Jump to content

Talk:Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Suppliers

In March 2016, the USAF announced several tier-one suppliers for the program, including Pratt & Whitney, Spirit AeroSystems, and BAE Systems.

What's not relevant about this?Phd8511 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The tag was meant that was minor details. Listing each and every supplier would be a directory listing and overly detailed/non-notable. I removed a couple of the smaller supplier and left the 3 listed in the article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Well that's not helpful. Either delete them all, or retain the complete list that the Pentagon considers "top tier" and worthy of an announcement! (Seriously, I pulled up this article specifically because I was curious whether Rockwell Collins had been named as a supplier to the program, and I would have come away mislead if I hadn't seen the link to this Talk page and clicked on it. The arbitrary nature of this selective deletion is a little bit bothersome--just imagine how it might look from the standpoint of a GKN shareholder, considering that you deleted them and retained one of their main competitors.) Jelliott4 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've been on WP exactly 10 years this month, and that's the first time I remember someone asking that we look at a shareholder's viewpoint of their competitors. Perhaps we ought to remove all mentions of Northrop Grumman from the article too, as it may offend shareholders of Boeing and LockMart, NG's competition on the B-21 program? As to the suppliers, we don't need to list all the suppliers, as that information is contained in the cited source, and accessible in the article. As to what should be listed, I'd be fine with just listing the engine manufacturer. In most WP aircraft articles, the engine maker is probably the only other company mentioned besides the prime contractor. Any mention of other subcontractors is probably limited to more recent aircraft types, and is probably a product of recentism and increased accessibility to sources through the internet. Further, Pratt and Whitney is the only supplier mentioned in the source article's first paragraph, so we probably wouldn't be wrong in considering it the top supplier. - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Undue/possibly redundant emphasis on "thermonuclear weapon"?

The lede for this article is

  • "The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is a heavy bomber aircraft under development by Northrop Grumman. As part of the Long Range Strike Bomber program (LRS-B), it is to be a long-range strategic bomber for the United States Air Force,[1] intended to be a heavy-payload stealth aircraft capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons."

Every attack and fighter-bomber aircraft the US has (apart from close air support aircraft such as the A-10) is capable of carrying the current generation of thermonuclear gravity bombs (by which I mean the B-61 and B-83).

I'm not sure we need to stress that capability in the article lede. If nothing else, we then ignore possible use of the B-21 to deliver conventional (chemical explosive) bombs, either in tactical/operational actions, or strategic missions such as those considered under Prompt Global Strike.

I propose the following change to the lede:

  • "The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is a heavy bomber aircraft under development by Northrop Grumman. As part of the Long Range Strike Bomber program (LRS-B), it is to be a long-range strategic bomber for the United States Air Force.[1]"
This is a shorter and more readable lede that calls the B-21 what it is, a strategic bomber. and leaves consideration of the exact nature of its load-out for later, while giving the reader a wikilink to "strategic bomber" so that it's easy for the reader to find out quickly what a strategic bomber carries.

Comments? loupgarous (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and made most of the changes I proposed, keeping the "capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons" phrase, because it's the only place in the article we mention that capacity of the B-21. I'd like to delete that later, if reliable sources of information on the load-out options for the B-21 ever are available. I read the online version of Aviation Week and Space Technology every day or so, so I'll probably see that information not long after it enters the public domain. loupgarous (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
At one point in the bomber program (probably Next-Generation Bomber program) the nuclear capability was to be added after initial development, as I recall. Anyway, nuclear capable probably should be mentioned somewhere in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Nuclear weapons have long become standard these days. The difference between e.g. size or yield of ordinary nukes and thermonuclear weapon have also long been removed especially now that tactical yield nukes are more important. It's meaningless now to make a difference here. Simply mentioning being nuclear capable is sufficient. Besides the main difference between ordnance these days is whether they have electronic mid flight programming or not. Everything else like rack mounting and connectors are all on the standard. Therefore, software is the main enabling issue. Mightyname (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times article about B-21 Raider

This LA Times article deals with the B-21 Raider. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Crew Compliment?

Do we know if the B-21 will be a manned or unmanned aircraft, and if it's the former, what the expected crew compliment will likely be? I couldn't find any information on the subject in the article as it is now.Orca1 9904 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have heard nothing that this wouldn't be manned aircraft. Considering that bomber missions often have to fly 30+ hours, I would hope that they would make provisions for multiple pilots (more than 2) and a crew rest area. But very few details have been forthcoming as of yet. --rogerd (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Doean't matter because the aerodynamic form has to remain the same. Mightyname (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks a lot like a B2, so how about a comparison of features...

It looks a lot like a B2, so how about a comparison of features? Geo Swan (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Some thought on my part. There is Now a specifications section, with a Source Aviation Weekly speculative #s. By this it is 70% of the B-2 in size by dimensions - by weight and capacity it is ONLY half the size. - I hope this eventually is proven wrong. Some ideas are basically copied from the B-2. The surface covering - radar absorbent material will be a LOT less maintenance required, speculative twice the life. Electronics and computers - Think how much that has changed since the B-2 was designed- may not originally be a lot more advances - but lower cost- designed for easier future upgrades. I suspect a detailed comparison will remain classified for a length of time. humm - go read the article on the AN/APQ-181 Wfoj3 (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the pix, the detailed aerodynamics of the wing appear very different. Pretty much everything else; stealth coating, engine installation, size, approach to systems hardware, is different too. About the only commonality is a stealth bomber of rather similar planform. A bit like comparing chalk and cheese because they both begin with "ch". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Replaces the B-1B...

