I concur. Also, the Ceramic RAM is supposed to not only have much lower maintenance and operation costs, but is also said to absorb considerably more radar energy than the old coatings. See Alex Hollings video: "The biggest leap in stealth tech since the F-117".

The US has recently shut down a project using ITAR, that can turn a consumer wireless router into a passive radar. Software radios have already made stealth entirely obsolete. People already have root on Starlink Terminals. Those terminals are advanced phased array radar being used as the technology for telecommunication. The active tracking SpaceX is doing is better than anything the military has publicly. "Everything is slow to phased array." --Elon musk And AI tracking is just now coming online. There's a vast amount of data that gets thrown away as noise in traditional radar systems. We can now get the data that is hypothetically in the signal that is outside the capability of Fourier transforms. Instead of looking for things in the sky you just look for their shadows. Back when the government shutdown distribution of encryption, all it did was move the technology to Europe. Us Linux users just used 'apt-get update install' easy peasy. You might have the radar return cross-section of a pigeon, but my computer knows pigeons don't fly at 500 miles an hour, and can track all the birds, since I can do the calculations off site on a really big computer in close enough to real time.

@@jtjames79 tracking is one thing; guiding a missile to the target before youve been shot down or hit with an anti-radiation missile is another.

@@nikoc8968 Classic cut and paste that doesn't address anything I said. You can easily have redundant tracking technologies, optical, infrared, lidar, multi spectrum active and passive software defined radar, etc. For about a 1k of off the shelf parts that fits in a small shoebox including all the computer bits needed and batteries. The paradigm of tracking and guidance being treated like different boxes is an obsolete anachronism. It's not even wrong. Do you even NeRF bro?

@@jtjames79 Ok, so all China has to do to shoot down the B-21 is achieve command of space before they attempt to achieve air superiority around their fleet. Sounds easier said than done, doesn't it? You are actually making an argument in favor of stealth. We have Starlink. We have that level of satellite and AI surveillance. No one else does. So we may be able to see the J-20s, but this just makes it easier to guide the B-21 around enemy AWACS, ship-borne radars, and fighters, does it not? You don't imagine we would allow the Chinese space-borne sensors to operate over the Pacific if they launched a strike on Taiwan, do you? And if we denied them that capability, as we are well capable of doing, how would they see the B-21 then, given that the B-2 and B-21 design avoid search radars as well as tracking radars, unlike the F-22 or J-20, and given that we are primarily worried about a conflict over the blue water, I would argue, only after which would the strikes progress towards and then beyond enemy shorelines. By the time the first strikes would be directed against enemy coastal radar, any ships underway would already be sunk, I would argue, their maritime AWACS would be destroyed, and their satellites would all be blind, at best.

I believe the B-2 is already more stealthy than the Raptor due to the lack of vertical stabilizers

@@MattWaller04 From what I understand, the F-22 has a smaller radar cross section then the B2, but only marginally, so while the F-22 is technically harder to pick up on radar, the B-2's stealth tech is hiding a plane 4x bigger almost as efficiently, making it "stealthier". It's hard to tell when people say "The B-21 is stealthier" whether or not they mean the RCS or just the efficiency of its signature masking.

It is. Think of the difference in technology. F-22 was made right before huge technological advancements.

I wanna say that it's unlikely, but there's almost 20 years of research and development between the two... so you might actually be right

@@DeetexSeraphine There are multiple factors to this, first of all the b21 is a naturally stealthy shape without vertical stabilisers or pertruding cockpit. The next thing is the obviously next gen RAM coating. From the reveal we have seen, that it is a totaly different colour to what we have seen before. And to top all the stealthy shenanigans of the air intakes are fucking tiny.

Question. Why are we spending all this money on aircraft when countries like Russia and China are building hypersonic missiles. Isn't aircraft becoming obsolete? Seems like turning our intention on hypersonic missiles would make more sense than stealthy aircraft. Right?

