The best stealth technology engineer is the one who nobody knows about.

@FursonaNonGrata

2 жыл бұрын

The stealthiest stealth engineer, if you will

@paulloveless9180

2 жыл бұрын

I bet he's pretty obtuse.

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

North Star ASTRA NOMICAL very good STEALTHY.

@xinyuchin1517

2 жыл бұрын

It’s my mother

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

@@xinyuchin1517 Im not even going there.. you said it.... Shouldnt really talk bout yo momma that way...

In 2002 I was a Lieutenant at Wright Patt AFB. One day, the Bird of Prey was declassified. 3 days later, I saw it being towed to the museum restoration hanger. Damn near drove off the road!

@deltavee2

2 жыл бұрын

Looks outright alien, it does. I think it is gorgeous.

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

Kelly Johnson Michigan native black bird. Michigan slide rule. You want to see gorgeous look up ASTRA. 3 sided time bender....

@Fanguru666

2 жыл бұрын

745747

@genebricker3673

2 жыл бұрын

Sad. An Air Force officer who can’t spell hangar. Academy grad?

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

@@genebricker3673 hang air, hangher hangarerer. C MON MAN REALLY

USAF: The A-10 is the slowest combat aircraft in the world. Boeing: Hold my beer.

@jamesholden5664

2 ай бұрын

Actually it's not.

The bird of prey was a Technology demonstrator That took us to the next step in aviation. This is also seen in what was developed afterwards like drones, stealth , autonomous controls and composite engineering we see today. I can only imagine what you’re working on now and how futuristic it will be ….. keep on rocking guys….

@cicci0salsicci0

Жыл бұрын

It's probably a "platform" made of multiple tools (drones, awacs , jets, bombers, ground intel, satellites, etc..) to integrate the information gathered from multiple sources and accomplish air superiority with the aid of AI.

@symondssays

Жыл бұрын

@@cicci0salsicci0 ll

@rgloria40

10 ай бұрын

After twenty years, we see it at enemy state; IRAN 313 stealth plan. In fact, they have enough access to technology to make their F5s, F14 and etc...to take down an F22 and F35 via ambush dog fight. They are just clever and we are....stupid...no the status quo senior senior old fart puting old farts. For example, the top candidates are senior senior senior old farts (70 ++ and older)...that need to retire or resign. US is not a cast system hierarchy.

Still remember being a kid in the 90s, reading about this in some magazine (popular mechanics maybe?) They missed on it. Wasnt a production plane, wasnt the SR-71 replacement. Etc etc Still impressive that they knew anything about it. Just from a nerd / technology geek standpoint, its fascinating how many of these things exist. "Ideas" to prove theories, that we'll never hear about.

@kflashcarr888

Жыл бұрын

Popular Sicence used to be good.

You just know how much I love the approach MD took for this! They bore the cost, borrowed parts, employed advanced materials and used in-house CFD, CAD for the majority of testing cutting out thousands of hours of model testing. Plus the entire background and contributions of Weichman! Icing on top, named after the Klingon Bird of Prey, and it still looks more advanced than any 5th gen out there, seems to echo current NGAD concepts. The performance issues really only seem secondary considering it was using existing tech from a civilian corporate jet for propulsion.

@JMiskovsky

2 жыл бұрын

Hear him hear him!

@JMiskovsky

2 жыл бұрын

Who is Weichman?

@dfgiuy22

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't it just a good business strategy to put funding in to R&D you'll need later? Are things so far gone now thus qpproach is to lauded as revolutionary?

@brrrtnerd2450

2 жыл бұрын

@@dfgiuy22 Well, I am older, so this was how I always remember it being done. The recent "pay till we get it right" seems kinda wonky to me . . . but maybe that means I am out of touch.

@rowmagnvs

Жыл бұрын

@@brrrtnerd2450 do you mean rapid prototyping?

Nice piece. FYI radar cross section of an aircraft is a function of reflectivity (as you said) and radar frequency and aircraft aspect angle. By the way, "budget busting" means that the budget was exceeded. The biggest problem with programs that "bust" their budgets is the plethora of regulations and bureaucracy that platforms have to wind through.

@colincampbell767

2 жыл бұрын

The biggest budget buster in development programs is the consistent underestimating the time and cost needed to invent the technologies that the new platform needs.

