Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit

Three men in a boat

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)

• It doesn't matter if extra crew people can fly in it. Two is the minimum needed. The B-1 has extra non-ejectable seats for trainers too. -Fnlayson 19:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Besides, it is designed for a CREW of two. The AC-130 has a crew of 12 or 13 (depending on the model), but can hold additional personnel including parachutes (like 1 or 2 more). Their design is for a CREW of 12 or 13. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A pilot and Aircraft commander, no one wants to be called a co-pilot on a B2. There is a lot of space behind the 2 crew seats. There are only 2 blow off hatches in the roof to allow crew ejection. The large, empty rear deck of the crew compartment was put there in case it might be used for other things. There are tie down points. More than 2 have flown on B2 but it is not part of the Northrop design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltysailor (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I worked installing the 3rd ejection hatches on the B-2's. The 3rd seat area is built with ejection seat rails and the required hatch as a provision for the use of a 3rd seat. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualjon (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Price

Just a question: Why the cost per plane range from 1,157 to 2,2 billion dollars? Does the price depend on something? It's a quite large difference (almost a billion), but what for?? --Eurocopter tigre 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to figure out how much the US government spends on anything; it's even more difficult to figure out how much the Pentagon spends on anything; it's even more difficult to figure out the costs of highly complex projects like combat aircraft (where attributing things to "construction costs" and "operating costs" is extremely difficult); and it's even more difficult when the project starts out as a secret. --Robert Merkel 07:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of the confusion is there are different cost figures.

(1) Cost to manufacture the aircraft: Parts in, aircraft out. (2) Cost to design and manufacture the aircraft: research, design and test costs plus (1) above (3) Fly away costs: pilot and maintenance crew training, + spares, plus (2) above. (4) Life cycle cost: All salaries of everyone who works on the program + material costs, + (3)

Depending on how good or how bad you want the aircraft to look, you can honestly choose any of the above. Dishonest people compare the projected Life cycle cost for one aircraft to the cost to manufacture of another.

Keep in mind that research and development costs develop new technology, with can then be used on any other aircraft, or many other non-aircraft projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.2.189 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into classified or proprietary knowledge: 1. other projects were "hidden" in the B2 black budget by the Aif Force, making the total proceed hard to figure. 2. the cost of security both direct and from compartmentalization resulting in wasted effort were significant. 3. The cost of an additional unit if procured before the production was shut down was between $500 and $600 million. this is from my work on the B2 Saltysailor (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

climate-controlled hangars?

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)

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)

• 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)

Any aircraft needs a climate controlled hanger when it is being repainted. Your house can stand up to rain after the paint is dry, but you don't, if you are clever, paint while it is actively raining. Many paints and glues have limits of temperature and humidity which must be followed during the cure process, but no similar restriction is needed after the cure is complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.2.189 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Lead content

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

Part of the problem with the original flying wing was the large and highly classified shape of the nuclear bombs of that day. The second bomb was called "Fat Man", and it was truely a large and ungainly shape. It may seem odd, but the B-35, and its follow-on B-49 were not told of the highly classified size of the bombs until it was too late. The B-36, by contrast, was designed for a massive 42,000 pound conventional weapon (one prototype stands proudly before the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Museum), and so, by good luck, was large enough for first generation nuclear bombs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.2.189 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 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)

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)

Stealth generations

This briefing by Maj. Gen. Bruce Carlson, USAF calls the SR-71 - 1st generation, F-117 - 2nd generation, B-2 - 3rd generation and F-22 - 4th generation. The F-35 would be 4th gen too and the B-1B would be 1st gen I think. Adding this as a reference should prevent back and forth editing on the matter, I think. -Fnlayson 03:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur, with some revisions. Pinning stealth technology down to a generation is a bit odd, it seems. The F-117 was not the first of the purpose-built stealth aircraft, that goes to Have Blue IIRC. Neither was really a first-generation stealth aircraft, though, that goes to several flying wing designs of the 40's namely the YB-49 and Horten Ho 229. While it is arguable that these INTENTIONALLY incorporated any stealth technology, it's sure they had stealth characteristics. The SR-71 did, in fact, have intentionaly stealth technology. The B-1B was the first real stealth design to go into production and regular service though it wasn't a pure stealth Aircraft. (yeah, the F-117, but in service it was still largely an experimental aircraft with huge maintenance requirements).