@@MarcusAurelius12 The US has in excess of 10 hypersonic missile programs in development, from ground-launched, air-launched, hypersonic glide vehicles to traditional warheads on large rocket boosters and potentially ramjet sustainers at high altitudes. Other countries have supersonic missiles and a select few have deployed hypersonic missiles. The US will have the best of both worlds in both hypersonic missiles and stealth missiles (and stealth planes) with the first hypersonic missile being deployed in 2023. By 2026 to 2028, the US should have 3 or 4 different hypersonic missiles deployed from USN vessels, US Army ground launchers, and USAF F-15s and bombers. So, yes, the US was a bit of a late bloomer, but shortly that deficit will disappear. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and others are still playing catch-up trying to develop stealth aircraft and stealth cruise missiles. I'd rather be the master of stealth than the master of hypersonics and catching up on stealth. Hypersonic missiles existed since the 1960s, they just became a new thing again recently due to the advent of maneuverable hypersonic missiles.

@@MarcusAurelius12 A hypersonic missile is just one weapon in what should be an integrated system. Russia's and China's development of them is an acknowledgment of their inability so far to match American offensive capabilities. They are asymmetric weapons designed to reach places that they have no other way to reach. Physics puts limits on what they will be capable of and once software and hardware is adapted to match and counter that capability, then they are just really fast missiles that can still be shot down easily. They won't solve the problem of reach for very long. The B-21 is the product of a more holistic approach to offensive warfare and it gives the US the ability to modulate its response to any given situation. You can't secretly gather intelligence in a battlefield with a hypersonic missile. Once you fire it, your intentions are pretty obvious. A hypersonic missile is also a one-trick pony. There are many kinds of ordnance a B-21 can deliver and it can be done within a range that shrinks the enemy's decision time to almost nothing. At the moment, Russia or China cannot fire a hypersonic missile within a range that would surprise American forces. The B-21 certainly could if there were an air-launched hypersonic that was small enough. That doesn't seem to be the American philosophy for cruise missiles, though. Stealth trumps speed, especially if you're already launching it from a stealth aircraft. The B-21 is still built around strategic deterrence. Any adversary is quite aware that their command and control infrastructure could be in flames before they even knew anyone was there. That's not as much a threat for large nations with dispersed forces, but North Korea should really be worried about the B-21. Once enough of them are operational, the possibility of an American president deciding to pull the jersey over Kim Jong Un's head and beat the piss out of him becomes quite real. While he's left bleeding on the ice, land-based and ship-borne missile defense would take out any rockets that might get in the air. I would bet that any Chinese move against Taiwan would come with action by North Korea in order to split US and Japanese capabilities. Even if North Korea did nothing but posture, it would divert precious resources and then if China succeeded in Taiwan, we would be in a bigger bind. Better to deal with it on our own terms and scramble Chinese planning. Let them stick a half million troops in North Korea to hold up a puppet regime. That would pretty severely drain their logistics for any move against Taiwan. None of that would be possible with hypersonic missiles alone.

@@MarcusAurelius12 Riddle me this batman: what’s going to deploy the oh so famous „hypersonic missiles“? Most likely a bomber. There, that’s the reason.

@@AnonD38 China and Russia don't need bombers to launch theres......

Dem DDR5 RAM working hard

But the wingspan is around 45 meters…. You cannot defy physics F22 has a wingspan of 14 meters (1/3 of B21)

Agreed

And it's quite cheap for such a plane

Also it keeps its thermal signal on top and it most certainly mixes cold with the the exhaust. Also you should do this test with it at maximum altitude. I believe it’s what 50-50k ft

Excellent video just came out from Alex Hollings', titled, "Is the B-21 Raider just an upgraded B-2?". One of his initial lines is, "When Northgrup Grumman first introduced the B-2, MS DOS had just been introduced two weeks prior". It is a radical improvement on what was always the stealthiest aircraft ever built, until now.

Also, yes, Loyal Wingman drones, Valkyries, and the like, by all means. Encore! Btw, Cap, if the B-21, Valkyrie, or the like are ever flown in un-manned mode, then you might consider some new sort of respawn scheme, since in real life, the pilot might just start flying a different aircraft if one were destroyed, especially if it were an "attritable" aircraft, like the Valkyrie, and less so if it were the B-21, but even so, I could see having an extra unmanned B-21 loitering on stand-by, and if the one I was flying got blown up, well, it was a high risk mission, missiles happen, good thing I had a spare B-21 circling like a trained falcon 100 miles away...

