Jump to content

Talk:Long Range Strike Bomber

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for either a rename or a merge was reached in this discussion Crosbie 04:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this merger because the NGB program was superseded by the LRS-B program (colloquially known as Long Range Strike Bomber without proof). The article should also be re-names to LRS-B, LRS-B program or similar, unless evidence can be found that the official name is Long Range Strike Bomber--Petebutt (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Merge and Rename - These are not the same programs, and the merged articles would get too unwieldy covering the various incarnations which preceded the LRSB program. "Long Range Strike-Bomber" does appear to be official per this USAF source. - BilCat (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to merge, and there has been no discussion for two weeks. Does anyone object if I remove the merge tag? - 14:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Closed discussions should be marked with templates like {{discussion top}} & {{discussion bottom}} so it is clear that it is closed. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. I didn't want to appear to be closing off discussion - Wikipedia:Merging doesn't explicitly say how to close a merge discussion with no consensus. Does anyone object if I remove the merge tag and close the discussion? - Crosbie 03:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A fifth less payload and range than B-2

[edit]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/09/02/new-air-force-bomber-testing-stealth-wind-test/71572050/

Solid enough to add a spec block? Hcobb (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a program article; a specs table is not really appropriate. Info like this could be mentioned in the text. This info from some unnamed source could be speculative and inaccurate. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some items that are well known enough by now:
  • Very Stealthy.
  • Subsonic.
  • Next-generation Penetrator Munition, but not MOP.
  • JDAM(N), but not previous B61s.
  • Two crew
  • Smaller than the B-2.

Hcobb (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it does carry a MOP? https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-details-emerge-about-lrs-b-as-contract-announcem-416426/ Hcobb (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles don't give any reasoning or explanations for their specifications, hence, it's speculative. However, a few things are certain: it has to be able to fit and carry most anything available today plus a minor growth potential. It probably can fit and carry one MOP but this one-shot makes no sense in military terms. Could as well use a long-range missile; no need for a bomber. Therefore, it definitely will carry two NGPs instead. Since it needs a long bomb bay, the bay probably can be divided into two like on the B-1 for better ordnance flexibility. Since the bomber is going to be 'big' and due to the aerodynamic form it will have a cockpit regardless whether there are pilots or not. Quite a few more things can be certain about but these are definitively unavoidable as well as the minimum. Mightyname (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News source

[edit]

Here's a news source (Reuters) on the current situation with the high-priced (business as usual, for US defense porcurements from the Military Industrial Complex) bomber. The Great Debate: A $550 million Air Force bomber so good it will never be used, 22 October 2015. Includes a decent history of the procurement, inlcluding "in 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the bomber effort on hold; he cited the Air Force’s tendency to develop overly complex and expensive warplanes.", and a sourced statement of the "major warplane programs can take 20 years or more from contract to fielding." while a USAF General refers to "building affordably" at over half-a-billion dollars per airplane. You can't make this stuff up. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I removed the image of the "Boeing/Lockheed Martin 2018 bomber" since it was a proposal for a different program and since the image is already used on the Next-Generation Bomber. It will be better to have images from the actual program when they are released.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Thompson is still alive

[edit]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-usa-airforce-bomber-idUSKBN0TE05D20151125

Since I've sworn off BLP editing I don't know if I can touch this issue. Hcobb (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Develop mental

[edit]

The adjective used in the 1st sentence (merely) "Proposed" and following sentence regarding a former 2014 "Request For Proposal" should be updated to reflect the actual contract award (2015) and the "Developmental" stage/status of the bomber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is DLJ a reliable source on the B-21?

[edit]

https://twitter.com/SecAF23/status/703220450088751104/photo/1

Hcobb (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is DLJ? Is that a journal? -- AstroU (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is an official image at U.S. Air Force site. "Air Force reveals B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber". U.S. Air Force. February 26, 2016.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DLJ=Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force. Technically, a person is not a reliable source, only the medium that reports what they say. HCobb has a habit of adding statements/opinions by government officials which may not necessarily be important to the articles he adds them to. Asking if the person is notable is his way of trying to assert that the information is important because the person is an official of the government. In practice, it's a way of adding megabytes of information into an already bloated article such as the one on the F-35. To the point of his question though, Twitter isn't generally used as reliable source on WP, as there are usually better published sources available. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Wiki Rules

[edit]

I is not part of the LRS-B programme (British spelling) is is it.Phd8511 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your're asking/saying, as the sentence is confusingly written. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That means your English is terrible.Phd8511 (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means my ability to understand informal British English is terrible. :) Mah suthurn american english is purfect. - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New NEWS today, for future editing

[edit]

An extensive and informative article, with interesting short videos at the bottom. It also emphasizes the U.S. Airforce being more visible, for the battle in Congress for continuing funding, also very interesting. 

