically, Abrams X in the end is all just to make the tank lighter which is why it can use a "more fuel efficient" diesel engine. At the Abrams current weight you really need that raw power and acceleration the Turbine gives it, and then them FINALLY giving it an APU has mitigated a lot of the excess fuel consumption issues which resulted from the engine needing to be on to run any of the needed electronics. The Diesel APU added can now do this when the tanks sitting or guarding an area instead of 24/7 Turbine power. OG Abrams got around .5 miles per gallon, current EXTRA THICCC Abrams despite weighing 70 tons get around just under 2 miles per gallon. Also, the Abrams current Turbine IS diesel, and jet fuel, and Kerosene, and Marine Compression Ignition fuel (Fancy ship diesel), hell even cooking oil,, basically ANY compression ignition fuel can be used by the Abrams Turbine which can give strategic advantages besides fuel availability (Like Kerosene doesn't gel extremely bad like diesel does in cold climates, diesels need fuel heaters in cold weather). Yes, diesel engines can be multi-fuel too, but they're much more complex and even then can only use a few fuels that fall within their designed operating range, and so far their reliability has been... less than flattering which is actually what multi-fuel diesels are best known for, just look at the Chieftains reliability notoriety with its Leyland L60. Yes, current diesels can finally match the HP of the HoneyWell AGT 1500 Gas Turbine. But a modern gas Turbine could just as easily surpass it, also for comparable power a Turbine can be much smaller and lighter weight than a diesel with comparable power. Surprisingly, Turbine engines are also less maintenance intensive, making the "maintenance part" of operating costs actually lower than diesel engines. And this is ALL with the Abrams still using a "very" upgraded Turbine from the 70's, which was a pioneer being 1 of only two gas turbine engines ever adopted for tanks and the only one still commonly used (The other being early T-80's, before later T-80 variants gave up and went back to a diesel engine), a completely new design to most efficiently and optimally incorporate all the improvements and knowledge we've gained over the last 40yrs would blow a diesel out of the water. And lastly, the Turbine is "Literally" damn near stealth compared to a diesel engine. While it "sounds" louder right next to it, it's a higher frequency making its sound drop off SIGNIFICANTLY quicker than diesel engines. There's a reason one of the Abrams many nicknames is the "whispering death". You'll hear an M60's diesel engine minutes before you ever see it, but despite having twice the Horsepower you won't hear an Abrams till its right on top of you within SMG range. In addition to stealth sound, the "Engine too hot, gives you away on IR like a glowing beacon" thing isn't actually true. Yes the exhausts REALLY hot, but it doesn't make the tank glow on thermals and quickly get diluted by the cooler air outside. Ironically the MTU it often gets unfavorably compared to actually runs hotter than the AGT 1500. There's tons of people that'll agree with everything I've said, and tons that'll disagree and tear down every minute detail. In the end like politics it's basically just Pro-Turbine vs Pro-Diesel people, and your just put into a box and ignored as "Just anti-whatever my choice is", and the Army's decision will boil down to the bare basics; do they want the more and easier to get power and multi-fuel of a gas turbine, or do they just want harder performance to get but better fuel efficiency of a diesel?

[@goldphoenix2299]

Man...Ngl, I like the dedication in you commenting the same thing in the past 10 vids until he notices.

[@ApothecaryTerry]

To be fair to the people perpetuating incorrect information about stealth, loads of people believe you eat spiders in your sleep, so they've got no chance of being right about secretive military tech 🤣

[@danielbeshers1689]

The sheer number of people who look confused when you say "Spiders don't want to be eaten" is disheartening

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

@@danielbeshers1689😂

[@ApothecaryTerry]

@@danielbeshers1689 Exactly! Also, you ask them to put any palm-sized hairy leggy thing into their mouth and see if their subconscious reaction is to chew or spit it out, regardless of being asleep...nobody seems to get it. I once researched the source of that one, best source I could find was that a university student was studying psychology and wanted to see how false information spreads, so invented the spider myth...if that's true, I hope they got a maximum score for that dissertation 😄 Incidentally though, I get bitten a lot by spiders in my sleep...I'm very warm, so they like my bed, but I also have (due to medical weirdness) thin skin, so all those spiders that "can't bite humans" - well, they can bite me 🤣 Thankfully the only nasty ones round here either don't come indoors or only the females are nasty and those can bite anyone anyway. Fully aware that I've just written basically a small essay on spiders as a comment under a video about stealth planes. It's a Friday night, it's too cold to go out and I couldn't decide if coffee or alcohol would warm me up better so I scienced it and had both...

