The B 21 Raider stealth bomber: America's Power!

Let's try to make some clarity about the B21 and shred some KZbin commonplaces about this new bomber.
#B21
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/...
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.c...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@justusmetzler7104]

The flying wing concept was greatly improved by Albion H. Bowers from NASA over the last 10 years or so. He developed a working Prototype with a Bell curve lift distribution alowing for the wingtip vortex being shed at the 2/3rds area of the wing. In his Model tests it means it produced proverse yaw instead of adverse yaw when rolling for a turn. Solving instability and extra drag problems from flappers at the wingtips for yawing. He solved that problem with a twist of over 12 degrees along the span. He has many good presentations on youtube with his explanations about how the idea got going because of how bird wings use that lift distribution but ornithologist are definately no aerodynamisists so they always asumed a eliptical lift distribution thus it was always imposible to recreate a birds flight. Cause they did not start with the right twist. The videos are called 'why birds have no vertical tail?' and such.

[@saml7610]

Interesting, thanks for the info! I'll check out his videos.

[@DocPolitical]

@@WynnofThule Albion H. Bowers

[@FlywithMagnar]

A couple of weeks ago I watched the video "why birds have no vertical tail". Bowers' work is based on Ludwig Prandtl's work in the 1920s and 30s. And the Horten brothers designed some very advanced gliders as well. It's really facinating that yaw can be controlled by removing drag. I wonder if the B-21 has this feature?

[@fbrtnrsthf]

One of the most informed, informative and thoughtful comments I have seen in KZbin…

[@hydrocarbon8272]

@@FlywithMagnar That's a multi-billion dollar question, indeed. Not many watching this will find out any time soon lol.

[@gorebello]

I don't understand this hype for a plane with no information available. I have just chosen to wait my master millennium 7 to inform me. Always a good job

[@mbienlein]

I had always wondered what the reason was for stealth aircraft's vulnerability to low frequency radar. This was the 1st time I have seen the reason,. Thank you for the explanation.

[@sminkycorp]

Ma boi has earned a sub !

[@saltyroe3179]

Unfortunately low frequency radar isn't very accurate.

[@peceed]

@@saltyroe3179 It depends only on antenna size. Conceptually bigger antenna is equivalent to triangulation from its sides. You can directly measure time difference of signals or let the interference do the job for you.

[@NATObait]

That is why modern Navy ships use different frequencies to track stealth targets They have bloody big radars with lots of power and cooling and have no trouble watching F35s flying around.

[@itskaptainmikey4399]

The fact that we basically see noting from the picture sort of symbolizes how stealthy it is supposed to be...

[@Blakearmin]

Oh, hell yes! You, Perun, and H I Sutton are my favorites of this general area that I get pumped for new videos from.

[@V4zz33]

I recommend The New Atlas as well, Brian made a vid on this very plane already.

[@shaider1982]

Agreed on your picks. 👍🏻 add curious droid, Greg's airplanes and automobiles, forgotten weapons and ww2 in real time for more qualitu you tubers

[@ELMS]

Every time I watch one of your videos I learn so much. Terrific deep-dive information I never see anywhere else. Thanks!

[@melonmusk684]

this channel is such a gem

[@b.thomas8926]

lol I was there during your live stream. It was a big fat nothing burger. I was like, "Well, that's an hour I wont ever get back." I blame the Airforce. It's not YOUR fault. Your always entertaining.

[@kathrynck]

I thought the unveil was pretty much exactly as expected. I remember the B-2 launch was very similar, except it was outdoors. Clearly they didn't want even satellite pictures of it from other angles.

[@jakedee4117]

Australia buying B-21s would be a huge step. Never say never but I find it unlikely. It's not just a new weapon system, it's a whole new class of weapon systems and logistical support at the very highest end of the range. You could probably by a space program for the same money.

[@magnaviator]

Yes, we all know how dangerous kangaroo's air defense is.

[@josephsmith6777]

Idk about space program but the bill is very big probably over 500 million after the run for the USA is over

[@Tattlebot]

It's mental for the cost. We need big, fast missiles, but Australia is about as sovereign as Hawaii or Guam. Our master doesn't do defensive missiles, because it's an expeditionary force. We need things like Brahmos but it's as likely as Hawaii receiving it.

[@spartancrown]

The great thing is they don’t need to buy it. They could provide the basing and the manpower.

[@josephsmith6777]

@@Tattlebot u have defensive missiles so doesn't Hawaii 😜

[@rosomak8244]

The logic behind not replacing the B-52: "At the end of the day we have to have at least something in numbers that is working reliably and not bankrupting us."

[@kathrynck]

Well, the job of airlifting bombs to an enemy, with a focus on just range, payload, and reliability, is just something which never fully goes out of style. The B-52 air frames are ridiculously robust, and they do 1 thing very well. It's hard to replace them. And it would be expensive.