Headline-1: Everything We Know About The New B-21 Stealth Bomber And The Looming Battle To Build It

QUOTE: "The U.S. Air Force has given us our first glimpse of what will hopefully become American’s next stealth bomber. Originally designated the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), the aircraft will now be called the B-21. Why is this announcement today such a big deal? Because it’s as much about the B-21's struggle to even get built as it as about what it could mean for America’s defense apparatus." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.[reply]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/meet-b-21-bomber-formerly-known-lrs-b and this. Don't know why another article Northrop Grumman B-21was created. LRS-B simply has been formally designated.Phd8511 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because aircraft types and the programs that develop them are quite different. The program article generally deals with the development process that leads up to an aircraft's selection, usually through a competition, and often covers several types of aircraft. The aircraft article deals with only one specific type, and in the case of a modern US combat aircraft, will eventually get to be a very long article, such as with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Having a separate program article is a way of trying to keep the aircraft article focused on the aircraft itself. Examples of separate program articles are Advanced Tactical Fighter, Joint Strike Fighter program, Joint Primary Aircraft Training System, and Joint Combat Aircraft (technically a programme article). - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need Image of Boeing/Lockheed Martin proposed aircraft for this program

[edit]

I agree with ZiaLater in this discussion for removing "Boeing/Lockheed Martin 2018 bomber" because it was proposed for a different program. Boeing/Lockheed Martin did have a proposal for LRS-B. I think that a photo should be added showing the Boeing/Lockheed Martin proposal along with the current photo of the Northrup Grummann aircraft which has won the competition for U.S. Air Force funding.

At this location: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-01-18/us-air-force-committed-long-range-strike-bomber there is a blurred photo with the following caption: "Lockheed Martin produced this impression of a long-range strike (LRS) design for the U.S. Air Force in 2007, before a secrecy clampdown banned contractors from discussing the program in public." I think that this level of secrecy means that it will be difficult to find photos of LRS-B after 2007 unless specifically revealed by the U.S. government. I will add what I believe to be the photo of the Boeing/Lockheed Martin LRS-B based on a trade show photo. I will also add a photo of the trade show photo. That photo must have been taken before 2007. I will document the photos in the main article.Figlinus (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Carter

[edit]

There is something wrong in the "origins" section. It talks about Secretary of Defense Gates making a statement in 2009 and then it talks about "his successor, Ashton Carter" making a statement also in 2009. Ashton Carter didn't become Secretary of Defence until 2015. It may be that he made the statement in question in 2009, but he was not yet the successor of Gates (and actually, there were two more Secretaries of Defence between them, Panetta and Hagel, so it is somewhat confusing to refer to Carter as Gates's successor anyway). I'm not sure if the problem is just the wording or if the date is wrong or if someone else made the statement. I tried to follow the two links cited but neither seems valid any more so I can't fix it. Can someone who is more familiar with the facts please help? Sbreheny (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carter was previous an Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics from 2009 to 2011. The Defense News article is dead link and I can not find in on the defensenews.com site. I changed the article text to list 'Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition' to clarify things. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amortized cost

[edit]

This sentence doesn't make any logical sense:

By the time the research, development, and requirements processes ran their course, the aircraft, despite its great capability, turned out to be so expensive – $2 billion each in the case of the B-2 Spirit—that less than one-sixth of the planned fleet of 132 was ever built

The $2 billion figure is because of of the reduced procurement number, not the other way around. Imagine if you paid for the development of a new aircraft but then only built one of them- you'd end up pinning the entire the program cost on that one aircraft. In the B-2's case they only bought 21 of them. If they had purchased the originally planned amount, the per-aircraft cost wouldn't have been nearly as high.

Confusing tense in lede/infobox

[edit]
  • LRS-B is a development and acquisition program --lede
  • Date [program] concluded 27 October 2015 -- infobox

Rewording needed! --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Date in the Infobox goes with the Outcome field right below it. Text has been adjusted to clarify. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Long Range Strike Bomber program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Long Range Strike Bomber program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long_Range_Strike_Bomber&oldid=1198061491"