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Spiders Georg is an outlier who must not be counted.

[@ApothecaryTerry]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Indeed, we must apply standard deviation to avoid counting non-standard deviants 😁

[@keithtarrier4558]

Alex Hollins and Airpower... dropping a bomb on wholefoods! Love it! Everything else leading up to that gem was exceptional as usual.

[@MrCateagle]

For example, Northrop's interest in low observables when they found that Snark missiles were difficult to track from some angles.

[@user-ij6mf2hp3r]

Once again, you've done a great job. I love your videos. Wish everyone would be so dedicated to their work as you. Thank you.

[@dunerat111]

I would love to see a video on electronic warfare. Different platforms and programs used for it and how it works. As usual, keep up the great work!

[@corvanphoenix]

Problem is, the USAF haven't given a fk about EW since they shut down F-4G Wild Weasel & EF-111 escort jamming.

[@everypitchcounts4875]

"Military Aviation History" recently uploaded 2 videos about electronic warfare.

[@xkavarsmith9322]

To be fair, the Hortens being "a couple of amateurs designing a military project in a shed" ends up being surprisingly common. The existence of Barrett rifles started that way.

[@cantquit1109]

Absolutely Love Your Videos Alex. I learn so much from watching and look forward to every video you release!

[@thekraken1173]

Great video. No bs, straight to the point.

[@TheJamesthe13]

Well said Alex, it’s about time, someone called this bullshit out.

[@poowg2657]

One of my friends from college in the 70s has been working for one of the largest radar research labs for decades and told me that todays' multi aperture scanning phased array radars light up stealth like an aluminum billboad. The biggest breakthrough has been the processing power and the solid state highspeed switch gear needed to switch between frequencies and antenna sections thousands of times per second. An added benefit is these new systems are harder to jam. Almost forgot to mention that there is a huge program in the U.S. to retrofit these new systems into the existing fleet.

[@TheJenor001]

Might be correct but it's not just about detecting. They have to acquire a lock and maintain it in order for the entire air defense system to work. If you can see it on radar but don't have the systems in place to shoot it down you can't do much.

[@poowg2657]

@@TheJenor001 That's all part of the updated battlefield integration upgrades. The scary part is the eventual removal of piloted platforms and going to fully autonomous systems. That's happening right now.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

little confused because that just sounds like frequency hopping (LPI) AESA radars which have existed for quite some time now. unless your friend is referencing some new advancement in that, in which case you aren’t being a very good friend by risking his clearance.

[@TheOnlyDragonGod]

Usually don't get here this early, but i just wanted to say that Alex your videos are amazing and and greatly appreciated by lots of people keep up the amazing work

[@thomassecurename3152]

Thanks for the ‘organics’ of your video. Enjoyed.

[@Axemantitan]

Thank you for telling the truth about organic food. It was off-topic and unexpected, but very welcome. Organic farming is inefficient as hell. Or, as I like to put it: organic is taking land that could feed thousands and instead using it to feed hundreds.

[@robertholle5599]

Thank-you for your take on this. Much appreciate your dive into these military topics. Happy Holidays and all the best in the new year.

[@texasranger24]

A video about the AAS / FARA (armed scout helicopter) program would be cool. Sikorsky has the S-97 Raider compete with the Bell+Textron 360 Invictus. The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why Sikorsky abandoned that design, as they first came up with it. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they already lost the Blackhawk transport replacement to the Bell V280 Valor?

[@wyldhowl2821]

I expect the answer is (al always) money. If they can get one or more governments to fund something, they can do all kinds of R&D, but eventually the politicians have to be fiscally responsible - or put another way, they lose patience with throwing money at "pure science" projects that do not seem to provide a tangible battlefield product. The perverse flip side to that coin is military megaprojects that are known to overpromise and under-deliver, but which are kept alive due to political patronage, and might even result in building things for the ching-ching that just get scrapped shortly after.

