Design in 1955. Still hasn't been replaced. Why are all

>>31965296
That's because modern bombers, need to be a fighter, close air support, a car, submarine and in a couple months, I'm pretty sure we'll get that thing to take off into space.

>>31965296
the b-21 is going to replace it

The B-52 is a munition truck, sure you could design something that does the same job better with modern technology, but if you just want something to carry a load of bombs and missiles somewhere and drop them, it does the job, and its cheaper to use what you already have than design and build something new to do the exact same job.

They still have plenty of airframe flight hours left in them, so why not use them when appropriate?

>>31965296
The same reason the M16 and M113 is still in use

>he wasn't around on /pol/ when that guy who works on a secret aircraft which shall not be named leaked a bunch of stuff about it

>>31965614
>visiting the cancerous hellhole that is /pol/
>ever

>>31965296
because everything new sucks.

your grandpa is 10x smarter than you

>>31965614
>Not posting said do/k/uments for other /k/ommandos.
Either you're full of shit about the leak, or you're a massive faggot. Please use the trip "Massive shitbird" from now on.

>>31965296
>XB-70
>B-1/B-1B
>B-2
>B-21
basically all it's intended replacements were either obsolete by the end of development, or too expensive for the geopolitical climate when they were ready for production.
MAYBE the B-21 will replace them as they're running out of airframe life, but the 21 will probably replace the 1B and 2, leaving large numbers of 52s to be replaced by a new cheapish bomb truck, probably airliner-based.

>>31965661
There was screen caps of it, but I can't find a single thing on it when searching it up on google except for it being mentioned in a few threads.
It's called the SB-3 Ghoul

>>31965614
Surely no one would lie to a bunch of happeningtards

Why not give it new engines?

>>31965949
Expensive af. They should have done it 20 years ago, when the expected savings from such an upgrade would more than cover the costs of it.
The engines aren't the only limit- the airframe is wearing out, (half the fleet was rewinged at some point) and even if you do upgrade it it's a large and vulnerable aircraft. Russian/Chinese IADS can easily shoot it doen if it comes within range, and it can't avoid detection like the B-1/2/21

>>31965296
Ma Deuce, you fuckin' retard.
A.K.A. Why spend billions to replace something, with something 12% better?

>>31965435
>M113 is still in use
for real? I mean, I love those things but hell, aren't they fairly flimsy?

>>31965427
>cheap
More expensive per flight hour than the b1. Would be even more expensive to.fly if maintainece costs weren't subsidized by the parts canabalization in the boneyards.

>>31965435
Marines are dripping m16s for m4s. No one uses the 113 anymore outside of niche support variants.

>>31965999
Didn't they just decide to run it for another 20 or 30 years? I mean they keep saying it will retire and then keep using it. Again and again. Just give it the damn engines, we all know it will run for probably another 50 years.

>>31966035
IIRC they've pretty much reached the point where they can't extend service any more as the airframes are worn. Any longer and they'd have to build new airframes, at which point you're better off getting a more modern design (like an updated B-1B) which can be used in peer conflict.

File: C-133b-sanfrancsiscobay.jpg (254KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 800x600px

>>31965296
Lets bring back the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster!

File: c-141.jpg (148KB, 2520x1207px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 2520x1207px

>>31966064
Better bring back american Il-76.

>>31966064
Eh he, they wore out fast. They had to use thin aluminum in the structure to compensate for too heavy engines. But the airframe lasted as long as it was projected to and until the C-5 was up and running. I find it an interesting subject because I grew up when it was in heavy use and never heard much about it.

File: B-1B-Engines-ilp.jpg (138KB, 1024x637px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x637px

>>31965427
And the B-1 carries more ordinance.

B1 - 75,000 LBS Internal and 59,000 LBS on hardpoints.

B52 - 70,000 LBS Internal

>>31966034

>More expensive per flight hour than the b1.

...But cheaper than procuring new B1 to take over as workhorse.