B-21 is the direct bomber as part of an initiative to turn to a 2 bomber force. B-52 will be stand off bomber, and b-21 will be direct bomber.

@@tjscrib2012 in reality b-21 will only drop stand off weapon

The b-21 IS part of the loyal wingman program, it can fly without pilots

Also a B-2 was shot down in the Yugoslavian war. Of course the USAF is not gonna admit it was shot down. But I remember the Serbian guys who shot down the F-117 also managed to hit the B-2. The limping B-2 crashed while going back to base as the result of getting hit.

@@TR1ppl3 that conspiracy theory is fuckin hilarious to me because living next to Whiteman, I see that specific B-2 that was "shot down" in Yugoslavia very often lmfao

@@TR1ppl3 No, it wasn't. The only B-2 EVER lost was the one that crashed.

@@TR1ppl3 that didnt actually happen its a myth😂

the b-2 is still the most innovative and original looking plane ever made

It’s likely the enormous cost both of operating and maintaining it caused it to be axed

@@AnonD38 more just the fact that there wasn’t really any use for them when the program started spitting out bombers, the USSR collapsed. up till now 20 B2s was way more than necessary for any potential threat. now China exists so there is a need for more B2 equivalent aircraft.

Incroyable.

I'd like the idea of an autonomous ground attack munition. A missile with a machine gun. Nothing fancy like a rotating gatling, it's disposable and it's not going to last that long. When the barrel and/or fuel runs out it kamikazes.

@@jtjames79 ...so a loitering munition, that for some reason has a useless gun

You missed one. It's everything except all of that... and super-sonic. Seems like we'd want to replace the B1B with something, well, faster, rather than replacing both it and the B-2 with the B-21.

@@jtjames79 I'd be happy with just a de-militarized F-16 with a fusion-powered jet engine.

@@Gabriel_McMillan fusion powered jet engine. . .

I guess because flying low means someone can eyeball you which means they can have a go at you with AA guns. Flying high is better if you can.

@@nath9091 Also stand-off weapons have longer ranges when deployed from high altitude, especially glide bombs.

true, they should have gone low.

I would have voted low as well. The only thing I would be curious is how many remaining B-1s can actually fly at the listed Mach 1.2 since they beat the hell out of the service life on the wings on many of the airframes in the B-1 fleet

It kills the range and can't deploy its weapons. If you are detected, you're in a very poor spot because you're low on PE. Aerial radars probably will still spot you.

that's not total program cost. it will be more expensive. not less.

@riskinhos fair answer. Though it's promising the lifetime cost will be lower than the Spirit (total program cost). If maintenance cost, production and cost per plane is less than half that of a Spirit, I'd call that a major win.

@@Terra-Quattuor it's not lower in any estimate. as quoted by the us government, department of defense, the manufacturer and all independent sources. and even the requirement specified more money per airframe.

Similar experience. At an airshow the B1 pulled up 30 degrees and hit the throttle with the engines pointing at the crowd. That was the single loudest thing I have ever heard.

By the time this video was made, the B-1 had already abandoned the low level role by about 2 years.

Do you need an exorcist

@@hertzwave8001 🤣

If I understood correctly they wanted to test how close a bomber could get before it was detected. I mean, the best stealth is when there is no one to detect you of course, but for the purpose it worked perfectly.

yeah till a SAM catches u out in the open 😭😭😭😭 good luck. everytime u wanna bomb j loose a billion and some good pilots, smart

Incroyable.

Seems like they got it right this time. If over 120 are built it will be a huge improvement and they can finally retire the B-2s and B-1s. B52s are going to be around for another half century.

There was also the A-12 Avenger II that was canceled which was supposed to be the replacement for the Intruder.

The B-21 may have the same wingspan as the B-2, but has a much lower mass & RCS!

17:01 lol yeah Raptors have HMD night vision now!

stick refueling packs in the bay of a b-2

Yes first test flight is scheduled for six months hence, its got some new communication equipment but is using off the shelf engines (Believed to be two F135 engines tuned for fuel efficiency rather than speed as its a subsonic aircraft) This would likely make its acceleration pretty slow and maneuverability almost non-existent.

My pleasure - RC is moving house.

100% this