Talk:Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Information Availability

Why is so much information on a high-security plane such as the B2 available on a public domain such as wikipedia? Surely, the Russians, Arabs ,Chinese and Koreans must have access to wikipedia! Personally, I think that this sort of information should be censored 157.190.228.23 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like bait or something. What info listed is so sensitive? The info comes from public sources like books and so forth. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The USAF recognized that the existence of a stealth aircraft would cause our enimies to start work on countermeasures. All the possible methods of stealth were well understood before the projects started. Implementation techniques have remained secrete and certain methods have not been revealed. One of the reasons that the F117 was retired was that its stelathyness was not that good from certain angles. Even though the B2 is more stealthy than the F117, a reason for not making more , was that once it was revealed, the USAF realized that enimies would develop measures for detection. The operational sacrifices of F117 and B-2 in order to be stealthy have not been made in the F22 as performance was more important than stealth. Neither the F117 nor the B2 can go supersonic, a requirement for the F22. Where stealth can be added without operational sacrifices, it makes sense as in the stealth added to F/A-18 E/F.

Those of us who have the privileged of knowing still classified and unpublished aspects about the B-2, don't reveal them. Saltysailor (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As the Russians have the parts of the F117 wreck from Yugoslavia, the US had to fear that the new AA missles from Russia will have capabilities dangerous for the F117. When the first B2 is taken down this will also happen there. And with the excessive use of US Bobers through out the globe this will hapen some day.--Stone (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't shooting it down, it is how to detect and track it. How you do this is well known. Of course you need the resources to do it. My guess is that the F-117 was shot down using bistatic radar. Bistatic radar doesn't work will against high flying B-2s. Saltysailor (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

- The F-117A shot down over Serbia was taken down using an old long wavelength targeting radar that had been modified by the missile battery's Hungarian commander. The commander noted that F-117A missions generally flew the same routes over and over, so he kept his missile battery on the move to avoid being destroyed, and had an observer near the airbase call him if he spotted any F-117A's taking off. Using this information he was able to calculate when the aircraft would be about 10 miles away, and at 8 miles out he lit up his targeting radar and got off two missiles, one of which hit the Nighthawk. At that distance and speed the F-117 pilot had about 12 seconds to react, though its doubted the F-117 has a radar warning indicator, and his reaction was probably to the actual sight of the missile's flame. The B-2 would be visible on a similiar targeting radar. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Flush toilet?

Can anyone provide the source for B-2 having a flush toilet? I remember reading that the crews took a chemical toilet on their long missions.B-2Admirer 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I remember it from some Discovery or History Channel thing. But I don't remember what it was Masterblooregard 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think there's been more than enough time to provide a source, so I'm removing the flush toilet from this article. I've not chosen my nickname for nothing. I've read quite a few books about B-2 Spirit, one of which provides a detailed description of its cockpit and nothing like a flush toilet is ever mentioned. Furthermore, a flush toilet in an aircraft like this seems just as likely as, say, a bathtub. B-2Admirer (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Without revealing any secrets, I'll ask you why anybody would put a toilet in the cockpit? --Asams10 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No accomodating quarters other than cocpit ever mentioned either. If you have a source for this flush toilet, then provide it. I personaly don't give a shit (pun) if it's gonna be in Wikipedia or not, I hardy found anything new in this article, so I'll just place a "citation needed" tag and hope that no one will be stupid enough to remove it without providing a credible source. B-2Admirer (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

After saying you were going to remove it a week ago, you've now placed fact tags? Btw, please be more civil - there's no reason to be insulting to make a point. Since you first questioned the toilet item in Sept 2007, you're as guilty as the rest of us (myself included) for not tagging or removing it sooner. Given that the items were first questioned in Sept, I've gone ahead and removed them. Smells too much like sneaky vandalism anyway - "prepares a hot meal"? I suppose next they'll claim that's why the USAF allows women pilots, huh? ;) - BillCJ (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ, you don't understand. I didn't insult anyone and I did remove, but Asams10 reverted, so I decided to place a tag because I had no desire to be engaged in an editorial war over such an unimportant subject.B-2Admirer (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I don't, especially since the whole point it moot now. - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd and academic exercise people. There, I took two minutes and found a source (looks like it was plagarized from this article, but in fact it was plagarized FOR this article. The B2 has a flush toilet, get over it. --Asams10 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work everyone, the article in Air Force magazine has a delightful image: " Captain Paganoni noted that the B-2 does offer two amenities helpful in reducing crew fatigue on a long mission – the means to prepare a hot meal and a flush toilet." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

Of course it has a toilet! It's a bomber! Bomber sorties are loooooooooooong. Not like fighters, making frequent pitstops. 205.174.22.26 (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No flush toilet or crew comforts were provided by Northrop. There was an LA Times article that stated the crew chiefs put porta potties and lawn recliners on board. The idea being that one crew member could sleep in sleeping bag on the recliner. The article stated they got the stuff at Wal-Mart! Significantly cheaper than if we had installed at Northrop. Can't imagine what a mill spec flush toliet would have cost. Saltysailor (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a long range bomber, designed for extreme operational scenarios in a transcontinental total nuclear war with crews that trained for long duration flights, with mid-flight refueling, we're talking say, days in the air if necessary quite possibly...all of that is speculation, but if true, it would make sense to have a shitter. So if this is the case, it may reflect Cold War design. so bottom line, I would find this interesting and notable aspect of the design which has a historic context.Critical Chris (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it also has a jacuzi on board. cmon! stop the nonsense! of course it doesn't have any toilet. it's completly absurd. but if you still have some doubts please see a B2 cockpit. 84.39.103.178 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just updated the link to a 1996 article in Air Force Magazine where Captain Paganoni says there's a flush toilet aboard. I think he meant to say a chemical toilet... There's no way the aircraft has ever had a standard household commode with its weighty ceramic water tank etc. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"The crew members have room to stand and move about the cabin during long missions.[12][13] The space between the seats allows that they can lie down in the corridor, if necessary.[11] A small toilet and a galley are located behind the crew seats." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-32 A small plane like the SU-32 has a toilet. I don't see any reason why B-2 shouldn't have one. 84.39.93.141 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That particular paragraph beings "The Su-34's most distinctive feature is the unusually large flight deck. Much of the design work went into crew comfort." Note use of the term "unusually" - the 34 is an exception, not the rule. As to whether or not the sacrifice in weight for those features as opposed to extra fuel or munitions were worth it, well, only the Russian Air Force can answer that. Personally, I doubt it. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Where is the B-2 in any popular culture? Did I see it in Transformers(2007)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.144.73 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was used over Houston in Independence Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That was either a model or a CGI. The Air Force refused to participate in the movie because it referenced Area 51. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that it was the real thing, only that the design made an appearance in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That explains why USN/USMC F-18 "actors" were used to portray USAF fighters at "Area 51"! - BillCJ (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The B-2 Bomber was a prominent plot device and was shown upfront in the movie, "Broken Arrow" before it was put into active service. The movie showed one officer putting a gun to the other officer's head and hijacking the nukes. Kind of like what one person said above about the third seat. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

Broken Arrow featured a fictional bomber, the "B-3". The B-2 has featured in Cloverfield and The Sum of All Fears.Rasam 12:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasam (talk • contribs)

Espionage

I added a mention of the 1984 arrest of Thomas Cavanagh for trying to pass secrets to the USSR. However, it's under "Recent Events" and really needs to find a new home. I think a dedicated section like "Espionage" would be over the top, but where should it go? Just under "development"? Any thoughts are appreciated...

