Talk:Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Edward the Confessor leaked the compressor[edit]

Possible top secret "Gowadia bend" cross section of the B-2 Spirit bomber has been leaked by Ed ex-NSA Snowden of Russia, via Germany's Der Spiegel newspaper:

http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35687.pdf

Not high resolution, but pic still recognizable. 82.131.221.237 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Next contract (new version?)[edit]

U.S. Air Force Secretary Deborah James on Monday said a contract for a new long-range bomber would be awarded soon, and the project would not be considered a "new start" program ...

Headline-1: Contract for new U.S. long-range bomber due soon: Air Force secretary

QUOTE: "Northrop Grumman Corp, maker of the B-2 bomber, is competing against a team made up of Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp for a deal that could be worth $50 billion to $80 billion to the winning bidder." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing, from a Reuters story.

Wrong article. This should be covered at Long Range Strike Bomber, not here. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There is enough overlap that B-21 information needs to be in both articles. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Only if there is more substance than the similar appearance or configuration of the two aircraft. There are not many ways to do a stealth flying wing type design. -Fnlayson (talk)
To clarify, the program officially started in 2012, so was not considered a new-start program for 2015:
"James said the bomber program would not be subject to a ban on new program starts that would take effect if Congress passes only a year-long continuing resolution for fiscal 2016, instead of a budget, since the program official[ly] began in fiscal 2012."
It doesn't mean it's a continuation of the B-2 program, which is what Charles appears to be saying here. That would.have been true even if the B-21 had been the Boeing-LM entry. At this point, nothing substantive about the NG entry has been released, so we don't know how closely related to the B-2 it is. The B-21 is probably a wholly new design that looks like the B-2, but we (the public) honestly don't know. - BilCat (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. All I'm doing is watching the Superbowl ad. Obviously, they'll build on prior success/technology. Yes, there will be similarities and differences in (1) science, (2) contracts, (3) marketing, (4) Etc/Other. ... Bottom Line: I agree; we'll see. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) PS: In any event, it should and must be better in an increasingly interesting scenario.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Correctness of Introduction Page[edit]

“B-2 is the only acknowledged aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration”, is that still true?

Joint Strike Fighter Can Carry Raytheon Joint Standoff Weapon Internally according to http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16369. --Denev2004 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

HTML Errors found by HTMLTidy[edit]

I don't have time to fix these. Find HTML Tidy at http://binaries.html-tidy.org/, or use Notepad++ with the Tidy add-on. Futurepower(R) (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

HTML Error Messages

line 1034 column 1 - Warning: inserting implicit <ul> line 1034 column 1 - Warning: missing </ul> before <div> line 1185 column 3 - Warning: missing </div> before <ol> line 1186 column 3 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1190 column 3 - Warning: missing </div> before <ul> line 1194 column 3 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1203 column 3 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1203 column 49 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1203 column 95 - Warning: missing </div> before <table> line 1310 column 1 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1311 column 33 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1311 column 69 - Warning: missing </div> before <ul> line 1311 column 1365 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1311 column 1371 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1312 column 57 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1313 column 17 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1316 column 3 - Warning: missing </div> before <h2> line 1319 column 25 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1320 column 73 - Warning: missing </div> before <ul> line 1323 column 41 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1324 column 73 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1325 column 81 - Warning: missing </div> before <ul> line 1328 column 41 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1330 column 73 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1331 column 33 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1332 column 81 - Warning: missing </div> before <ul> line 1335 column 41 - Warning: discarding unexpected </div> line 1337 column 81 - Warning: missing </div> before <form> line 1340 column 49 - Warning: missing </form> before <div> line 1342 column 221 - Error: discarding unexpected </form> line 1342 column 228 - Error: discarding unexpected </div> line 1342 column 234 - Error: discarding unexpected </div> line 1342 column 240 - Error: discarding unexpected </div> line 1342 column 246 - Error: discarding unexpected </div> line 1343 column 3 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1343 column 27 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1343 column 65 - Warning: missing </div> before <div> line 1343 column 92 - Warning: missing </div> before <form> line 1343 column 125 - Warning: missing </form> before <div> line 1344 column 49 - Error: discarding unexpected </form> 278 warnings, 22 errors were found! Not all warnings/errors were shown.

