Talk:Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider

Proposed specifications unreliable

The specifications heading cites two sources that don't themselves cite sources to propose performance characteristics of the aircraft, which are in fact classified. Any inclusion of these specifications is odd and at minimum should include clarification. Some observers have discussed things like the gray paint scheme suggesting a lower operating altitude etc. but right now it's all speculation. Sberns10 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed them, again, but they'll probably keep coming back. Many readers don't understand that those are not reliable sources, so they keep adding them. BilCat (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Specifications

There are no published specs for this secret machine. We do have some ballpark estimates from a reputable writer at a reputable journal. These must be worth including, as estimates. But they are, after all, not so much specifications as guesses - however educated. Would it be better to include them in the descriptive text, rather than break out an authoritative-looking Specifications section in our usual way? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

All military hardware specs are secret even those "known" here are still confidential. It's pointless to be too picky or excessively differentiate when there's technically no difference in the situation we are facing. We just have to make sure they aren't obviously off less outright wrong. That said a lot of the known specification come from the studies supplied to congress about the LRS-B program for budget and decision making. There have always been only two design specs options and obviously the smaller one was chosen. If I go by how accurate things could be guessed: weapons load is the easiest to come by with as good as 100% accuracy achievable. After all the weapons bay has limited size and its biggest required weapon being the GBU-57/B. Counting weapon's weight, pylon mount weight or rotary launcher weight and bomb racks for all combinations and permutations and rounding up to the next 1000 lb point and we are good. Empty or frame weight isn't much of an issue either. We know it's relatively lighter. With reasonable design knowledge 95% accuracy should be easy. The biggest estimation problem lies in the engine whether it uses the GE XA-100 or P&W XA-101 or the P&W F135 engine greatly changes the metric. They add better fuel efficiency, thrust and relative range increases. My guess is it will have a higher fuel fraction then the B-2 and adding all the XA-10x improvements could give it a range of 7800-8000 nm which "happens" to be needed this time. Mightyname (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

All of which has nothing to do with an encyclopedia which demands reliable sourcing. And it's wrong anyway: military hardware specs are widely published by reliable sources such asJane's. One person's estimates of a type barely into airframe flight testing is not a reliable source. I'm not suggesting we delete wholesale, but I am suggesting they be presented within explanatory text and not made to look so authoritative. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Jane's may have been widely regarded as good but they too are just collecting public data and using their connections. They clearly state there's no warranty about "the completeness or accuracy of the data, material" etc. (section 4.1 LIMITED WARRANTY). They are a little more reliable than professional magazines but that's it. The encyclopedia's demand for sources has its limits that is if it's actually published. Basics taken for granted are an example to get proper verification even if they are part of science. Outside of math nothing is ever truely reliable. Not to mention there are plenty of ways for information operations to interfere. Mightyname (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be saying there is no such thing as a truly reliable source, therefore everything is ultimately unreliable and any choice of source is as good as any other. Not sure there is much mileage in that argument here, Wikipedia policy on WP:SOURCES is a better bet.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the main point is because of that you have to be aware and evaluate the information accordingly to where they come from and how reliable they could be. Basic OSINT stuff really. Hence, my extensive outlining of the probabilities to begin with for evaluation. Just take the information on passenger aircraft as an example. Lots of nice reliable specifications but if you actually look closely they are mostly generalized and loosely for the "main" type. Ofc that's fine since we don't care about actually going into every technical detail. Mightyname (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that Janes is not necessarily a reliable source. For example, their referenced dimensions for JASSM are clearly wrong according to leaked documents Anonymous86425 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Which edition and page of Jane's are you referring to? I will add that a singular incident of a source getting some information wrong does not necessarily make said source unreliable; even the most reliable sources make mistakes. If you have evidence that Janes regularly provides inaccurate specifications, feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "Reliable source" does not mean what you or I want it to mean, it means what WP:SOURCES, as expanded on by WP:RS, says it means. Any source may be an RS for some things but not others. A standard work like Jane's is an RS except when, for some particular factoid, you can find other RS which contradict it. At this point community consensus kicks in, but Jane's is still an RS for everything else. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)