Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Engines?

Why does this article apparently contain no detail of the plane’s engines? This information appears to be given at https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-2-stealth-bomber/b-2-technical-details/ Gsoper (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This article says "Powerplant: 4 × General Electric F118-GE-100 non-afterburning turbofans, 17,300 lbf (77 kN) thrust each", and links to the General Electric F118 article. So there is a whole article about the engines. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I can see the reference to powerplant now and I can also see how I missed it in the Specification section. I expected to find some mention of them in the Sesign section and visually scanned that section (on the mobile view), found nothing and then searched the article for the word ‘engine’, again finding nothing. It does feel like something of an omission and maybe some more obvious mention could be made? Gsoper (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'Crash' vs 'accident'

Hi @Fnlayson, I saw you reverted my edit. Can you explain what you mean by "more formal wording"? Crash is a perfectly acceptable term for the incidents contained in the section, and probably the more correct one. Please see the MOS discussion and recent writing on the use of the word "crash" vs "accident." Unless a source in the article is directly using the word "accident" we should be using the word "crash" with rare exceptions.

Additional reading here:

https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/associated-press-collision.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident" revisited Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing this to your talk page instead of here initially. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• The Aircraft project guidelines (WP:Air/PC) lists a section label of "Accidents and incidents" (or just Accidents) for aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll open a discussion there. Hopeful to hear your input. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Some inconsistencies

In the specifications section, it is listed as being capable of officially 18,000kg payload and estimated 23,000 kg max payload. Simultaneously, it is said to be capable of carrying 2 GBU 57s, each being 14,000 Kg. I dont know if this would be OR or can fall under WP:SKYBLUE, but atleast one of those figures needs correction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

About one year later, I'd say inserting anything would be considered OR, but we could exclude the "estimated" max payload due to conflict with the other information.
Pinging others who edited here recently - @Nimbus227@Jabbahwocky Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should revise the estimated maximum payload and cite this USAF press release as the basis. Spick's book was published way back in 2000 which is long before the GBU-57 was introduced. I don't think we need a lot of justifiction to revise an estimate, but since it still disagrees with the the official fact file I wouldn't go so far as WP:SKYBLUE. NUXI (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Payload usually accounts for weapons stores, the structure to carry them and the racks to mount them. In cases like the SDB an additional rack is needed to mount a quad pack of SDBs. In this case weapons only ~1000 lb but total is ~1500 lb. You missed 1/3 of the payload. People talking about weapons only dismiss all the rest of the payloads. That's why you got "discrepancies". Ofc obfuscation of information also plays into this. Not to mention the military often overload like in the case of the F-15 testing balastic missiles. This is possible because the safety margin is like 2x the rated load. Naturally, with the overload this means the plane can't fly at rated g-forces anymore. That doesn't preclude it from flying or using such weapons. Just keep record of things as they come. Being selective, dismissing or removing information arbitrarily only leads to a false picture. Mightyname (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Propose renaming the article "Northrop B-2 Spirit"

From what I've observed, aircraft article names generally use the prime contractor at the time of design/production, designation, and sometimes the official name. The principle B-2 team consisted of Northrop, Boeing, Hughes, and Vought, and the aircraft was built from 1987 to 2000. While Northrop Grumman was formed in 1994 following Northrop's acquisition of Grumman, the bulk of the design work and the first few aircraft were built before the acquisition occurred. Wouldn't it make sense for Northrop to be in the article title instead of Northrop Grumman? See General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, another aircraft where production transferred from GD to Lockheed in 1993, but the article title still reflects the original designer. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that. Schierbecker (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 09:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Czarking0 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"equivalent to US$1300 million in 2021" - I know these tools are finicky but try to make this billions. "The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion" - Is there a reason 2004 is particularly notable? Also this section could use some graphs about projected vs actual, over time, procurement vs maintenance, maybe you have some additional ideas? "during the first two weeks of a conflict" - I assume this is Kosovo but the reader has no idea what conflict is being discussed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"As of 2011, the AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile is an upcoming standoff munition to be deployed on the B-2 and other platforms.[96] This is to be followed by the Long Range Standoff Weapon, which may give the B-2 standoff nuclear capability for the first time." - This does not align with the claims in the led and the claims themselves are fairly out of date. I would consider combining the "Opposition" and "Program costs and procurement" sub sections. The story may be more illuminating if the dates for the information in these two sections are side by side. "In 1998, a Congressional panel advised" - This feels like it does not really fit in this section?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Is fas.org WP:RS? My gut says yes but I do think they are a POV organization.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvivo shows a possible violation for joebaugher.com which I agree has too many too close phrasing. Also this does not appear to be WP:RS
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"evidence of flaws in the aircraft's ability to elude detection by radar" - can you elaborate about the major pieces of evidence that were brought to the public's attention? Does the Northrop lobbying play a significant role in the procurement/opposition history? What about a map of where parts were made vs where senators voted against B2 funding? Several of the extension contracts such as DMS-M do not name which private companies were partnered with. If this info is available I would presume it was notable given the attention to private partners in other sections
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"In 1995, Northrop made a proposal to the USAF to build 20 additional aircraft with a flyaway cost of $566 million each." - Was not sure which section to put this in but if this is notable than you should cover what happened to the proposal. Otherwise, this probably does not need to be included?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	@DeadlyRampage26: At first glance I do not see you was a significant contributor to this article. Can you clarify if you meet the nomination criteria WP:GAN "Any significant contributor to an article may nominate it" Czarking0 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh hello. I may not meet the criteria after hearing this but I will check soon to confirm thankyou. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just reminding you that I am still expecting a response here Czarking0 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man sorry for keeping you waiting I've been doing with some other stuff. In line with the rule you mentioned I am probably unable to have submitted this properly considering I was not a significant contributor to the page. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I am going to fail this review but I appreciate you bringing it up and look forward to your other contributions Czarking0 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad podcast transcript