[@patrickchase5614]

At 4:00 that's a _very_ nice summary of the resonant/diffractive regime and why the B-2 and B-21 are shaped the way they are. You can't do much better than that without diving headlong into Ufimtsev's book IMO (which I once tried to do. I won't claim success). I would further note that the existence of ground-based low-frequency radars is why all of the "short edges" (from intakes, exhaust, etc) are on the upper surface. In order to have a reasonably narrow beam a radar needs to have an antenna >20x longer than its wavelength, and that makes it difficult to create practical airborne radars below L-band or maybe upper UHF (~30 cm wavelength). Though this is mildly-informed conjecture, I think that another reason for the relatively simple flying-wing planform is that it has easily modeled and gradually-changing RCS as a function of azimuth and elevation, especially down in the resonant regime where its shaping can be defeated. That in turn makes it easier to do active cancellation of low-frequency radars. The fact that the B-21 did away with the B-2's "beavertail" indicates that it's more exclusively optimized for high operating altitudes, and I don't think that that would be feasible unless they had some way to counter VHF radars, which can still induce resonant returns from edges as long as the B-21's.

[@Coyote27981]

Considering how succesful B-2 was, it would be dumb if its not a B-2.1 You take what worked, fix what it didnt, and add any new things you learned in the past 40 years. Just managing to pull a B-2 for a lower cost, with easier manteinance, would be considered a huge success. Anything on top of that is a plus.

[@Brian-qj4kk]

b-2 not even battle proven

[@Ni999]

I feel like I just watched the first overall B-21 video for adults. Great job, _thank you!_

[@alexandervatter1436]

The funny thing is here in Germany everybody is telling me that the Horten brothers are the real investors of both the flying wing and stealth! LOL I can't count the number of times I had to tell people that they are wrong.

[@alexandervatter1436]

@Phillip Banes So what do you think was achieved in the USA, stealth or the flying wing?

[@enchated1847]

i am literally addicted to your videos! i have never seen such an informative and unbiased KZbin channel, specially for millitary aviation. Please keep the awesome vids.(perhaps a video about Indian future programs and where they will stand on the time of their release?)

[@gbornitz]

Another explanation for the flying wing I heard is, that because of quantum mechanics surface details smaller than the wavelength of the radar can't be detected and it appears to be a smooth surface. Thats also the reason why you can see yourself in the mirror but not in a white wall, although both are reflecting all the incoming light. The surface of the mirror has "hills" smaller than the wavelength of light, therefore it appears perfetly smooth. The white wall has "hills" bigger than that and therefore will reflect light in all directions. A small fighter looks like a smooth ball, reflecting radar energy in every direction. The B-21 on the other hand can still send all the radar energy to one direction, where hopefully no radar is.

[@miguellogistics984]

My Aunt's 5th or 7th Husband worked for Northrup on the F5 Project to the Saudis in the late 70's. He built an entire vehicle, from scratch, in his garage in Saudi and ended up renting the former home of the Saudi Crown Prince at the direction of his friend the Sultan of Riyad(?) I met him around 1978, and he was going on and on and on about Col. Edwards and the Northrup Flying wing. He retired upon return to the US where he spent two years building a dual masted wooden sailing vessel in the San Juan Islands. Upon the return from a trip of theirs up and down the Pacific Coast, it was announced that he was drafted back to work with Northrup attached to Boeing, in a large lead building with only 2 copper wires going into the structure from the outside world to the Reception Phone that was answered "Hello". I knew he was building a bomber. I should have listened to him. His love of the F18 sort of put me off on him. (Hey I was 10 years old.) Last part of the story was him explaining to my Aunt that he would have to be debriefed every 2 years... for the rest of his life. That point makes me believe that he built the plane, but the F5 project only seems like something that they gave him to do to just to retain him for 4-5 years. As much as I look at this I see the stand off capability of the B52 Immortal as far more important than the Mission of the B2. B2 and B21 do one thing that the B52 cannot, and that is make potential adversaries expend people and finances on Spying and on Radar Technology, ENDLESSLY. And that is it. B1, well that frame could be used as a Missile Bunny (I love the V-Split Vertical stabilized renderings of that ship, far cooler than F18) for the F-35 which is practically able to direct Missiles and other drone aircraft like a mother hen. B1 has a story of being on the East Side of Afghanistan and the only equipment that was able to reach an emergency call for CAS, and came in and hit Danger Close with JDAMS. On Final thought, perhaps what the B21 is all about is non interceptable stand off Missiles, and that is really it, when it absolutely positively has to be destroyed in the next 8 hours. US Hypersonic missile tech will make the B21 obsolete then, and resurrect B1 (but too bad they are really dead tech and won't be).

