Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit/Archive 1

message: Having been originally copied from , this article reads a bit much like a press release. Could probably use some work to tone it down. -- nknight 15:00 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Yeah indeed this article is awful! Chinaren.com 22:36, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold. How about helping improve things yourself?  Making language less press-release like doesn't even require much research.  It should be easy to search for other B-2 material in order to gt a more balanced view pretty easily.  You're a Wikipedia editor just like everyone else ...  the easiest way to fix a page is to fix it.  —Morven 00:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Er, no.  The official name is B-2 Spirit.  B-2 Bomber can redirect to B-2 Spirit.  [[User:RadicalBender|R<sm
"This aircraft was mainly built to be used in a Nuclear War, not peacetime."
Isn't this a tautology? A combat aircraft like a bomber, by definition, is only employed in a war setting.
----
I found the third paragraph of the Combat section confusing. Does this just state that the plane only needs refueling without other maintenance between missions? Is this different from other planes? ArrowmanCoder 17:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it refers to the fact that the B-2 is based exclusively in the continental U.S., and that Operations at Diego Garcia marked the first time that the aircraft had staged from elsewhere. It's also impressive to think that the aircraft flew from the U.S. to afganistan, dropped bombs, and then flew down to the Indian Ocean. -Lommer | talk 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work needed 

message: this page used to list the cost of the aircraft based on total project cost / total planes produced. I didn't spot any cost information this time (not that I looked very hard), but does anyone have a value for what it would cost to actually build a single plane excluding R&D costs?
:I think that's probably classified (or not even calculated). But if anyone else has sources... -Lommer | talk 17:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Northrop marketing propaganda in the early 90's said roughly $800M if I recall correctly. There was a move afoot at the time to get more B-2s built after George H W Bush basically cancelled the program in his "New World Order" State of the Union speech in January 1991, so these numbers were trotted out to counter the $44.4B (total cost of the program)/20 aircraft math that was being used to criticize the program.--Alanz01 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the statement "Some writers have suggested that the huge program cost may actually include costs for other black projects that remain classified" is not properly sourced.  It should be deleted if not properly sourced.  Also, if some writers have said this without any substantial source for their claims, it should not be in the article because it lacks any substantiation.  One could make the same claim about any governmental expenditure.  I published an article on the B-2 several years ago and I never came across any claims that part of the disclosed cost was attributable to other black programs. Whitfield Larrabee 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can someone explain to me how information contained in the reference for the cost: , justifies the $2.2bn figure?  Or provide a different reference? Breadandroses 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aircraft cost 

message: Is it true the B-2 spirit is fueled with a special gasoline that is highly dangerous to humans? --Abdull 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it uses standard JP-4 or JP-8. The fuel you're thinking of is probably hydrazine, a very poisonous fuel that its auxiliary power unit (a small engine in the aircraft used to power the B-2's various systems when the engines are off and there is no external power available) uses. Hydrazine is used in other aircraft's APUs as well, so the B-2 is not unique in this regard.--Alanz01 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dangerous gasoline 

message: B-2s are all named "Spirit of (state)". When was this practice adopted? If original 135 were made, there wouldn't be enough states to be named and reduced 75 is still more than the number of states. -- Revth 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an exception to the rule - sort of like the naming of the "USS Hyman G. Rickover", when the "Los Angeles"-class submarines are nearly exclusively named for cities. There are lots of these... --SebastianP 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the Spirit of Oklahoma nicknamed the Spirit of San Francisco? Is it really nicknamed that or is it an error? 205.174.22.28 01:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of B-2s ?

message: I have issues with the second paragraph.  It starts off claiming:
:Originally designed to deliver nuclear weapons during the Cold War , support for the B-2 dwindled as military spending declined in real dollars during the Clinton Administration.
but then:
:The original procurement of 135 aircraft was later reduced to 75 in the late 1980s. Finally, President George H. W. Bush reduced the final buy quantity to the 21 already bought in his now famous "New World Order" State of the Union speech in January, 1991.
which contradicts it: if the numbers were dropped to 21 by Bush I, this was before the Clinton Administration.
Then it says:
:In May of 1995, in a study commissioned by Congress, the Institute For Defense Analysis concluded that after the demise of the Soviet Union, there was no need for more B-2s. As a result of public outcry over its cost, opposition from the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff and increasing opposition in the U.S. Congress, only 21 B-2s have been produced instead of a total of 135 planes as had been proposed.
Yet the previous sentences stated that Bush I kept the numbers down to 21; no further cuts were made.
Finally, the next sentence:
:Given that much of the cost of the B-2 was in research and development, the cost per unit would have been much lower if all 135 had been produced. 
seems to reference an original unit cost figure which the article previously contained?  Without that figure, this sentence lacks context.
I'm not expert enough on the topic to reconcile the differences easily: anyone more knowledgable who can bash this into a coherent and truthful shape? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall the same chronology as Alanz01.  N-G had a big drive for employees to write their representatives, etc to increase the number up from 21.  There may have been action from the employee PAC (yes, N-G had/has a Political Action Committee on behalf of its employees in addition to its own lobbying).  --KNHaw 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph confusing. 