@mikeaustin4138

2 жыл бұрын

The regulations and bureaucracy exist because defense contractors regularly supplied the military with shoddy, overpriced, under-performing equipment. Government regulations largely exist because businesses have sociopathic personalities and will literally kill people if it makes shareholders a profit - Ford Pinto is only one of dozens of examples.

@paladin0654

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikeaustin4138 The Pinto was a car Mike. You really need a better understanding of the defense acquisition process. Have a read of the DFARS, if you can't sleep, and see how convoluted they are.

kudos to the USAF museum for that drone footage of the Bird of Prey. Their youtube channel has a number of similar videos of various portions of the museum. A novel and unique view of their aircraft!

Thank you, being involved with aerospace I only saw a smitten of this aircraft, yours is the most detailed and revealing video I’ve ever seen, thank you so much it was always a hidden secret that I could not seem to find any information and once again job well done sir

Nice. I’m impressed that so much was accomplished with so little.

@Fermonos1

2 жыл бұрын

Well that's what happened when your spending your own dollar and not the taxpayers. You can GUARANTEE if they were using the taxpayers purse it would've cost 10x as much at least, just look at the F-35 R&D cost.

Super cool show today! Thank you for your hard work on KZread! I love the look of that Boeing secret budget-busting stealth fighter jet!

Thank you for such a great channel that's putting out such interesting videos. You deserve many more subscribers than you already have!

Great video. I’m probably not the only one who thinks that no classified project should ever be unclassified.

A similar approached was used in the development and fielding of the F-117. Off-the-shelf parts and engines, it was basically an A-7 with a stealth kit body. Love those skunk works guys.

@trumptookthevaccine1679

Жыл бұрын

@E Van not skunkworks

Wonderful show. Thank you!

Highly fascinating video. Thank you for the time and effort that it took for you to put this together and share.

great story, and well covered! i had no idea - and i follow böing (having grown up in seattle area) and was 7 years usaf about the time this whole thing was going on.

Wiechman looks like the embodiment of stealth; he himself was stealthy! I admire legendary people behind the scenes like him.

@threehorsesxxx5759

2 жыл бұрын

Boeing and Lockheed Martin wore also involved with the murder of JFK. In this case the only reason I am telling you this is they had access to technology! Aquired from crashes around the world. And did not want to share it especially with Russia. Nazis wore deeply involved with our aerospace and Russia was completely there enemy JFK wanted to share that Technology.

@koori3085

2 жыл бұрын

Humility is the surest sign of grace.

Fascinating and very well narrated. Thks.

Thoroughly enjoyed this educational video, keep up the awesome work!

The Bird of prey aerodynamically speaking closely resembles X-45, and I think that it could be described as a piloted version of it. The difference is the wing design, which is polyhedral, with dihedral inboard sections and anhedral outboard sections (but the same planform). Also, the chines on the front fuselage are more accentuated compared to X-45.

@jackmandu

2 жыл бұрын

As stated in the video, the X-45 basically is a pilotless version of the Bird of Prey as it’s design was derived from the Bird of Prey.

@OctogonOxygen024816

2 жыл бұрын

I love the chines

@kakavdedatakavunuk8516

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackmandu Sorry but for some reason, I didn't hear your statement that Bird of Pray is piloted version of X-45. If it is so, why was the great enterprise for Boeing to make a piloted version of this vehicle?

@EdWood110

2 жыл бұрын

@@kakavdedatakavunuk8516 I would advise to watch the actual video you are commenting on since it explains everything.

@kakavdedatakavunuk8516

2 жыл бұрын

​@@EdWood110 My comment was based on the sentence that AW work on Bird of Pray is achievement. From my point of view it is mediocre aircraft, with performance much worse then their pilotless counterpart (and it is aircraft with no actuall purpose, except to show that Boeing was able to do it), if you think differently it is OK.

I love the design. However there has been a big logical fallacy in the video: the comparison of the F-35 and the Bird of Prey platform. A deployed Bird of Prey (not sure where it could fit in - as F-117A successor or stealth jet powered Super Tucano?) would have been far more expensive. It was a demonstrator - without combat essential avionics (not even radar) nor weapons. It is like comparing a trainer aircraft with a full fledged combat jet.

@DominikPinkas

2 жыл бұрын

The direct comparison makes some sense, but very limited one. For one, as you mentioned, the plane was pretty bare-bones, but we are comparing a cost of a production (albeit fully furnished) plane and a cost of whole developmental program.

