Why not just build more B-52's instead?

>>31493647
B-52 was obsolete the minute it was built.

>>31493670

Compared to what? They're still in use today.

>>31493677
for the intended role of being a strategic nuclear bomber, it is obsolete.

>>31493647

Because if USAF wanted more B52s they would have reactivated reserve airframes at the boneyard.

>>31493647
shouldnt it be a b2a/b2b? why a another number?

>>31493702

They're going stay in service until 2060. How could they be obsolete? The B-52 has outlasted many "newer" aircraft.

>>31493702

Glad to think some nameless stranger an anime website thinks the military is doing their job wrong. You should call the Pentagon and tell them so.

>>31493727
>reading comprehension

>>31493715
It isn't a B2.

>>31493749
>It doesn't fit the strict original primary role it was designed for >50 years after it was designed
>Even though secondary roles exist
>Even though everyone's hope was that the primary role would never be necessary

You are so retarded I think I can feel myself getting dumber from it; please take your autism somewhere else. If it does the job of a bomb truck well, for less money than a B-1/B-2/developing a new bomber/etc, then why get rid of a thing that works?

>>31493839
Nice sperg out

>>31493647
>Why not just build more B-52's instead?

We can't. Same reason we can't build more A-10s

>>31493750
Yeah, he's asking why it isn't.

>>31493715
Just because it looks similar doesn't mean it's the same thing or a new modification of the B-2 airframe. Chances are, at least by my best guesses, this will streamline and ease manufacturing and costs of the tech developed by the B-2 and others in current service, they'll probably aim to make it bigger too.

>>31493854
Says the one who can't accept anything falling outside of it's original purpose or routine.

>>31493881
you should write your senator and explain how they should build more b-52 ...
i mean you are really smart individual and totally not missed the point of this thread, b-21, doctrine, experience, capability of those 2 platforms altogether

>>31493715
Because it's a completely new airframe built with F-35 tech. It only looks like a B-2 because it's a design they know works.

>>31493919

What can you do with the B-21 that can't be done with the B-52? Why do they need a new bomber?

>>31493933
Go anywhere you want without getting lit up be IADS?

>>31493839
???
are you an idiot? They only keep using the B-52 because they are relatively cheap since they can scrap the old ones continually for spare parts

That'll run out eventually

And they are of zero use against any sort of peer level opponent

>>31493933
Be a threat against anyone with air defenses

>>31493919
I'm not jizzing myself to the B-52, I just think that to say it's obsolete, especially obsolete the minute it rolled off the line, is retarded hogwash.

>>31493933
you are serious ...

b-52 against any opponent with some air defense or air space denial capability can only function as long range cruise missile truck

so question is why do you need heavy bomber to bomb durkas?

while pretty much anything else can do it better or faster or cheaper

>>31493933

Because the airframe if the b52 is aging and will eventually need replacing. Whether that's in our lifetime, that's unclear since the thing has gotten this far.

Then there's stealth, speed, and matching of modern doctrine. Willing to bet smaller means fuel, resource, and logistics efficiency improvements.

We'd also probably like a bomber that can operate in denied airspace, as I doubt you'd want an airframe as large and old as a b52 pulling evasive maneuvers in SAM territory.

File: B-52-fires-ALCM-140922-F-QP609-004-768x432.jpg (17KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 768x432px

>>31493957

>Be a threat against anyone with air defenses

The B-52 can fire cruise missiles.

>>31493995

>b-52 against any opponent with some air defense or air space denial capability can only function as long range cruise missile truck

I don't really see anything wrong with that.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/new-cruise-missile-crucial-to-nuclear-deterrence/

>>31494031

>Because the airframe if the b52 is aging and will eventually need replacing.

They'll last all the way to 2060.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-pw-developing-upgrade-package-for-b-52-engin-413485/

>>31493702
The entire concept of a nuclear stealth bomber is obsolete.

The difference is muh nuclear triad controls congress.

>>31494075
At what cost?

They're already more expensive per flight hour than the B1 simply because of how old they are

>>31494117

Give them new engines.

Why not just make satellites that drop bombs?

>>31494111
Nuclear ballistic subs are also useless
Giant wastes of fucking money for specialized roles that will never be used.