[@vickydroid]

Bravo, another Sunday treat, even with the World Cup final on the kitchen TV, not quite B2.1 but surely Gen 5.75 until VC engines and the B21B you predict. Typing this at the 3-3 point in Extra time😂 PS thank goodness it'll be warm tomorrow, can't see you with so little yaw control out in the snow.

[@TurboHappyCar]

Great video and interesting analysis. 👍 I think the variable cycle jet engines will be a game changer, but more so for planes currently using low bypass turbofans like fighters. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

[@dtluna1312]

Ward Caroll had a good discussion on what we can see already though

[@ghostindamachine]

Top notch journalism!

[@ArizonaAstraLLC]

I heavily enjoy how the videos are influenced from an aeronautical engineering standpoint @2:54 made me laugh very loudly, haha

[@tonysu8860]

Actually, I understand that the B-2 design was intentionally somewhat compromised by the requirement to fly at low altitudes, set by authorities that weren't comfortable committing to building an extremely new concept with fewer options if stealth technology didn't deliver as promised. With the experience of the B-2 behind us, there is more confidence in stealth so the B-21 is supposed to be a "no compromises" upgrade in design that performs exclusively at high altitude. Also, although the B-21 is significantly smaller in dimensions, it's supposed to have a larger payload capacity than the B-2. No details on why this is the case but could be due to many possibilities. Mentioned in this video is also the variable fanjet engine in development, but it's unlikely to be even in prototype within "a few years." Since it was turned down in the GE vs Pratt & Whitney competition for the Block 4 F-35 upgrade, it looks like the technology isn't being hurried but will proceed on its original timeline that estimates somewhere in the mid 2030's.

[@jimmycummings8164]

Thanks for all the info.

[@bastadimasta]

Hey Gus! You forgot to mention that Jack Northrop being a genius that before everyone else understood the advantages of the flying wing only to be shoot down by a conservative and bureaucratic air force and exacting revenge the case after that with B-2 and B-21.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

😄

[@amzalkamel3009]

Good content as always😎, can you do a video about the awacs in general and the future of airborne early warning?

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

This is my opinion: (A guess) They didnt show you the back because it has no flaps. The turbine exhaust gas pressure is ducted and used to produce lift or stall the wing using thousands of little holes all along the wing. This also reduces the exhaust signature as it is so spread out and cools. Probably titanium ducting as this cooling will produce acid liquids in the gases (exhausts have to exit at 180 deg C to exit as pure gas) and its the best metal for chemical resistance. Apart from that, its a funny shape bomber.

[@oLevLovesLove]

So in the case of engine stall or failure the aircraft has no functional control surfaces? Seems extremely risky.

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

@@oLevLovesLove Look up FLAVIIR on the BAE Demon. They were testing this system 10 years ago in the UK. If i does not have this, it is missing something. It may have emergency flaps that can break free, but it would still work with one engine. Just a little less well. Its no more risky than a plane in a shape which only computers can control. In war you can only look forwards positively, not at the things that might go wrong.

[@kathrynck]

It's possible, but I think unlikely. They didn't show the back of the B-2 for a couple years either. Especially the shape of the engines exhaust.

[@letsgobrandon7297]

I think smaller faster drones are the future. These big planes and even helicopters will soon be obsolete.

[@TK199999]

Jack Northrup gets the props cause no one else built a functional flying wing as big as he did. At the same time the stealthy nature of flying wings was also reported by Northrup when they flew their flying designs. The thought of it more as problem than good thing at the time. The biggest reason there will probably be a B-21 B, is a new generation of ceramic based radar absorbing material has been develop (and now classified). That is cheaper and much more resistant to heat/water/weather. At the same time, a new generation of radars is coming down the pipe too. All we be ready after the first batches of B-21's roll of the assembly line. Oh and there is rumor that the USAF was so impressed by Northrup Grumman and the B-21 program. That Northrup was the one that created the secret 6th gen fighter technology demonstrator a few years ago.

[@johnaikema1055]

using the b21 as a node between different interfaces would be a huge deal. hopefully that ability does not get abused .

[@zetareticulan321]

This is the US you're talking about. They're going to abuse its powers and use it to bomb and bully weaker countries as always.

[@johnaikema1055]

@@zetareticulan321 I hope for better. that said other NATO nations should be aware of this ability to potentially tie down everything from weapon's sales to independent foreign policy capabilities.

[@stevenhoman2253]

Hey, if it improves my Wi-Fi, I'm all for it. (I heard it was android compatible)

[@josephsmith6777]

I guess the f35 is very connectable also

[@aon10003]

What people miss is that it fits the size of C130, An 12 Y8. So it can land on most military airbases in the world. Thats the genious part of it. Simple, i guess.