message: "Later missions to Iraq were launched and returned to Whiteman AFB in Missouri." Launched from where? The distance from Baghdad to Kansas City, Missouri is almost 11000 km. The distance from Diego Garcia to Baghdad is much more than 4000 km. The range of the aircraft is only 12000 km -- does this actually mean 24000, 12000 each way (in contradiction to Range (aircraft))? Joshua Davis 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they used aerial refueling, as depicted in the image in this article. Aerial refueling is used even for aircraft with longer range than the B-2, such as the B-52 Stratofortress. Joema 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range? 

message: One paragraph states that the first B-2 delivered was the "Spirit of Missouri", whhile the list of B-2 names below lists 7 bombers numerically before it.  Now, I'm sure the explanation is nice and simple, and my own guess would simply be that plane was specifically picked to be the first delivered due to it's name, since they were to be station in an AFB in Missouri.  However, I would like to know more.  How did the others get their nicknames?  Where they used for testing first, thus making the first manufactured after that group, also beingthe first w/o a nickname, the first to be delivered?  I would assume that AV-1 through AV-7 are also in service... is this so?  I just feel there is some more, good information out there I don't know yet, but would like to.  --Reverend Loki 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming vs First Plane Delivered 

message: I am sure not much is available on why the aircraft has such atypical angles and overall design; but a brief synopsis would be appreciated. --DragonFly31 14:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft design 

message: The article doesn't list rate of climb in the performance section, nor does it say it's classified. All that's there is the unit markers. BioTube 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate of climb 

message: The B-2, akin to the F-117, relies on very low observability and signature. This condition is compromised if the aircraft is flown in wet conditions. This is false.
I've removed the later part of the quote as it contradicts itself. Feel free to add it again if we can determine if it is true or not. // Azninja
:Holloman AFB suspends flight operations for the F-117 because, as one woman who worked there put it, ‘the planes are made of cardboard and come unglued during the rain’. Since the B-2 uses the same (or similar, I forget which) materials it should be in the same boat. TomStar81 09:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The planes are not built of cardboard or glue and a quote from "one woman" is hardly evidenceBQZip01 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrary statement 

message: The F-117A was shot down on March 27, 1999. Use of other F-117As and B-2 bombers continued after this in the Kosovo operation: , . Joema 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed statement about B-2 withdrawal from Kosovo operation due to F-117A shootdown 

message: I reverted the addition about not being stealthy when wet. These statements apparently stem from a 1997 GAO report which has been heavily politicized and isn't representative of current real world B-2 operational issues. The actual and current operational B-2 limitations seem less restricted and more complex. Also in general the B-2 operates from 40,000 feet (which is far above rain and the weather) using GPS-guided bombs. It's not like the F-117A stealth fighter which bombs from relatively low altitude (in the weather) using laser-guided bombs. For details see: 
* GAO report on B-2
* CNN article on GAO report 
* USAF magazine article #1
* USAF magazine article #2   Joema 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, the article says it's a low-altitude bomber, which required "significant changes" from the original, high-altitude bombing platform. Furthermore, hurricanes and thunderclouds regularly reach up to 60,000 feet. And I'd also like to point out that the nighthawk is hardly a fighter. ... aa:talk 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all aircraft avoid thundestorms and hurricanes at all costs, so this argument is very weak. "Stealth fighter" is its name and designation; its mission is clearly that of a bomber.BQZip01 18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not stealthy when wet? 