--KNHaw ^(talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, an "Espionage" section would be neither over the top, nor sensationalistic. It has a clear historical context within the development and maybe also the placement of the bomber into service, shit, maybe even today. As with other nuclear weapons programs that have deterrence ramifications, spooks, spies, whistle-blowers, call them what you want, they meddle on all sides. For an interesting read on this issue, check out the Mordechai Vanunu article.Critical Chris (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a fictional "B-3" in Broken Arrow. Cloverfield, and The Sum of All Fears both feature B-2s.93.96.174.68 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship?

Lot of time elapsed and still no official word on reasons of the disaster? This was a major roast of US taxpayer money, so people can expect to find a line or two about it on wikipedia. Did the mechanic failed to secure a bolt on the jet engine, did the anti-gravity wire in the wing strip, was it an aborted russian attempt to nick the plane to Anadir as a birthday suprise to Mr. Putin, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.18.103 (talk • contribs)

Patience two months is not a lot of time, the Safety Investigation Board have 30 days to report then a Accident Investigation Board is convened which can take up to 90 days. The SIB report is not public but the AIB will issue a public releasable report. So I suspect you wont hear anything until June. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are back on flying status as on last week."B-2s Back in the Air", Air Force magazine The cause of the crash looks to be with the flight control system but the investigation is still ongoing. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And another article on this: "B-2s return to flight after safety pause" -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any pictures? (Fair use has GOT to be applicable here since no one can take another picture of this one-time event). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The images on that article page list "U.S. Air Force photo/photographer's name". So those must be US-PD. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about photos of the crash itself. I didn't see any of those in the listed articles. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? It's called operational security, safety investigations, and national security. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's national security? Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and not all readers share my appreciation for Sam Adams, our revolutionary founding father, not the beer. For that matter, I suppose many in the Air Force don't either, yet I digress.Critical Chris (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Double-talk objected!/Sleep Cycle Research

> B-2 crews have been used to pioneer sleep cycle research to improve crew performance on long flights. <

I think we should call substance abuse substance abuse. The fact USAF does this still does not make use of meth-amphetamine and other mind-modification chemicals morally right or allowable. Whoever does that for whatever reason belongs in prison, period. Only genuine medical treatment warrants their use.

Besides, the very idea that pilots really "high" are flying such a huge bomb truck is frightening. People with drugged mind cannot be expected to make sound decisions, so how do you guarantee that laws of war and treaties will be kept, with potentially thousands of civilian lives at stake? 91.83.18.103 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Moral objections are not applicable here (WP:NOTCENSORED). Furthermore, there are many drugs which can be taken and can be mind-altering (morphine is one that readily comes to mind), but may have clinical and professional uses. That someone uses a drug does not make it abuse. An unintended use of such a drug can make it abuse. When used as intended, it cannot, by definition, be abuse.

For clarification, they are not "high" but alert. These drugs increase awareness and alertness, not give a high. They are not being used in the same quantities or methods as "meth".

In short, your moral objection is noted, but it is not notable, verifiable, or appropriate on this talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They want the crew alert, not jittery or high. They are probably given stimulants like caffeine pills or something stronger. Not likely narcotics in any event and this is with medical supervision. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed given "something stronger", but in doses far lower than necessary to be jittery or get a buzz. Though they might be narcotics (I'm not sure of the definition we're using here), they are not prescribed them in significant doses. In other words, it's a one time deal they are given to fly with on each flight, not a bottle to "use one of these when you have a long mission". — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite all of the squabbling over dosage and effect, whether the pilots are "tweakin' out" or not, realize that one does need to sustain significant and sustained blood levels of the stuff if you want to "fly" for days at a time. Yes, a certain level of alertness is in order, it ain't like a bartender counting the till with one eye open at 3:30 in the morning. That being said, operations jargon such as "sleep cycle research" might make instant sense to a DOD bureaucrat, but it can easily be un-encyclopedic to a layman reader. One doesn't need to file a FOIA request to find out about, and write about this topic. Personally, I feel it would make an interesting encyclopedic addition to the article, especially if crews are being juiced-up with stimulants like "Project X" chimps to test the outer limits of their mental stamina, especially if and where this research fits into the operating cost matrix for the program.Critical Chris (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added an internal wiki link on sleep deprivation. De-classified information on USAF sleep research may be quite encyclopedic and could make an interesting addition to this article. It may be a bit early for info on their use with this bomber's crews though.Critical Chris (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue

Image:B2PlanView.jpg, which is shown in this article, depicts a B-2 that's apparently blue. Would be nice in the caption to explain why it's blue and not gray. Tempshill (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the normal surface coloration. It looks a little bluer due to lighting and/or tint in the image. Frankly, not worth commenting in the caption. --KNHaw ^(talk) 05:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"WP:Air/PC" "Project Aircraft" not a definitive blueprint for this article

As this bomber has major implications to global nuclear politics, e.g. how a stealth plane can create a surprise first strike scenario that can eliminate an opponents capacity for a retaliatory second strike....It's addressed by the SALT and START treaties, is it not??? ...and astronomical costs to US taxpayers, well documented by the DOD and CBO, and a special encyclopedic significance as a pork barrel project which creates Military Industrial Complex manufacturing jobs in hundreds of Congressional districts...for these not insubstantial reasons, "Project Aircraft" should not be considered a definitive blueprint for this article. For example, consider how the guideline below (sorry about the shitty bullet point format) relates more to an editor writing about the gas mileage of a Cessna more than the operations costs of this nuclear delivery device programCritical Chris (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC):