It might be more correct to categorize stealth technologies by the technologies themselves. Hmmm, off the top of my head there are:

1. External structures such as elimination of right angles, sharks-tooth panels, etc.
2. Internal structures such as radar absorbing ribs
3. Structural components such as plywood and glues, composites, etc.
4. Coatings such as RAM either on targeted areas like intake lips and leading edges
5. Whole design concepts such as faceted surfaces, flying wings, etc.
6. Internal design elements such as intake screens, serpentine intakes, etc.
7. Infrared techniques like flatening exhaust, mixing with bypass air, coatings, hiding exhaust with tailplanes, etc.

Combined, these technologies can be broken down to an annoyingly complicated list of features and generations/sub-generations of said features as to be completely useless and pretentious. I'd say it's nice to look at these things on paper and babble on about how clever we were to break everything down to generations and confuse everybody. Suffice it to say that as each new stealth aircraft has come on line since the F-117, stealth has gotten progressively less maintenance intensive and more effective. Me? I'd break it down into seven generations just to be a pest. 1st gen would include the B-49 and Horten, 2nd the SR-71, 3rd the B-1B, 4th the F-117, 5th the B-2, 6th the F-22 (or maybe it's gen 4/5) and YF-23(yeah, perhaps 5/6 gen). The F-35 is definitely 7th generation though IMNTBHO. --Asams10 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not trying to pigeonhole them into generations is fair. Not much value added with that. -Fnlayson 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with latest comment by Fnlayson. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a stealth aircraft article? If so, we should include the Mosquito, an all-wood aircraft in WWII designed to elude German radar. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. There are Stealth aircraft and Stealth technology articles. -Fnlayson 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, the Mosquito would fall into the same class as the Horten and YB-49 - stealth by happenstance. The Mosquito was designed with wood because of an expected materials shortage of metals used in the aircraft industry. If memory serves, the first aircraft design that intentionally incorporated stealth features for the purpose of stealth was the A-12 / YF-12 / A-11 / SR-71 series. --Asams10 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Generations of stealth is a POV issue and is matter of accepted definition. For me the 1st generation with the WWI palne with clear skin instead of canvas. Flying wings are stealthy by nature of shape. Lockheed devleoped RAM for the SR71. The F117 was developed on Lockheed's concept of the "impossible diamond", a shape that would reflect radar away but would not fly. The B2 used finite analysis to determine reflection and thus create shapes that were aerodynamic as well as stealthy. There are methods on the B2 for stealth that are still classified. Of course methods for defeating stealth are known, and the F22 is not as stealthy as the B2 because it is not as important to pay the cost for it. Even the current FA-18 has some stealth built in, that was not part of the original model. Saltysailor (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Total Payload

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)

thats the official payload, it can lift lots more Saltysailor (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

???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)

• 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)

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)

Crash

And which wone crashed 23.2.2008?--Pilots safe after stealth bomber crashes in Guam --Stone (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And what's that about a bomber being lost over Bosnia? There's no record that anywhere, except some strange Russian web-news article with no sources whatsoever.

• They may be attempting to refer to the F-117 that was shot down over the war in Bosnia, theres more about it on the wiki F-117 Page --Daishi808 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• The General John Corley sentences were added with an Aviation Week article as a reference (ref. 21). -Fnlayson (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I remember one of the programmers for the flight control system being very proud of the fact that the B2 would prevent a pilot from crashing the plan by taking control from him and taking appropriate actions. The pilot could select the flight mode, and there is one for take off. Looks like the programmers didnt anticipate bad data input. Saltysailor (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where was it developed and manufactured?

seems like relevant information Dan Frederiksen (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As you would probably expect, Dan, that's a complex question. Much of the engineering and some manufacturing was done at the dedicated (now closed) Pico Rivera facility that had previously been a Ford manufacturing plant (I went there for an open house in 1978 to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the model T years before I worked for N-G myself). I'm not positive, but I believe that the heavy manufacturing was done at Lancaster IIRC Palmdale. The various subsystems were manufactured in almost every state in the U.S., a point that was emphasized by N-G public relations when the program was in political trouble back in the 90's. I do not know where the initial design work was done (since Northrop didn't own the Pico site at the time) but most likely it was in El Segundo, since that was were the bulk of the work force was at the time.

On another note, how much depth do you think should be addressed on this topic, Dan? A sentence or two might be appropriate but past that really seems like gold plating to me.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pico Rivera as in Los Angeles?

I'm not sure what you mean by gold plating but to me that's the only interesting aspect of this otherwise uninteresting craft. how secrecy works. I am interested because I am aware of how much evil is in this world and that it only thrives in darkness. the same darkness the development of the B2 was cloaked by. if the information is good and not trivial you couldn't write enough about it here. where, when, by whom, who knew, why, and what does it actually cost to build it. nothing costs 550m$ to make let alone 2bn. there is a difference between what we are told and what is true. Dan Frederiksen (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Pico Rivera outside LA. I worked there in the early 90's and added a blurb to the Pico Rivera article and will soon link it back in.

As to your comments about the costs and possible sinister origins/mission of the craft, I hate to disappoint you but the most sinister thing about the B-2's development was the fact that the company store charged way too much when I tried to buy a car stereo there in '92. People outside the industry have trouble understanding that things in aerospace can indeed cost ungodly amounts of money. This happens when the manufacturer is hit with a perfect storm of creeping technology (the cell phone on your hip has 100x more computing power than every computer on an originally configured B-2 because of Moores Law), a changing world environment (the end of the Cold War), and just simple bad luck. There were originally going to be 132 planes and Northrop went very deeply into hock to build the program. When you take the cost of two dedicated factories (Pico and Palmdale), all those workers (13,000 at Pico only), and subcontracts to companies throughout the nation for all the hydraulics/avionics/fuel systems/engines/sensors/etc. and spread them out over just 21 planes instead of 132 (or hundreds, which is what Northrop had originally dreamed of), you wind up with a whopping price per plane.

Remember that building the B-2 was the aerospace equivalent of building the pyramids. The Air Force passed on dozens or hundreds of other projects to put all their budgetary eggs in one basket for a decade and a half. Nearly twenty years after I started there I still run into ex employees who worked on it all the time.

I know that the fact that B-2 looks sexy and sinister and uses once exotic composite technology lends itself to all sorts of speculation about its purpose. The truth is that its mission is a simple, almost old fashioned one: to deliver bombs to people halfway across the world who don't want to have bombs dropped on them. The B-2 doesn't need an alien death ray or warp drive or antigravity engines - just the ability to get over a target, open the bay doors, and let gravity complete the delivery of several tons of high explosives. This is, however, a Hell of a lot more complex that it appears (One of a few hundred thousand issues: You know what happens if you drop an object into an airstream and you haven't done the math right? It loops back up and punches clean through a wing. Very rough on both the bomb and the plane) and that's why it takes so many people to do it. B-2 does its job in a very reliable manner thanks to the work of thousands of people working all over the U.S. to support hundreds of Air Force personnel all over the world.

You are right in that there are ethical issues at play here. You may question spending large amounts of taxpayer dollars for complex systems where some might think it better spent elsewhere. You can (and any moral person does) question the use of any weapon against your fellow man. In the end, though, there is no inherent darkness or sinister purpose to the B-2, the F-117, or any other weapon. They are simply tools, tools that (frankly) most of the people who built them would prefer never need to be used.

Apologies about getting on my soapbox, Dan, but the real world is at once a lot more confusing, complex, boring, and fascinating than what conspiracy theories would have you believe. Take care and keep asking questions. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe edit your post for concision. the B2 was not like the pyramids. it's a slow flying wing made of plastic. and all military is inherently evil. if the B2 was their sole product developed in LA of all places, what is being done at the groom lake facility? for 50 years. Dan Frederiksen (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Pico Rivera site is now a huge strip mall. It was located at the corner of Washington Blvd and Rosemead Blvd. The only clue that this place was once the B-2 Division facility is a small street named "Stealth Parkway" behind the stores. Google Maps "Washington Blvd and Rosemead Blvd, Pico Rivera, CA" to see the entire former site defined by Washington Blvd, Paramount Blvd, Rosemead Blvd and the railroad tracks. I used to park in the back, past Rex Road; it took me 15 minutes to get to my desk (!). The facility had a "front lawn" at that corner that, along with the access roads, parking lot and the landscaping formed a B-2 in plan view from the air, with the "Northrop" out at the point of the corner substituting for the windscreen. Whether it was by chance or design no one I knew there knew.Alanz01 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't heard of this research. Sounds like someone was trying to set up a easily "self-destructable" facility for a harried "colonel"...streaking down on the facility like an eagle in his fighter jet during a time of war and terror, lest "the enemy" seize control of the facility's blueprint room. Good research materials for the article to include this aspect might include reference citations as per WP:NOR, historic USGS/NRO satellite photos, zoning and land use patterns surrounding the facility...how much housing surrounded the facility, or was the land zoned industrial? Was the development team aware of potential residential land use surrounding the facility that might need to be bombed one day? Years and years from now, this information might be declassified.Critical Chris (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical Chris, I'm assuming you're just being sarcastic for sarcasm's sake. If Alanz01 wants to stick that tidbit about the outline in the article, he would indeed need to cite some research. As far as just tossing it out here in the talk page, cut him a little slack. Talk pages are the place where tidbits like that are kicked around and research/citations are found.

