EB-52 replacing the B-52

>>32759815
I only know the basics for the B-52, but why not upgrade it? Or would it be cheaper to make a new bomber entirely?

>>32759831
EB-52 is the upgrade of the B-52.

>>32760012
EB-52 was a conceptual standoff jammer that got cancelled about 10 years ago.

>>32760021
not that EB-52.

File: B-1.jpg (679KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 2048x1365px

>>32759815
Just get more B1's. They hold more bombs, and are faster than B52s, and have a better airframe that requires less maintenance.

>>32760078
And

>dat ass

>>32760078
Fun fact: B-1 has slower cruise speed than B-747.

>>32760171
get B-747 with bomb bay

>>32760226
Doesnt that exist?

Has one of those rotary cruise missle things

>>32760078
>less maintenance
>swing wings
Pick one

>>32759815

They should have modernized and re-engined B-52 with four high bypass ratio turbofans in 70's, when it was first proposed and armed with nuclear ALCM's when used against enemies other than sandpeople with no air defense. They never gave buff modern engines, because it was supposed to be completely replaced with B-1 and shieet.

>>32760047
>not that EB-52.

What the fuck you mean by then... only thing other than that is a work of fiction...

>>32760078

Daily reminder that B-1A was cancelled by Carter admin because it was obsolete before introduction in the service and ATB was coming up. The main reason why B-1B was produced is the fact that Reagan promised to do so prior to election as Carter admin was so soft on defense matters that they developed fucking B-2.

>>32760354
There's more to it than that.
>B1: more modern, self diagnostics, only 4 relatively modern engines
>B52: older (so more frequent and intensive integrity tests), little to no automatic self diagnostics, 8 old and maintenace intensive engines.

>>32759815
This is worse than those horrible AeroGavin photoshops floating around the dark deeps of the web and Sparky's brain

File: B52-0119-atRogers.jpg (20KB, 450x239px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 450x239px

>>32760424

Idea of giving B-52 new engines has been around from fucking 60's when they used it as test bed for C-5 engine setup. Massive benefits in both fuel consumption and maintenance requirements were obvious from day one. This is something that has popped up about once a decade since then. Lower fuel consumption leads much cheaper operations as less tanker support is required and oh in modern bombing of sand people a lot more time on station. It hasn't been done because old piece of junk will be replaced soon(tm)...

So far it has outlived B-70 and B-1A... and it will be retired on roughly same date as B-1B.

File: IMAG0197[1].jpg (3MB, 4208x2368px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4208x2368px

>>32760078
I stopped at the Hill AFB Museum one day. They have a B-1.

You cannot resist DAT ASS

>>32759815
If you are wondering my question is this:would a B-52 with AIM-9's and AMRAAM's,AESA,4 high bypass engines and a reinforced airframe be usable?

>>32761517
oh gawd, they gave her a hysterectomy.

>>32760368
>The main reason why B-1B was produced is the fact that Reagan promised to do so prior to election as Carter admin was so soft on defense matters that they developed fucking B-2.

and the main reason it stuck and is revered today is because a big, fast jet with a massive range and a massive payload is better than strike fighters and attackers at CAS and COIN

>>32761517

and damn it's pretty from any angle.

>>32759815

Dale Brown's Megafortress idea might have had merit twenty years ago, and I love the idea of them, but the airframes we have today are all at the end of their lives and there are better planes to do that kind of work to. If you remember, in Flight of the Old Dog, the only reason they used the megafortress was because the mission with the two modified B-1's was scraped because of a leak and the russian's knew that the B-1's were on their way to bomb the shit out of their fancy new laser.

File: b-70.jpg (64KB, 789x530px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 789x530px

>>32760078
I think we should give the B-70 another chance.

>>32762759
i think we should really.

>>32759815
>Enhanced Bomber-52

Why not call it "B-52M Super BUFF"

>>32761789
There has been concepts of "Air Destroyers".. Pretty much armed AWACS with retarded long range AA missiles.

Or that B-1R concept, a missile bus that gets its target data from a stealth fighter far ahead.


However, that is just like the Arsenal Ship idea from the Navy.. too many eggs in one basket.

Better to have 40 Frigates with 20 VLS each, than 4 Cruisers with 200 VLS each.

File: B-52 low over beach.jpg (36KB, 700x469px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 700x469px

>>32760171
Not at low altitude.

File: LRSB under the sheets.jpg (66KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1200x675px

>>32762759
>>32760078
How about neither?

>>32760171
It blows the B-747 out of the water when it needs to though.

M 1.25 at altitude

M 0.92 low level

They apparently got them to reach M 2.0+ but to avoid structural and intake damage reduced the max advised operating speed to where they are now.

Pretty bad ass when you consider the size of the payload it can carry. Pooping JDAMs all across the AO.

>>32763493
>Better to have 40 Frigates with 20 VLS each
Then why the hell aren't we building them? Shit, the chinks are shoving a new warship into the water at the rate of one a month.

>>32763621
>They apparently got them to reach M 2.0+ but to avoid structural and intake damage reduced the max advised operating speed to where they are now.

the B-1A had variable geometry intakes that allowed it to go ass-rapingly fast but they fixed them the sake of making the profile more stealth and apt for contested airspaces.