@Dominikmj

2 жыл бұрын

@@knytrix Sorry - you are certainly right - it is a fallacy - not a logical fallacy. But yes - I stand to it. Compare a fighter jet, with very expensive components is a whole different thing than a demonstrator with no avionics (at least no radar, weapon systems, data link etc.). It is like comparing apples with an iPhone. Or comparing a self-assembled bicycle with a car.

@scottdorfler2551

2 жыл бұрын

You know it's a true fallacy that dead aliens inspired the design of the F35 radar range. Absolutely true........fallacy

@enfynet

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dominikmj the part you’re forgetting is that the entire development including the single plane was on par with the cost of just 1 completed fighter. Had the program been adopted, the per unit cost would have been at a minimum compared to other operational jets

@michaelcerda5514

2 жыл бұрын

@@scottdorfler2551 yeah it was space Nazis. Duh.;)

I had never heard of this or seen any pictures of it, thank you for making this video.

Sandbox is awesome. I love this story and all the other ones too. I like some more than others of course....So thank you to everyone involved in putting these videos out there. 😊

It's a crazy design, it looks like the rearward wing area balances the front biased weight of the plane thru aerodynamic forces. That's crazy !

Thank you for all of the wonderful videos. The story behind the Bird of Prey was interesting. However, if you could pull back the veil, I think you would find the story behind the Dark Star program much more interesting. The BoP was a technology demonstrator that the MacD Phantom Works maximized for showmanship and sex appeal. Whereas DS was much more practical, yet equally amazing technology. I have never heard anyone tell its story. It might not be possible.

Thanks for the vid!

Excellent vid -well done.

One could argue that; if the bird of prey was developed in to a effective front-line fighter or bomber, costs would have risen exponentially. It was just a prototype.

@LRRPFco52

2 жыл бұрын

Yup. It was a technology demonstrator/growing pains developmental bird for McD to try to close their gap with Lockheed, especially with ASTOVL and JAST in the works.

@dogsnads5634

Жыл бұрын

One of the Test Pilots resigned rather than fly it...it was a handle to fly (read:dangerous).

@kdrapertrucker

Жыл бұрын

It is way too small to use as an operational aircraft.

This was good love the bird of prey

...genius design. Loving the hexagonal wheels bays...:D

THANK YOU for a very enlightening video, I actually knew nothing about the design .... I wondered after hearing about their unique design build program if it didn't set the stage for the way the new 6th gen fighter was designed , built and flown using a similar approach? ---- hmmmm , Never mind, I see Jerome , Ponz and others made the same connection - LOL

Building an airframe, a demonstrator airframe, is pennies on the dollar for what a complete, mission capable, fighter plane costs. How much development on weapons control software integration was done with the Bird of Prey? What range did it have? Could it be refueled? Could it cooperate with other air operations? In short, beyond a flying airframe, what could it do?

@BrainFuck10

2 жыл бұрын

Irrelevant...that's an apples to oranges comparison

@Raptorman0909

2 жыл бұрын

@@BrainFuck10 -- That's right, it IS an Apples to Oranges comparison -- building a one-of prototype that only needs to fly and doesn't have all the actual mission required tech is easy, the hard part, the expensive part, is filling in all those mission requirements. So, for an AC manufacturer to be able to build a one-of plane for something more than $100M doesn't impress me one little bit!

@Wuppie62

2 жыл бұрын

@@Raptorman0909 You'd need to know the costs of other flying stealth technology demonstraitors, to be able to say it's impressive or not.

@lukewarmwater6412

2 жыл бұрын

hey hey hey! you cant use logic here in the 21st century and you know it!

@stanstanly3812

2 жыл бұрын

You obviously never worked test.

Lessons learned by Boeing in this craft are clearly useful for the announced already flying prototype of a 6-th gen air superiority fighter. A bigger engine, a gun, an internal magazine and some computing power, done.

@JamesNeave1978

2 жыл бұрын

Drop the gun, irrelevant now. All you need is an unpiloted missile truck.

@trumptookthevaccine1679

Жыл бұрын

Yup it’s just that easy

I think it's a bit melodramatic to say at 3:10 "was rejected outright" ... apparently the YF-23 and YF-22 were quite competitive with each other, and the debate still rages to this day whether the YF-23 should have been chosen instead. Various reasons were given for choosing the YF-22 over the YF-23, and on forums people even debate whether those reasons are valid. I personally think that the YF-22 was marketed better.

