▲ 248 ▼ Now called The Astrofortress (sh.itjust.works) submitted 2 years ago by LOCKMART@sh.itjust.works to c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works 22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I never claimed any of that. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I never claimed any of that. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I never claimed any of that. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I never claimed any of that. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 [–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I never claimed any of that. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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
[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 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 replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 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
[–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I never claimed any of that. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? permalink fedilink source parent