>>32763642
politics.

>>32763642
Political bullshit

Just like how Canada needs 12 ships minimum to replace the City & (now retired) Tribal class Frigates & Destroyers.. And even though the program was started mid-Harper, no keel has yet to be laid, and the design still hasn't been finalized.


>>32763743
Politics and cronyism out the ass.

>>32763642
>Then why the hell aren't we building them?

US military tends to occasionally lose common sense when it comes procurement. Especially USAF and Navy, but Army and 'muhreens are just as capable in embarking on insane high tech pipe dreams.

>>32760078
>less maintenance
OK, anon

File: Nimrod AIM-9.jpg (126KB, 1024x753px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1024x753px

>>32761789
>a B-52 with AIM-9s

for why though?

other than a continuation of that dank post-falklands meme about bolting Sidewinders onto maritime patrol planes

>>32759815
747 ALCM

>>32759815
Does anyone have the screencap where somebody found "Death From Above, Vietnam 1971"

>>32759815
I thought EB-52 was a B-52 with and advanced electronic warfare package?

>>32759831
B-52s are VERY old, and maintaining them is becoming more and more costly. Sure, they could be kept flying indefinitely, if you want to throw money at it. They probably should have been retired in the past 10 years, but there is nothing to replace them.

>>32760078
As cool as B-1s are, there will not be any more. They are complex to maintain, and expensive to operate. Its saddening.

>>32761789
Kind of? I'd ditch AIM-9s though. B-1R was a better idea because it would have at least had a chance to outrun threats when need be.

Its an interesting concept, and some think bigger and heavier aircraft are the wave of the future. Things like B-1R make sense as an airspace defender, but I'm not sure that they would be feasible in large numbers.

>>32765865
>B-52s are VERY old, and maintaining them is becoming more and more costly
Why not just build some new ones with updated engines and avionics?

>>32766242
Why not just build some B-21s? There wouldn't be much difference in cost.

File: Predator-c-avenger-5.jpg (16KB, 489x326px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 489x326px

>>32759815
There is literally no reason to keep manned bombers operational. Bombing is a way simpler task than dogfights. Drone bombers are the future.

>>32760368
>They should have modernized and re-engined B-52 with four high bypass ratio turbofans in 70's, when it was first proposed and armed with nuclear ALCM's when used against enemies other than sandpeople with no air defense. They never gave buff modern engines, because it was supposed to be completely replaced with B-1 and shieet.

Half the reason they still haven't done it is because the B-52 is still not that good, and high bypass engines make for slower planes due to their increased frontal area - not to mention that the wings aren't designed for particularly high thrust engines. The B-52 can already exceed its design load just by revving the engines with the brakes on.

>>32766751
Gigantic fucking drones the size of aircraft carriers protected by swarms of kamikaze microdrones....... holy shit..............

File: FAS_launching_UAVs.jpg (172KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1920x1080px

>>32766882
@U

File: Flight Of The Old Dog.jpg (176KB, 966x1512px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 966x1512px

>>32759815
Dale Brown get out

>>32760047
>not that EB-52.
What did he mean by this? Is this some anime autism thing?

QB-52 drones when?

>>32767431
>Is this some anime autism thing?
Technically, it's book autism. Supposedly, it's a heavily modified LO B-52 with advanced electronics that's capable of carrying a wide array of weapons and drones.
Oh, and it's unmanned because REASONS

File: 1470261345240[1].jpg (14KB, 471x350px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 471x350px

>>32767469
>it's a heavily modified LO B-52 with advanced electronics that's capable of carrying a wide array of weapons and drones.
>Oh, and it's unmanned because REASONS
that's fucking retarded. sage.

>>32767670
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE
In this universe, the ABL concept went further, so B-52's with lasers exist even in small numbers. And they're also unmanned. And that's not even getting into the jet-powered stealth V-22, the Railgun wielding power-armored dudes, the underground bomber base that these are all based out of, or the random Russian general that nuked the United States.

Dale Brown is a fucking back and needs to chill with the bomber wank.

>>32763642
>Then why the hell aren't we building them?
Because there's a point at which you reach diminishing returns on cost-capability. Frigates can't afford the space and weight to mount the EW, defensive and offensive armament mix and ASW equipment that a destroyer can. You'd have to build individual frigate classes specialized for air defense, ASuW and ASW. Then you'd have to train and employ many more specialized engineering and weapon system rates because you'd have far more hulls in the water to equal the current throw weight, much less the new expansion that Trump wants.
You run into the same kind of problem as the Air Force and Navy did when they have too many specialized airframes that all perform different niche jobs instead of buying a more expensive plane that can replace most of those specialized planes.

>>32767768
>And that's not even getting into the jet-powered stealth V-22
Is Dale Brown the author of that book about a US DEA unit of combat capable V-22's that interdict drug runners in the Sea of Mexico from a oil rig converted into floating base?
Where the V-22's took down MiG's owned by the cartels?
Because that was some hilariously retarded shit.

>>32768020

Yep

File: 1468574255908.jpg (718KB, 1920x1236px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1920x1236px

>>32760242
Proposed but not built.

Though the pictured one drops ICBMs