[@kathrynck]

Depends. I would expect with as much lift as it has on tap, it could use reasonably short airfields. But it depends on the design execution.

[@ROBOTRIX_eu]

on channel @WFAA -> Video: Pilot ejects from F-35B near White Settlement, Texas

[@rogerpurcell9444]

Love your channel and the insight it provides. Finally the USA Military procurement system is starting to realize that using the latest avionics, coms, radar and node system to link all of the frontline aircraft is brilliant. Amazing bang for the buck. This plane has been developed so fast and integrates many systems and lessons learned. I'm asking if you have heard anything about B52 motor upgrades. That is the noisy part. The quiet part is the electronic suite is being updated to latest greatest available. F35 style. It will also be a node for battle. Just a quiet rumor. As you know it is hard to take down coms when they support each other.

[@V4zz33]

It's counterpart the Tu-92 is getting a new engine with new props that should drop it's noise levels by 50%, we shall see how it turns out. It's crazy that these two planes are just here to stay forever almost.;)) They are just great bomb and missile trucks.

[@blazinchalice]

The tempo at which M7 has been cranking out these top-quality, highly informative videos on a range of complex topics is phenomenal. Bravo!

[@ch0wned]

One may even suggest, state sponsored.

[@blazinchalice]

@@ch0wned I'll play along. By whom?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Oh! I wish I was! 😂😂😂😂

[@kathrynck]

@@ch0wned I'll play along as well, 'and for what purpose?'

[@mban2748]

Excellent title. I was wondering the same. This video was in my recommend videos right away. Glad no delay this time. FYI.

[@georgemancuso9597]

This video and an Aviation Week article are the two best sources i have seen so far on the B21

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

This is really flattering...😀

[@deth3021]

First time I heard the b2.1 joke.... It is pretty funny to be fair..

[@kathrynck]

I think I enjoy the F-15EX being called the 'F-1sex' more ;) Or the B-1 being called the 'Bone'

[@DickonEvans-hm4ei]

...I like you... I had a vote and the outcome was that I definitely like you...

[@wisenber]

It doesn't appear that the B1's capabilities are being retained. It is both faster and has the ability to fly lower than either the B2 or B21. That just leaves a slow B2 and a slower B52. The US appears to have an aversion to speed with its acquisition choices from bombers to fighters.

[@edjo3430]

PART-2 now, take that flying wing AWACS and place large AESA -X arrays in the leading edges and fill the weapon bays with AAM to shoot down the missiles. Flying extended time over a city or base to protect against a cruise missile swarm attack. This is the second element in my Air-based air defense system. Again, why would they not consider this?

[@kathrynck]

Frankly I would expect that in a nuclear deterrence situation, the B-21 would use the fancy JASSM's as well. Gravity bombs would really limit it's targeting in a nuclear situation where you'd only deploy 1 bomb per target area, with target areas possibly a hundred miles apart this way & that way. The variable cycle engine (XA-100) would be interesting possibly, but that engine really has 2 stages of turbojet, and then an afterburner. I would expect a higher-bypass F135 engine would achieve all of the extra fuel efficiency savings, and the plane would likely not want to have an afterburner anyway. So the XA-100 may be of less value to the B-21. The plane certainly doesn't lack lift to get heavy payloads off the ground, so really it's going to want an engine tailored just to it's cruising envelope, with little need for adaptive cycle like a fighter plane might desire. I could be wrong though, if it needs extra thrust to take off on a wider range of airfields with full ordinance & fuel load. Personally, I kinda liked that it could be interpreted as "B-2.1" hehe. Though It's definitely an all new airframe with many more changes than an version update of the B-2.

[@patrickchase5614]

wrt the possibility of upgrading the B-21 with a variable-cycle engine as discussed at 10:20, I'm not sure that it will provide any benefit. With a fighter like F-35 you want both long subsonic cruise range _and_ good supersonic performance including supercruise. Those requirements are in tension, because you need a high bypass ratio (high mass flow, low exhaust velocity) for subsonic cruise, but a low (or zero) bypass ratio (low mass flow, high exhaust velocity) for supercruise and supersonic combat. A variable-cycle engine allows you to meet those conflicting requirements by reconfiguring the engine such that it operates more optimally in each of those two regimes. If your platform is purely subsonic like the B-21 then there's no reason not to just use a highish-BPR fixed-cycle engine as airliners do. There is no benefit from having the capability to reduce the BPR and increase the exhaust temperature and velocity, as the airframe won't allow you to supersonic anyway. All that would accomplish is to present a larger infrared signature (bypass air mixing is one of the key techniques for mitigation, so a higher-BPR engine with a relatively unenergetic exhaust is advantageous).