Operating costs: "Information on aircraft operating costs should not be included in aircraft type articles, for the following reasons:" *"It violates Wikipedia is not a directory" * "Operating costs vary greatly in different parts of the world and even different parts of the same country due to differences in fuel prices, maintenance costs and hangarage pricing." * "Wikipedia is a world-wide project and US-centric, Euro-centric or other single country information should be avoided where possible. Providing good global operating costs is very difficult to do or source." * "Reliable sources are very hard to find that give reasonable numbers for operating costs. Both aircraft manufacturers and aircraft type clubs have their own reasons for publishing numbers that are unrealistically low." * "In 2008 fuel costs are increasing rapidly and this means that almost all published information will be quickly out of date, perhaps in as little as a week or two."Critical Chris (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Critical Chris (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 October 2008

Not sure what your point is do you have a problem with what has been written in the article about costs ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Other editors are referring to this as a guideline, see today's edit history summary. My main point is that this program is much more politically significant than other aircraft. "Project Aircraft" shouldn't be the definitive blueprint for formatting, etc, but merely one of many guidelines.Critical Chris (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris, like it or not this article is covered by WP:AVIATION. As such, guidelines fllowed for this article need to be standardized. If you do not like this, you are acting counter to the concensus that has been built there. To sway editor opinion in your favor, you should make your case on the project page. Then, if you don't get your way, concede your point. There is no purpose served by ignoring the fact that there are standardized ways of writing these articles and trying to make your case for an exception.

Further, this aircraft is NOT more politically significant. I'll play devils advocate for a minute for your amusement though. Let's say it's the most politically significant aircraft ever. (It's not, BTW. I'd say that the B-29, B-52, B-1A, V-22, and F-35 were all more significant). If it's that significant, what is the level at which an aircraft becomes significant? The XB-70 program costs EXPONENTIALLY more money per airframe in adjusted funds in both the USSR and here, however it doesn't need to be listed as an exception. Please argue your case on the project page first that the wording should b changed, otherwise you're not likely to get a one-by-one exception. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That this article falls under the scope of a WP project, which can serve to attract the collaborative contributions of other knowledgeable editors, doesn't supersede WP:STYLE and good encyclopedic writing. It's not that I'm implying WP project aircraft is full of bad writing, I'm not saying that at all. I can create Wikipedia "Project Pork Barrel" and write articles about earmarks, bridges to nowhere, and what not, yet its specific recommendations of style shouldn't be seen as a defining editorial document. All of my structural and layout edits should be encyclopedic and well-sourced in any event. Those guidelines might make the article more useful to some, but not all readers. What makes an article more useful to an avionics engineer might make it much less useful to a political science student for example. In the end, it's incumbent upon a collaborative editing process to ultimately refine an article to a point of greater utility to all of its given readers. Nukes4Tots you write: "Further, this aircraft is NOT more politically significant." The level at which an aircraft becomes politically significant, by just one measure, is how many times it begins popping up in the Congressional Record, Roll Call Newspaper, CBO White Papers, because of its cost. Among other criteria, I'd say these issues, and the programs' costs, give it some semblance of political significance that supersedes that of a lear jet.Critical Chris (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You've mentioned several criteria for significance. You're citing these criteria that you choose as reasons for this aircraft to be an exception to the guidelines of the project. Unfortunately, you're being subjective in the way you are selecting these criteria. That is compounded by the subjectivity of what you feel needs to be an 'exception'. Aircraft articles are standardized for the convenience of the reader. You read one article and want to compare two or more A/C models so you look at other articles. No matter how much you argue to the contrary, the B-1 is still an Aircraft. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not made or seen any comments about operating costs in this article. I've only mentioned WP:Air/PC with regards to section labels/layout. Some content on operating costs should be OK if there's a point made, imo. This is a military aircraft with 1 user, so it's different than the general aviation aircraft the operating costs rule was intended for. Discuss more at WT:Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Crash article

I think that the accident section is more than notable enough to be split into its own article, with just a short summary here. I searched for a separate article just to be sure one didn't already exist. Instead, I found 2008 Andersen Air Force Base B-52 crash instead. It's kinda odd that we have a crash article on one of the B-52s that replaced the B-2 in Guam after the B-2 crash, but not on the B-2 crash itself! - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Several other crashes have thier own article. Agreed. Put a jump under this article. The political and monetary nuances of this crash are largely irrelevant to the B-2 itself. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. The new article is at 2008 Andersen Air Force Base B-2 crash. - BillCJ (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Off to a good start with it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Somebody keeps removing any details of stealth technology from this page, including active cancellation jamming. Isn't it nice? 212.188.109.116 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the comment on the reversion: "rv: needs English Language ref". The cite wasn't in English. Citing a foreign language source in an English language article is worthless - a reader can't tell what the heck it means unless there's an English translation available. See WP:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. If a citation wouldn't hold muster in an article about Pokemon, why should it hold muster in this one? --KNHaw ^(talk) 04:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NONENG - editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Equal quality stuff just is not there. 212.188.109.116 (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In the case of something simple, this would be true. This isn't simple. The burdon of proof gets higher with the level of the claim. If I say, "Elvis fathered my baby!" then I'd better have some level of proof beyond a Yiddish BLOG entry. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Yiddish" eh? ....Ok guy.Critical Chris (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, the English-language sources are by and large sworn in (and can be prosecuted as well for even silly slips about ram handling). I'll have a look at translated articles, but sure you won't be satisfied either.212.188.109.32 (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Authoritative and verifiable sources. How about the Air Force, Northrop, or Honeywell? Aviation Week magazine? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Already outlined the reasons behind not hearing definitive statements from them. I give up, have it your way :-) Anyhoo, like the plane v.much. Hope we'll have another sleek and gracious bird by '18.212.188.108.246 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To anyone attempting to suppress encyclopedic information, please refrain from your nefarious edits. You will be eventually sniffed out and unmasked by the diligence and probative inquiry of many sharp editors watching this page. Also, to any editors, no matter your country of origin, consistent with Wikipedia principles and free association and free speech liberties as enshrined by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, please feel welcome to include constructive, well-sourced edits about this article...WP:NOTCENSORED controls here.Critical Chris (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As always, CC, on target and not a bit of bitterness. The fact is, this "enrichment" you speak of is not censorship, it's notability and verifiability. If you put unverified crap here, it'll get reverted. If you try to make something up or have weak support for it, it'll get reverted. Why? How about, uh, verifiability? If you put that rivet 36 outboard of WS 220 is 5/32" with a -4 grip length... IT'LL GET REVERTED! Why? Notability. You can print gigabytes of information about this plane that's all factual and verifiable, but it's not what goes here? Who decides? The community does... you, buddy, are NOT the community. You are a part of that community and your input is welcome, but you don't singlehandedly decide what goes here and what does not. You're guilty of what you are accusing others of... deciding what goes and what stays. Hey, little hint... stop bemoaning the fact that you aren't in charge and join the community. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Join "the community" eh? Not sure what "community" you're referring to. If you are speaking of the Wikipedia community, I guess I have to at least compliment you on minding your own edits. If you knew of my contributions to WP you might recapitulate a bit. I'm not sure what I've written to inspire your vitriol, I haven't decided "what goes and what stays." I'm merely encouraging other editors to collaborate freely, in the context of good edits of course. That being said, you raise a good point: a rivet spec on the port wing may not be notable, but "active cancellation jamming" might be. For example, details of the B-2's various countermeasures capabilities...to the the extent to which such details may affect issues of nuclear deterrence and global balance of power issues...we are talking about a nuclear delivery device here in terms of the aircraft itself...to that extent, certain aspects of the B-2's stealth capabilities may or may not be notable enough to warrant encyclopedic mention here. One thing to consider: many Wikipedia editors seek to frame a worldwide view of a subject. Remember that this isn't a mere Cessna 150 or even an F-15, it's a nuclear heavy bomber that could arguably be used for a surprise first strike nuclear attack, given it's low observable stealth technology. One could also argue it coud reinforce mutually assured destruction by guaranteeing an un-defendable retaliatory second strike. Back to notability, a political science professor, for example, may benefit from reading of details of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system the USSR installed around Moscow in the early 70's. Whether their system had enough speed and thrust to match our inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) might be notable encyclopedic information that warrants inclusion in the context of deterrence and public expenditure issues; the expensive development of such weapons systems, and how they were an albatross to the politburo might be useful to a scholar writing a paper in the context of how the Cold War came to an end. One can immediately jump to the paranoid "conspiracy theory" that 'so-and-so' is/are treasonously and intentionally intending to reveal information about the aircraft that will get our officers shot down on a sortie over the Green Zone, or anywhere else for that matter, or that the information could fall into Chinese hands. Likewise, one could also argue that Charles Manson Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi jumped to a paranoid conspiracy theory in terms of the way he analyzed the so-called treasonous context of the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq memorandum plan to fly a light blue aircraft at low altitude over Iraq to provoke Saddam Hussein to attack in his latest book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Yet I digress. All of this being said, many, but not necessarily any, --well sourced-- facts about this aircraft may be fair game for the article as far as I'm concerned. If it's been written about in a decent source, I'd be inclined to defend that edit in the interest of intellectuality, a better quality Wikipedia, defense against Tipperesque/Liebermanesque style censorship or other types of censorship, etc. Of course, on another level, yes many of us red blooded Americans have our own personal notions of patriotism and the greater good at stake here. In the final analysis, a collective, collaborative, well-written, well-sourced, encyclopedic article is what we all should be working towards. Consider that this article may need an entire section on nuclear deterrence ramifications before it approaches even Good Article quality.Critical Chris (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