W/r/t the extensively quoted Mitchell Institute podcast, "is" was misheard and mistranscribed as "as". This was originally added here; cf. the audio 24m36s into the mp3. I'm noting this info here, because the edit summary field was too restrictive for this. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

once again, Why the sudden leap in popularity?

Another time, Just a random leap in popularity. Doing this (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2025

In the Armament section, under Specifications:

Update "maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb" to 60,000lbs as it is confirmed to carry 2 30,000lb GBU-57 MOPs. 74.111.49.248 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The current article literally shows "2× GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator with a total of 60,000 lb (27,000 kg)" and points to source 186 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit#cite_note-MOP_capability-188 74.111.49.248 (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Already done The proposed update is now reflected in the article. Day Creature (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

== Amount of B-2 bombers used in the 2025 Iran strikes ==

Change the number of bombers used in the bombing of Iran in 2025 to 7 not 6.

 Done Destinyokhiria 💬 16:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Why are you demanding reliable sources when this very page already clearly states, with sources, that the B2 can drop 60,000 pounds? Just fix it.Pkirvan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Edit request 22 June 2025

Description of suggested change: The sentence is contradictory. It states that seven B-2As were used, but then mentions a “seventh aircraft” dropping bombs on Natanz. According to American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, "Six B-2s dropped 12 GBU-57A/B MOP bombs on the Fordow facility, and the seventh B-2 dropped two MOPs on Natanz."

Diff:

−

Seven B-2As were used to drop a "dozen 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on the Fordo site (the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant)," and a seventh aircraft dropped two bunker busters on Natanz.

+

Six B-2As were used to drop a "dozen 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on the Fordo site (the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant)," and a seventh aircraft dropped two bunker busters on Natanz.

86.135.160.79 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Already done Day Creature (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2025 (2)

80.1.195.61 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

the b2 spirit has been flown for the first time, 36 years ago, not 35

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request 24 June 2025

The citation for footnote #13 about the 2008 crash is a dead link. The official Air Force report about the accident is at https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/123360/b-2-accident-report-released/ HeraldVedel (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've added the reference you've provided and added an archive url to the reference with the dead link. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Stealth - IR

The article is just plain wrong. I can assure the editors that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not conflict with one of the fundamental Laws of Physics: the Conservation of Energy (with the qualification that Energy Conservation ignores nuclear transformations (MC^2) and General Relativistic issues). That is to say, mixing cool air with hot air does NOT reduce the energy emitted. Energy is conserved. While, obviously, cool air will cool hot gasses (and hot gasses will heat cool air), I doubt anyone needs to be told that. There is a heating effect if you redirect a stream of (cold) air. I'm not arguing that the mixing is ineffective, btw. But it's pretty likely that MORE thermal energy is contained in the resulting gas stream than would be present without the internal mixing (I'm unable to do the energy balance but...)(and it may be that this heating is negligible, depends on the engineering/aerodynamics). What mixing does is DISPERSE the heat. Duh. Since IR detectors work by difference - discriminating hotter (higher emitting) sources from colder (lower IR emitting) objects, then a cooler object, ceteris paribus, is harder to detect. So, reduces the energy emitted? Probably not. Disperses the energy emitted. Yes. Changes the wave length (envelope) of the emitted energy? Yes but I'm uncertain if this effect is significant given the delta T involved (between high altitude air and exhaust gasses; and THIS is what Stefan-Boltzmann is 'about'). As an aside (as of Jun.30.2025) my understanding is that the 7 B2s flew non-stop (with in-flight refueling) from Whiteman AFB, in Missouri. The articles I've seen (several) claim they flew East, but from MO the shortest route is almost due North (over Greenland). Whether they flew that way or headed East I do not know - and I'm not sure there's any reliable source since I expect their flight path is classified (I hope, but ya never know). Anyway, that seems notable. (I'm not sure that the B2 "decoys" from Whiteman that flew to Guam at ~ the same time are also worth a mention.) Anyway, if we assume Whiteman to Tehran and back, round trip (since Tehran is within a few hundred miles of the targets), they flew at least 13,400 miles round trip, non-stop (and possibly several hundred or even a thousand or two miles more). 98.22.50.44 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a proposal to update the article? And if so, what is specifically that request? and what source is being cited? --McSly (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)