>>31493702
So is the B-21, we don't need a strategic bomber that costs half a billion each. We simply do not need it, at all. Right now we are trying to stay ahead of the curve, but almost everything we do can be accomplished by non-nuclear ordinance stealth drones. If we can get cost per unit on those down as much as possible, they'll just be expendable and great for most operations.

>>31494218
What makes you believe a stealth drone is cheaper than a manned stealth bomber?

>>31494243
Because of the words "non-nuclear". At it is. Look at the fucking B2 for instance, it's the most expensive fucking aircraft to fly. We might as well just use B1 bombers, drones, and multi-role fighters to do the job of bombing things/A-to-G in general.

>>31493744
Boom roasted

>>31494218
>NEED

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, PINKO

>>31494315
B1 is not stealth
B1 can't go hit targets in the center of china, could you put nuclear on ANYTHING, you don't need special vehicles or weapons for using nukes.

>>31494363
B1 doesn't need to go hit targets in the center of China, that's what minuteman missiles are probably better used for.

>>31494506
Nuclear ICBM's are a bit of an escalation fagboy

>>31493647
The B-52 has a lifetime extended to 2060. And there are 21 B-2s and 700 some B-52s. I think this decision speaks for the plans of the bombers.

>>31494543
As of January 2013, 78 of the original 744 B-52 aircraft were operational in the U.S. Air Force.

>>31493647
Different mission profiles. The B-52 has a bigger bomb bay but it's as stealthy as a fake orgasm.

The B-2, and by extension the B-21 are more for sneaking in and destroying air defense first so the B-52s can flatten everything.

>>31495475

Just use stealthy cruise missiles and fire them from B-52's.

>>31495508
They did but the AGM-129s are being retired early for some reason.

>>31493647
Because stealth is the number one priority. The United States Chairforce of America realized that saying "You can't see it....it's stealthy." just doesn't cut it any more so they need to make more black planes.

>>31495508
There's an inherent price to using disposable airframes rather than reusable ones.

Not the US's style.

We enjoy having a lot of sorties, and we don't like the idea of being handicapped against a big country because we spent all the missiles bombing brown people.

>>31494141
SALT II

>>31495508
>spot the vantik
When in doubt, fall back on cruise missile spam for the solution to everything.

>>31495508
I'm not clear on why it isn't obvious how fucking retarded this is.

If you have a cruise missile with a 1000 km range and your target is more than 1000 km behind enemy air defenses, how is your seventy year old airplane supposed to deliver those missiles?

Russia and China are big places.

>>31494138

so your argument is now

>give them new engines!
>they don't need to operate in enemy territory!
>give them new avionics!
>give them RAM coating!

So what you're telling me, is that we should spend billions and billions to upgrade our B-52 fleet to get a plane that will do considerably less than the B-21?

This is bait, you're retarded. Fuck off.

>>31494506

Yes, let's put all of our nuclear eggs in one basket.

We should get rid of Tridents, as well.

You're retarded, leave please. There is a reason we have the Triad.

>>31496301
ALCM spam works, it just lowers sortie rates dramatically.

>>31496028
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

>>31496342

So we should spend more money on older equipment to hinder our capabilities?

You're right, we should modernize the B-52 and scrap the LRSB.

>>31496369
I'm not in favor of it.

It's really more the poorfag, low rate option.

The US bombs way too many people, way too often, to rely on disposable airframes.

>>31496433

I agree, that's why I'm making fun of the faggot OP.

As always, the OP should self-eliminate.

File: Priceless-B52.jpg (159KB, 640x593px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 640x593px

>>31496311
B-52's are not going anywhere for a long time, so they do need limited upgrades to keep the functional as part of the USAF.

Which is exactly what is being done, some networking and updated munition carriage for newer standoff weapons like JASSM-ER.

The idea of trying to turn a B-52 into a anything other than a lumbering stand off weapon dispenser is full fucking retard.

The only argument in favor of new engines is ones that are fuel efficient enough over the 1960's engines that they pay for themselves over the remaining service life of the aircraft.

I WANT A NUCLEAR WAR
>I am an orphan.
BUT REALLY I THINK IT WOULD SOLVE SHIT!

>>31496467

Right, which is why >>31496466

The B-52 is unable to fill it's original intended role, but is capable of fulfilling other roles.

My point was that there are no number of upgrades you can make to the B-52 fleet that would give it the capabilities the LRSB (B-21) is intended for.