TLDR. I did waste my time going through your edit history before I posted though. This is a post in-line with rumors of Alien spacecraft until you can provide a good source. Beyond that, you're wasting server space with this discussion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots I'm not providing any source because I'm not the one posting anything on these topics, which other editors seem to want to write about. I'm merely addressing your points and concerns of notability. That being said, I'd be remiss If I didn't remind you to WATCH IT! and be careful with your handling of others edits, and of your regard for the contributions of other editors. There are a variety of other editors on here, some newcomers, and you poor attitude which apparently compels you to make thoughtless comments such as "you're wasting server space with this discussion," can only serve to marginalize the collaborative editing process. Keep it up and you'll end up on WP:WQA and other noticeboards. I suggest you take a breather and return to the article when you are in a better frame of mind. Recommended reading:

I removed your condescending spam. If you're arguing for inclusion, PROVIDE A SOURCE FIRST, then we'll discuss the merits. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for an invigorating bike ride into the Oakaland Hills. I need to clear my mind.Critical Chris (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hat Note

Thank you IP editor 87.114.30.31 for the Hat Note redirecting "Stealth Bomber" to this article. Though it may be a "lazy reporter" name, I do believe it will help a researcher or scholar learn more about the B-2 as it's the only known Stealth heavy bomber to date...right?Critical Chris (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the new hat note, and initial consternation over the inclusion of "stealth bomber" in lead, I've gone ahead and removed that sentence from the lead.Critical Chris (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine to leave the Stealth Bomber mention in the lead just to say it's a nickname, like Huey, Bone, etc in other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-anti-establishment Focus

User Critical Chris has been engaging in a crusade against a neutral article by fighting to inflate the cost of the B-2 for his own political agenda. This edit clearly shows that his agenda all along has been to paint the B-2 as the quentissential example of government overspending. He cannot do that if the real cost and resulting benefit of the B-2 development and procurement program is deomonstrated. All of these entries have one common theme. They are also all from the radical left side of the political spectrum chuck full of conspiracy theories and hate. The bottom line is that the ATB was the right program at the right time. It served to develop stealth technologies now used in the F-22 and F-35 programs as well as a few you probably don't know about. It also produced a viable and robust produciton aircraft for a reasonable cost given the challenges in airframe, stealth, computers, avionics, and weapon system technologies, all of these things are ignored in your 'see also'. Your diatribe is about the politics of government procurement programs and is NOT relavant to the B-2. Since I can easily make the counter-argument that it WAS worth the costs, even for only 21 aircraft at $2.2B each, then your attempts to ramrod your opinion seem to lack a certain reality-based balance. Chris, I'd suggest you create your own little page where you can conspiracy-theorize all you want and leave this page to cover the facts of the aircraft, not just your opinion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A "crusade?" Please mind your own edits! I suppose you also believe Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) is also on "the radical left side of the political spectrum chuck(sic) full of conspiracy theories and hate" because he used his office as a bully pulpit to oppose this project. Bottom line here, despite our own political points of view (and we all have them), is to develop a factual, useful, article with a neutral point of view. The costs this program are absolutely relevant and way, waaaaay more notable in comparison to...say....the the costs of the DOD developing a new folding stock for a rifle if the rifle stock program only costs $700,000, or even $7.7 million. Your next point: "...airframe, stealth, computers, avionics, and weapon system technologies, all of these things are ignored in your 'see also'." Again, please mind your own edits, and include these topics in the "see also" section if you believe they are relevant to the B-2 and it's notability. It's --not-- incumbent upon me to do so. I have no objections to the inclusion of links to relevant scientific articles about low observable technology, for example, in the "see also" section, but that doesn't mean the onus is upon me.Critical Chris (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One more related point can you please educate me on how fiscal conservatism is either conspiratorial in nature, or radical left? And what do you mean by "hate?" If someone "hates" wasteful government spending, does that make one less credible in your eyes?Critical Chris (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're in the minority on both the "This article is all about the money" debate and also the "The See-Also section is for the expousing of my political beliefs" debate. I'm going to stop feeding the trolls. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Range

The article states U.S. Air Force .....lists the aircraft's range specification simply as "intercontinental", and goes on to say since many specific aspects of the aircraft's design remain classified. Then states that the range is Range: 6,000 nmi[50] (11,100 km, 6,900 mi). Surley this is just a guess then, given the earlier statement, should it not then say that it is just an estimate and not gospel? Yakacm (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The [50] is for the reference for that. That would be an estimate, I suppose. 6,000 nautical miles definitely is intercontinental. So it does not contradict the AF's range. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the USAF states approximately 6,000 nmi in the text of its B-2 fact sheet also. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically the range should be said as unlimited,due to it having areal refueling capabilities.--RCSonicjet (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

completely stupid. if you take that as true then any air refuelling capable aircraft as an unlimited range.

