Why Flying Wings Are Coming Back

Go to ground.news/NWYT for on-the-ground perspectives on global issues. Use my link to save 40% on the Vantage plan for unlimited access dive into topics like aircraft and international affairs.
#NotWhatYouThink #NWYT
Music:
Orcas - Marten Moses
The Showroom - V.V. Campos
Subconscious - Nihoni
Sweet Talk (Instrumental Version) - Tyra Chantey
Virginia Highway - Tigerblood Jewel
Deeper Into the Jungle - Experia
Linda Low - Lucention
Lunch Break in Milan - Trabant 33
No Stone Unturned - Brendon Moeller
Thyone - Ben Elson
Flickering Neon - Marten Moses
Truce No More - Dream Cave
Enter The Night 1 - Fredrik Ekstrom
Footage:
Shutterstock
Select images/videos from Getty Images
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Go to ground.news/NWYT for on-the-ground perspectives on global issues. Use my link to *save 40%* on the Vantage plan for unlimited access dive into topics like aircraft and international affairs.

[@AFG.1]

vids 8 mins ago this comment is an hour, how? 😟

[@misterperson3469]

​@@AFG.1youtube lets you schedule when videos go live, even if they are fully uploaded already

[@AFG.1]

@@misterperson3469 ohh makes sense thanks

[@hotstepper887]

I'm English, and what I'd like to know, is why we read so many Americans making such ridiculous claims, like the F-22, is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine chip technology), and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo Jet? Seriously, just what on earth is that all about? Not only is that claim completely wrong, but it couldn't be any more wrong! The really obvious, and factual truth, is, they've no idea what the RCS of any military aircraft is, as they're always kept classified! But even more stupidly, they never even ask any of the most obvious questions, as they all, always, just assume so much! Questions like, what do either the F-22, or F-35's have available to them, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft, from BVR (beyond visual range)? And yet, if they had just asked that one, really obvious question, then maybe they'd understand, that today's reality is nothing at all, like they think! Seemingly, they don't even understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar). Therefore, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So, regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and they stand out like a beacon in the night. It also seems, they don't know that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR). So, just think about that, and what it actually means? This is also a fact, the US air force will be fully aware of, only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! So, obviously, we must ask, just what do the F-22, or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have, AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries, real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact. As, on the other hand, we find this Russian SU-57, (rubbish) the Americans all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57. They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today. Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right? They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system. Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky). The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar, design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including... Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection]. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band, AESA 5th generation radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars. Furthermore, just what have the Americans, ever seen the F-22 actually, do? Well, other than flying over a beach, on a KZbin video? Absolutely nothing!

[@crazestyle83]

I thought they weren't invisible on radar... that it makes it impossible for counter measures to get a lock on the target to fire.

[@zwojack7285]

"Comrade, that bee is flying at Mach 2. Is that normal?"

[@arbyfiles]

Isn't the B2 a subsonic plane?

[@Jmanfuego]

“Ah, yes comrade, bees fly at mach 2 around here all the time. For some reason though, every time they do, our stuff starts to explode.”

[@shamanbhattacharyya9285]

Only Tu-160 can reach that speed, not B-2

[@bettyswallocks6411]

Top speed of the B2 is Mach 0.95. You don’t need speed when you’re invisible.

[@zwojack7285]

@@bettyswallocks6411 it was a joke my guy

[@Uajd-hb1qs]

Just to clarify, nuclear submarines aren’t considered necessarily superior to diesel- electric submarines. Submarine stealth is centred around sound emissions and a quirk of nuclear subs is the need for certain machinery to stay active for safe operation of the reactor. This means when the boat is rigged for a “silent running” state (now referred to as ultra-quiet), even with the prop stationary, a nuclear sub will always emit a base level of audio emission. Diesel- electric subs in comparison don’t have such machinery and so have a far quieter audio signature while running in a similar ultra-quiet state. Submarines are never optimised for radar stealth because the main goal is to never surface in the first place. Most if not all air dependent submarines are fitted with snorkels so even they technically never need to surface for air.

[@luther0013]

However Radar deflecting shapes shush as those used on the F-117 also make submarines harder to detect on active sonar as Radar waves act quite similar to sound waves in water.

[@Uajd-hb1qs]

@@luther0013 Indeed.

[@marcondespaulo]

​@luther0013 then there's the difficulty, as with aircraft, of optimizing both aero (or hydro) dynamics and geometric stealth. Given that drag depends both on the velocity and the viscosity of the fluid, we can see that this is a harder problem for subs.

[@luther0013]

@@marcondespaulo if your invisible what does it matter if you move slower than an iceberg.

[@33moneyball]

They’re produced by the countries capable of building and affording them because they’re all things considered superior. If they weren’t there would be no reason to build them. Yes….you can parse via different metrics to argue for X or Y but in the aggregate, considering all mission types..they’re better.

[@steventhehistorian]

"The future of military aviation will, without a doubt, be very triangle-shaped" lol I love this channel

[@jimsvideos7201]

Flying wings are great but they'd make terrible airliners because passengers sitting at any distance from the center of the aircraft would experience roll motions very strongly.

[@ryshellso526]

Say that like it's a bad thing... maybe I want the roller-coaster experience..

[@swaggery]

There are private jets.

[@willythemailboy2]

Not just that, but it would be nearly impossible to meet the emergency exit requirements.

[@garythecyclingnerd6219]

Eh, still you see concepts of airliners which are much more wing shaped. It’s 100% possible but Boeing would rather cut quality and R&D costs rather than innovate, which is why the French make better passenger planes now

[@Kevin-x4p4y]

Agree...I used to take a worker driver bus (greyhound style) to work everyday. They are fine out on the highway but suck bad on city streets where the road often slants one way or the other and you end up moving up and down what feels like 3 feet...it was a roller coaster ride to say the least :>)

[@nicholaslau3194]

6:40 Parasitic drag is a combination of skin friction drag and form drag. Change in shape only affects form, whilst increase in surface area changes skin friction drag. Induced drag only occurs when lift is generated. There is also wave drag as the in transonic and supersonic speeds.

[@trumanhw]

He also made another blunder @2:44 converting the RCS to imperial: He said 0.0001 meters = 0.15 in (which's 50x the actual 0.003 inches). 0.0001 meters = 1/10th of a mm. Anyone familiar w metric should've caught that. (I'd also mentioned the drag mistake 2 weeks ago also). 🙂

[@95dodgev10]

Fun fact, the taxi ways for the b2's are painted red on the tarmacs. Before a b2 starts to taxi an alarm is sounded for all personnel to vacate these painted areas because most people don't have clearnace to get anywhere near them. Guard towers have orders to basically shoot anything that moves inside the red zone when the b2's start taxiing. My cousin and a college of his were in the red zone when the alarms started to sound. So they ran like hell to get out of the taxi zone.

[@taitai4993]

is it does lines on the tarmac that i've seen on military airfields? the description is the same I believe just want to know if i saw the in person.

[@syntactyx]

this sounds like complete bullshit. do you have any corroborating source on any of that? B2's use the same taxiways as every other aircraft. they are not painted red. and why would your cousin and colleague be in a taxiway?? your story makes zero sense.

[@syntactyx]

@@taitai4993no. the only red things you will ever see on an airfield are red signs that indicate important intersections where pilots "hold position" much like a stop sign. Every entrance to a runway from a taxiway will have the runway numbers on a red sign, and often there will also be a painted on indication of the runway numbers on the tarmac as well. i guarantee that's probably what you saw. there are various things that can be indicated with a red sign so could be any one of them. but it definitely wasn't a special goddam taxiway like the original commenter is trying to say exist 😂

[@95dodgev10]

@@syntactyx did I say sign? No there are red lines painted on the tarmac. If you watch the video you'll see a red line painted infront of the hanger. All of this is coming from my cousin who was stationed at Whiteman airforce base.

[@95dodgev10]

@@syntactyx my previous reply above this one answers your question.

[@trumanhw]

Lift isn't what determines range ... DRAG at the flown altitude relative to the available fuel stores does. A high Lift : Drag ratio or L/D allows it to carry a large payload, which includes fuel. But it's the ratio, never just "lift."

[@EustaH]

Lift surfaces produce drag, so if you can use fuselage to produce part of the lift itself, you can reduce wing size, thus reducing total drag.

[@unotoli]

Good progress on explaining that stealth is not invisibility, at last. But still half of inside story is untold - visibility to search radars vs SAM vs AAM radars. Long waves can see them, short waves got hard time detect and lock.

[@unotoli]

Vertical stabilisers drag and "turn" capabilities should also be re-considered ;)

[@Venthe]

16:10 Highly doubt it. Grandpa Buff will outlive them all.

[@LaczPro]

Huh, a man of culture.

[@SmooreMC85]

The Buff is eternal.

[@warmwaffles]

Grandpa Buff is never going away.

[@JarrodFrates]

It's getting upgraded with new engines and radar.

[@MaticTheProto]

It will never be useful either

[@bigchungus1848]

@@MaticTheProto Found the Russian 😂

[@MaticTheProto]

@@bigchungus1848 nah. You also wouldn't ride a horse to war nowadays

[@MercuryHg09]

@@MaticTheProtoYou would. B52 may get old, but it is THE MOST terrifying bomber EVER. B52 is forever

[@Ilix42]

I think development costs are somewhat deceptive because a lot of the concepts learned from the development benefit additional/future projects, bringing their development costs down from what they would be otherwise.

[@rototiller345]

Let's be honest here. Despite most people not liking the movie, "Stealth" was ahead of its time. I know I still enjoy it when I watch

[@codename1176]

That was a fun one still own the DVD

[@muhazreen]

F-37 Talon design soo good that it became reason i like to play ace combat❤. I wish i can build detailed model of it

[@JS-ed2hg]

Another excellent video covering the subject from a-z 😊

[@matthewsecord7641]

I clearly remember the Bone being developed by the Ronald Regan presidency. I was in grade 3 and it was broadcast on Canadian national tv.

[@bettyswallocks6411]

“… or a bumble bee.” - Puts up picture of honey bee.

[@Guido_XL]

Why is there no mentioning of the Horten 229 from Germany in WWII? It did not see any combat, but it flew already then. As the Allies took just about everything out of vanquished Germany, this design was certainly something that the Americans used for their developments. Just like the V2 rocket.

[@danielp1412]

just a theory but maybe he wanted to focus in bombers wing shaped

[@roo72]

Because it was a shit project which is mostly an urban legend. Also get your facts straight, none of the German flying wing technology was used by the Americans.

[@Guido_XL]

@@roo72 Yes, well, the Americans would most probably have studied it for potential advantages, but indeed, the flying wing concept was already well known and used by Jack Northrop and others. Still, the Horten 229 was about to be put into service, if it were not for the war going to an end then.

[@jedq456]

Well, RCS isn't fixed scale. It can be larger or smaller depending on the wave length and where it come from. B-21 isn't the replacement of the B-52, B-21 only replace the B-2 and B-1B.

[@luther0013]

B-52 will remain in service as long as the Air Force continues to operate.

[@alexandersillan8139]

Thanks, I love what you do

[@sabareesh9161]

Very nice discription

[@sankyu3950]

Dorito is also making a comeback with the aerospace industry

[@josephpacchetti5997]

Interesting Video.THX-🇺🇸

[@sultanhusnoo8552]

@6:12 be careful what you say 😂😂 that was said for so many planes 🤣

[@Duane-ru4pk]

FUN FACT: during ww2 germany tried to produce a flying wing design called the horton ho229 now there was supposed to be a bigger brother from it but they had the same problems as usa and at the end of the war it was never used and they used their new jet engines for it.

[@fredmapes8414]

Thanks for explaining unit cost.

[@USMC6169]

It also includes the runways, buildings, tooling, materials, computers, security clearances (secret clearances was $50k in 1990 for reference, top secret was $100k), spares for 20 yrs to name a few. Imagine buying a car, paying for the road to your house, your garage, all spares you’d use for 20 yrs and mechanics to maintain it for 20 yrs. Think your car would only cost $50k?

[@luther0013]

@@USMC6169 a lot of people as forget this also applies in NASA’s rockets which is why the SLS currently seems to have a price per flight that is spiralling upwards because it has only flown once and only 2 new rockets are under construction currently not to mention cost overruns with the ground systems which is responsible for the price per launch increases.

[@ntnwwnet]

I think you used the wrong clip in the beginning. I only see a United 777...

[@milowannebo-sorensen1776]

Nothing can replace the BUFF.

[@outofturn331]

Except a bigger buff

[@bigchungus1848]

Except itself

[@jgdogg441]

not gonna lie, that echo bit was a nice touch

[@carlsoll]

Yooo *this* is Awesome! The B2 🤘

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

What do you mean, ultimate stealth machine? It's right there!

[@themanthemyththelegenda]

Where?

[@28ebdh3udnav]

Edit, the Iranian flying wing drones are already armed. Even some propeller driven drones have some small bombs

[@fk319fk]

The radar cross section is due to geometry, but not in the way indicated. It is more related to invisibility than reflection!

[@danielbarnes7559]

Props though for your description of stealth technology

[@cyrilio]

Damn those WWII flying bombers are cool as F.

[@gorethegreat]

I love this guy’s voice! It’s like a Simpson’s construct of a far Eastern Charles Bronson. Superb.

[@nobodynoonenowhere5609]

the hand outside the window is Not What You Think!😂

[@SlabFor1]

the first time i heard of the B2 i was like "Ok?" and didnt think of anything unusual

[@thecorneroftheinternet4656]

If you think about it: these videos are essentially big military Q&A’s

[@guvensagdic7200]

The title is clickbait. It does not explain why flying wings are not suitable for commercial use. It explain the military flying wings history instead.😤

[@NotWhatYouThink]

We do explain it, if you watch the whole video :-)

[@guvensagdic7200]

@@NotWhatYouThink a small portion of video is about commercial planes. most of the video is about military planes. For just two minutes of knowledge, you have to watch 15 minutes unnecessary detail. Unefficient way of storytelling :(

[@baldytail]

A bumblebee sized object travelling at 400mph and 50000ft for arguments sake is unlikely to be anything other than a stealth aircraft right?

[@willardSpirit]

We need this... as an airliner. Probably doesn't need to be stealthy so stick a tail rudder for extra stability at expense of some drag?

[@davidzealley2332]

“It may even replace the B-52” Me: Impossible

[@ZoSoPage1977]

It is what you think.

[@pathos48]

I wonder if tails decrease efficiency just because they increase drag or also because stabilizers usually have a negative lift. Moreover, I wonder if B2, B21 or in general long-range stealth airplanes could carry air-to-air missiles to take at least part of fighters' role or if that isn't a good idea, as it is better to use stealth bombers to destroy anti-aircraft systems and air bases and leave the rest of the job to stealth fighters or conventional planes.

[@343RuinedHalo]

I wonder what the pilot is trained to do if the stealth bomber completely shuts down/stops working until it hits the ground.

[@Carl3yj]

16:34 I highly doubt that

[@theglitch312]

If Russian were able to hit their proposed manufacturing targets, we'd already be drowning in T14 Armatas and SU-57 Fighter Bombers. SU-75? Similar story. First scheduled maiden flight was 2023. Then 2024. Currently 2025...

[@liquidwombat]

"coming back" in an interesting way to say that the only operational manned flying wing is getting replaced with a similar plane

[@Suranfox]

"by it's shape and it's geometry"? The geometry IS the shape.

[@miokujou]

There is no such thing as classified documents to a Warthunder player

[@Alex.The.Lionnnnn]

Dude, it's always what we think. That wore off a long time ago.

[@PROFESSIONALCRASHOUT]

I love you Not What You Think!

[@AFG.1]

Awesome

[@weed...5692]

O like the soundtrack - it reminds of the cool no BS shows of the late 90s.