[@austindavies6371]

Horten & Lipish rule the wing

[@martindice5424]

Still my favourite Italian military aviation expert! Okay, bit of a niche role but.. Jolly good show old chap! And I wish you and those you love a very merry Christmas and (let us all hope ) a prosperous and peaceful 2023. I’m not holding my breath on that last bit - but we must all live in hope.

[@josephsmith6777]

Very reminiscent of the original the only front view

[@josiehinton4351]

That fact that the US is still flying the B52 is someways hard to understand. The age aside when compared to the B1B the B52 is unneeded except for the fact that so many were originally built. Several articles have compared these planes before. The B1B actually can carry a bit more load weight and can perform high altitude as well as the low altitude flights. The B1B was very expensive at the time they were initially being built but was actually a generational improvement over the B52. Off topic I know.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

A video about the old bombers is probably a good idea.

[@spudz7405]

I've never herd jack Northrup was the only but a designer obsessed with it

[@amzalkamel3009]

Northrop WAS visionnary but not revolutionary in thinking like Kelly Johnson

[@alanrogers7090]

The software aspect of the B-21 program reminds me of the Tesla approach. Many times recently, news stories screamed that "Tesla recalls thousands of its vehicles". In almost every instance, these were fixable by "Over-The-Air" updates, or "OTAs", which did NOT require the car's owner to schedule an appointment with his local service center, take time off from work to drive there, possibly rent a "loaner", and finally, repeat all of this to retrieve his vehicle. No, his car sat in his/her driveway/garage and an OTA fixed the problem. The use of software is changing how cars are owned. The same is going to be in the use and "ownership" of the B-21. I like to call it, "The Tesla Of The Skies".

[@thearisen7301]

So what do you think a hypothetical B-21B would have compared to the first? Aside from variable cycle engines

[@btbd2785]

If anyone was genius develoig the "flying wing" it would be the Horton Brothers .

[@BenVaserlan]

Great title.

[@ghostmourn]

TLDW: New bomber is un-certifable, fat elephant. Small tail. Cant resonate. Smaller. Australia. Node. Evolve. 🐘

[@NATObait]

If you believe the Rafale fanboys then a B52 fitted with SPECTRA would simply vanish and become the most effective bomber ever.

[@bikemmm6167]

Great video

[@CaptMikey-vc4ym]

Another good one, cowboy! Have you heard of the MC-130J float equipped C-130? It is supposed to make its first flight sometime in 2032. The media has been a little sketchy about it, maybe you know a little more? Keep up the good work!

[@dlunn196]

In Australia we have had Strike bombers up until 8 years ago with the F111 and "replaced" them with heavy duty F18 superhornets located at Amberley air force base but the B21 would fill that gap properly. We may never have to use them but they would be Deterrent.

[@kathrynck]

Realistically, the B-21 will not go on sale in the international market in our lifetimes.

[@F_JoeBiden-tu6cl]

Just look up Raleigh scattering.

[@Jermo7899]

Why are there no circular shaped aircraft. I’m theory wouldn’t it have more lift?

[@alexandervatter1436]

You are just the best Gus, just saying! Cheers Alex

[@codedlogic]

"The B-21 is the most capable bomber ever made . . . but we can't tell you anything about it . . . this plane represents a new level of deterrence . . . because no one knows what it can do . . . our enemies will think twice about messing with us . . . because they're going to be wondering if we're for real or if we're B.S.ing them. Yes, behold the mighty B-21 . . . from only one possible angle . . . and no, of course we're not going to let you see it fly - are you out of your damn mind!"

[@kathrynck]

hehehe, it does sound funny. And that's pretty accurate ;) But it's for real ;)

[@perelfberg7415]

Very interesting point in the end regarding revolutionary and evolutionary. As an engineer i find that the JSF did way to much tooo fast. There was too large step in development. There was too little acceptance for the iterative process. In many ways it would have been better to implement much of the new technology on older platforms and let it mature. Gripen development was done in that way to some extent and also the A26 submarine. Development for the new platform was implemented on oldplatforms where it could be tested and issues solved. With the JSF I suppose there was too many elements at one go for development to be efficient. But I guess the truth is like many other military project. Over promise to get the funding. Must be hard to convice any one to fund the most expencive mil. project. They are not the first and not the last. I think thats what make this project B21 intereating. They managed to stay on budget. Wonder how and what they did different organisationwise. Beside what you mentioned here. Thanks for a super video. Love that you are so opend to what you know and don't know. You radiate an Engineering mindset hah :)

[@kathrynck]

Most of the tech in the F-35 was started on for the F-22, but was cut from the F-22 program due to cost. I don't think it bit off too much at once. Also, "block IV" is really the design target, so there _has_ been some iterative maturing. But that's not to say the program was managed well. It had a "build while you design" philosophy which never works well. And it had many partner nations, and 3 branches of US military involved, and widely distributed manufacture. If you want to change a cup holder in it, you need 3 generals, 7 diplomats and a team of translators, and it'll take 2 years instead of 6 months. Plus, really it's 3 plane designs, with a fair amount of bickering about the details between them.