>Would be even more expensive to.fly if maintainece costs weren't subsidized by the parts canabalization in the boneyards.


Which is exactly the point, get as many flight hours as you can out of existing airframes and part stockpiles. You've paid for them, you may as well use them.

File: c141_wing_04.jpg (20KB, 550x278px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 550x278px

>>31966133
Nice wing spars

>>31966316

They aren't making any new B-1, and they've got to make the flight hours last on the existing B-1 for several decades until there is a replacement. Getting the hours out of the B-52s before the B-21 is ready makes sense.

>>31966018
>>31966034

Same thing goes for the B-52, its not used in the role it was during the 50s...

>>31966329
You do make a good point. Hey, they are starting to pull B52s out of mothball, fixing them up and putting them back in squadrons.

>>31966034
The B-1 is unreliable. It's also not not as easy to refuel in-flight due to the placement of the receptacle and size of the fuel manifolds.

File: b-52g with agm-86b alcm.jpg (1MB, 2820x1850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2820x1850px

>>31966316
B-52 has hardpoints too, you know.

File: 1478798420087.jpg (19KB, 572x481px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 572x481px

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

>>31965682
>airliner based
I think the structural requirements for a bomb truck with bomb bays in its underbelly is slightly different than a airliner with load bearing structures precisely there.

>>31966424
See the new maritime patrol aircraft, made by Boeing. It has a bay for depth charges and torpedoes. Of course the frame has to be modified but much of the design work is already done.

>>31966440
You are right, a lot of the design work is already done. But the P8 has a payload of 2.5t, the B52 31.5t. That is a huge difference!

>>31966485
Even if you create a whole new airframe, while only retaining the systems and such, that's still saving an awful lot of time and effort.

>>31966512
You'd be surprised at how much redesign/redevelopment you need to do to make sure that your "proven" systems will work with an entirely new aircraft.

File: tu-142 (9).jpg (157KB, 1200x813px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1200x813px

Why don't americans have maritime B-52 version?

>>31965352
How? By making 12 bombers like the B-2?

>>31966629
Actually I wouldn't.
Like all COTS, you'd need to thuroughly test it all. MAYBE cut a few edges off as the components are all ondividually tested. I should have been more sepecific in that I was reffering to design and development time being saved, perhaps a bit of the component intergration. Most integration and system testing remains.

>>31966666
Nice digits

Also, its because that role is filled by the P-3 (and now P-8)

>>31966316
Legally though the externals are only for nukes.

>>31965296
Those are good for leveling North Korea or manually carrying a couple of nukes, not CAS or Stealthy strikes over Iran.

>>31967378
No, under START they couldn't have anything on them, and that treaty expired. Under New START they've been classified as non-nuclear bombers and have no restrictions on them anymore.

>>31965714
http://4archive.org/board/pol/thread/61056155

>>31966629
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgxdL7Pcl6k

>>31968992
Damn, that is one ugly motherfucker.

>>31965682
The US has intentionally not used airline designs for strategic bombers since it opens the chance that civilian airliners become indistinguishable from military bombers. The P-8 is different since it has some major structural differences and is literally one of the only airlines based military assets for war.

>>31965296
Oh; an existential question.
Because our acquisition packet process-thing has also become worn and tired since 1955?

>>31967177
This

The U.S has a need for deep strike heavy bombers, but also needs just regular every day non-snow flake bomb trucks. For some reason no one in the Pentagon or the Whitehouse fucking understands this.

>>31968937
Do you have the archives of the first threads?

File: il-38 & cv-41 uss midway.jpg (1MB, 3000x2346px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2346px

>>31967362
P-3 is same as Il-38, which existed parallel to Tu-142. It's a smaller platform in a different niche. Maritime B-52 could be much more capable.

>>31969837
no m8 it's you who doesn't understand. b52's are already unusable in 90% of combat environments.

File: b-52 (2).jpg (546KB, 2850x1890px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 2850x1890px

Give her what she wants. Give her the engines.