message: Are "Informal names" of individual aircraft really relevant to an encylclopedic article? I would have removed them myself, but I don't mess with tables, as I don't know anything about them. I can understand the official names being listed, as most USAF aircraft don't have individual official names, making them unique. - BillCJ 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that if these informal names are well-known then yes they should remain (e.g. VW Beetles are affectionately referred to as 'bugs' by many people). I'm not sure if the names are popular (knowing little about the craft) but if they are known by those names to enthusiasts I would deem them worthy of retention. ny156uk 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If we're talking about the "Spirit of" names (Missouri, California, Texas, Georgia, etc) no, they weren't given by pilots or crews, they were given by the AF and Northrop as part each aircraft's delivery ceremony. Some of the flight test aircraft had "nicknames" such as "Fire and Ice" and "Christine" (named after the Steven King novel abou the possessed car because it was such a cranky beast) which were given by the flight test folks at Edwards. - Alanz01 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Informal names"

message: I thought that the max speed of the B-2 was clasified. So could someone get a citation for the specs of the airplane?Fatdelear 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the source for the specs? 

message: This is a photo I took of a B-2 Spirit as it taxied at the Darwin International Airport in the Norther Territory, Australia.  If you look close you will see that it is AV-12, BuNos 89-0127, the Spirit of Kansas.  Put it here and if you think it is worthy of the article then please add it.  Cheers--Looper5920 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Image was deleted; removing redlink. — ERcheck (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible photo for article 

message: I think its worth noting that there has been some (fairly credible, really) speculation that a lot of UFO sightings were related to the B2 and other flying wing aircraft, and think it deserves a mention. Titanium Dragon 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFOs and the B-2 

message: I came across this photograph of the B-2 bombing on the Live fire exercise article. I believe it would add to this article, but I do not know where to place it. I also feel that :Image:20061027-6 v102706db-0153jpg-772v.jpg would be a good addition as it shows the scale of the B-2. Mehmet Karatay 07:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: I corrected the second link (B-2 Spirit page on NorthropGrumman.com), which was outdated. Get Shorty 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Lightmouse 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nm or nmi 

message: I run a site titled Air Vectors that covers military aircraft and gets cited here and there on
Wikipedia.  I don't normally touch wikipedia articles other than to correct typos and the like,
but I just found out about a site named "Wingweb.co.uk" which is also cited here and there on
Wikipedia (for example in this article) ... but whose aviation articles are largely or entirely
downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also 
lifted many of my photos and artwork.
I have no fuss to make.  I just want to make sure the Wikipedia community knowns that Wingweb.co.uk
is a ripoff operation.  Cheers / MrG 4.225.208.126 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wingweb.co.uk 

message: The article specifies the B2 has a crew of two. This is not exact, the plane can fly with a crew of three for long ferries or training  or anti-desertion purposes (~ NKVD-ish political officer holding a gun to the pilots' heads), but the third guy has a simple non-ejecting flip-down seat, so it sould not go into combat tri-manned. 81.0.68.145 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three men in a boat 

message: Just wondering why the F-22 Raptor article mentions "climate-controlled hangars" for the B2 when the B2 article has no info on this. 88.111.7.68 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the claim is unreferenced in the first place. As for climate controlled hangars, there are quite a few which have some climate control (especially heating for the maintenance crews). Those that are not climate controlled are generally in the south where heating is not especially needed. That said, temperature (especially the cold) shouldn't be a major factor for an aircraft that cruises at 50,000 feet. Precipitation affects all airframes, especially ice and snow. I would assume the B-2 is just a little more succeptable to the climate and protecting a multibillion dollar piece of machinery is simply practical more than notable. — BQZip01 — talk 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * That sentence has a reference.  Keeping them inside was related to their radar absorbing material coatings, at least older types. -Fnlayson 04:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it is to maintain the integrity of the B2s "stealthy skins" and radar evading finish.Critical Chris (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  climate-controlled hangars? 