I just watched a YouTube, that sounded credible, that said the B1 will all be retired before the first B21 is ready. This contradicts our article, that says it will complement the B1, B2, and B52... Geo Swan (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

B1 availability is a big problem right now. Not so much retirement, let alone planned retirement, more an unexpected number of missions and excessive wear and tear on the fleet. The US might simply run out of B1s. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The YouTube said 66 of approximately 100 remained available.
  • At one point I wondered whether retired B1 bombers might be made into supersonic civilian executive jets. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hint toward payload

This CBO document mentions a payload of 8 B61 nuclear bombs: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56475

Not really: this document speaks of "8 warheads per B-21", which might as well be a reference to another weapon - LRSO, for example. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

B-2 replacement

This article currently says the B-21 is planned to eventuallu replace the B-2 and gives references. However the 2037 Bomber article says it is intended to serve as a replacement for the B-2.

We don't publish speculation in the voice of Wikipedia, and we try to give due weight to competing sources where they are in conflict. These are classified projects of course, so this limits what we can say. But there is much we still can say that is encyclopedic.

Here is a start: The articles should say exactly who says these developments are planned or intended, not just cite the references. Andrewa (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Part of the confusion stems from the 2037 Bomber program having been superseded by the program that lead to the B-21. Once one realizes that, it make more sense. BilCat (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It should be no more difficult than any other material. We report what sources say and we cite them. We do not ourselves try to decide who is right. If sources differ, that's what we report. The only problem arises when we allow our imaginations to fill in the gaps. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Part of the confusion stems from the 2037 Bomber program having been superseded by the program that lead to the B-21. Exactly. And our articles do not currently make that clear, possibly having been written by people who weren't clear on it themselves. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Mainly the 2037 article was never updated, which sometimes. happens here - things fall through the cracks. I've tried to make it more clear now. BilCat (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we are a collaboration and the most important part of the Wikipedia workforce is the volunteer base. This has pros and cons but as with NPOV and consensus we're stuck with it regardless.
Progress!. Thank you. I am (with some spectacular exceptions) reluctant to edit these articles myself as in the field of the US military there are so many far more competent editors lurking on Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Lucky for us, the Congressional Research Service updates Congress on the B-21 program yearly. The first CRS report, in 2016, says the B-21 will replace the B-1 and B-52 when they are retired by 2040. The B-2 is only said to be potentially replaceable, and not before B-1s and B-52s get their place in a museum. HOWEVER, the 2018 CRS report reverses course: B-1s and B-2s retired by 2040, eventual replacement of B-52s a possibility. Change log. Schierbecker (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Supersonic?

Is this capable of supersonic flight like the B-1B?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

More than likely not. The B-2 isn't supersonic either. BilCat (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Not possible based on the form because angle is larger than the wave form. Thrust power wise it might be able to reach mach speed like the Boeing 747 but it likely will break apart. Mightyname (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Number built

Acording this later article [1] the first B-21 is still not fully built. And acording this article [2] it's not a first from eight aircrafts but first from six aircrafts.

"At least two B-21s have been completed, and six B-21s are being manufactured as of February 2022." The ref for this information talks about six aircraft in production but does not talk about built aircraft. I think the Number built in infobox could be zero for now.--MestskyVlk (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Concur, especially as WP:AIR/PC guidance states the aircraft need to have flown first, or at least be reasonably capable of flight. Done. BilCat (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder, the first builds are always testbed builds for various purposes like frame stress tests etc. This is standard. And like the B-2 they might be converted into service builds later on. The stress test version likely will become a museum piece. So there is no certainty any of these are going to be full production aircraft yet. Mightyname (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Six is six more than zero (number of aircraft built in Infobox)

User:BilCat erroneously reverted my correction of the number of examples already built. It had been listed as "zero", and I corrected this to "2", but for some reason BilCat reverted this, claiming "unsourced, and unflown". In fact, SIX B-21s have already been completed according to AirForce Magazine Here is a relevant passage from that source: "Speaking at the 2022 Nuclear Deterrence Summit, Maj. Gen. Jason R. Armagost said the new stealth bomber will likely fly in 2022, echoing previous predictions by other Air Force officials. 'The B-21, going into the future, is going to be our penetrating, get inside the anti-access, area of denial, dual-capable aircraft,' said Armagost, the director of strategic plans, programs, and requirements at AFGSC. 'There are now six of those in existence. The rollout will probably be some time this year." (emphasis added) The irony is that the article already included this information at the bottom of the "Development" section, complete with the same link; somehow BilCat missed this fact. It behooves editors to not only act in good faith but to check to ensure that their reverts aren't at odds with reality. Bricology (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Infobox's instructions for the number built field says to list aircraft built and flown. See Template:Infobox aircraft type for details. This to to curtail disputes over whether an aircraft is actually finished. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this for me while I was offline. They haven't even been rolled out yet, much less flown, implying they aren't all that complete. In the future, it's better to ask why than to assume the other person is ignorant and doesn't know what they are doing. BilCat (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like User:Bricology chose to handle this by restoring their own previous revision from months ago, thereby overwriting nearly 20 intervening edits in the process. Restoring revision 1089912866 may be the best course of action at this point? (Pinging User:Fnlayson and User:BilCat for visibility) Retswerb (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I've reverted to the previous version, but kept your edition of the first flight update, which is better written that what was previously there. BilCat (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

