This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Long Range Strike Bomber article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose this merger because the NGB program was superseded by the LRS-B program (colloquially known as Long Range Strike Bomber without proof). The article should also be re-names to LRS-B, LRS-B program or similar, unless evidence can be found that the official name is Long Range Strike Bomber-- Petebutt ( talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus to merge, and there has been no discussion for two weeks. Does anyone object if I remove the merge tag? - 14:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Solid enough to add a spec block? Hcobb ( talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hcobb ( talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's a news source (Reuters) on the current situation with the high-priced (business as usual, for US defense porcurements from the Military Industrial Complex) bomber. The Great Debate: A $550 million Air Force bomber so good it will never be used, 22 October 2015. Includes a decent history of the procurement, inlcluding "in 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the bomber effort on hold; he cited the Air Force’s tendency to develop overly complex and expensive warplanes.", and a sourced statement of the "major warplane programs can take 20 years or more from contract to fielding." while a USAF General refers to "building affordably" at over half-a-billion dollars per airplane. You can't make this stuff up. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed the image of the "Boeing/Lockheed Martin 2018 bomber" since it was a proposal for a different program and since the image is already used on the Next-Generation Bomber. It will be better to have images from the actual program when they are released.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 05:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-usa-airforce-bomber-idUSKBN0TE05D20151125
Since I've sworn off BLP editing I don't know if I can touch this issue. Hcobb ( talk) 02:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The adjective used in the 1st sentence (merely) "Proposed" and following sentence regarding a former 2014 "Request For Proposal" should be updated to reflect the actual contract award (2015) and the "Developmental" stage/status of the bomber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 ( talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/SecAF23/status/703220450088751104/photo/1
Hcobb ( talk) 14:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I is not part of the LRS-B programme (British spelling) is is it. Phd8511 ( talk) 03:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
An extensive and informative article, with interesting short videos at the bottom. It also emphasizes the U.S. Airforce being more visible, for the battle in Congress for continuing funding, also very interesting.
Headline-1: Everything We Know About The New B-21 Stealth Bomber And The Looming Battle To Build It
QUOTE: "The U.S. Air Force has given us our first glimpse of what will hopefully become American’s next stealth bomber. Originally designated the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), the aircraft will now be called the B-21. Why is this announcement today such a big deal? Because it’s as much about the B-21's struggle to even get built as it as about what it could mean for America’s defense apparatus." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 03:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
I agree with ZiaLater in this discussion for removing "Boeing/Lockheed Martin 2018 bomber" because it was proposed for a different program. Boeing/Lockheed Martin did have a proposal for LRS-B. I think that a photo should be added showing the Boeing/Lockheed Martin proposal along with the current photo of the Northrup Grummann aircraft which has won the competition for U.S. Air Force funding.
At this location: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-01-18/us-air-force-committed-long-range-strike-bomber there is a blurred photo with the following caption: "Lockheed Martin produced this impression of a long-range strike (LRS) design for the U.S. Air Force in 2007, before a secrecy clampdown banned contractors from discussing the program in public." I think that this level of secrecy means that it will be difficult to find photos of LRS-B after 2007 unless specifically revealed by the U.S. government. I will add what I believe to be the photo of the Boeing/Lockheed Martin LRS-B based on a trade show photo. I will also add a photo of the trade show photo. That photo must have been taken before 2007. I will document the photos in the main article. Figlinus ( talk) 20:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
There is something wrong in the "origins" section. It talks about Secretary of Defense Gates making a statement in 2009 and then it talks about "his successor, Ashton Carter" making a statement also in 2009. Ashton Carter didn't become Secretary of Defence until 2015. It may be that he made the statement in question in 2009, but he was not yet the successor of Gates (and actually, there were two more Secretaries of Defence between them, Panetta and Hagel, so it is somewhat confusing to refer to Carter as Gates's successor anyway). I'm not sure if the problem is just the wording or if the date is wrong or if someone else made the statement. I tried to follow the two links cited but neither seems valid any more so I can't fix it. Can someone who is more familiar with the facts please help? Sbreheny ( talk) 07:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't make any logical sense:
By the time the research, development, and requirements processes ran their course, the aircraft, despite its great capability, turned out to be so expensive – $2 billion each in the case of the B-2 Spirit—that less than one-sixth of the planned fleet of 132 was ever built
The $2 billion figure is because of of the reduced procurement number, not the other way around. Imagine if you paid for the development of a new aircraft but then only built one of them- you'd end up pinning the entire the program cost on that one aircraft. In the B-2's case they only bought 21 of them. If they had purchased the originally planned amount, the per-aircraft cost wouldn't have been nearly as high.