>>31496342
Sortie rates? wtf are you talking about?

I'm saying that if the B-52 can penetrate 0km into enemy air defenses then B-52+ACLM lets you attack targets 1000km inside enemy territory.

If the B-2/B-21 can penetrate 500+km into enemy air defenses then B-21+ACLM lets you attack targets 1500+km into enemy territory.

Obviously you can't use stealthy cruise missiles fired from a B-52 to attack targets that the B-52 can't get into cruise missile range of. Just because your girlfriend isn't familiar with the concept of deep penetration doesn't mean the airforce isn't.

File: 9651858.jpg (25KB, 210x210px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 210x210px

>>31496568
>Just because your girlfriend isn't familiar with the concept of deep penetration doesn't mean the airforce isn't.

>>31496568
Technically, it's the Navy who are the all time experts in deep penetration.

What I mean by sortie rates is.

>want to be prepared for a one time event which involves bombing 500 targets, one time (lets say something that rhymes with Taiwan)
>buy ALCMs that you can operate from a cheap aircraft and save on O&M costs
>be the US
>go to war with Serbia, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, and then sprinkle Libya with high explosive fairy dust, start bombing IS in Iraq, and drop a couple bombs in Syria for good measure
>if we spent all our ALCMs in any given one of those wars, we'd have to keep buying them at an alarming rate
>better to get something that flies back, that we can keep loading with cheap JDAMs and sending back over the enemy

inb4 don't need stealth bombers for mud huts meme, everyone has S-75s or better now

>>31496329
>muh triad
It's useless waste of money
ICBM's & tactical is not "one basket", they are spread out all over.
It's insanity to spend tens/hundreds of billions maintaining a submarine ballistic nuke force, or bomber force.

>>31494506
>B1 doesn't need to go hit targets in the center of China, that's what minuteman missiles are probably better used for.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might want to do deep interdiction against modern IADS *without* going full nuclear retard?

>>31496752
>united states of america
>sane
now you know how theyve been doing it for 60 years

>>31496752

>Triad

is designed to offer a multitude of nuclear options and response times, with varying degrees of escalation. It also disperses our nukes and prevents a successful decapitation strike.

If you honestly don't understand the Triad, I have some bad news, because our nuke guy is KIA and I don't have the patience to spoonfeed.

>>31496793
the triad also means that a potential target cannot focus on a single countermeasure

>>31496752
Russia pls go.

>>31493677
>Compared to what?
Lets take a look at the B1-lancer, which its self is not really up to date

It has
Maximum speed that is 180 mph faster
Service ceiling that is 10,000 ft higher
Payload that is 55000 lb higher
Avionics that is way better
and a cost per flight hour that is $9,361 CHEAPER then that of the B-52.

The only thing that the B-52 has over it is range. How ever a Combat radius of 2,993 nmi for a B-1B is already more then the needed amount for almost anything.

>>31496793
>It also disperses our nukes and prevents a successful decapitation strike.

What is this supposed to mean? Are ICBM's all in one big fucking pile somewhere? No obviously not.
The idea that you need nukes sitting on airforce bases, or in carriers, or on subs to "disperse" them is totally nonsense.

I understand the triad, it exists to justify spending & officer positions in useless roles.

>>31496771
>What are drones
Light payload, long range stealth drones are literally the best option, and we aren't making <250m planes in favor of 500m planes we'll never use.

>>31496985

They know where our ICBMs are, they do NOT know where all of our subs and planes are.

Do you REALLY not get this? This is like, second grade.

>>31497025
mobile ICBM's are a thing too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134_Midgetman
Cancelled when the USSR fell apart but still could be built, would be a fuckload cheaper than an ohio replacement program.

>>31493949
>And they are of zero use against any sort of peer level opponent

Nah, they make good ALCM trucks.

>>31496918
Forgot source

http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-plane-cost-per-flight-hour-chart-2016-3

>>31493839
>If it does the job of a bomb truck well, for less money than a B-1

A B-52 costs more, not less. Also it does stand off attacks and bombing in permissive combat environments. For the second role the reaper only cost about $4,762 per hour and each one can carry up to four JDAMs... the B-52 is cheaper to move a retarded amount of bomb to one spot and then just go home. For almost any fighting that has happen for the US in the last ten sending out up to 14 MQ-9 Reapers with 4 JDAMs each and or 4 Hellfire missiles and 2GBU-12 Paveway II will win the fight. At sending 15 MQ-9 Reapers it become cheaper to use a B-52.