The new Suhkoi stealth fighter for domestic & export use, the Checkmate, could have been beaten by Boeing’s Bird of Prey. Cost effective as hell in today’s defense dollars! Great channel & just joined! Thanks Sandboxx!

This is an incredible looking aircraft, compared to the current stable of stealth aircraft it's a huge leap in aircraft design. It doesn't matter that it never took off (no pun intended), it is a fantastic look into how modern aircraft designers think .... I love it.

@wi5i413

2 жыл бұрын

New drones take a lot of inspiration from this design from a looks perspective

The Bird Of Prey looks Ike the VTOL elements used in the F-35 or even Harrier could be incorporated. It would need to incorporate a large by-pass which draws air from the top of the fuselage. But then you would need to have a large budget.

@carlosandleon

2 жыл бұрын

You don't necessarily need vtol

@isodoublet

2 жыл бұрын

VTOL would kill this design honestly

Great video! Thanks!

This explains the "tic-tac" UFO of the Nimitz Encounter.

What a damn cool looking aircraft!

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

DARTH how you been. Ya its something when they can get a sphere to fly now look a flying sphere.. Alien Alien LOL

I was expecting some hypersonic, sleek stealth fighter. Boy was I wrong...Bring back the SR71 Blackbird that can cruise at 80,000 Feet at over 2000 Miles Per Hour. It drank fuel like Otis drank Moonshine, but hey, what do you expect. I think the Blackbird was a spyplane more than anything, and we now have space technology for that...The Blackbird could out run, and fligh higher than a SAM could go, so it probably didn't need any weapons.

Saw it in person at Wright Patterson. Very impressive!

That was really interesting, thanks👍.

Excellent episode, my brother! So how effective was it’s stealth or at least an estimate! :)

@stevel1475

2 жыл бұрын

A read in a magazine if I still remember correctly an F22 measures out to be a golf ball size on radar. But something going thru the air a few hundred mph that small is a dead giveaway. Very impressive indeed thou. The Germans had a stealth plane(Horten 229) made out of wood. Most likely the father of the US B1 bomber.

@jly74

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevel1475 B-2

I love it! I wish they'd take the design and improve upon it.

It is the beauty and ingenuity of fighter aircraft design and its unpredictable aesthetics.

Phantomwerks brought back Some Buck Rogers vibes... Looks like Hawk's Plane as well... That may have been the Bird of Prey as well

Interesting shape, but with a max speed "slower than a C 130 Hercules" and max. ceiling "less than half as high than a P 51 Mustang", it is understandable the effort ended up in a museum. Having said that, lower prices / airplane certainly has become a serious issue by now, since prices have become so outlandishly high, planes so complex, maintenance so expensive. A "battle of England" scenario with Poles and Czechs replacing quickly shot down British pilots and new Spitfires those that didn't came back is no longer an option.

As a 3d modeling student I can see why they use a computer to test this bird. This is way more stealthy than normal said stealth planes because think about the years ahead it was and the time it took to build it. It's a money saving tool the taxpayers are getting ripped off by higher prices for stealth.

The more you know 👌 Thanks Alex

Stunning design.

I fell in love with that plane when I saw it in the Air Force Museum. It's so tiny, like a rich man's toy.

And think about where classified stuff is at today, and I'm sure we've already got another airplane to replace the F-22.

Excellent video about the stealth fighter that most have never heard of ... sounds like a success story to me!!

Another awesome video 👏👏👏

It's almost like requiring companies to produce a working product _BEFORE_ you pay them gives them a much better incentive to control costs. Imagine that.

@LRRPFco52

2 жыл бұрын

For aircraft that have actual relevant performance (payload, climb rate, speed, range, sensors), it would bankrupt a company. Bird of Prey was a catch-up game for McD/Boeing to go through growing pains they weren't well-versed in as an organization. Lockheed had been developing and producing stealth aircraft since the 1950s. The first operational stealth aircraft was the single seat CIA A-12 spyplane in 1963, which evolved into the USAF RS-71A 2-seat spyplane that carried more side-looking cameras and sensors.

That’s what’s going to be key in future aircraft. To be able to knock down costs AND being able to jump steps to get a working prototype in the air in little time to jump start production. I believe this will be a big piece in keeping up with China and hopefully deterring aggression. With new technology coming out rapidly due to new missile or space programs I think we’ll hopefully see a big leap in technology so keeping down costs will be the difference between having 200 B-21 bombers or 60. Just like every other big projects they end up cutting down the order of planes or whatever the project is and then later kick themselves in the ass for not having what we need five years after they cut the production of the project.