The general definition is based on the fuel the aircraft can carry. Besides listing "unlimited with refueling" or "limited only by crew endurance with refueling" does not provide any real useful info and implies tankers are readily available anywhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fnlayson these statements dont add any value - also note that aircraft need consumables other than fuel and the range will probably be limited by the need to change the lubricants in the engine. MilborneOne (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Change to lead

I've just tweaked the sentence in the lead on the B-2 crash to remove a redundancy and an inaccuracy. It was confusing to say that this accident was when a B-2 "crashed for the first time during Air Force operations" as there have been no previous crashes of B-2s being operated by other organisations. It was also incorrect to state that the crash "resulting in a loss of US$1.4 billion" as the aircraft had already been paid for and isn't going to be replaced directly so there were no extra costs to the air force - the crash will presumably save the USAF money as it will have one less B-2 to operate (eg, the USAF had to pay $1.4 billion for the aircraft, but it isn't out of pocket because its been destroyed). Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick, got your collegial note on my talk page. Though a good faith edit, I promptly reverted it because as you will see here in this edit, your sentence, with redundancies...I do believe you wrote "lost crashed" ...was just plain sloppy writing. To assert that that this --crash and burn-- represented no loss to the US treasury, is a logical fallacy; even if the aircraft were to be removed from Block 30 status in a arms reduction treaty the useful interchangeable parts alone on that aircraft represent hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and current year procurement cost, and then-year, interest-laden, Reagan (and Bush Sr.) administration deficit spending. That you might consider adding this to the article would constitute original research on your part as prohibited by WP:NOR. Also, take a good look through the article and you'll learn that this billion dollar bird is operated exclusively by the USAF, and not even by experienced Air National Guard units. All of the news articles refer to the B-2 costing about 1.2 billion to build. I submit, the crash of this aircraft represents a loss, irrespective of whether President Obama, and the Department of War, and our Congress intend to replace it. If you slip off your $14,000 road bike, and it is crushed and destroyed by a Light Rail train, it represents a loss to you on some level. Quite possibly, in the blink of an eye, in slow motion, you might experience a surreal moment of seeing a great opportunity cost, regardless of whether you have the money, or the fiscal will to replace it. -CriticalChris 11:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a good look through the Air National Guard article and you'll learn that the B-2 is operated by the 131st Bomber Wing of the Missouri Air Nat'l Guard (confirmed on Whiteman's web site). Also, your statement on interchangeable parts is a logical fallacy: having one fewer aircraft to support reduces the demand on the inventory of spare parts and maintenance items. Stating that no parts were recovered from the wreckage would be OR on your part: I could find no info since they examined the wreckage. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of external links

Some editing conflicts have emerged as to whether a set of particular links are appropriate. There are some basic criteria for the use of these sources of information, see: Wikipedia:External links. Basically, these "links" should conform to the following: 1. The external link contains further information that is accurate and on-topic. 2. The external link's information provides resources that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail. 3. The external link may include other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy, eg. information regarding the author of the work.

If the editors who are debating the issue using edit comments and edit/reverts, can now please direct their energies here as WP:BRD is now involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Not sure I have debated the issue as I only removed the link to an external image gallery soon after it was added, I also removed a similar link already in the article. Other editors have since reverted the removal/additions a number of times. My original point was that links to external galleries do not add any value to this article. The article has a reasonable number of images and commons has another 30 odd images. Apart from not adding any value to the article, Wikipedia is not a web directory to promote or increase the traffic to websites. In the more recent link they are all DoD images that could be if not already be uploaded into commons. The second link is just an amateur links page with DoD images. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mil, I only included you because you made the first edit comment that seemed to then engender an edit comment "warring" that should instead be directed to this talk page, as it is a content issue primarily. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

OK Understood. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As we have no further comments I will remove the two links as per my entry above. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are some further comments. These unique images are notable as they depict the USAF's stealth bomber and fighter flying in formation together, certainly something of interest to anyone who might find themselves on Wikipedia researching the subject. The link containing these images conforms to the criteria put forth at the beginning of this section in that, 1. the information is accurate and on-topic, 2. the images could not be added to the article as the total number would make this level of detail extreme. I do agree that the other link is extraneous. Therefore, one link was removed and one maintained. ViperNerd (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a lot more useful an exercise than strictly reverting and using edit comments? FWiW, although the comment isn't strictly about the development of the article, it is a stating of the obvious, i.e. that collaboration works better than confrontation. Bzuk (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As the link is one of links to be avoided #11 and ViperNerd thing they add value to the article perhaps the comprise is to add the official air force image gallery to the site http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=14 which has more than enough official images to cover any need. This would avoid linking and providing traffic to an amateur website. This would also give time for anybody who wants to to move some to Commons. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to be a reasonable compromise. ViperNerd (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Stealth technologies

One of the various features of the B-2 that I've heard of and heard be constantly repeated over the years is that the windshield is covered with a vapor-deposited gold coating, to reflect electromagnetic radiation. While this is a known stealth technology (see the last paragraph of the selected section), I have been unable to find any original source linking use of this coating directly to the B-2. Does anyone know any more about this? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference no. 5 is incorrect

The reference regarding the B2 crash in 2008 (reference no. 5) leads to an article that is unrelated to the subject. (84.208.93.198 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Stealth hangers

I'd love to credit the user who fixed this, but it was anon. Hcobb (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of Hastings?

All the B-2 bombers are named "Spirit of xxx" where xxx is the name of a state - except one that's named "Spirit of Hastings," according to [[1]]. Yet another web site says they are all named for states except for Spirit of Kitty Hawk and Spirit of America [[2]].

I suspect the latter is correct because it gives all the names and hull numbers. DaveCrane (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vectorsite.net is probably incorrect on this one. There is no "Spirit of Hastings". The first B-2 #82-1066 was named "Spirit of America" according to my Pace B-2 book, and the fas.org page. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting B-2 pictures

This link has a book with two interesting photos. One shows the B-2 cockpit's instrument panel and the other shows the stealth plane being assembled and the whole fuselage is pure white, with a lot of large, yellow marked, rectangular black patches on it: http://depositfiles.com/files/rcw4frdlv 91.83.15.117 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Top Speed ≥ Mach 1?