>B-2

It is getting replaced, and its replacement will be cheaper per flight hour. Its hard not to be cheaper per hour then a first gen stealth plane.

>>31496993
They're definitely the best option. After all, drone technology has already advanced to the point where they can operate independently and make their own tactical decisions with no need for emissions when within hostile airspace.

>>31496918

What the fuck is the payload really higher? Why was the B-1 never more popular?

>>31497163
The B-1B can carry 120,000lbs of payload on external hardpoints, and internal bomb bays. This would lower combat range dramatically though. Its an extremely versatile aircraft that should have replaced the B-52 completely.

>>31497163
>Why was the B-1 never more popular?

It entered service in 1986 just as the cold war was drawing down. Also a lot of people just believe that older military hardware is just cheaper with out looking at the numbers. I mean it is a lot of the time, but not all the time. Because of that the order was cut down. It is the same reason that the B-52 did not get updated engines in the mid 90s. Congress and the public did not want to spend money... that would of net saved us $10 billion over 15 years assuming peace time use only. Because they were used for war during that time new engines would of saved us more then that.

>>31496993
We don't need a light payload. We need a heavy payload to hit more target or carry our large bunker buster bombs and other ordinance. Light payloads don't do it. If you were to build a drone with the same stealth features, payload, and performance, that drone would cost the same amount. In fact, the B-21 will be optionally manned.

500 million dollar planes are not very expensive considering what they do. Some airliners are more than 350 million a pop now.

>>31497077

Again, you absolutely miss the point of the Triad. Boomers offer more capabilities than mobile ICBMs.

You don't understand, you don't WANT to understand.

>>31497429

Especially considering that the B-52 costed $700 million if adjusted for inflation.

>>31497653
Good point. I think that anti-military forces dangerously misrepresent the true cost of things.

File: 1.png (93KB, 1204x930px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1204x930px

>>31496918
B-1 ceiling is 30k feet, and B-52H is 50.
Payload is 75k lb, B-52 has 70.
It can't use nuclear and anti-ship cruise missiles, it has low mission capable rates comparing to B-52.

>>31497653
B-52 costs 84 millions in 2012 dollars. Without upgrades, maintenance, just unit cost.
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104465/b-52-stratofortress.aspx

>>31498093
>B-1 ceiling is 30k feet
Source? Mine is not great, but it is a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#Specifications_.28B-1B.29

>Payload is 75k lb
For Internal bomb bays only. The arms treaty that effective prevented the use of the 50,000 Ib of external hardpoints load expired on 5 December 2009. Same for

>It can't use nuclear and anti-ship cruise missiles,

Or am I missing something from the New START treaty ? I though it only limited numbers, not platforms, of heavy bombers and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers. I am mistaken on this matter?

>>31498093
B-1 ceiling is 60k feet.

It can also use jassm, which would be just fine for AShM use.

>>31498215
>Or am I missing something from the New START treaty ? I though it only limited numbers, not platforms, of heavy bombers and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers. I am mistaken on this matter?
US said fuck it, we need bombers, and cut off equipment required for nuclear weapon usage from all B-1Bs. So they can not be counted as nuclear weapon carrier. And there is controversy about internal bay being too small for nuclear guided missiles.

>>31498206

Both wrong.

A B-52 purchased in 1955 cost ~$28 million

inflation between 1955 and 2016 is roughly 800%

That means it would cost roughly $250 million today.

The YB-52 prototype cost ~$900 million in 2016 dollars.

Due to tooling and economies of scale, they became cheaper. Flyaway cost for a B-52H is roughly $90 million

The same will happen for both the F-35 and the B-21, if the production runs aren't cut short like the B-2 and F-22.

Question, why not just tape a B-2 to a B-52? Then you'll have stealth and more bombs.

>>31498263
Nah, the equipment is still there, they just welded a divider in the bomb bay to where its to short for nuclear cruise missles.

>>31498274
Because tape is too weak, you fucking dumbass.

You need epoxy. Fucking retards...

File: 1.png (262KB, 816x1056px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 816x1056px

>>31498215
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104465/b-52-stratofortress.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer.aspx
Both pages updated in 2015. The same data in congress report from 2014.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA603843
AGM-86 integration works was halted due to START. AGM-84 was not intended to be used at all.