[@jamesogden7756]

Rumor has it, the Comanche weapons bay doors were the reason for their cancelation. From some credible sources. Cost was the other factor. Incredible design. I remember seeing it fly upside down in level flight before completing a barrel roll. Mind blown.

[@tylerparker4010]

​@@jamesogden7756problems with them or?

[@jamesogden7756]

@@tylerparker4010 reliability issues. Hydraulic problems, slow opening, slow retraction. Again, this is rumor but fairly reliable.

[@tylerparker4010]

@@jamesogden7756 seems like a very solvable problem for shelving something they already had prototypes flying.

[@sidsunder]

just wanted to say that I love this channel, how much you research your subject, and how honest you are. Thank you for that, CHEERS :P

[@jerrywatson1958]

Another great video Alex! Thanks for taking the time. I hope to see some video of the simulator if they let you.

[@crankyoldman860]

Applause!!!!! Once again Thank You, Alex for separating the cat turds from the kitty litter. Your definition of 'military grade' is spot on, and although it should be common sense it's not realized by non-critical thinkers. Sandbox is absolutely the best source for current and in depth military news there is, and you sir, are a superlative presenter and correspondent.

[@anttikalpio4577]

Victorinox Swiss army knife is hardly the most rugged knife you can buy 🤣

[@fialee8]

Baaa... baaaa.

[@erasmus_locke]

I'm tired of hearing about the Ho-229 honestly

[@ENDtheFED-it4bo]

I'm fed up with the Ho-304 system myself.

[@kitnaylor7267]

It's a shame, because the aerodynamics of making the thing stable, exhibit proverse yaw, and by all accounts be a pleasure to fly without fly-by-wire and vertical surfaces is genuinely an original and highly innovative piece of aerodynamics that has only recently been properly recognised, but people are too interested in bunfights about stealth -_-

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

Thanks for the video Alex. Fine work as ever sir.

[@p.d.nickthielen6600]

38 years in food industry…. You are correct… in fact organic food has more recalls, so one could say organic is less safe.

[@bertg.6056]

A fabulous presentation, Alex. Thanks !

[@tommychew6544]

Great episode & explanation of deceptive descriptions.

[@flyingRich]

Really great video! I may not like and comment on all your videos, but want you to know that I appreciate them all & look forward to watching them!

[@echo53226]

Another fantastic video Alex!

[@xodiaq]

You deliver the “Iiiiiiiiiii’m”, I deliver the like. “Less accurate than the guy who rough cuts at Home Depot” 😂

[@kingdiesel68]

Cutting straight to it, thanks Alex!

[@gorethegreat]

The passion AH presents with? Superb

[@robert506007]

This is why I love this channel you guys bust the BS. You try to deal in the devil of the Details. Thankyou!

[@ScottWengel]

oh, this fiery Sandboxx video is my favorite yet ... kudos

[@MrKKUT1984]

Great video Alex 👍

[@TheOriginalJAX]

Admittedly I never knew about Horton myth but it does sound pretty funny and it's cool you are dispelling it. Yeah our concern during the battle of Britain was response time, problem is it would have been so quick we would not have been able to scramble fighters in time to intercept it using our early warning system.

[@carpe_poon5761]

Ahhhg I could watch clips of these aircraft maneuvers all day. That F22 sure can shake her tail feathers

[@kentl7228]

The Mosquito in world war 2 was harder to see in radar, so DeHavilland invented stealth. I am just continuing the Horten logic... I did see that documentary. How come nobody built a single aircraft like what the Horten Brothers did, if they made such a masterpiece.

[@spectator3308]

I wonder what the F-117 airframe design would look like if it were 'modernized' so as to have a more optimized aerodynamics and manoeuvrability at greater speeds (more complex forms that became available later and offered better aerodynamic performance while maintaining stealth properties). In short, how could the Nighthawk be smoothed-out following the examples of F-22 and B-21?

[@gbornitz]

I think, the B-21 is in fact the Nighthawk, but developed with better computers.