[@horrimaid762]

so it seems that b21 program is a very practical step for us air force

[@kathrynck]

USAF has kicked the can down the road as far as they can. At this point they NEED a new bomber, or the bomber fleet will diminish greatly due to age.

[@powerhousepaperairplanesrogers]

Let's not put down a man that has passed. Jack did an amazing job with what they had at the time.

[@jebise1126]

nah... problem of flying wing is pressure inside hull. certify it... no problem. i argue its even easier to evacuate it than tube is with proper placement of door. fuel? hmmm yes maybe.

[@kathrynck]

embarking/disembarking would be the biggest challenge i think. all the airports have gates designed for tube-planes.

[@jebise1126]

@@kathrynck no... i mean in crisis when you need to abandon fast. because if doors are in end or in front of aircraft they are in end or on start of isle so its straight run outside. in aircraft now you need to do 90 degree turn in end. airports will adapt if that is new norm.

[@StromBugSlayer]

Is there any chance of a tanker version, or is it just too small? Because US tankers are super vulnerable now.

[@kathrynck]

It's very doable. But it would be very pricey for tanker work. And it suffers from the "too high tech to use casually near adversary territory" problem.

[@francismarshall8201]

I think they mean B2.1 as B2 or similar frame , upgraded technology

[@thomas_jay]

Not trying to be nit-picky but you forgot the german Ho 229 in the intro. :-)

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

There is a very short clip of a replica of one of the Horten's gliders.

[@hellbreaksloose5536]

The YB-35 precedes the Ho 229

[@kakavdedatakavunuk8516]

You are right, the Horten brothers solved the stability of the flying wing (without AI - joke). Jack Northrop never designed a really good flying wing (his YB-35/49 was swept away by a B-47), simply because his approach in designing the flying wing is to make a simple wing with the engines.

[@Camboprime]

Everyone keeps saying they're keeping the b52 as a "bomb truck", but doesn't the b1 carry more? Is it then all about external pylons and cost of running that is keeping the b52 alive and the b1 being sent to the scrap yard?

[@deth3021]

The b1 is nearing end of life of the airframe... AFAIK. The b52 was way overbuilt. Most of the airforce planes are like sports cars..pushing everything to the limit. The b52 was only meant to the a stop gap measure so they spent less time trying to make it as light as possible etc... so it is actually more like a truck, conceptually from its construction. Long story short is that the life time of these planes is mainly drive by airframe lifetime. That is why it will still around for a long time to come.

[@uegvdczuVF]

Also the cost of running two completely different planes that do the exact same job. B-1 was initially supposed to be similar to supersonic Soviet bombers but was later redesigned for subsonic and transonic speeds removing its biggest advantage over the venerable B-52.

[@jl-7992]

Subsonic flight is easier on the airframe. Also, the B1 was built to fly low and fast....airframe killers.

[@josephsmith6777]

I heard that the b21 is supposed to be much faster than the b1

[@JonMartinYXD]

Aside from the safety problems, a passenger flying wing has serious discomfort issues. The further someone sits from the roll axis the greater the g-forces they will experience during any roll movement.

[@kathrynck]

embarking & disembarking would be a huge pain for many airports too. No simple & easy pulling up alongside a passenger tube.

[@JonMartinYXD]

@@kathrynck Indeed, just look at the changes airports had to make to accomodate the A380, a plane that is not radically different from every other widebody passenger jet. Also, maybe this is just me, but I'm not sure I could handle being on a plane without windows.

[@kathrynck]

@@JonMartinYXD I could handle it, but it would be boring. Many people say they don't look out the window much when flying. but personally my eyes were always glued to the windows, even on long flights.

[@edjo3430]

PART-1 Sir, why don't we see flying wing cargo, tankers? Imagine also, a 60-meter wingspan flying wing awacs. An X Band Aesa under its belly for ground sensing, AND...UHF band radar with STAP antenna in the leading edges of the wing. Each wing could house a 10 meter plus antenna. This configuration could detect a 4th gen fighter from 300 miles away. 🤔. It can stay on station for a very long time. It would be a perfect AWACS with a long range cruise missile detection and ballistic missile detection capability. It can even detect stealth planes from long ranges using the UHF and cue the X band for confirmation. I think I'm seeing a future air- based air defense system in my mind. Unless I'm missing something. Am I????

[@tonbopro]

its 75% as big as B2～ well done

[@B.D.E.]

You can rest assured it's far, far more capable than anything any adversary has.

[@superchargerone]

more capable of delivering freedom bombs

[@DGrin79]

The longer people think it's just a B2.1, the better

[@billwhoever2830]

More capable as a stealth platform very likely, more capable as a standoff platform its very unlikely. The idea you can fly over your enemy and drop ww2 style bombs have been long forgotten. The plan of being undetected is very risky operation of such an expensive platform since it's not tested in any battlefield and won't be future proofed if a better radar comes out. You will have to dump and replace the entire bomber fleet. Modern bombing strategies involve standoff strikes where the enemy cannot even fire at you. Any large and much cheaper plane can do this job far better than the b21. Ideally such a bomber needs to be high altitude and supersonic to get better ranges with gliding-cruising munitions and to get our of danger if the enemy launches fighters to attack the bomber. Such a bomber is very future proofed because improved range munitions can be introduced depending on the increase in SAM ranges or fighter jet performance (mainly speed of the figther jets)

[@Castragroup]

Well you could hope so. Russian airdefense is vastly superior to u s. And so the pak da and h 20 dont need to be as stealthy to get into their enemies airspace

[@elmersbalm5219]

Still grasping the wunderwaffe straws?

[@henrich2183]

Just a friendly remark. Looks like you have insuline resistance which is huge marker of several diseases. Heal with fasting and less carbs. Take care!

[@Hemidakota]

Where is my B3? ;)

[@Warpathallthetime]

To me it is a test bed for the b2 but using just shrunken down systems that work and changing what didn't work. But with the idea these don't need pilots if it's necessary.

[@slmyatt]

Rapid prototyping becoming a phenomenon yet to be comprehended by those not involved.

[@kathrynck]

Well, it's not THAT rapid. But it does help. In this case the secrecy of the program makes it seem more like it 'came out of nowhere quickly'.

[@tonysu8860]

The B-21 flying wing design isn't chosen because of aerodynamic advantages but for its stealth characteristics? Really? Actually, I assume that better aerodynamics means less turbulence so results in better stealth.

[@jebise1126]

wait... its subsonic why would it need variable cycle engine? it only need medium or high bypass engine.

[@kathrynck]

I tend to agree. probably a high-bipass conversion of the F135 engine. though the XA-100 would givve it two stages of non afterburning turbojet, which might be useful to get airborne with heavy load on a wider variety of runways. I dunno.

[@stevenhoman2253]

I thought I saw a wider central section in the B-21, which I hastily interpreted as a partial lifting body, while also potentially increasing the carrying capacity under the winged area? I am guessing like everybody else.

[@kathrynck]

I think it's just fat in the middle to accommodate two side by side rotary launchers like in the B-2. The plane is marginally smaller than a B-2, so while the B-2 fits all that entirely inside a dorsal 'hump'', the B-21 may need a bit more stretching to fit. Just my impression though. The standing rumor was that it's only got a single rotary launcher. But seeing it (only from the front as we have) to me it looks big enough and chunky enough in the mid section to have 2 rotary launchers.

[@hphp31416]

It's B21 because it's going to replace B1 and B2

[@atlet1]

Germany had flying wings during the 1920th. The modular upgradable avionics and multifunctional data link for acting as a node in network centric warfare have been aboard Gripen for many years. The logistic nightmare of american combat airplane is not new for USA. What is new?

[@wkrapek]

Great to have you back! You look much better now. As for the tech… we’re still a qualitative leap beyond the Chinese. And we haven’t even seen the next generation fighters yet. I think they’re in for some very nasty surprises. :-)

[@AnarchyEnsues]

Really? How are we going to get a landing force 7000miles over the Pacific unmolested by modern hypersonic missiles?

[@wkrapek]

@@AnarchyEnsues Oh you will see our answer to that. Very soon. At the end of the day, China’s just built another Wall. The first one didn’t work. And neither will this one. Those “variable engines,” for example. Lots of range. Or speed. Whatever you want. They don’t even have an answer to this on the drawing boards.

[@AnarchyEnsues]

@@wkrapek dude, in the age of instant sat imaging, the idea of mobilisation over oceans is over. America had 9 months of Iraq allowing them to position their troops and assets in the battle field without being attacked. That is something china and Russia clearly won't allow. You can't hide an invasion force. And you can't miss with modern missiles.

[@wkrapek]

@@AnarchyEnsues The Chinese plan is to flood the Pacific with drones and missiles. Implying mobilization over oceans is NOT over. Why spend to much money and waste so many missiles if all you have to do is aim and shoot? However: I do think aircraft carriers are going to be less important. Because we’re switching over to long range, super stealthy fighters (with their drone swarms) and bombers. And anywhere any of those planes are you’ll have every other plane in the attack group intermeshing and interacting with it dynamically. And let’s not forget, we’re not just going to passively react to Chinese probes and satellites. We’ll be attacking and subverting all of them at once. At the end of the day, the only thing the Chinese will have ended doing is pissing us off.