  • Thanks but we dont have any control over how the page is rendered in HTML as it is edited using a Wiki markup. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms?[edit]

Read today in the Times the B-52 is still in use because the B-2 is so fragile?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/b-52s-us-air-force-bombers.html

The unexpectedly long career is due in part to a rugged design that has allowed the B-52 to go nearly anywhere and drop nearly anything the Pentagon desires, including both atomic bombs and leaflets. But it is also due to the decidedly underwhelming jets put forth to take its place. The $283 million B-1B Lancer first rolled off the assembly line in 1988 with a state-of-the-art radar-jamming system that jammed its own radar. The $2 billion B-2 Spirit, introduced a decade later, had stealth technology so delicate that it could not go into the rain.

“There have been a series of attempts to build a better intercontinental bomber, and they have consistently failed,” said Owen Coté, a professor of security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Turns out whenever we try to improve on the B-52, we run into problems, so we still have the B-52.”

. . . .

Next came the B-2 stealth bomber in 1997. But the B-2, with its delicate radar-evading coating, had to be stored in a climate-controlled hangar to be effective, and its sensors at first could not tell a storm cloud from a mountain. It soon became known as the $2 billion bomber that cannot go out in the rain.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.162.114 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal reveal of the more modern B-2, the B-21[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.

Revision of edit on crew[edit]

Fnlayson, my edit was correct; the Aircraft Commander is not the copilot and is not listed second. The AC is not only the pilot in command he is the primary pilot occupying the left seat, in the Air Force the copilot position is referred to as "pilot". I was an aircrew member in the USAF for 15 years so I know of what I speak, you will also note this is consistent with listings on other aircraft articles. Yet another example of wiki editors not knowing their subject matter.Bob80q (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice edit Bob80q. In many ways, this is another example of wiki editors collaborating in our manner of "bold, revert, and discuss"; to ultimately reach the correct answer. I have a question you may also know, of experience; so I ask: can one pilot fly the B2 allowing the other to leave the controls, perhaps even to sleep, or does the B2 predominantly require two pilots to work the controls in concert, with minimal exception? Furthermore, If I may, of the two pilots, is the Aircraft Commander always the one senior in rank, or is it possible that the AC could at times be junior in rank; but in command? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

John the answer is yes, because like most aircraft it is on autopilot while at cruise altitude it only requires one pilot to be monitoring the controls but obviously at critical times like takeoff, landing and making a weapons drop it requires both pilots. FAA rules only require 1 pilot to be at the controls at cruise altitude on commercial and private aircraft as well; when I was flying on C-130 and C-141 aircraft it was very common to only have 1 pilot at the controls at cruising altitude while the other was eating or sleeping, on longer missions we would carry augmented crews so 1 pilot could sleep while another was at the controls.Bob80q (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bob80q, I appreciate that information. I am further curious; did you miss the second question? Or was I not sufficiently clear in its asking? I'll rephrase it in case I was. Of the two pilots, is the Aircraft Commander determined by seniority of rank or is it an assignment based on some other factor like most skilled, most knowledgeable, or some other quantifiable skill set where it could occur that the Commander is junior in grade but senior in authority by virtue of a Command status. For example, in my last assignment, I was an instructor at the NCO Academy. My position as a group leader often placed me senior by my place in the chain of command over students, often senior to me by rank or time in grade. Special operations is another example where one quite junior in grade can have command authority based on the uniqueness of the mission and specialized training, For example: a Spec4 could have Command over a LTC. How is Command determined on the B2? Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

references[edit]

107 Radar, Cordless. "RAND Report Page 37". Flight International. Retrieved 2010-12-16.

 cannot be accessed

108 "VI - STEALTH AIRCRAFT: EAGLES AMONG SPARROWS?". Federation of American Scientist. Retrieved 2008-02-21.

  points to a lot of stuff where I cannot find what I need

pietro151.29.249.152 (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)