Rewording needed! -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Long Range Strike Bomber program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Long Range Strike Bomber program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4780815When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Long Range Strike Bomber article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose this merger because the NGB program was superseded by the LRS-B program (colloquially known as Long Range Strike Bomber without proof). The article should also be re-names to LRS-B, LRS-B program or similar, unless evidence can be found that the official name is Long Range Strike Bomber-- Petebutt ( talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus to merge, and there has been no discussion for two weeks. Does anyone object if I remove the merge tag? - 14:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Solid enough to add a spec block? Hcobb ( talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hcobb ( talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's a news source (Reuters) on the current situation with the high-priced (business as usual, for US defense porcurements from the Military Industrial Complex) bomber. The Great Debate: A $550 million Air Force bomber so good it will never be used, 22 October 2015. Includes a decent history of the procurement, inlcluding "in 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the bomber effort on hold; he cited the Air Force’s tendency to develop overly complex and expensive warplanes.", and a sourced statement of the "major warplane programs can take 20 years or more from contract to fielding." while a USAF General refers to "building affordably" at over half-a-billion dollars per airplane. You can't make this stuff up. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed the image of the "Boeing/Lockheed Martin 2018 bomber" since it was a proposal for a different program and since the image is already used on the Next-Generation Bomber. It will be better to have images from the actual program when they are released.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 05:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-usa-airforce-bomber-idUSKBN0TE05D20151125
Since I've sworn off BLP editing I don't know if I can touch this issue. Hcobb ( talk) 02:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The adjective used in the 1st sentence (merely) "Proposed" and following sentence regarding a former 2014 "Request For Proposal" should be updated to reflect the actual contract award (2015) and the "Developmental" stage/status of the bomber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 ( talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/SecAF23/status/703220450088751104/photo/1
Hcobb ( talk) 14:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I is not part of the LRS-B programme (British spelling) is is it. Phd8511 ( talk) 03:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
An extensive and informative article, with interesting short videos at the bottom. It also emphasizes the U.S. Airforce being more visible, for the battle in Congress for continuing funding, also very interesting.
Headline-1: Everything We Know About The New B-21 Stealth Bomber And The Looming Battle To Build It
QUOTE: "The U.S. Air Force has given us our first glimpse of what will hopefully become American’s next stealth bomber. Originally designated the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), the aircraft will now be called the B-21. Why is this announcement today such a big deal? Because it’s as much about the B-21's struggle to even get built as it as about what it could mean for America’s defense apparatus." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 03:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
I agree with ZiaLater in this discussion for removing "Boeing/Lockheed Martin 2018 bomber" because it was proposed for a different program. Boeing/Lockheed Martin did have a proposal for LRS-B. I think that a photo should be added showing the Boeing/Lockheed Martin proposal along with the current photo of the Northrup Grummann aircraft which has won the competition for U.S. Air Force funding.
At this location: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-01-18/us-air-force-committed-long-range-strike-bomber there is a blurred photo with the following caption: "Lockheed Martin produced this impression of a long-range strike (LRS) design for the U.S. Air Force in 2007, before a secrecy clampdown banned contractors from discussing the program in public." I think that this level of secrecy means that it will be difficult to find photos of LRS-B after 2007 unless specifically revealed by the U.S. government. I will add what I believe to be the photo of the Boeing/Lockheed Martin LRS-B based on a trade show photo. I will also add a photo of the trade show photo. That photo must have been taken before 2007. I will document the photos in the main article. Figlinus ( talk) 20:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
There is something wrong in the "origins" section. It talks about Secretary of Defense Gates making a statement in 2009 and then it talks about "his successor, Ashton Carter" making a statement also in 2009. Ashton Carter didn't become Secretary of Defence until 2015. It may be that he made the statement in question in 2009, but he was not yet the successor of Gates (and actually, there were two more Secretaries of Defence between them, Panetta and Hagel, so it is somewhat confusing to refer to Carter as Gates's successor anyway). I'm not sure if the problem is just the wording or if the date is wrong or if someone else made the statement. I tried to follow the two links cited but neither seems valid any more so I can't fix it. Can someone who is more familiar with the facts please help? Sbreheny ( talk) 07:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't make any logical sense:
By the time the research, development, and requirements processes ran their course, the aircraft, despite its great capability, turned out to be so expensive – $2 billion each in the case of the B-2 Spirit—that less than one-sixth of the planned fleet of 132 was ever built
The $2 billion figure is because of of the reduced procurement number, not the other way around. Imagine if you paid for the development of a new aircraft but then only built one of them- you'd end up pinning the entire the program cost on that one aircraft. In the B-2's case they only bought 21 of them. If they had purchased the originally planned amount, the per-aircraft cost wouldn't have been nearly as high.
Rewording needed! -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Long Range Strike Bomber program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Long Range Strike Bomber program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4780815When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)