[@lkc4808]

외계인 고문시켜서 만들었다는 폭격기가 바로 이건가요???? ㅎㄷㄷ

[@Rotorhead1651]

Once more, for the slow kids. The SU-57 is NOT stealth, and Russia can't develop a 6th generation aircraft until they develop a 5th generation unit.

[@krystalmae5557]

Lemme ask you this, do you have a radar? Did you work on the su 57? Are you an expert on military shet? Who are you to say it isn't stealth, as if you truly understand it?

[@cruisinguy6024]

@@krystalmae5557well, the actual experts all agree beyond doubt that it’s not stealth but has some stealthy features. Russia, as usual, lies out their ass

[@AFG.1]

@@cruisinguy6024love the explenation

[@billynomates920]

@@krystalmae5557 yeah, rotormotor. you never heard of hop skip and jump? 6th gen, 7th gen, 10 and back again. does seem whenever science leaps, everyone gets some soon enough. like electric, like tv, like atom bombs, like ssssh... we need the whole wide world's best scientists at cern but you all promise not to tell your own governments, just uncle sam/uncle schwaab/uncle xi?

[@sharkusvelarde]

Said the slow kid

[@Hatachi-M]

15:01 finally, a worthy opponent

[@randallgschwind3799]

Absolutely Positively with Computer flight Controlled !!!

[@Darkpyrodragoon]

Love how the planes from Stealth are always thought to be the 6th gen fighters

[@verdebusterAP]

With the range of surface to air missiles ever increasing , you need something able to get close without being seen till its too long

[@tano1747]

I always liked Thunderbird 2. Turns out it wasn't scifi, it was just 50 years ahead of its time... 😂

[@csonracsonra9962]

Maybe these should be the new stealth tanker for the B21😮

[@lsixty30]

We are on the cutting edge of the triangle.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

No, there's little risk of collision with Commercial or Civilian traffic, as the B-2 flies above them, where only the military drones and U-2's fly. The XB-35 & YB-49 we're not failures, they were bypassed thanks to Jobs Lobbyists for Convair having more money to spend, and because the Air Force decided that if the USSR found out how low the Radar return was for them, they would copy the Wings and make Soviet bombers harder to see by US Radar. If flying wings aren't maneuverable, why are they the only choice for the high maneuverability requirements of FPV Pylon racing and FPV long range mountain diving?

[@Melikegames3100]

Make a video on how many aircraft the US lostin Vietnam

[@johnthompson3643]

If a bumble bee was traveling near the speed of sound，wouldn’t you be suspicious?

[@maninthemiddleground2316]

4:07 worn out tires?? 😰

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

I had to make three attempts to get this video to load. The reason I got from KZbin was that it has sponsor. When I saw the ad, I understood why KZbin ran its interference.

[@e_norrby]

Solution, stealth tanker

[@grapes008]

how did a 17 minute video about flying wings not mention the horten Ho 129 or Ho 229, The grand parents of all flying wings

[@USMC6169]

Because the grandfather of all flying wings is jack northrop. His first flying wing flew in 1929.

[@grapes008]

@@USMC6169 so we just ignoring them because they were built during the second global disagreement. Also, northop didn't fly the scale model until 1940 the N-1M. Then there are all the gliders that existed. If you take that into account gliders was first experimenting with in 1924.

[@USMC6169]

@@grapes008YT ghosted my first response. no one is ignoring them. I was addressing the statement that they were the grandparents, and they were not. Their flying wing designs didn’t start until ~1940. Their first jet powered wing in 1944-45 never made it off the ground before WWII ended. Northrops first prop powered wing flew in 1929. And if it flew in 1929, and he built it himself, he’d been thinking about it for years and years before flight.

[@grapes008]

@@USMC6169 and yet, I can't find a single trace online to verify.

[@USMC6169]

including the Horton brothers contributions

[@kinetics1045]

Government spending money on things but not on its own people,

[@anonymoususer3561]

Rather than "triangular-shaped", you should use either "triangular" or "triangle-shaped".