@zackthebongripper7274

2 жыл бұрын

We used to do all that in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

@jfangm

2 жыл бұрын

The military industrial complex thrives on budget overages.

@cjwrench07

2 жыл бұрын

The costs of today’s aircraft is not bad at all, when you compare them to other fully costed out aircraft programs. *excluding the B-2 and F-22 which had their production runs cut drastically shorter than expected* The whole “The F-35 is the most costly aircraft program in history” bylines are mostly junk. Even this video had to exclude the F-35 A & C models, because they are cheaper to buy&fly than the Rafales, Eurofighters, Gripen NGs, and F/A-18e/f’s of the last generation of jets(that they easily beat in war games). The B-model is also slightly cheaper *adjusted for inflation* than the costs the Marines were going to incur by trying to build brand spanking new Harriers, and it could only include 1/4 of the advanced tech of the F-35B. If the F-15 was costed out the exact same way as the F-35, like counting the +18yrs of technology development money the DoD put into it before IOC, and every possible upgrade for the entire fleet until it’s retired in the 2040s. It would already *adjusted for inflation* have cost taxpayers over $1 Trillion dollars. And, that’s not counting the newly planned idea to fully upgrade them again, and fly them past the 2040s essentially as piloted Armed-Drones. Costs have been kept low. The only difference is these days you hear publicly about more of the total money spent. The B-21 is nothing like the B-2, because it isn’t being designed to survive dropping free fall nuclear weapons on the most protected 300mile circle in all of history, and then having that mission be cancelled just as it started to be built.

@jfangm

2 жыл бұрын

@@cjwrench07 LMAO No, it isn't bunk. The F-35 project has costed American taxpayers over $1 TRILLION, and it still isn't finished. The aircraft is nowhere NEAR combat ready, due to constant software updates, and isn't capable of performing any of its specified tasks. The F-15, F-16, F-18 are far superior to the F-35 in every regard, including cost.

@cjwrench07

2 жыл бұрын

@@jfangm No , the F-35 project has *NOT* cost us taxpayers $1 trillion dollars so far, because the *entire* acquisition process for the ~2600 aircraft is only going to cost a total of ~$604 billion according to the GAO. A total of which, we’ve only spent ~400 billion so far. With the A model already seeing combat in 2018, and the B & C models whooping all the domestic and foreign competition, in up to 2 vs 16 competitions when the F-35 isn’t forced to wear the special stealth-destroying radar reflectors for “fairness.” You are either getting numbers mixed up, or you have been fed misinformation and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The “$1.4 Trillion cost” is for *the entire lifespan of the ~2600 aircraft including all future upgrades up to 2070* But, it does not discount the $400 Billion we will save for retiring the *more expensive to buy and fly* F-16 Block 50/52 and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets as they are replaced in service, and it’s not discounting the tens of billions so far in foreign investment and sales. You really need to actually read the unclassified parts of GAO reports yourself, and not rely on some news pundit or a biased foreign source to get your information. Congress ordered a brand new means of accounting which we have NEVER measured any military platforms cost before in the history of the US Military. The brand spanking new, and insanely revolutionary hot cores, of the “Adaptive Cycle Jet Engines” that are going in the F-35, but also the Future Vertical Lift program(replacing ALL current helicopter types used by the US Mil), the 6th Gen Fighter(the F-15 & F-22 replacement), the B-21 Raider, and basically every jet/turbine powered aircraft for the next 50years. Well, Congress decided to add 100% of that program’s cost *solely* to the F-35’s total budget, and is not on the FVL program’s budget at all; like it’s totally free new next-Gen technology for those currently flying prototype aircraft. Along with their version of the F-35’s DAS, the Above Top Secret version of the F35’s metallurgical advancements [only 16 people in the entire USA, never including any US President, have clearance to be in the same room as the special reconfigurable $30 billion press that makes every single F-35 forward bulkhead; which is 1/6th the weight of the material used in material used in the F-22 per the same strength required ]. The B-1 bombers would no longer be a $1.1 billion per aircraft fleet, but a $18.9 Billion per aircraft (if fully retired by the mid-2030s, with no more upgrades) using the exact same measurements. The M-16/M4 rifles would be a $500 Billion program, only up to 2020, going by the same accounting, because the F-35 budget also includes All estimated parts usage present & into the future; and all integral(gun) ammunition planned to be produced for the program over the platforms lifetime. I could go on forever to at minimum quadruple the claimed cost of *every single weapons platform* the US has ever bought or plans to buy, and all I have to do is is the exact same accounting method the Obama-era *Republican controlled Congress* forced the DoD and GAO to use for the F-35 program for political gain. And, which the Russian troll farms pounced on to spread to try get this revolutionary aircraft program cancelled; because their paymasters knew they couldn’t afford to research & buy their own stealth aircraft. [ They have “delayed indefinitely” their contract for the Su-57 at the 24 already partially lost for; and their 50/50 partner India has completely stopped their half of the investment since the aircraft didn’t live up to its claimed performance specs)

