Another would be RCF, should be RCS....

@@SouravKumarRoyChowdhury Right? I don't get how someone putting out aviation videos can get RCS wrong. And mispronounce Cerberus when it's literally on screen right in front of you while reading it...

KER-ber-us. Also, “It is difficult to overstate…”, not “It is difficult to understate…”

It look like dyslexia actually

As everybody keeps repeating...It's actually not even pronounced Serberus - in Greek it's pronounced Kerberos. Even the military misspelled it on their own plane. And, Kerberos was never depicted as being horned so, that's another strike for the OP.

Designers of old were unable to reproduce the efficiency of biological form and function. Mostly due to a lack of understanding but the limits of material science played a part too. That's not the case now!

If you look at the side profile of a B-2 it looks just like the side profile of a diving hawk. sleek

Reminds of a bird and a manta ray had a baby.

The word Manta is used for the classified top secret TR-3A Black Manta and the X-33A Manta UCAV.

@@gomilitary68 It was a flight test for the aircraft's performance.

I saw the B2 fly as well in 1987 near Edward's AFB. I was a young Marine Cpl. headed to NAS Memphis to attend my Advanced Avionics School (AVIC-7). Pretty motivating to see the B2 flying with an F-16 flying chase. We were near Mohave Ca. When we sighted it.

You’re right the control surfaces on a fighter give it a much larger rcs. So even though bombers are larger they are easier to make stealthy. However stealth bombers are not maneuverable at all.

​@@Warlock2018a That’s pretty cool. I was stationed at a SAC base in Blytheville, AR, which is really near Memphis. I was aware at the time that one of the Navy’s schools was located there. I was at Blytheville in ’85 and ’86. So, you and I were in the same place at almost the exact same time. Years later…after I’d left my job at the AF Standards Lab I worked a job that took me to MCAS Yuma. While I was there I got to see some Marine F-35Bs take off and land…another very cool airplane.

@@Mm-vr8ss It’s amazing, to me, that they even fly at all…even with the assistance of digital flight controls. That they maintain stability with no vertical control surfaces is kind of amazing.

@@Mm-vr8ss That's why zero of these endless KZfaq cartoon 6th gen CGI fighter jets that are looking like Battlestar Galactica spacehips --- without any vertical stabilizers, or any thing like what the revolutionary YF-23 had, in the 1990s --- is going to work. The B-2 & B-21 (and the up coming Chinese first generation "flying wings") are GLIDERS. They CAN be made to go fast, once they reach a certain "terminal" speeds; but they PHYSICALLY can't make instantaneous, sharp angle turns... or do the publicly displaying acrobats shown in the 2D F-22 or 3D Su-35. Or come to a hovering position like the F-35B. All fighter jets MUST be both fast AND maneuverable. They must be able to fly right side up or upside down or with wings straight up and down, perpendicular to the earth surface.... and STILL be able to make sharp, INSTANT maneuvers out of those positions. That means they WILL ALL have vertical structures, of one type or another (traditional like all fighter jets, including the F-22, have ....OR the compromise designed like the unique F-23 had)... The B-2 and B-21, even if they carry zero cargo, simply can't do those maneuvers... because, again, they are GLIDERS. Gliders are excellent bombers, or flying gas tanks, or stealth drones... but they can never be fighter jets, regardless of their size... There is no practical technology that would allow fighter jets to have the physical structure of gliding bombers. "Jet streams" (seen on missiles and spaceships, etc), computer-assisted mechanisms, etc. aren't going to do it, either. Theoretically, presumably, you could spend $2B or $3B and come up with one or two prototype that could come close to a traditional fighter jet, with the body/structure of a B-2/B-21. But even the US can't afford such nonsense. Fighter jets are needed by the THOUSANDS, by the US armed forces... and none, per unit, is going to cost more than $80M - $120M. THAT, indeed, was/is why only 189 F-22s were built (it's not because Obama was too stupid and he cancelled it for stupidity: it being between $300M - $400M a unit, it's just way too expensive to build and to maintain, beyong 150 or so units)... And it's actually MORE TRADITIONAL than the YF-23. Today, 2024, the YF-23 still is more revolutionary, as a fighter jet design, than 100% of all the other jets on earth. And the one the Brits, Italians, and Japanese are teaming up to build LIKELY is going to have a lot of the physical structure of the YF-23. (... Even the Brits' clay-model "Tempest" looked like the YF-23, in its tail parts...as is the Russian aluminum model "Checkmate" that is NEVER going to be built, due to Russian having no reliable access to high-end semiconductors... which are only produced in the US, Western Europe, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.... )

How many days did it take?

Congratulations

Maybe it was just myself, but back in 2011 when I went to federal prison I had to cold quit obviously and oh man I hurt, it took me about a month to quit hurting and about 2 to start feeling normal again, but that's just me, dunno how long it took the OP. Hopefully, they're in better shape now. I'd go to the doctor and the worthless nurse would tell me to go walk it off, I told him are you serious? I was on them for pain and now I'm detoxing.. anyways hope their doing well, I got back on them when I got back out of prison and back on all my meds, but that first month was horrible, especially not even being at home.

@@okcstormchaser That cynical of a nurse ought to find a more appropriate career, like a job branding cattle with a glowing-hot branding iron! Good for you making it thru one of the hardest things to do & survive. I'd bet 99.9% of the other fentanyl users quit when they've O.D'd, sad to say. Have you thought about a recovery group? I'd bet you could really add a lot and aid a lot to a group. All the best!

@WhiteOwlOnFire_XX I also hunt for high quality videos like this. His channel has great narration and great rendering, which is rare! And he's basically a one-man show, too. Amazing. Other excellent sources of videos are about astronomy, the universe, galaxies, radio astronomy, the Hubble telescope, the VLT, the JWST, and many videos about the newer telescopes (the Vera Ruben telescope in Atacama desert, Chile, opens this year). Channels like The History of the Universe are a good start. The quality & imagery are often 1080 (HD), the narrators' voices are often very calming. I usually put my laptop on my nightstand, lower the screen light, lower the volume & set it to go into sleep mode in 45 mins to an hour. Then I sleep like a baby! And no Ambien, too! There are 50 or more I've found, but some vids are 2 to 3 hrs long, so I'll just do the last hour. Sometimes I find an excellent one that I'll re-play it several times. Also, videos about microscopic scale are good, like molecules, atoms, sub-atomic, quantum realm are fascinating. I hope you find peace watching things here. And maybe you can find a good recovery group to participate in. Most people who try to quit fentanyl only do so by O.D. You are a rare breed, White Owl...rare indeed. Best regards.

I had the same reaction to the SR-71 (A-12) when they put one on a stick outside the local aerospace museum.

@@HomercidalOne I was surprised at how large it was when I saw it at USS Independence Museum.

@@armr6937 Same here... I thought the SR-71 was large too. Its over 100 feet long and about 55 feet wide. For comparison a F35 is about 50ft long and 35 ft wide. Maybe he is confused?

yup, i live 2 hours away from there!

@@HomercidalOneThat's surprising. I thought the A-12/SR-71 are much bigger than expected. I've seen them at the Science Center in LA and Blackbird Park in Palmdale. Same with the B-1 I saw in the Air Force museum in Omaha. I had no idea it's about the same size as a mid-sized airliner. I haven't seen a B-2 up close yet.

You are frightened of Geometry. Get a shrink.

Can you elaborate on what would be considered "ADEQUATE"? Because that is one of those Buzzwords that "Make or Break" a project. Snap, Crackle, Pop-language, Boomer.

@@Gunni1972 The planned purchase of 100 is likely, IMO, 'adequate'. (Though I'd be much happier with twice the number.) While building up to that, anything less than that is very nice and a lot better than none.

F-35 has two internal weapon bays I think.

​@@williamdrijver4141those are not secondary doors intended to carry aim9. Those are the primary bomb bay doors

we gonna see f22 and f35 with white colour

@@gomilitary68 did you mean to comment on this?

@@kameronjones7139 Cats have sensitive nerves at the base of their tails to facilitate in the function of sexual intercourse. Text "STOP" to unsubscribe from Cat Facts.

As in aux Air doors? Auxiliary air? Supplemental for low speed like others have?

@@JSFGuy The butterflies inlet doors; to allow more air to reach the engine.

@@Miguelcooldude777 not needed for high performance. Needed for low performance like they said. When more oxygen is needed. So basically when taking off

@@Miguelcooldude777 all right, I was asking for clarity. I know what aux air doors do and they're not for performance therefore interrupted disturbed airflow to the inlet. Why do you think it's for high performance? Why would you have doors open during Showtime?

@@JSFGuy because that’s when the engine needs more air to produce more power I believe?

The Air Force and the Navy will insist that their fighters be able to engage in WW-1 style dogfights, so their RCS will not be as good as the B-21 (or B-2). Fighter jocks love their dogfights, even though they should avoid them like the plague. With superior (vastly superior) stealth, there's no reason to close to visual range with an enemy fighter.

​@@michaeldelaney7271 Well, what if the adversary has a roughly similar number of planes with roughly similar stealth capabilities? Than there is no other option than to close in. The reason no serious dogfight occurred in the last 40 years is because American aviation wasn't facing an opponent with the same capabilities.

The cold air ducts are very likely as the F35 already uses such a system to combat more advanced IR sensors. I am sure they incorporated that into this design.

I had often wondered why aircraft didn't have the feature of an exhaust, cold air intake to reduce the IR exhaust heat signature or some way to cool down the exhaust plume like maybe dumping liquid nitrogen behind the plane into the hot plume at the same time flares are deployed. In fact, I didn't know that the B21 WOULD do just that. It would seem that with flare decoys and the exhaust cold air intake feature, heat seekers could be foiled almost every time.

The fact that the exhaust comes out above the fuselage means that ground-based IR trackers will not have much of a target.

We have - at least at an oblique angle. Taxi test photos

Thank you!

I overlay them so you can see the size difference in this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hqychLeBvc7Pfok.htmlsi=u5pZH09-QT50CXPe

At the very last minute of the video it shows a side by side.

not sure if this is helpful but a b2 has a 172 ft wing span and the b21 has a 136 ft wingspan. its not tiny by any means but a good bit smaller than the b2

@@PilotPhotog Found it! Thanks!

@@daholl8942that is helpful cuz I found it helpful goid looks💪🏾

Glad you enjoyed it! I am very happy to see people finding value in my content- cheers!

@@PilotPhotog we do appreciate ur content, ur effort....and it is invaluable for us your followers..... keep it up...

@@justme3894copy and thank you!

Nope - neither did my GPU

Thank you, I was trying to update it with what we saw on Friday's flight - cheers!

playing Tetris with them sounds more sensible than bombing other humans with them and I'm not even a people person lol.

@@robambrose4199the people this thing will bomb will likely turn around and come back to bomb us, them or us world we live in

@@gomilitary68 What stealth plane? lol.

@@gomilitary68 I dont fucking know lol. Thats the whole point.

All wonderful naming suggestions - but what about Mostly Harmless? That would certainly confuse the enemy!

@@PilotPhotog 😂

Thank you and always trying to improve, appreciate the feedback.

I agree that they’re non-after burning F135s (no-brainer engine choice if you’re NG) BUT I don’t think they require any sort of DSI - the whole point of that design is in its name; diverterless SUPERSONIC inlet. No part of this aircraft should ever see supersonic flow, the DSIs are required for fast fighters/bombers as a simple alternative to dynamic air inlet ramps and such. It’ll have a conventional “s-duct” of some sort, like the B2, F-22, F-35, etc. (well, the F-35 has a DSI and s-duct technically I suppose.)

@@EstorilEm Probably much the same system as used on the B-2 where the air from in front of the intake is ducted down to use as bay cooling air, exiting around the exhaust ducts.

I still can't believe I was able to finish it in time lol - the last four hours or so....

Nah. The prototype B-21 is labeled "Cerberus" after the mythological dog. You can see the spelling in the photo at 0:50. Photog's unfortunately just pronouncing it wrong.

Named after a now dead dog....

That's definitely spelled Cerberus not Cerebus on the plane... unless they got it wrong in the video.

Why would the raider need variable bypass engines? It’s subsonic and has a set cruising speed. A

it still increase cruise speed fuel efficiency though@@sdfopsdmsdofjmp7863

It’s just a base F135 without afterburner. People keep forgetting that this is a subsonic plane lol.

Beautiful aircraft! The acft most likely landed at EAFB Ca. not Area 51! 10:29

I believe diverterless supersonic inlets would be used. Possibly in combination with ramps for different engine modes. No doubt there's many details in that alone for us to ponder.

It didn’t block air, it repositioned the shockwave to allow the engines to “breathe” still.

@@BeamRider100doesn’t need DSIs as this thing will never go supersonic. Inlet air will always be at an optimal subsonic flow. Also, DSIs wouldn’t work with this conformal / LO intake shape design.

It is an error.

Hehehe... hahaha... what? What are yolkin about bro? Hahahaha....

B-2 first flew in 1989. So it's about time this careful evolution made its first flight 34 years later. Still burning fossil fuel btw.

I heard and saw one overfly an Auburn football game. You are right. The stealth definitely does not extend to being quiet.

The Northrop YB-49 flying wing bomber first flew in....1947.