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Feel free to check again, but that’s what we said too: triangle-shaped

[@thomasmontoya302]

Excellent work, as always! It's a shame the USAF doesn't let you tour their planes like the Navy did. :)

[@NotWhatYouThink]

It’s just a matter of time 😁

[@thomasmontoya302]

@@NotWhatYouThink I hope I'll be here to see it when that day comes! :)

[@anbujosh1413]

"Flying wings are not very manouverable" enter the ho 229

[@JoaoLuizLima-xw1nd]

It never flew and therefore of unknown maneuvearibility

[@anbujosh1413]

@@JoaoLuizLima-xw1nd the first versions did, theres even footage of it

[@JoaoLuizLima-xw1nd]

@@anbujosh1413 there was only 1 flight and it was a glide test, any other footage is northrop that rebuilt it to disprove the conspiracy it was stealthy

[@anasyn]

You take that back. Grandpa buff is forever

[@OmarRajab2014]

وثائقي رائع

[@maelien8212]

Such an impresive technology. So many smart minds and so much usefull money wasted on the military...

[@crazestyle83]

Free range freedom dispensers

[@gtdmg489]

So AC7's MQ-99 and MQ-101 is somewhat real. It won't be long before we'd see Arsenal Bird-like planes that could carry lots of these drones.

[@guts60]

Me realizing that in a totally global nuclear apocalypse, only nuclear submarines and a few navy vessels (and their crews) would survive.

[@michael9679]

Where is the virtical stabilizer

[@I_am_MeriumT]

It was exactly what I thought🙂

[@larikauranen2159]

Where was our example of the Ho-229?

[@ChetanRao]

Turns out to be exactly what I thought.

[@aintheidot9111]

After Iran captured the drones, did the US try anything to destroy them? I imagine they weren't super happy about that.

[@parijatgoswami9134]

Touch of Stealth movie props😂

[@Matt1sh]

The type of shit I watch a 1:16 am on a school night

[@cwf_media9200]

when comes a ho229 video? you always mention yb49 but overlook ho229

[@CharlieH99]

Nevwr hopefully. Can't say a thing about flying wing without hoerton brother's sympathisers claiming how hoertons were first with that desing...

[@cwf_media9200]

@@CharlieH99 Well it was so duh. It flew without a tail stabilizer it was straight up better no sympathy needed

[@lazerbeamAndCo]

⁠​⁠@@cwf_media9200 even the YB-49 flew without stabilizer… the problem was the lack of technology from both sides. hence, it was both a piece of shite. decades later, the Americans finally perfected it.

[@cwf_media9200]

@@lazerbeamAndCo it has fins To stabilize it

[@miragelee9754]

Looks like Flying Doritos are a thing now… so what’s next? More flying Doritos? 😂

[@TakenWasTakenYT]

The buff is forever

[@c.t6149]

Why not build a B2 refueling tanker? Which is a stealth tanker too

[@nightjarflying]

Next-Generation Air Refueling System program, also known as KC-Z, aims to replace KC-46 and KC-135 tankers with a stealth tanker in the 2030s.

[@hoobsug]

Back from never going away or something

[@Nacoli_Tomahawk]

Arsenal Birds are eating good with this one

[@EmilioBaldi]

The air force is working on stealth air refueling.

[@colinbarnard6512]

Nobody in the real world says "I think I'll go consume some news today. Must you use the depersonalized jargon of the Haavaad MBA programme?

[@lfla0179]

It is so lucky for stealth bombers that AI can't learn to track a bumblebee in the clutter doing 500mph.

[@triadwarfare]

6:40 did we just get a hand reveal of the person behind NWYT?

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Hand reveal? We are already at back reveal. You need to checkout our recent videos 😁

[@anonymousaltyn]

Genuine question, why does NWYT constantly change the tieles of his vids? He releases a video and a day later it's got a different name.

[@F-22.]

The one chip challenge... but spicier

[@_red_scorpion_]

13:40 what do you mean by flying wings don't use the primary portion of their body to generate lift? I was under the impression that the entire body made lift

[@klausweckbach8980]

When talking of history of flying wings you focus just on the US. But the idea is much older then that. First flying flying wing 🫣 date back to before WW I.