Great video!!

Great vid. This is the kind of content that earns and keeps subscribers.

It's interesting how advancing technology makes an excellent performing aircraft obsolete in the near future. The P-51 was the height of propeller driven fighters but was supplanted by emerging jet technology. Just amazing bird but no place for it in the modern battlespace. The F-86 Sabre...last of the gunfighters. Beautiful but no place for it in the missile age. Jumping ahead to the F-15 that has performed so masterfully for many nations. Yet, Stealth has become table stakes and she's destined for museums before too long.

@larrywaybright8758

2 жыл бұрын

Yet the USAF is getting 144 F-15EX. Not for museums.

@kameronjones7139

2 жыл бұрын

@@larrywaybright8758 ironically it is mostly just a missile/bomb truck. It's original purpose of being an primary air superiority fighter is just a secondary role

@richarda996

2 жыл бұрын

What about the skyraider in 1960’s in Vietnam

@chrishooge3442

2 жыл бұрын

@@richarda996 Niche utilization.. much like the O-1 Bird Dog. Neither can contribute to Air Supremacy or Air Superiority. Also, I don't include the real sign of a dominant air power...Air Transport capability. The US is alone in it's ability to transport personnel and equipment around the globe. It's entirely dependent on our ability to dominate the skies. I respect CAS...but it only follows after you dominate the airspace.

@jamesmaddison4546

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrishooge3442 Exactly

As far as the "F" Fighter designation story goes, the Airforce wanted to attract the best experienced fighter pilots to apply for the program, then skill them in flying the cutting edge tech bomber. I don't know how true this story is, but because its a one pilot bomber, the first ever, it makes sense.

@mikesanservino8306

2 жыл бұрын

It was not the first single seat bomber at all. The A-7 is an example of single seat light attack bombers that the AF flew for decades.

@DeepPastry

2 жыл бұрын

Not a "story", it's a fact. Under the regulations set forth by congress, it should in fact be the B-117. But a super light bomber is not the type of aircraft anyone would think they'd want to fly. The thing could carry 25% of the weight in bombs that the A-7 carried. So not even a real capable light bomber. However, being super secret gave it the option of ignoring the rules and pretend it was a "fighter", just to keep its actual functionality obscured. Which helped get pilots, since they didn't learn the truth until after they had already joined the unit.

@LRRPFco52

2 жыл бұрын

F-117A had a classified Air-to-Air mission of anti-AWACS using AIM-9L/M carried inside the weapons bays, with a hung-in-the-wind scissors rail. This was recently revealed in a pilot interview on The Fighter Pilot Podcast. F-111and F-105 were dedicated strike aircraft as well, never meant to engage flying targets, though the F-105D and F shot down 26 MiGs in Vietnam, 24 with the M61 20mm, and 2 with AIM-9s. F-105 was a tactical nuclear strike fighter. F-111 never shot anything down, still nomenclatured as a fighter.

Beautiful looking aircraft.

That's one fantastic looking aircraft.

If they did this 20 years ago, Im really excited to see the 6th gen plane conceived the same way, computer designed

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

Look up ASTRA 3 SIDED TIME BENDER

@PinataBroken

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterparker9286 h guy I I g ui g iguana g g. U you

@PinataBroken

2 жыл бұрын

I’m I I I if g g I g. G. Get it on you. GgI’m just called. to be. G. is is that. he g. be be. GI’m just. GI’m just called called for. Yea that’s x u uf r

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

@@PinataBroken English translation?

@BobbyV0221

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterparker9286 no doubt hey

9:48 "Not only had the Phantom Works team proven that they too could build a stealth aircraft, they had managed to do it all for under $67 million. Adjusted for inflation to today's currency that means that Weichman's Phantom Works successfully designed prototyped and flew a clean sheet stealth platform for around $111 million or less than the cost of a single F-35B today." Simply amazing.

