I doubt it, but only because so much effort and money was put into modernizing them and there's not a whole lot of reason to get rid of something that can lob cruise missiles from a thousand miles away in total safety
the B-21 could last even longer in service, is what I'm saying, because a low-observable bomber built today has a lot fewer hours on the airframe and is a lot stealthier and therefore usable *near* a fight
unlike the B-52 which has been relegated to very long range ASM/ALCM duties
The B-21 is planned to be procured in pretty significant numbers, so I don't think so. It'll be like the F-15, with upgraded variants in service for 50+ years. The B-52 has legs yet but it's not going to last until the 2070s
Isn't airframe fatigue going to be the limiting factor? Unless someone restarts B-52 production they've got a maximum shelf life. I could see the B-52 being replaced by some civil jet derived future bomber, with proper stealth bombers being "high" and future cheap bombers being "low" in a high-low mix
With the palletized munitions systems that are starting to be fielded, carpet bombing could and probably will be done by C-130/C-5/C-17. Strategic (nuclear/aerial cruise missile/hypersonics) will be more than fulfilled by the B21. This covers most of the use cases for the B-52, but they'll probably stick around for a long time because they're cheap, then leave when they're not.
I do wonder if B-52s will be replaced with hyper-efficient ground-effect vehicles given the US' increased focus on the Pacific, where almost all combat will be near a coastline - a retooled Liberty Lifter could be an extremely cheap option that provides 2 times the payload and a similar combat range as long as most of the trip is over water
No, b52 is like a your grandfather power tool which you use to block a barn door because it's heavy. It's the cheapest solution but only because you didn't pay for it but it's close to the point where the maintaining becomes a huge problem
>I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought except for the B-52 bomber, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones and the same B-52 bombers >t. Albert Einstein
I doubt it, but only because so much effort and money was put into modernizing them and there's not a whole lot of reason to get rid of something that can lob cruise missiles from a thousand miles away in total safety
>I doubt it
>but here’s why they might
So you don’t doubt it?
the B-21 could last even longer in service, is what I'm saying, because a low-observable bomber built today has a lot fewer hours on the airframe and is a lot stealthier and therefore usable *near* a fight
unlike the B-52 which has been relegated to very long range ASM/ALCM duties
The B-52 will be there when we extend our glorious empire out to the stars.
It is eternal.
They should mount it with 0.5 cal machine guns front nose to tail to make it even more eternal and 40K
.50s are WW2, the BUFF carried 20mm. And if you're going to re-arm them, give it a 250 KW laser CIWS.
B-52's until H model had 4 M3 .50cal machine guns in tail, H replaced that with single 20mm M61 cannon.
>Can only pivot vertically
I've always wondered how this even works, or am I just looking at it wrong?
they're decoration
The B-52s successor will be stationed on Mars
The B-52 will fly to Mars under its own power.
b52 will be in service for 100 years
The B-21 is planned to be procured in pretty significant numbers, so I don't think so. It'll be like the F-15, with upgraded variants in service for 50+ years. The B-52 has legs yet but it's not going to last until the 2070s
Its projected life span B-52 is until 2070
Isn't airframe fatigue going to be the limiting factor? Unless someone restarts B-52 production they've got a maximum shelf life. I could see the B-52 being replaced by some civil jet derived future bomber, with proper stealth bombers being "high" and future cheap bombers being "low" in a high-low mix
With the palletized munitions systems that are starting to be fielded, carpet bombing could and probably will be done by C-130/C-5/C-17. Strategic (nuclear/aerial cruise missile/hypersonics) will be more than fulfilled by the B21. This covers most of the use cases for the B-52, but they'll probably stick around for a long time because they're cheap, then leave when they're not.
Using your transports for bombing is silly and inefficient but the US has such a ridiculously vast transport fleet that doesn't actually matter.
Waiting for the first third generation and fourth generation B52 crewman..
I do wonder if B-52s will be replaced with hyper-efficient ground-effect vehicles given the US' increased focus on the Pacific, where almost all combat will be near a coastline - a retooled Liberty Lifter could be an extremely cheap option that provides 2 times the payload and a similar combat range as long as most of the trip is over water
Only if they name it Spruce Goose II, keeping the F-35 and B-21 theme of WW2 era names
No, b52 is like a your grandfather power tool which you use to block a barn door because it's heavy. It's the cheapest solution but only because you didn't pay for it but it's close to the point where the maintaining becomes a huge problem
Big cruise missile bus these days. Will be around a long fricking time.
-efficient ground-effect vehicles
Good for a contained sea but remains at port when the sea state amps up. Else you have a tragedy a la bull halsey.
I do love those craft for defeating Duluth though.
b-52 should have had turrets like b-29
Didn't they lose their turrets because a HARM rear-ended a B-52 that had its fire control radar on?
On a related note, my grandfather, who was a b-52 pilot in WW2 died last week.
R.I.P. Corporal ET Flood
>b-52 pilot in WW2
Citation required.
Doubt, unless they build new airframes.
The B-52 will outlive all of us
>I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought except for the B-52 bomber, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones and the same B-52 bombers
>t. Albert Einstein