[@kakavdedatakavunuk8516]

Thx for the video, it looks like the Chinese give more data about planes than the US

[@mariosarmeniakos2669]

Κάποια στιγμή να μας πείτε για το beriev A 50U

[@marcbrasse747]

Very close to my thoughts. The B21 is most probably the B2 as it should have been from the start but never could be. I'd like to see what happens if one start with the same bomb bay capacity / load and combine it with today's technology, which has after all progressed for decades since the B2's inception. Something like the B21 will be the result. So extreme increases in overall performance where not asked for. Only incremental increases if possible. The main goal will have been to design a more refined airplane which does not make you go broke every time you use. In other words: Group the newest engine technology (even if "only" implemented in updated version of the existing design) with practical and thus affordable stealth technology around such a load capacity and see what happens. Anybody out there who can do the basic calculations? What I do not agree on is that the flying wing concept is / has become a trivial thing. One could off course wonder why nature never made pure wing animals (although Manta rays come close enough) but being able to make a flying wing aircraft controllable has been a very big breakthrough.

[@kathrynck]

Well, the B-2 was designed in the 1980's, B-21 in the 2010's. So that's a 30 year tech advantage for the B-21. Frankly it took Russia 20 years to deploy systems to even try to detect the B-2. So it did it's job.

[@rustyshaklferd1897]

The coating on the b2 and f-117 needs to be serviced far more often than annually

[@kathrynck]

Yeah, I heard a rumor that the B-21 (as they come off the assembly line) may replace the B-2's before replacing the B-1B's. Just because of the operational costs on the B-2.

[@MeanLaQueefa]

The new ceramic RAM fixes this.

[@a.randomjack6661]

Seems to me it's mostly going to raid taxpayers. Nice aircraft anyhoo, and yes, great channel. 💯

[@TurboHappyCar]

You could argue that the whole defense industry is welfare for engineers and scientists. The problem is, as soon as you stop building bombers or nuclear aircraft carriers or whatever, you lose the ability to do so.

[@Tonius126]

Better than paying taxes for welfares and colleges for blue states parasites.

[@fredmdbud]

Little information about this plane - then they're doing it right. Why broadcast information to adversaries? SMH Good to see they learned from their mistakes from the B-2 unveiling.

[@_joapa]

Nice

[@1701Larry]

OK------- You may be blind but I see a damn LOT!!! The engine air inlets are not only bigger but recessed down to the point that no one can see any part of them more than 5 degrees below the forward Horizon with the elimination of all Serrated edges externally on the openings and maintenance covers... Cutting the RCS of the B-21 in half compared to the B-2 to start with.. While the slanted edge Cockpit windows direct their window edge traps off to the sides and up from the forward horizon plain with not one trap edge pointing forward level to the horizon cutting another 20%. I could go on with the fact that they (Manufacturing company and a few general's and department heads) have already stated that the new tech RCS Skin Covering reduces the RCS by at least another half that they will admit to. So downplaying just how stealthy the B-21 is simply beneath you.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Did I do that?

[@eleventy-seven]

Eject downward for Boeing flying wing passenger plane. Southwest Airlines wil love it as long as there's no additional training needed.

[@iamscoutstfu]

B21 AWACS?

[@hdgehog6]

Everybody is hyped by seeing the B21 head on, but I want to see it's ass.... I'm an ass and leg kinda guy!

[@kathrynck]

It's too modest for that ;)

[@mgeb101]

Hm... Just got an idea, what if a cruse missile gets Startlink, then it's not wasted just because a target vanished, there just needs to be a target within the 1000-2000 km range that can be reached. Or do they already have the capabilities to reprogram deep in enemy airspace?

[@kathrynck]

Well primarily it's for nuclear deterrence. And those kinds of missiles don't need complex guidance, inertial alone will get them close enough to ensure a target area is taken out.

[@ozairakhtarcom]

Your Title of this video describes everything 😂 I'm thinking they should have made it unmanned.

[@Milvus_In_Excelsis]

More like back to the B2 1.0 since the B2 is actually the B2 2.0.

[@rustyshaklferd1897]

Pretty sure they won’t allow exports

[@kathrynck]

100% sure.

[@jpperrault3072]

Love your video and content... But on 9:50 you obviously placed a black box on the distribution statement or "REL TO" statement at the bottom of the slide which should limit it's access to everyone. Please reconsider doing that type of things if it wasn't meant to be shared to the public.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

I got the slide with the box already in it. However, it is not secret documentation.

[@jpperrault3072]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech thank you for responding, i m a big fan! :-)