message: I moved about half of the Lead to Development.  The procurement numbers and costs information is not repeated in the rest of the article.  This is counter to the Lead being a summary.  So I moved the info.  I didn't see a better place for it. -Fnlayson 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine, Jeff. We mainly objected to it being split into an "Overview" section, which I actually used to do when I first stated editing last year, till I learned better. - BillCJ 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Right.  The lead was too long compared to everything else and the content was out of place.  Looks like the Overview/summary sections for U.S. military aircraft comes from military pages originally, for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine now.  The article was and still is riddled with conspiracy theorist speculation, anti-war jibberish, and some flat-out inaccuracies.  It's just a fairly normal plane with some really expensive crap smeared on the outside.  It paved the way for stealth tecnologies we see now in the F-22 and F-35, though.--Asams10 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Rubbish. Its stealth capabilities are not limited to RAM on the outside. Its shape is characterized by "continuous curvature" which is certainly not typical for a fairly normal aircraft.B-2Admirer 09:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Fairly normal, except it is one of the first operational flying wing aircraft, at least that I know of.. -Fnlayson 01:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the first?  The technology for Flying Wings is proven. In the 1930's and 1940's, a series of American planes culminated in the refined B-49 design. This was an excellent airplane in all respects save the engines. It was at the stage of low-rate initial production when it was cancelled for reasons unrelated to the soundness of the design. With modern fly-by-wire technology and flight computers, you could probably make a lead cigar fly. What I meant was that the structure is conventional in virtually every respect. There is no magic, in other words.--Asams10 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Right, I understood what you meant about the airframe design.  A few flying wing prototypes were tested successfully.  But I'm not aware of one that was in regular service before.  If there was one, let me know.  The B-2 won't the last.. -Fnlayson 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead content 

message: What's the maximum Payload of this beauty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.55.186 (talk • contribs) 
* Over 40,000 lb.  I have a couple sources that state 50,000 lb max.  I updated that in the specs. -Fnlayson 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably no. It has relatively weak engines (4 engines of the kind found in the first-gen F-18, without reheat) and its thrust/weight ratio is so low, some even doubt it can get airborne on that alone. In fact those engines are air inlet deprived, even when the extra cat-ear openings pop out during take-off, so the engines cannot give their maximum rated thrust. Unless the B-2 has some extra, secret propulsion augmentation (MHD drive has been alleged) it is not possible to put very large bombload in it to excel the B-52's huge capacity. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ???WTF??? This IP seems not to have a clue what he's talking about.  Is this a troll?  The B-52, first off, could not take off with its maximum bomb load and maximum fuel load.  Missions that needed maximum bomb load and fuel would take off with a smaller fuel load and top-off in flight.  The B-2 was designed to carry all fuel and bombs internally, however still has the option of topping off in flight, refueling, etc.  Bomb loads have empty space and bomb racks take up space and weight. Efficient loads such as cruise missile launchers, are the B-2's strength.  Its engines are plenty powerful. They are based on the B-1's F-101/F-110/F-118engine core, not that of the F-18.  I'll hesitate to call you retarded, but just because the number 18 is in the engine designation, that doesn't make it an F-18 engine.  MHD?  Are you serious? --I am Asamuel (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: * It's the F-117 that uses a non-afterburning version of the F/A-18's engine (F404). -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: factors which make possible lifting capability very high:
*very clean aerodynamics limiting drag penalty of conventional aircraft
*wing has high camber for efficient sub-sonic flight
*while the engines are "buried" to reduce observability, a great deal of money was spent making sure the penalty of ducting did not adversely effect the engine performance.  During the design of the aircraft Northrop hired specialists with experience in ducting engines.  While the initial designs proposed by the stealth crew would have starved the engines for air, the final compromise works very well.  Saltysailor (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Payload 

message: And which wone crashed 23.2.2008?--Pilots safe after stealth bomber crashes in Guam --Stone (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the enemy claimed they had shot down a B-2 Stealth Bomber and some conspiracy Theorists latched onto it.  No B-2 was shot down... we'd have known about it, I'm sure. Yes, an F-117 was lost over Bosnia and that might have been a source of confusion, but it wasn't a B-2. --Asams10 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Asams10, you must be mistaken! Everyone knows that the "enemy" never lies, and that anything the US government says is always unreliable. If you doubt me, just read the New York Times! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoltan Dani, the commander of the unit which shot down F-117 and at least one F-16 reported that they shot down B-2, which crashed in Spacvanska forrest in Croatia, about 15 km beyond Yugoslavian border. Ilustrovana Politika reported the incident as well. The name of the aircraft was 'Spirit of Missouri', possible number AV-8 88-0329. The commander reiterates the fact in a rescent interview for serbian Vecernje Novosti news agency. They cannot prove it because the airplane crashed in a foreign country and was thus quickly cleaned up, unlike the F-16 and F-117 which were shot down over Serbia. This unit has an excellent reputation, and i do not believe they would lie about such a topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.114.57 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crash