File: 2.png (238KB, 883x1198px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 883x1198px

>>31498273
Flyaway cost for B-52H is 9 million in 1960.
>>31498226
JASSM can be used only against stationary targets.

>>31498495

>B-52H is 9 million in 1960.

which adjusted for inflation is...

Roughly $90 million, give or take.

>>31498495
>JASSM can be used only against stationary targets.

Terminal thermal says otherwise.

So does this, if you want to be pedantic about i

https://books.google.com/books?id=ydXRAHJ5SCQC&pg=PA526&lpg=PA526&dq=jassm+moving+target&source=bl&ots=06fn7eql1i&sig=73GPxTPJwuTEhPrV5TzXnDf8xE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFxZ3upbTPAhUG2oMKHdetAC4Q6AEIIzAJ#v=onepage&q=jassm%20moving%20target&f=false

>>31498501
Which is almost the same number I initially gave.
>>31498538
Well, JASSM got two-way datalink so it can hit moving target when controlled manually. Anyway it officially has no anti-ship capability. It will be LRASM's work.
>The JASSM-ER (Extended Range) would increase standoff distance to over 500 NM and the JASSM-MI would add anti-ship capability.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA498403.pdf

>>31498630

>can hit moving targets
>not an ashm

Anon ..

i thought stealth was a meme

File: wrong.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>>31493647
They realized, that they can't fool the american public with the stealth meme anymore.

>>31494141
Cos you need Dre for that.

>>31498737
>They realized, that they can't fool the american public with the stealth meme anymore.
>stealth
>meme
Go sit in the corner and think about how stupid you are.

>>31494523
And you think that a war against China will not be Nuclear Retaliation.

>>31499160
removing tail fins doesn't protect you from gravadar :^)

>>31498737
And how else are you going to defense aircraft from guided missiles? Dodging?A Myth.Countermeasures? Limited supply. Armor? Kills the mobility, and the point, of an aircraft.

>>31497195
the external payload usage was out lawed in start tho and re outlawed in start new

>>31493670
XB-70 was. B-58 was. B-52 neither was nor is obsolete to this day.
>>31493702
How exactly is it obsolete for its intended role of a strategic nuclear bomber, if it is the only aircraft that can carry long range cruise missiles?

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2016-09-29T13-11-02.382Z.png (12KB, 547x317px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 547x317px

>>31496467

>>31496568
It goes like this. B-52 can penetrate 0km into enemy air defenses, but AGM-86B could penetrate 2400km into enemy air defenses.
B-2 can penetrate 0km into enemy air defenses, but AGM-158 could penetrate 370km into enemy air defenses.

>>31493647
Because this looks cooler fag.

>>31496301
Your old as balls B-52 moves in after the Wild Weasels have shoved their dick nine inches into enemy IADS.

>>31499883
>Shoving your dick into a garbage disposal
Must be an American thing.

>>31494209
That's the point of deterrence. If you don't have nuclear subs, you can be attacked without fear of reprisal, but if you do have nuclear subs, you'll never need them because of the fear of reprisal.

File: image.jpg (115KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x800px

>Longer range
>Faster
>More ordnance
>Higher service ceiling
>Higher RoC
>More thrust
Lol amerigan ''''''bombers''''''

File: 003.jpg (486KB, 1971x1305px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1971x1305px

>>31500014
Well, you had to make a shitty copy of something...

>>31499251
Aircraft are deprecated drones that are also missiles is the future.

File: image.jpg (12KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 470x313px

>>31500043
copies don't often have longer range and more thrust faaaam

Maybe amerigans should reevaluate the weight flyer?

>>31500043
Is that why you made a shitty copy of M-20? Because you just had to?

File: 1450268160423.jpg (28KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 308x308px

>>31500014
>More ordnance

>40000 kg is larger than 57000 kg

>service ceiling
>15,600 m is higher than 18,000 m

put more effort into your bait next time, shitter

>>31500014
Different roles results to different capabilities. Similar aircraft was B-1A, it has the same speed, better rate of climb and his ceiling is 4 km higher. B-1B is primarily intended for low-altitude penetrating using terrain following radar. It got S-ducts so its maximum speed was severely decreased.