You never tell your enemy what you are up to.

Fascinating!

Lockheed Martin: *Develops a stealth fighter which program costs more than an entire nuclear powered fleet carrier and took more than a decade to complete* Boeing: *Builds a stealth aircraft with the entire cost of the program being less than the price tag of a single fighter from Lockheed Martin's program* if that's not budgeting, I don't know what is.

@zee-vc5wl

2 жыл бұрын

Government funding vs private funding lmao

@zonacrs

2 жыл бұрын

Boeing just bought McDonnell Douglas and promptly started re-naming everything. This was developed by McDonnell Douglas. So were the F-15 and F-18. Among others.

@LRRPFco52

2 жыл бұрын

JSF development costs involve 3 different airframes to be produced by the thousands, with a spyplane and EW bird set of sensor suites, heavy payload capacity, significant combat radius increases over legacy, and supersonic speeds. Comparing those with a technology development demonstrator powered by a tiny business jet engine isn't really meaningful.

@kameronjones7139

2 жыл бұрын

That is an extremely narrow and biased way of looking at that situation

@johnh2410

2 жыл бұрын

My 5-year old daughter's Barbie Power Wheel Jeep costs A LOT less than my BMW. It's also less capable......

Unfortunately, the Boeing of those times is long gone.

@CoffeeMug2828

2 жыл бұрын

Boeing had been completely focused on commercial jets which they saw more profitable since other companies outperformed them most of the time.

@mitchellcorona8

2 жыл бұрын

@@CoffeeMug2828 Boeing quality and reliability was destroyed when people from the military side got involved in the civilian market business.

@dennispike8256

2 жыл бұрын

Now it's about the money !!!

Another great video, thank you! Also I will look for the book you mentioned and check it out. I’m happy to help support any vet or LEO ( I am one, 😉) thanks for giving me the opportunity to do so. Take care!

Excellent work.

Bird of Pray may have been cheap and built relatively fast (although I wouldn't call 5 years from the start of the program to the first flight fast, both Raptor and F-35 reached that phase sooner), but Boeing's ability to build new platforms for the USAF was surely busted with their disastrous KC-46 Pegasus tanker program. And KC-46 is not some cutting edge stealthy aircraft with never before seen technology incorporated in it. No, Pegasus is the redesigned 767 airliner with the refueling boom being manipulated with a joystick from the station with a camera replacing the operator's eyes. And the aircraft is still massively over budget and behind schedule. One could only imagine how would their aircraft that entered the JSF competition and lost to Lockheed, perform? But let's be honest here. There was one great advantage that Boeing's X-32 had over Lockheed's X-35. Any enemy's pilot would be distracted with laughter and wonder after seeing that abomination flying towards him. This could have been the tactical edge of F-32 over the current F-35.

This airplane reminds me of the P-51 Mustang. It started off with a weak engine. It was married to a powerful British engine, and that airplane took off with a totally new attitude. It became one of the best fighter aircraft of WW2. Yeah, for your own info, look that up. Why waist money, we already have the best fighter.

Right on great video

You just have to admit this was a beautiful bird very futuristic looking especially at the time I tried to build an RC model of it I am afraid it didn’t fly very well the CG was critical I can only get it to fly it all by making it terribly nose heavy and thus it didn’t maneuver very well at all

America's not still struggling to learn how to design an aircraft for less money they're not supposed to design one for less money cuz it's all about the money

@deltavee2

2 жыл бұрын

America, unfortunately, is a country that is all about the money and everything else be damned. That "ethic" is currently destroying the country. Not the pandemic, not the Moron Trump and his stuffed zombies, not the ineffectual Democratic Party...just plain, filthy greed, high and low.

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

@@deltavee2 One persons opinion on which you are entitled to. Unfortunately you have alot to learn.

@deltavee2

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterparker9286 Mmm no, Spidey. I have more than enough time on-planet to assemble a reasoned approach and I'm not American. Tighten up your writing skills, Peter. They affect how you are perceived and therefore reflect on your logic as well.

@dumdumbinks274

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, it's just that their political system fucks everything up. It's too reliant on money to the point that political decisions can easily be made based on who gets paid. A military contractor that realises this is absolutely going to try to make it as difficult as possible to cancel the project, hence Lockheed's handling of the F-35 by spreading it's production over many many states.