[@EstorilEm]

The F-117s approach to stealth is completely different than any (every) subsequent stealth aircraft. There is no “upgraded” or “smoothed” F-117, its entire airframe was shaped around a rudimentary understanding of stealth, combined with BARELY flyable aerodynamics. Any upgrade to the F-117 gets you… just about anything that doesn’t even remotely resemble an F-117. 😂

[@dubiumguy]

If they started to design something now that had the same mission requirement as the Nighthawk, thanks to how advanced modern computers are you would end up with a modern looking stealth aircraft similar to an F-35 anyhow. Except with missile tech getting so good that Supermaneuverability is on its way out, it maybe wouldn't have any stabilizers so it can just casually fling missiles at targets from several hundred miles away.

[@spectator3308]

@@EstorilEm Has anyone ever tested or at least calculated the radar cross section and return of the Wainfan Facetmobile? To a layman, this aircraft resembles the F-117 a little bit, albeit it is a rather simple and straightforward aircraft of the lifting body type.

[@spectator3308]

@@dubiumguy So, to simplify the problem at hand: what would an optimized stealth shape with the largest possible internal volume look like?

[@TDeck24]

Until this video I didn't even know the stealth of the j20 or SU57 was suspected to be significantly less than the F22 and 35. I guess I was under the impression they were all pretty similar and numbers was the main difference. Thanks for the video!!

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

Yeah lmao even if you ask the chinese and russians themselves they’ll admit their stealth fightwrs aren’t even close to the US stealth fighters

[@EstorilEm]

Just look at them lol. Canards? (Big movable unstealthy things) or giant METAL round engine fairings and nozzles on the SU-57? Giant IRST sensors protruding out of the nose? Huge gaps, hinges, and QC issues? It’s all hiding in plain sight, they pretty much CANT be stealthy lol.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@EstorilEmcanards are not inherently “unstealthy”, that’s a complete myth. takes a little more work to make them stealthy (due to interactions with the body) compared to normal control surfaces but absolutely not impossible. a few 6th gen concepts drafted up by US contractors have canards.

[@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL]

As a general rule Russia overstates its abilities and China understates its abilities. But the thing to understand is this: direct comparison of returns and cross section is fun and good to argue about but these aircraft only need to be 'stealthy' enough to perform their role in whatever strategy is required. The Chinese probably aren't going to be dog fighting with US aircraft and will probably avoid big stand off missile fights if they can. They'll want to target tankers and awacs aircraft which certainly aren't stealthy so the question will be can the J20 get close enough to get ordnance off at those without getting killed first. The F22 might be more stealthy but the Chinese do have missiles with longer range (that we know about obvs). Target the carriers and target the tankers and you stop the US aircraft before they are dangerous, combined with massive strikes on US Pacific airbases. Easier said than done I'll add, people much smarter than me have thought about this.

[@lagrangewei]

J20 is stealthier than the F35. it was proven by the fact that J20 managed to sneak up on a F35 on patrol. the canard has no mechanical part in them, they don't reflect radar like the radar nose cone are made from radar invisible material, we just can't use them for the entire plane becaues there are fuel tank and machinery in the airframe. the problem with the F35 was it was put into production before the design is finalized, resulting in modification that impacted the shaping of the F35... also this video does not actually agree with the myth that they ain't stealthy.

[@njshore2239]

"Stealth was not even on his radar" .... NICE!

[@wyldhowl2821]

"Stealth wasn't even on his radar..." Well, of course it wasn't ! 😉

[@jamest9715]

That's wild... less than 10 SU-57s?!? And they shot down 3 of them for Maverick... amazing!

[@majboomer1285]

Excellent work!

[@spring2k2]

Great job!

[@kwhp1507]

You didn’t have to throw the Home Depot dude under the bus lmao

[@Administrator_O-5]

Northrop YB-49 had unintentional stealth characteristics. During one of the test flights, the radar truck operator kept noticing that when the YB-49 flew towards the radar truck it would suddenly drop off the radar scope & would only reappear when it was right on top of the radar truck. One day they decided to test this on purpose & the same thing happened, the YB-49 flew directly towards the radar truck & it just suddenly disappeared from the scope. When the YB-49 was nearly about to fiy over the radar truck it suddenly popped back up on the scope again. Well Jack Northrop thought this was a very useful new feature & he anxiously told the USAF. They had absolutely no interest in it. They said a feature like that is completely useless, because you need to be able to see the aircraft on radar.