Coinciding with the announcement to some upgrades to the B-2's flight software, the Airforce released a picture of the B-2 apparently breaking the sound barrier (indicated by the shock collar around the craft). [3] This article is titled "Stealth bomber photographed breaking sound barrier", but later says "Its unmistakable teardrop profile is shrouded in the blur of a condensation cloud as it reaches high subsonic speed." I was under the impression that the appearance of a shock collar does indicate the breaking of the sound barrier, but, as I am not an expert in this field, I figured I should put this up for discussion. Does the Maximum Speed need to be updated to indicate that it might unofficially be able to break the sound barrier? --Logoskakou (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That could be a slight dive, which is a never exceed speed. Max speed is for level flight. That's not exactly a proper reference for speed either. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

that is a very famous image. though it's photoshoped. it's not real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.23.173 (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can tell, from the pixels. Seriously, though, all shock collars/clouding means is that the speed of sound is being exceeded locally. Remember those high-school explanations about Bernoulli's principle and how wings accelerate airflow on top? The plane can be going subsonic while the air passing over the tops of the wings is going supersonic, thus forming the shock clouds. I could see something whose stated speed is Mach 0.85 doing that under the right conditions. --The Centipede (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

S-300

Considering the possible air strikes agains Iran nuclear program , the B-2 would be the primary bomber to achieve this mission , can the B-2 survive the S-300 ?

If you want my opinion, though this question is slightly off-topic to the article itself, the B-2 wouldn't be risked, it's simply too expensive. They would deploy the same tactics they did against Iraq's Air Defense network in both Gulf Wars. This is using UAVs to recon the area from above, either it'll spot them or draw their fire, either one gets you a fix and it's a disposable UAV anyhow. Then simply bombard the area with artillary strikes, launch cruise missiles against the S-300 units themselves, or simply avoid the heavily defended pockets and go through holes that have been punched though already. The B-2 could be risked, and it may or may not be able to avoid detection, as I understand it could go both ways; but the US military simply isn't stupid enough to rely on the balance of fate or "whichever way the wind blows" and will deal with the problem in the most affordable, least risky way. Tossing the B-2 out there is one answer, but it isn't what they've done in the past, and there are better solutions. I would foresee a several-stage attack, one of the early ones being the clearing of most of the major AA threats before simply lunging at the bunkers. The B-2 would be quite useful for that, as it is properly equipped with the new Bunker-Buster weapon, but as said I wouldn't expect it to form the bulk of the attack, simply playing a key role at the right point. But as to if the S-300 can detect and shoot it down, I'm sure the Americans or the Russians would care to give indictations of anything not in their own interests! :D Basically, we can't tell the truth, but there's a fair chance the B-2 would be able to evade detection, weither this is by inherant design or the tactical deployment none here can say (even if they knew!). Kyteto (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"can the B-2 survive the S-300?" it depends on many many factors. but in some conditions the answer is a big NO. It can't survive. Sure you will see loads of USA bs saying it survives, but FACTS say it's not true. Read some stuff about S-300 and S-400 radars and you will learn more about it and you will understand why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.194.24 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that detailed MASINT and performance data and simulation results produced by Lockheed were available for public consumption on the internet. This is not a forum for discussion on the articles topic, and there is nothing in this domain available to cite. All your speculation.98.240.67.27 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Should "Stealth bomber" really redirect here instead of to "Stealth aircraft"? The B-2 isn't the only stealth bomber. I'll wait a bit and then change it if I don't get a response. Strange Quirk (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The B-2 has commonly been called the "Stealth Bomber", so redirecting here is fine. This was previously discussed some on the talk page (now at Talk:B-2 Spirit/Archive 2#Hat Note). What other bombers are truly stealth aircraft? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

While the Chinese are likely developing a stealth "heavy bomber," (does 42,000 in payload even make the B-2 that much of a heavy bomber?), as for now the current redirect may be most appropriate. Please see the previous archived discussion. I'd be happy to open up the books on this one and roll up my sleeves for a fresh discussion though. Please educate me as to the latest --beltway bandit bomber bacon--, or another nation's bomber in keeping with a worldwide encyclopedic perspective. CriticalChris 04:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, golly, it actually carries a whopping 50,000lbs of ordnance! CriticalChris 04:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"What other bombers are truly stealth aircraft?" there are no TRULY stealth aircrafts. Even B-2 has a an RCS. there are no 0 RCS aircrafts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.23.173 (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The other ATB

Any information on the other (Lockheed/Rockwell) contender at the ATB competition? Perhaps a concept image? 210.165.30.169 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed's design was a flying wing design and was smaller than the Northrop design. Some sources say it had faceted surfaces like the F-117. More info is not readily available. Maybe classified or company proprietary data. Concept images would most likely be the companies'. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's too bad, sounds like it might've been pretty! 210.165.30.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

Anti-gravity

See [4]. Perhaps this should be included in the article? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See the notice at the top on the page you linked to: "This information is not verified and verifiable at the moment and could be partially or completely unfounded." Then see WP:V. In case you still aren't sure: No. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the only source. See also [5], and try doing a Google search. There is also a book which says quite a bit about this, "Secrets or Antigravity Propulsion". --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Those web pages do not appear to be reliable sources. Also Wikipedia generally does not do Fringe theories. -fnlayson (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at some of the OTHER stuff also claimed by the guy behind one of those sources. "Abduction and The Reptilians", "Extraterrestrial Base on Earth" (ever since 1954 too ... wow!!), "Cabal Clone Factory" (not just Dolly the Sheep, these things are Hybrid-Human Clones!!), and a bunch of stuff about how the Bilderbergs are teaming up with ET's, preparing to send us all to FEMA Concentration Camps contracted by Halliburton, then taking over the world while making George Bush the Terran Emperor. Personally, if I were trying to prove some point of mine, I wouldn't use that type of reference. But that's just me personally. Some gulli .... err, types of people believe all that type of stuff. And who knows, maybe they're right. Just like maybe The Matrix wasn't actually a movie, but a privately made video by people who had been "unhooked", hoping that those of us still plugged in would get the hint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