@peterparker9286

2 жыл бұрын

@@deltavee2 U be fulla the sheet I dont kare if your purple yellow black white. Out of American or in American this or that but some of the very smartest and hands on people are horrible at grammar. Trump is no Moron and this is where I have the issue, for I stand behind him and his America Agenda. Chyna can have there plastic because I am not interested. Yes money is the root of evil we know this but just dont single out One person because we all have a part in the big Game. Be well with yourself. Dont let the webs of Darkness ensnare you. Spidey out

Amazing how Boeing can achieve such heights, especially given their initial version of the 737 Max.

7:09 all I want is a sticker of that emblem !!!!

The term is no "budget busting", a "budget buster" would be the USN LRLAP, which went from a manufacturer's estimated cost of $35,000 to an estimate of $1,000,000 per projectile at the time production was about to start. That is why there is no AGS/LRLAP system for the Zumwalt class destroyers. The Bird of Prey here is an example of doing the job on a "shoestring budget". Which is an exceedingly rare occurrence in US military acquisitions.

I don’t think you know what “budget busting” means; It’s the polar opposite of cheap.

@A.H.Wootz.

5 ай бұрын

If a fight jet's development cost 130mil which means it will cost 15 mil per jet which is cheaper than 1.2 billion

I remember a shoulder patch that was a fantasy sword hilt and dead ringer for this aircraft! The debate about the secret squadron was what they flew and if they were real

@timcross2510

2 жыл бұрын

I get a reply alert. But it doesnt show up. Typical.

Just a bit of information to fill people in. The F-117 had the F designation due to its role in large scale warfare to destroy enemy awacs aircraft. They had the ability to carry 2 heat seeking missiles to do the job. My source is the Fighter pilot podcast F117 episode. The F117 pilot talks about this designation and it's role in awacs destruction.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

8 ай бұрын

The F-117 had no means to detect AWACS and it even retracted the comms antennas when over enemy territory. The engineers were also skeptical about firing a missile because the rocket burn would scorch the RAM coating.

I am a boat builder. One of the greatest achievements of Black Widow is the ability to prototype a boat in composites, test and make corrections before an expensive production mold is made. This same technology can be applied to aircraft, respectively. Boat building has as much to do with aerodynamics as any aircraft with many contributing unpredictable factors acting against the design. Many techniques in high performance speed boat composite manufacturing prototyping can benefit the future of aircraft.

What a beautiful aircraft!

You don’t disappoint!

Gatta love the way Boing appropriated so many McD-D aircraft, space craft and associated projects and now act like they were theirs all along. Sure, McD-D went down some stupid rabbit holes and generally lost their way, but they did make some thruely awesome aircraft, like the F15 and the F-A18, that have outlasted the competition and will be flying long into the future...

Hello, 'Sandboxx', first time viewer of your channel ..... Great topic!! I'm actually a model builder and I have a 1/72 scale of this same 'Bird of Prey', but there was a LOT of info that I didn't know about. For one ( of many ), the desig of YF-118G! ( But Why 'G'.....if I'm not mistaken there are letters before that, so was there a YF-118 A, B, C, etc. [ Sounds like 'Scotty' asking the cmptr for the "USS ENTERPRISE, NCC-1701...no bloody A, B, nor C!"] ).

Thanks for the video! The Boeing Bird of Prey in news to me. If I saw that BoP over Groom Lake in 1996 I'd be yelling UFO to the high heavens. A great example of the post slide-rule era.

Such a cool looking plane!!

Man that thing looks lethal very cool.

What’s up with that Nellie Raptor’s “mirrored finish”? IRST defense?

SILENCE IS GOLDEN

EXCELLENT VIDEO

The first "Bird-of-Prey" seen was in TOS: "Balance of Terror" and was of the Romulan variety.

The actor playing Bidan is brilliant. He should get an Oscar for “Best Comedic Performance in a Presidency”. Bravo, sir!

The dorsal intake is such an obvious solution to minimizing detection by ground based radar, that I wonder why it wasn't used in any of operational stealth craft??

@spinzanti

9 ай бұрын

Not good at high angles of attack because the engine wouldn't get enough air

6:47 looks like Rockey the flying squirrel 🐿️

Be interesting to see what influence this had on the development of Boeing's Loyal Wingman combat drones currently in testing in Australia.

I'd like to add that the F-117 carried the fighter designation to lure the best pilots