Personally, I wonder if he's right. My memory of the big lawn tells me that such a layout might be right, but I thought that landscaping was done before it was the B-2 Division, back when it was still "Advanced Systems" and the B-2 was black world. Given that the mere outline of the B-2 was classified at one point, I can't imagine them landscaping something that obvious. Since I came in in Aug 1990 just after the B-2's first flight (after it had left black world and there would have been no problem with the outline) it could be that the landscaping went in right before I showed up. That would be the only way I could imagine them allowing something like that. If there is something citable about the outline, though, I think it'd be a great addition to the article.

As to the other points, the area was zoned industrial (it was originally the Ford plant) but there were residences and apartment complexes on the borders of the site. As far as being bombed, pretty much every square mile of Southern California was evenly targeted with Soviet nukes during the Cold War because of its status as a population and industrial center. There were no precision strikes and any attack on U.S. soil was going to be a full nuclear war - living next to the B-2 or thirty miles away was irrelevant. If your allusion is supposed to imply the US nuking its own plant, you need to drink a glass of warm milk and go take a nap - if a foreign army were invading Southern California (as opposed to nuking it), things would pretty much be so far gone that there wouldn't be any industrial base left to build the damn things anywhere in the world any more.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to be a troll. I'm being dead serious about the building being designed "for maximum operational flexibility" i.e. ready destruction in a time of war. Yes it could be a tactic of a total war very much similar to the way Richmond was burned upon its fall in April, 1865. Another theory explaining the layout of the building and grounds into the shape of the plane is that it could be used by an intelligence agency and operatives to find the building on a map in the absence of a specific street address.Critical Chris (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. First, my apologies to Critical Chris for throwing out the T-word. It was out of line. I'll be more civil.

As far as total war, personally I never saw any specific plan in place for disposing of all our classified data, but Chris has a good point. There probably was some sort of contingency somewhere in the place for burn barelling everything we had (perhaps as part of a standard "shutting down the site" plan). As to whether or not it would have worked in a crisis situation, I'm pretty doubtful. Military installations and civilian ones have different attitudes towards that sort of thing and if a Soviet invasion fleet were landing at Long Beach, I really doubt many of my coworkers would have reported to work for the orderly destruction of their data. Every military base, though, has plans in place for base overruns, sieges, etc.

Those are general principles, though. As far as aerial bombardment or the landscaping being designed with that in mind I'm doubtful. As a corporation, Northrop was immensely proud of the B-2, putting it on our letterhead and even our credit union's Mastercards. Most likely it was just a simple morale oriented "gosh, that would be cool to lay out the landscaping like that!"

Also recall that there was a huge amount of classified B-2 and non B-2 work done at other facilities throughout the southland (the radar in Hughes Fullerton, etc). To bomb dozens (B-2) or hundreds (non B-2) of sites based on landscaping would have been impractical (as would be to ask hundreds of companies to model their landscaping after a rival's product). Finally, remember that the Pico building itself was retrofitted from the old Ford plant. While some guy somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon might have calculated how many bomb loads it would have taken to blast the site, the building itself was absolutely not designed with that in mind.

Of course, all this is kind of moot unless someone digs up an old photo or cite indicating that the landscaping actually had a distinctive pattern. We still haven't shown that at all.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

John Cashen is given a lot of the credit for developing the B2 and the wale. Most of Northrop's production was at Pico Rivera, where I worked, and that is where the giant kilns that cured the composite material were. Boeing built most of the wing structure up in Washington State. The wing sections were one piece and required a midget to inspect the interior after manufacture:-) I met a guy who worked at the plant that made the windows at that was someplace in Southern California. The assembly was at the Air Force Plant in Palmdale. The Air Force was concerned that Northrop had not done anything as complex as the B2 and forced Northrop to create a separate B2 Division. Many employees were former B1 employees. Northrop also had other locations for testing in Southern California, but I only know they existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltysailor (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)