Because the airframes are likely completely different from the original airframes.
These are incorrect; the answer is that large body aircraft simply experience far less metal fatigue than smaller ones due to larger surfaces and do not make really any high-g maneuvers. Additionally, they're relatively irregularly flown. Consider that 747's ~3000 hours per year can last upward of 30 years, it's not that surprising that B-52s that fly 120-200 can last per year can last 60
Besides the maintenance, it's because the B-52 was engineered to carry much larger ordnance loads than it does (due to treaties) and was overbuilt for that job as well; they wanted to be damn sure that as many B-52s got through Soviet air defenses as possible to deliver their payloads, and part of that was making them excessively durable.
Interesting, was going off of average NATO utilization rates, guess B-52 is above average. Point still stands, an order of magnitude below commercial airliners
It's so outdated that replacing it with an airliner would be a huge performance upgrade, while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate. They should have revived the 747 cruise missile carrier and used it to replace the B-52.
>while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate
and "only" taking 10 years of development and 10's of billions of dollars in R&D and feasibility studies.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This makes more sense when you realize that SAMs designed and operated by NATO rivals have a much better track record with hitting commercial airliners than they have with military aircraft.
>while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate
and "only" taking 10 years of development and 10's of billions of dollars in R&D and feasibility studies.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You could start with a 747 or similar airliner, but by the end it'll be nothing like the original and cost 5x as much because you don't have airlines ordering 100s of them.
Besides the maintenance, it's because the B-52 was engineered to carry much larger ordnance loads than it does (due to treaties) and was overbuilt for that job as well; they wanted to be damn sure that as many B-52s got through Soviet air defenses as possible to deliver their payloads, and part of that was making them excessively durable.
The real secret is that the only job it really has is to fly in straight lines and deliver the load. The load is a collection of the most advanced missiles and drones ever made, and the only other changes to the aircraft have been airframe upgrades to keep them flying and minor quality of life upgrades like flatscreens in the wienerpit. Fly in a straight line and deliver the super duper Metal Gear Solid missiles to a point between 5000 and 500 km of the enemy's max detection range, depending on what exactly is being launched.
You really don't need to reinvent the wheel, cliché as it is to say it like that.
The ship of Theseus syndrome
it is vital that we transfer their machine spirits safely and carefully
These are incorrect; the answer is that large body aircraft simply experience far less metal fatigue than smaller ones due to larger surfaces and do not make really any high-g maneuvers. Additionally, they're relatively irregularly flown. Consider that 747's ~3000 hours per year can last upward of 30 years, it's not that surprising that B-52s that fly 120-200 can last per year can last 60
This also contributes
>that B-52s that fly 120-200 can last per year
It's not that low.
> The "oldest" B-52H is at about 21,000 hours and only experiences about 380 flight hours per year.
Interesting, was going off of average NATO utilization rates, guess B-52 is above average. Point still stands, an order of magnitude below commercial airliners
Because the airframes are likely completely different from the original airframes.
They basically take these homies apart piece by piece and rebuild them.
They should have replaced it with an airliner derivative a long time ago. Continuing to operate the B-52 is really dumb.
No ur dumb
It's so outdated that replacing it with an airliner would be a huge performance upgrade, while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate. They should have revived the 747 cruise missile carrier and used it to replace the B-52.
Nah.
moron.
No u
no u
No u
no u
No me
No him
No u.
>while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate
and "only" taking 10 years of development and 10's of billions of dollars in R&D and feasibility studies.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This makes more sense when you realize that SAMs designed and operated by NATO rivals have a much better track record with hitting commercial airliners than they have with military aircraft.
Wouldn’t work, the structure of an airliner isn’t optimized for carrying bombs.
Yeah, which is what leads to
You could start with a 747 or similar airliner, but by the end it'll be nothing like the original and cost 5x as much because you don't have airlines ordering 100s of them.
Well, 747's are all on the ground now, so that would be necroing a plane to replace a zombie that's still flying.
There are over 100 747-8 in service, first flight was in 2010. Not exactly an old plane.
Yes, older 747 models are mostly out of service, but it's hardly dead.
Besides the maintenance, it's because the B-52 was engineered to carry much larger ordnance loads than it does (due to treaties) and was overbuilt for that job as well; they wanted to be damn sure that as many B-52s got through Soviet air defenses as possible to deliver their payloads, and part of that was making them excessively durable.
Built without planned obsolescence
The real secret is that the only job it really has is to fly in straight lines and deliver the load. The load is a collection of the most advanced missiles and drones ever made, and the only other changes to the aircraft have been airframe upgrades to keep them flying and minor quality of life upgrades like flatscreens in the wienerpit. Fly in a straight line and deliver the super duper Metal Gear Solid missiles to a point between 5000 and 500 km of the enemy's max detection range, depending on what exactly is being launched.
You really don't need to reinvent the wheel, cliché as it is to say it like that.
>Built without planned obsolescence
boomer moron
No u
They're getting new engines you fricks.
OP is literally talking about airframes you frick
B-52 should be scrapped. We have better science and materials now.
No it shouldn't. There's no point in making a new B-52 when it works fine and there are better designs to spend money on.
We do but the B-52 isn't going to be much better if you changed all that shit.