[@teddy.d174]

🤦🏻‍♂️ The arrogance of man is astounding.

[@brucelytle1144]

I read a biography of Jack Northrup, that related that Jack's inspiration for the flying wing was Maple(?) seeds dropping from the trees. Agree with the point that the Air Force looked at the radar "problem" as a bug, not a feature! 😮 I've wondered where we would be if they would have looked at it differently then.

[@rodneylove8027]

Outstanding video!

[@thomassecurename3152]

Thanks for E to M conversion.

[@andrewcliffe4753]

Very professional

[@sabre_phoenix5996]

God i love the way you break things down Alex!

[@joefeola7770]

I really enjoy your videos, thank you..

[@kinosaki3311]

How can it be detected and how can it be accurately tracked is also commonly misunderstood about stealth.

[@EstorilEm]

True, that’s another huge myth. If an adversary knows “something” is there, but none of his missiles can get a track or lock, then it’s completely pointless. There are a lot of IRST myths out there also.

[@thomassecurename3152]

Can’t wait for the Orlando report.

[@teddy.d174]

Alex Hollings…busting misinformation and online trolls, one video at a time. Brilliant video, sir.

[@danielversion1.035]

the last segment of this video was so obviously on point... right down to the Whole Foods shoppers... 🤣👌 well presented, sir 👍

[@tonyc7352]

Good video, thank you. Good point about how stealth didn't originate from one person/discovery 11:46. Since you list key contributing innovators/innovations I'll add another big one (which I'm sure you know) - early computing power sufficient to realize the "ECHO 1" RCS-prediction software that LM wrote. It would have been virtually impossible to design making the enormous number of calculations by hand. This is why subsequent stealth designs (B2, F22...) weren't "faceted" but more curved/sweeping because improving computer processing power enabled much more detailed/sophisticated calculations.

[@johnbeckman492]

Thanks for validating my habit of shopping at Winco and Grocery Outlet😅

[@johnroberts9922]

Composite materials comprising a modern stealth aircraft must be cut within less than 1mm of tolerance. That task is accomplished with diamond router bits. Initially the US manufacturers could not get those diamond router bits to last even 8 feet of cutting. Since then their life has been extended to about 21 feet. Dull bits leads to composite shredding, where the entire panel is lost.

[@wind_runner6836]

I dunno I know diamond wire could get to the nearest 0.5 mm but a laser can legit go 0.04mm I wouldn't say which they use but it's not very difficult to go 1mm lol at least in the last decade.

[@olderchin1558]

I think with EDM and abrasion cutters, this isn't much of a problem for large companies. Fiber lasers will do very well on metals as well.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@olderchin1558 Problem with lasers is the thermal affected area. Material properties are degraded by heat. However there's a machine now that combines a water jet with a laser, and the water jet cools the edges.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@olderchin1558they are cutting a whole lot more complicated stuff than metal sheets lol

[@wind_runner6836]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD When you compare the two heat with lasers doesn't splash over and is very focused I'd assume friction would heat it up more because of longer surface contact time.

[@willwozniak2826]

Nice video man and enjoy tbat trip!.....ohhhh yurrrr!

[@milanstanford4734]

You make amazing videos. I studied aircraft design in Czechoslovakia in 1966-1970 and find you Chanel extremely interesting

[@jrwickersham]

Great vid, as always. One point, I feel prescient to the discussion, (forgive me if it has been covered in previous content,) is proper mission planning. Much discussion online tended to present these technologies as such that a force can simply blaze their way in and out of an area with impunity. I believe 1999 shoot down of the F117 over Serbia obviously comes to mind here. No slight to the radar and SAM battery operators, as they were clever and observant.. and capitalized on their opportunity. Keep up the stellar content!

