248
Now called The Astrofortress (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Hm, I do not understand the context here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Okay going to be a buzz kill here. The B52 of now is not the B52 of the past. It was designed as carpet bomber. However in the world of precision munitions, carpet bombing is just not needed. But no matter what decade you are in, war still requires a shit ton of munitions and some way of hauling them. The B52 is that munitions hauler. The reason why no replacement, is simple, good luck trying to convince the Pentagon to spend a shit ton of money to design, engineer, and build what is essential a giant glorified truck. As weird as it may seem, it makes economically sense to keep the old girl working.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    I listened to the Lockheed Martin episode of Acquired and man...the military industrial complex has its hand so deep inside the Pentagon's ass....

    A new plane simply is too expensive to build today. Not because it's hard. But because there are too many mouths to feed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    There's tons of cargo plane models, why not use one of them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Military aircraft have lots of specific technical requirements that civilian planes dont deal with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There are plenty of military cargo planes. They have the C designation. C130 is a popular one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Thats tiny baby plane. Need big big plane, but not too big. Just right size and range.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    There are a whole shit ton of models for every need and size.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Let me know which one is right Ill let the Joint Chiefs know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    If you are the one claiming it's the perfect cargo plane, even better than cargo planes, it's on you to prove it. What even is this conversation, it started you thinking cargo airplanes were civilian and then you just duck and weave on everything in the weirdest way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think the missing piece here is that B-52 isn't just a pretty good cargo hauler, it's a pretty good cargo hauler that we don't need to buy a whole new airframe to get. Think of it less as "we're commissioning these B-52s" and more as "hey look we found a way to use all these B-52s we already had" only this just keeps working forever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well they upgraded all the engines at some point. I don't know the cost breakdown between engines vs frame but I don't think it's good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Gotta be cheaper than buying new planes which would also have new engines. Generally there needs to be a pretty substantial increase in capability before it's worth retiring an existing platform, especially in a logistics role where you don't get as much benefit from the bleeding edge because nobody's supposed to be shooting at you in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    You need new electronics for the new engines, new training for the new handling, etc etc. The cost difference to existing cargo planes that are already in service is becoming less and less. This could easily be a case of being penny wise and pound foolish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The b-52 is a US long range strategic heavy bomber. It's been in service for a very long time, and the reference seems to be that we'll just keep updating it until it's eventually also "new" and refreshed when the enterprise is being decommissioned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Someone else pointed out it’s now not a bomber so much as a cargo hauler, but the phrase “Bomber of Theseus” came to mind and gave me a good chuckle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •