Talk:Next-Generation Bomber/Archive 1

Archive 1

Getting started

Thanks for starting this article. I was trying to describe it some in the FB-22 article. I had thought there would not enough info for a full article. I'll see what I can do to help on this one. -Fnlayson 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They just had a huge article in Air Force Magazine. Thats actually where I pulled the majorty of the information from. -FLJuJitsu 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NGB

Looks like Northrup Grumman was awarded the contract [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigen III (talk • contribs)

Northrop Grumman has been awarded some money to do some type of work on it. It seems to be a demonstrator. [2] There is be a bomber competition/bid in 2010. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Vague facts

I changed the description of the B-52 as being 'the only bomber capable of carrying and launching cruise missiles' to the B-52 being 'the only bomber currently allowed to carry and launch cruise missiles under current arms-control treaties.' The B-1 and the B-2 both can; neither is actually allowed to under treaty.

Also-what missions is the B-2 not able to perform? I'm immensely curious, as the B-2 can carry practically all of the current bomber range of weapons, beyond specialty ones like Have Nap and Harpoon, and deliver them wherever it chooses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesA2-22 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

NGB starting to look like B-2

I don't think this article is solid enough to list yet, but it does provide a lot of insight into how the NGB is going to be an improved B-2 rather than a smaller design.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/NGB122209.xml

Hcobb (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd a really interesting article that puts a lot of speculation together, but we'll see how much actually ends up being related to the NGB. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

- Even with same wingspan as the B-2, but with a payload of ~1/4 of the B-2's, it'll be lighter and probably smaller in the other dimensions provided the NGB does not carry much more fuel. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New Generation Bomber → Next-Generation Bomber —

• A user last year mistakenly moved 2018 Bomber to New Generation Bomber. It has always been called the Next-Generation Bomber [3] Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment both titles are horrible. "new generation bomber" and "next generation bomber" have been used for other projects. Further, other countries have new/next generation bomber projects, and this naming shows US bias. I suggest reverting to 2018 Bomber and implementing a full WP:RM discussion to pick a better name; atleast 2018 bomber is accurate, since it's the old name. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

...calling it by its actual name is 'US bias'? I'm not so sure about that. And the only other country that would be working on a 'next generation bomber' would be Russia, which would, obviously, use a program name in Russian (a la PAK-FA). So Next-Generation Bomber should be the name it's called by here. - The Bushranger (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Russian are making a new bomber, it's called the PAK DA. Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Dalney Aviatsyi (Перспективный авиационный комплекс дальней авиации in Russian) -- Future Air Complex for Strategic Air Forces. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Next-Generation Bomber is correct name for Air Force program. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I had never heard it called the New Generation Bomber until I saw it hear on wiki. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support usual name. —innotata 17:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment "Next Generation Bomber" is the B-1, in the 1970s and the B-2 in the early 1980s, and the A-12 in the late 1980s. It's only the 2013 bomber in the early 2000's See [4] ; and in the 1960's it was the B-70 that was called that [5] - It's very clear that this term is not unambiguous. This name is very WP:RECENTISM and should atleast be disambiguated. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you. While the B-1, B-2, and B-70 were all "next generation bombers" at one point, this specific program is being called the Next Generation Bomber (note the capitalization). It's likely that the name will change again once the actual RFP is submitted (to something like "B-X Program" or "NG-B Program"). When that happens we can move the article again to the proper name (and therefore getting rid of any recentism concerns) in the manner of the LAAR program or the KC-X program. In the meantime "Next Generation Bomber" is what this program is being called, and the article name should reflect the most common name. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So far there has been 3 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 comments (negative). This seems to be approaching a consensus to rename. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NGB isn't "dead", just changing

My edit message got truncated, but I edited the lead to more accurately reflect what the source says ... the NGB as we had expected it is dead, but they are still planning on procuring a replacement bomber. It may be smaller, less stealthy, etc. than we expected the NGB to be, but it'll still be a new procurement. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

AvLeak drops another bomb

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2011/04/01/DT_04_01_2011_p28-297147.xml&headline=USAF Bomber Gets Tight Numbers

Lots to mull over. Hcobb (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Seems that you're the one mulling and being so off topic all the time. Has being in India all this while caused your thinking to become warped? And I've warned you umpteen times about you being WP:FORUMY, take the hint and beat it, wil'ya? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

22K is too long?

What do you consider to be a short article on a major new program then? Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Corny, just fix it the next time you see things like this, if you're wrong then you'll know soon enough. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Text was trimmed in places anyway, since the program has barely started.. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation article

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/28/is-next-gen-bomber-biggest-air-force-mistake-in-last-50-years/

I didn't add this link, because I don't think her criticism is well informed. Hcobb (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you putting it here? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For discussion, I presume. The proposed plane has received little comment, so there's not much else. We do discuss this proposal to build the plane first and add additional capabilities later. I think the major error Eaglen may be making is underestimating the pattern of cost overruns that have led to the cancellation of other weapons sytems. So, in conclusion, I appreciate Hcobb for linking to it but I agree that it's not significant or well-informed criticism.   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not like nobody's showing new designs all the fnording time:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/09/next-generation-bomber-is-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/ Hcobb (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The more new designs that are proposed the less likely it is that any of them will be built soon, IMO. OTIOH, they could be building something right now without making it public. But it's pointless to speculate about secret programs.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently this is based on a single graphic in a booth at the "Air Force Association's annual convention at National Harbor, Md."[6] The author says he's seen the picture before. Time will tell.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the supersonic nature, that's probably not an NGB concept, but more related to the 2037 Bomber. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The fighters shown on are more for future Next Generation Air Dominance and the USAF Next Generation Tactical Aircraft 6th gen programs. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest edits

So the final result of the latest edit war is that the article suggests that Michael Donley is the one who talked about the deferred nuclear capability. Isn't that a BLP violation? Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get that? The wording in Lead is in separate sentences with no connecting wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a series of attributed statements followed by one unattributed statement. Logically it's part of the stuff before it. Hcobb (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Errr...that's not how references work, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

neutrality of the style

Article with "Boeing/Lockheed Martin contender concept image" only looks like advertisement without other participant/s. At least one among inmages of Northrop Grumman's NGB concept should be considered for inclusion. Added neutrality banner. 217.132.104.229 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

These are company images and are not free. Someone needs to upload the Northrop Grumman NGB image and provide a valid fair use rationale. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)