From my quick research, there is no DIRECT evidence that the B2 uses "Anti Gravity" as a propulsion method. However, INDIRECTLY, it was stated in Janes Aviation that the B2 charges its leading and trailing edges to a high potential electrical difference. This can serve as two functions a) combined with a special gas, this would reduce the RCS of the aircraft significantly (REF - Plasma Stealth b) this would introduce energy to the airstream over the leading edge of the wing, essentially "blowing" the air away - aka electrohydrodynamic propopulsion (EHD). Leeveraction (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

shot down in kosovo war?, not

[6] 109.93.174.237 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny and wrong. See Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk. -fnlayson (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

see the video. it shows images of f117 but talks about b2. read subtitles. it tells they have no material evidence for b2 case, but give other evidence (voice recording of the pilot, etc) 109.93.174.237 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

speed listed in the specifications

The speed in mach does not match the speed listed in knots/mph/kph for any altitude at which this plane can fly. In order for 604mph to equal mach 0.95, the exterior temperature would have to be at -72.6C. This temperature can only be found between the Mesosphere and the Mesopause which are at 71km and 84km, well above the service ceiling of this aircraft(or any other air breathing aircraft for that matter). Equation for the speed of sound is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound. Temperatures at altitude can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_standard_atmosphere or in a more detailed manner, here: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm. At best, at 50,000ft, 604mph would be mach 0.915. Given that the basic math does not work out, and we don't know at what altitude the aircraft can achieve its max speed, I suggest removing the Mach numbers. 68.55.226.247 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, youre right! I should have used a calculator first. Agree with removing the Mach number as long as the altitude isn't specified. - BilCat (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You erred the wrong way. The Mach speeds of 0.95 (max speed) and 0.85 (cruise) are correct per the sources. Any issues would be with the associated speeds and altitudes. -fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mach 0.95 does not equal 604mph at sea level. It equals 723 mph. 604mph is mach 0.79. Given that aircraft are faster at altitude than at sea level, I'm inclined to believe that the mph is correct and the mach number is wrong.69.241.122.68 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions for aircraft?

Random question for y'all.... Do we have a policy dictating the name of airplanes that calls on the "Manufacturer Designation Name" format? NickCT (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! NickCT (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

I know that we as a community frown upon trivia sections, but this article could really do with a section on how this aircraft has affected popular culture in America and the world. The B-2 has really become an icon in war films, yet the article doesn't mention that. There's no need for an exhaustive list on when this appears in fiction (that would be against policy), but it would be interesting to readers to see why filmmakers chose to use B-2s in their films. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the section needs to be kept as tightly as possible, as in McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II (someone made the comment that the PC part of the article is good, not me!). Sp33dyphil © • © 07:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Origins

Is it possible to expand the development, because it seems really lacking. After all the B-2 was developed from the Northrop YB-49, and possibly developed from the Horten Ho 229. The Horten Ho (aka Gotha Go) does not have any supported evidence that it was used in development, but the Northrop does have solid evidence. I don't know if it would be a good idea to edit it, any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.46.202 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, neither is a direct connection to the B-2, except in "spirit." LOL Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Individual Aircraft

The table in the "Individual Aircraft" section includes a column labelled "Block No.", but the note states that all aircraft have been upgraded to Block 30. This column should be removed... or the article should describe differences between the Block 10/20/30 configurations. 66.87.7.182 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ten aircraft deployed to the nuclear mission

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/11/newstart2012-2.php The data shows that only half of the B-2 stealth bombers are deployed. ... Of the 20 B-2s and 91 B-52Hs in the Air Force inventory, 18 and 76, respectively, are nuclear-capable, but only 60 of those (16 B-2s and 44 B-52Hs) are thought to be nuclear tasked at any given time.

Should we cover this? And which number do we use, 10, 16 or 18? Hcobb (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dont think we can use anything that has the word blog in it, that said if this is official data that only ten aircraft are deployed for operations then it could be referenced to http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/201216.htm MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Replacement

Deleted paragraph. Cited Article was completely irrelevant to the B-2 and dealt solely with the F-35 replacing the F-16 for fighter based nuclear delivery. 198.240.130.75 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen anything specific on what the NG bomber will replace. I expect B-52s will be first as they are the oldest bombers. Then some B-1s before B-2s. The reference mentions the B61 nuke bomb will be used by both F-35 and B-2. The last paragraph or so does talk about the F-35 taking the nuke penetration role from the B-2 eventually. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, there is already a section. It is incorrect to claim the F-35 can take the role of an aircraft 5 times its weight. I am sure that the article is completely correct about the F-35, but a passing mention in an unrelated article makes it neither a reliable or a relevant source for this article. Prodego ^talk 00:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing to do is to seek consensus, which is not evident in the scant mentions here. Elaborate on this conjecture before entering an editwar. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

A recent article in the LA Times indicated that the Pentagon has already launched a review of the B-2 and contemplated the type's replacement as a considerably scaled down "baby B-2". The concept of bomber may have been already relegated to the dustbin, having been replaced by that of a strike platform, which would make the F-35 as a possible interim replacement, feasible, when the stock of B-2s gets further depleted from its 20- or so total. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

This is the verbatim statement in the article in question: "The F-35 could be thrust into the spotlight if the planners judge that the B-2 reaches a point where it is no longer able to penetrate enemy air defenses—especially in daytime. The B-2 does not carry standoff weapons, noted Alston. Threats that keep a B-2 from performing direct nuclear attacks could, in effect, hand that mission, too, to the F-35." The article is not "unrelated", is not "completely irrelevant" and is written by a leading editor and acknowledged expert of the Air Force magazine. If there are no other discussion issues brought forward, the section will be restored. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

That is correct, in situations where the B-2 is unable to preform a role, it may be desirable to use a different type of aircraft to fulfill the objective. So it is correct to say "Threats that keep a B-2 from performing direct nuclear attacks could, in effect, hand that mission, too, to the F-35". What is wrong is to interpret that as saying that is replacing the capabilities of the B-2. It is possible an aircraft with the capabilities of the B-2 is no longer needed. In which case a mini-B2 or indeed the F-35 could take this (nuclear penetration) role instead. Or that the nuclear penetration role isn't needed at all. None of those things make the F-35 a potential replacement for the B-2 - just that they could also serve in some of the roles that the B-2 also serves. If you compare the payload, the range, the weights, the speeds, the armament it is obvious the F-35 and B-2 are completely different aircraft with completely different capabilities. Prodego ^talk 23:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The role of conventional strike/interdiction is the primary role of the F-35 and being armed with a B61 nuclear bomb, it could also displace the B-2 in terms of a strategic or nuclear strike capability. Moreover, the B-2 is fast reaching a point in its operational life, where the mission itself may no longer be required. The latest thinking is to develop a small, unmanned, supersonic stealth platform that could perform guided or autonomous missions and will be a scaled-down bomber; essentially eliminating the need for a weapons system that the B-2 represents. The following is the statement in contention:

"

