Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Northrop B-2 Spirit. 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 |
Inconsistent performance data
There is a problem with the performance data, namely the maximum speed - the numbers are not consistent:
- Mach 0.95 (this is 729 mph / 633 knots)
- 550 knots (this is mach 0.825)
- 630 mph (this is mach 0.82)
Someone with access to the reference source for this should update (assuming source is consistent, e.g. lists only mach number?). Striptorn (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Mach number varies depending on altitude and other factors. It seems dubious that it can do Mach .95 at sea level, however. We need to check the cited source and/or find a better source for all these figures. - BilCat (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Intro and unit costs
Surely it would be relevant information to mention in the intro that the reduction of the order to only 21 aircraft from 130+ is a primary reason for the huge unit cost of the aircraft listed above it. It is well-kmown that the fewer of a particualr aircraft type that are ordered, the more the unit cost of each is, due to the huge development costs having to be divided among far few aircraft in order to recoup money spent (and other reasons). If they had only bought 30 F-15 Eagles, they would have also cost many times what they ended up costing. This is a well established fact in the aircraft industry. It shouldn't be impossible to find a reference for it (for those who know where to find such things). The intro as it stands seems to reinforce the somewhat mistaken common notion that the B-2 was ridiculously expensive to built, and that's why Congress cancelled it, but in actuallity, the B-2 is only so ridiculously expensive BECAUSE Congress cancelled all but 21 of the aircraft. Although the other side of the argument is that the whole program would have cost more in total if the full order was built, it seems important to reinform the public with their mistaken notions about the cost of the B-2 Spirit. In any case, there was never the slightest prospect of them building 130+ bombers at $737,000,000 each. Even if this is explained in the body of the text, I think it ought to be in the intro, because a lot of people never do more than skip the intro and glance over the rest of the article. If I was a person who didn't know anything about planes at all, I'd read that intro and thing "no wonder they cancelled the plane! $737 MILLION each!?" Idumea47b (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- The text in the Lead already says that "Congress slashed plans to purchase 132 bombers to 21." Whatever is stated in the Lead should be a summary of what it is the body of the article per WP:Lead. There's probably a Wikipedia article that explains this cost and orders spiral, but I haven't find it yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
B-2 was a "gray" project?
I happened to see the B2 fly over the Rose Bowl today. So I turned to wikipedia for the real dope on the B2. This led me to a question about its development and one thing led to another. . .
The first sentence of the "Development / Secrecy and espionage" section
During its design and development, the Northrop B-2 program was a gray project before its revelation to the public.[1]
contains a reference that cannot be accessed.
Since the referenced youtube no longer exists, a new reference for the B2 having been a "gray" project is needed.
I looked for another a reference; however. finding that reference is proving to be problematic.
Apparently a "gray" designation indicates a project whose status/classification that is between the highly top secret "black" project and a "white" project (apparently one that is public knowledge in “white world” (aka unclassified)). These sources for this "gray" project and "gray" world seems somewhat anecdotal.
There is mention to a "gray world" that the SR-72 existed (seems like a unofficial designation to describe the "situation" of the SR-72 having been seen while undergoing its "black" project test flights) at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14803/lets-talk-about-the-supposed-sighting-of-a-skunk-works-hypersonic-test-aircraft
There is no reference to a "gray" project in Black_project. In Black_project, the B2 is clearly designated as a "black project"
If a new reference for the B2 having been a "gray" project can not be found, the sentence needs to be revised to reflect a known status of the B2 development as being "black" Osomite (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ YouTube. youtube.com. Archived from the original on 12 July 2015. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
B-2 replacement
See Talk:Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider#B-2 replacement. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this source incorrect or am I missing something ?
So [1] says that 2 additional aircraft were made without any instruments or engines. One of them is known as "Spirit of Ohio", 82-1070. But what about the other ? As far as I read [2], only 21 B-2s were made, 19 are still operational (With "Spirit of Ohio" being a static display and "Spirit of Kansas", 89-0127, gone after the 2008 crash [3]), what happened to the other 'empty' airframe ? Was it converted to an operational unit ? Did it even exist ? SrBlaza (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Probably another ground test article like the one that was refurnished to flight status. Without sources stating specific info on this other airframe, adding another in the article about it would be speculation. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Readability edit suggestion
In the first section third paragraph the current ending sentence reads: As of 2018, twenty B-2s are in service with the United States Air Force, which plans to operate them until 2032, when the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is to replace it.[6] For readability purposes I think it would make sense to change this to: As of 2018, twenty B-2s are in service with the United States Air Force. The USAF plans to operate them until 2032, when the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is set to replace it. Please let me know your thoughts below! Thanks, Its choosday innit (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
FYI for future editing (US-Australia training exercise)
FYI, This UK Daily Mail article has a 5-minute video of two or four B-2 Spirit bombers flying/landing in Australia. "Rarely-seen USAF B-2A stealth bombers have landed in Queensland in a high-profile show of strength."
Does this warrant adding the obvious new section for the 2020 decade? -- AstroU (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC) -- Just asking.
FYI, Another article from a respected journal:
Can we discuss and consider adding 3.3 2020-present under 3. Operational history -- AstroU (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC) -- That would be good.
We've waited two years for anyone to consider this. Discussing it for another month will be soon enough. Right? -- AstroU (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly are you asking to be considered? BilCat (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- The two articles mainly cover US-Australian military training concerning the B-2 and other aircraft from the US and Australia. There's not much detail on this; a summary with 1-2 sentences is about all that could be added in this article imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's not so much the article(s) but starting the new decade of 2020 which started two years ago. -- AstroU (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC) -- Plus this was an international incident precipitated by Biden to send a message to China.
Carrying Capacity
Since it can carry two GBU-57 shouldn't its carrying capacity be at least 60,000 lbs 2601:405:4600:2F64:EDEC:703D:E137:5DB8 (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Article has at least two false statements about the B-2.
> As of September 2013, there have been no instances of a missile being launched at a B-2.
That is not true. B-2 bombers did participate in Clinton's war against Little Yugoslavia, entering from the direction of Hungary and were fired at by the same SAM battery of Zoltan Dani which downed an F-117. Results against the B-2 are not known for certain, but the SA-3 / S-125 missiles' proximity fuse detonation confirm radio signal was received back by the battery, indicating a near-miss if not a full hit. Some oral sources allege damage to the B-2 or even crash in a croatian forest just across the border, followed by a full clean-up operation and replacement of the lost aircraft with a copy-cat built from extensive USAF spare part reserves.
>To reduce optical visibility during daylight flights, the B-2 is painted in an anti-reflective paint. The undersides are dark because it flies at high altitudes (50,000 ft (15,000 m)
That altitude claim is not true. The B-2 cockpit visibly lacks accessory connections required for spacesuite style, fully pressurized, high-altitude garments, like those used in the U-2, SR-71 and MiG-25/31. B-2 crews have never been seen wearning spacesuits, yet such apparel is inevitable for crew safety above 14,000 meters, to prevent embolia of the lungs and blood vessels in case of a sudden loss of cabin pressure due to combat damage or a tech mishap. Most analysts consider the B-2 to operate around 6,000 meters altitude, to be above the ceiling of unpredictable MANPADS threats, while staying below the domain of very long range / large sized SAM systems, like the S-200/300/400, which have e.g. CW radars that see turbine blades spin *inside* the airframe, thereby negating much of the stealth effect offered by specialized airframe skin and geometry. 92.249.156.122 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Without citations to reliable published sources, that's pure original research, and there's nothing we can add/change in the article about it. BilCat (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)