[@aidanwilliams9452]

I believe Serbia had spies as well which told them about the Prowlers being grounded that day

[@rzr2ffe325]

Prowlers. Growlers weren’t a thing yet. They had observers knowing when the F-117s took off and knew their likely routes of travel. You could also know the Prowlers scratched simply by expecting their jamming effects but not receiving them.

[@aidanwilliams9452]

@@rzr2ffe325 Yes Prowlers sorry, my morning brain there

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Alex you are the best🇺🇸.....We thank you 👍

[@user-xs1ul4dh8s]

Thanks Alex, the Whole Food comment brought a smile to my face,

[@Architek79]

That’s why the Raptor and Lightning are the perfect deterring platforms. The “bad actors” knows the difference between their knock-offs and real stealth fighters.

[@wraithfivekay7082]

Please make this a series.

[@dane921]

if that is you running the episode off the cuff, hot dang, that seemed scripted to me! this is why we all watch this channel, your very good at this

[@darnellogan9252]

Your coming to my town !!! That's so wild !

[@jaredtrp]

"You see, stealth wasn't even on Ufimtsev's radar..." I see what you did there. 😉😏

[@dougb5028]

great expose Alex.

[@bradleyswaney6100]

Great video ❤❤❤

[@ssneg]

Love the energy! 😂

[@markoconnell804]

Awesome video.

[@user-oe1sg8ef8d]

I love the way you explain things 👍👍🇨🇦

[@tylerparker4010]

It's so fitting that they are called myth merchant films.

[@ProjectSerpo90]

9:26 “you see, stealth wasn’t even on his radar” i see what you did there Alex.

[@JeremyPickett]

Dis-information is the best part.

[@tIhIngan]

Good video!

[@4xhoser]

Enjoyed this 🤘🇨🇦

[@DanielHill-re2wu]

Thanks!

[@briancrane7634]

The F117 was the first design BY COMPUTER instead of the trial-and-error you mentioned. VASTLY reducing the number of design cycles and cost. They "tested" the stealth in the computer instead of on the RCS range...

[@RaDeus87]

LM? I thought the agreed upon parlance was LockMart 😅 The supplier of all your MIC needs 👍

[@greenling.]

9:26 Stealth wasn't on his Radar. 🤣🤣🤣A very true statement indeed. Stealthy ideas about stealth are tight! Best (supposedly unintended) pun of all time!😃

[@timandsuzidickey9358]

thanks. !!

[@icaleinns6233]

Awesome! Rant ON, Alex! 😂

[@evananderson1455]

Wait.. we're surprised the plywood is "more stealthy"? I mean, it's wood. I would assume it would have a weaker return than the metal airplane prototype..

[@ianshaver8954]

This particular prototype was also made of wood.

[@Destroyer_V0]

the horton 229 surprisingly was not made of aluminium.

[@jmanj3917]

3:11 Dang, Devil Dog! NatGeo, shame on you! So much for That being a reliable source...lol

[@Javi_SD]

I’m here just to complain about your claims regarding organic food… 😂😂 just kidding Alex, awesome video as usual !! Going stealthy to Wholefoods from now on !!! 🤣🤣🤣

[@jamesallen8838]

Love your analogy to produce. Here in California I can watch “organic “ farm spray their crops. I have never seen an FDA inspector. Most crop dusting pilots wear some kind of chem suit, why

[@aBRUSHforCONFUCIUS]

The B2 design is based on a diving falcon. Front to back cross section is almost identical. Overhead shape is very similar, but with changes made for stealth angles on trailing edge. Compare falcons to B2.

[@oler777]

... but wood is abzorbant to radayar... not great but it is hence mosquitoes having smaller radar crosssection tham p51 and p47

[@GrantPatN]

Missle Speed Distance and Accuracy capabilities are beyond aircraft

[@benanders4412]

The HO-229 was actually somewhat of a stealth aircraft. Maybe not by today's standards, but far more stealthy than anything of that time. It did have a greatly reduced radar signature. Combined with it's unmatched speed, it would have made the British radar warning systems useless. They would have dropped their bombs and be on their way back before the British fighters could intercept them. So it's not totally untrue.

[@Exania88]

when I klicked on this video I thought a part of it would be about high and low bands.