“Heavy bomber” versus “strategic bomber”

I’m curious as to the classification we see with the B-21. Is “heavy bomber” used in official documentation? A quick Google search reveals the term is used quite regularly when referring to the 21, so I suspect news outlets didn’t revive the relatively outdated term… right? It had to come from somewhere official? It’s also described as both a “heavy” and a “strategic” bomber seemingly interchangeably within this very article.

I suppose my issue/contention here is that while most (if not all) strategic bombers are heavy bombers, not all heavy bombers are strategic bombers.

Regardless, it just seems odd that the USAF has seemingly revived the term (if it indeed stemmed from official verbiage to begin with) and I’m curious what others know? MWFwiki (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"heavy" was added to "bomber" by User:Arado back in 2016. Perhaps they has an explanation? BilCat (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You are mixing up the categorization between military tactical use as in firepower or load capacity verses its role. As far as load goes it's without doubt has the smallest load of all current full sized bombers, at best matching the B-1. Besides those WWII definitions no longer hold meaning. Ever see a cruiser being called heavy cruiser now? So I don't see any justification for this. The only meaningful notion that should be made is whether it's strategic or not which basically means whether it carries nukes or not. And as I've said before these days that's also less important as most aircrafts could carry them, too. They only need software update and formal certification. Mightyname (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

B-21 Thumbnail Image Version

Since the B-21 raider reveal video, there are several different screenshots of the stream.

Who's image should be the thumbnail? Flammedice (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

We can only use images that are specifically credited to the US federal government or one of its military branches. If the credit states "Northrop Grumman/screengrab", as with the photos here, we cannot legally use them. The photo at the bottom of that page states "U.S. Air Force photo", so that one is public domain, and has already been uploaded as such here, and is in our article now. BilCat (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

B-1

From the article --

It is to complement existing Rockwell B-1 Lancer, Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit,[5][6]

Everything I've heard it is to replace the B-1 Lancer. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. What, specifically is the reason this should be deleted? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Presumably this is due to a copyright violation, but it is not stated who owns the copyright for this photograph taken at this US government facility (it says the photograph is from the assembly plant in Palmdale and also Edwards AFB -- which is it? The assembly plant is presumably private). or why exactly they have decided to assert a copyright claim for this image. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Northrop Grumman own the copyright, as stated on the page I linked to in the copyvio notice. BilCat (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Fixed it. BilCat (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Penetrating Counter-Air

The most recent reference given for the PCA fighter is from 2016. Furthermore, if my memory serves me correctly, the PCA program has either been abandoned or merged into a different program such as NGAD. Either way, the PCA section needs to be updated, and I don't have the knowledge to do it. GoldUSA (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Two sentences are not a section and not too much. I can tighten/combine the wording, but relevant program changes should be mentioned with supporting source(s). -Fnlayson (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

really still 'under development' ?

The first sentence of the article begins ...

The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is an American strategic bomber under development ...

Is it really still 'under development' ? Präziser (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it has not flown or certainty has not entered service yet. Rollout does not really test anything. Flight testing may show some changes are needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
It's in manufacturing now, so I think the bulk of any development is done. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not about what we (as Wikipedia editors) think, but what we can prove.
But allow me an analogy - the Eurofighter Typhoon first flew in 1994 and entered service in 2003. However these were in a very basic configuration and it would be many years before a full capability was developed. Granted the Typhoon is a multinational collaboration which led to delays, but still it's an example of how rolling a complex aircraft out in front of the press does not end development. Mark83 (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Open System Architecture

The link to “open systems architecture” is to a generic topic whereas the open systems architecture that will be adopted in the B-21 is a specific program standard in the defense department. Perhaps a new entry for Weapons Open Systems Architecture (WOSA) is needed in the open systems architecture page or a completely separate one as most current weapons systems (like the F-35) would reference this. Either way, the open systems architecture link now isn’t very informative as to what the B-21 is supposed to incorporate. I don’t edit/contribute much so forgive me if this isn’t where I should insert my opinion. https://www.afrl.af.mil/News/Article/2928547/new-technical-standard-refines-open-solution/ Equals42 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for, which is discussing improvements to the article. That said, the link is probably fine for now. It just needs to help the reader understand what open systems architecture is in general. Since open systems architecture was mentioned in 2 separate paragraphs, I've removed one, and place the link in the other mention. BilCat (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider/Archive_1&oldid=1219220444"