Replacement

When the B-2 is no longer able to penetrate enemy defenses, the role of the manned nuclear armed penetration bomber may be taken up by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which also carries the B61 nuclear bomb, but as a tactical bomber is not covered by strategic arms limitation treaties such as New START.<Grant, Rebecca <http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/July%202010/0710nato.aspx "Nukes for NATO."> Airforce Magazine, July 2010.>"

Possible revision:'

Replacement

The Pentagon is evaluating a B-2 replacement that will be a radically different unmanned stealth bomber, characterized as a "mini-B2", to come into operational service by 2020. < "Pentagon Wants Unmanned Stealth Bomber to Replace B-2." LA Times via uasvision.com, 24 March 2011. > During a transition period, US political expert Rebecca Grant has posited when the B-2 is no longer able to penetrate enemy defenses, the strike/interdiction role may be taken up by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which also carries the B61 nuclear bomb, but as a tactical bomber, is not covered by strategic arms limitation treaties such as New START.{<Grant, Rebecca <http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/July%202010/0710nato.aspx "Nukes for NATO."> Airforce Magazine, July 2010.>FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My largest objection is with the title of the section (though there is a need for some comma cleanup with the F-35 sentence). "Retirement" or similar would be better since none of the options listed are truly replacements for the B-2 (nor is there likely to be one, given the cost). Prodego ^talk 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "Future developments"? BTW, I actually see the term "replace" in the article title, so that is the intention of the future procurement. FWiW (you want to add more commas?!) Bzuk (talk)

Future developments sounds great. I think there are too many commas, it's a run on. Either cutting "which also carries the B61 nuclear bomb, but as a tactical bomber, is not covered by strategic arms limitation treaties such as New START." or spinning it in to another sentence should fix it. Prodego ^talk 03:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed it is not really a replacement thing. But use of the F-35 or Next-Gen Bomber are not further developments of the B-2 which is what such a section label would imply. This is more of a supplementing or assisting thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Future developments

The Pentagon is currently (as of 2011), evaluating a radically different unmanned stealth bomber, characterized as a "mini-B2", to come into operational service by 2020.< "Pentagon Wants Unmanned Stealth Bomber to Replace B-2." LA Times via uasvision.com, 24 March 2011. > During a transition period, US political expert Rebecca Grant has posited when the B-2 is no longer able to penetrate enemy defenses, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II may take on its strike/interdiction role. The F-35 also carries the B61 nuclear bomb as a tactical bomber and is not covered by strategic arms limitation treaties such as New START.{<Grant, Rebecca <http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/July%202010/0710nato.aspx "Nukes for NATO."> Airforce Magazine, July 2010.>FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fnlayson does have a point, but I do prefer this wording to the old. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As the B2's ability to penetrate the best sophisticated air defense declines, the Air Force will probably eliminate the more expensive bombers. Eliminating the B1 makes more sense economically than reducing B52s. A concept we talked about at Northrop was to convert a civilian air liner, like a Boeing 747 to be a bomber. With high commonality to the air liner, and high capacity, this conversion would be an economical solution, once the the expensive perpetrators have taken out the air defense. Saltysailor (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "Because of its high cost, strategic bombing role, and the still-classified aspects of its low observable coatings, no production B-2 has been placed on permanent display." Sounds like someone just making stuff up off the top of their head, i.e., original research. Because of operational commitments, none have been retired for display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.38.6 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The test article is on display at the Air Force Museum. Many of the stealth features were not included in the test article, and their are visible differences from the flying aircraft. Saltysailor (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nautical miles or nanometer

The units "nm" for distance (range) technically would be "nanometers" or one billionth of a meter! I explained "nm" as "nautical miles" because I have had to deal with aerospace engineers before.

For "nm" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanometre 02:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A nautical mile is not an S.I. unit and so does not follow the same conventions, it is just an unfortunate coincidence that it has the same shorthand. Its usually pretty obvious which one is meant due to context! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.244.252 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Individual Aircraft- others?

This article on the Malmstrom Airforce Base Website lists a B-2 named The Spirit of Montana; is this correct? http://www.malmstrom.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123267533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.113.39.92 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This has got be an error

"The Northrop design received the designation B-2 and the name "Spirit". The bomber's design was changed in the mid-1980s when the mission profile was changed from high-altitude to low-altitude, terrain-following. The redesign delayed the B-2's first flight by two years and added about US$1 billion to the program's cost.[12]"

no way the B2's flight profile was changed to low altitude terrain following. that's crazy talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.26.127 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this an error? The information is cited to a published source. What reliable published sources can you cite to show that this info is incorrect? - BilCat (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Debated: as of September 2013 no missile has ever been fired at a B-2

> As of September 2013 no missile has ever been fired at a B-2.

That is not true. Col. Zoltan Dani, the commander, whose unit downed the F-117 over Yugoslavia, has recently been to Hungary and publicly presented on two occasions in front of aviation/military enthusiasts, including military members in active service.

He insist his unit did fire missiles on an invading B-2 (probably AV-8 88-0329 "Spirit of Missouri") on the 20th of May 1999and he claims it was actually damaged and eventually went down, but beyond the reach of yugo/serbian forces (Spacvan forest, in Bosnia, 15 km from Serbian border.) He claims that wreck site was "vacuum cleaned" by NATO and the missing airframe was quietly replaced/cloned by using a prototype test B-2 specimen, which only had a moderate amount of static load testing done to it and could be kitted out for aerial use.

Anyhow, even if you don't believe the yugos ever downed a B-2, missiles were actually fired at it! 82.131.134.8 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If I don't believe they shot one down, why would I believe they fired a missile at all? If its just the word of one man we're talking about, that's pretty tenuous.

If the most stealthy aircraft in the world can be detected and destroyed by Yugoslavs, what the heck kind of stealth technology was that NATO team using that managed to completely remove any trace of wreckage before even a scrap was lost? They should just get that team to walk in carrying bombs instead.

Recall that the wreckage of the F117 that was lost was very publicly salvaged and put on display, even though the crash site and pilot were very quickly secured by allied forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.244.252 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Actual cost higher than reported

The value of $737,000,000 is wrong, or at least deserving of an asterisk. Several published sources put it much higher.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/u-s-bombers-seen-costing-81-billion-47-more-than-plan.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/01/pentagons-300-billion-dollar-bomb Marzolian (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The article explains the aircraft costs and what they are for in a couple places. The Infobox lists the $737M cost as a flyaway cost, not an average one. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Edward the Confessor leaked the compressor

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?)

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

http://news.yahoo.com/contract-u-long-range-bomber-due-soon-air-021115633--finance.html

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.

Correctness of Introduction Page

“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

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?

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

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

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/everything-we-know-about-the-new-b-21-stealth-bomber-an-1761480107

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)

Revision of edit on crew

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

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)