The last B-52 was built before the Vietnam war and yet it is still the most common bomber in the US Airforce, with plans to use it into the 2050s.
Why doesnt the US develop a new bomber?
The last B-52 was built before the Vietnam war and yet it is still the most common bomber in the US Airforce, with plans to use it into the 2050s.
because fuck you that's why
Since it looks like the role of bombers has transformed into strategic cruise missile carriers the Air Force seems to have preferred to keep them around instead of getting brand new missile trucks. And if Rapid Dragon succeeds they may decide the B-52 isn’t worth updating or even keeping around.
It’s still good as a cruise missile platform
call us when your shithole country can do this, Piotr Rajesh Wulan
China does elephant walks too.
With its mighty fleet of Tu-16 clones?
Um…yes? Why is that bad?
Because it's a peer of the B-47
>clones
Different engines, avionics, weapons and internal systems.
Another "look same so is copy" retard
It's the license-built version of the Tu-16
>It's the license-built version of the Tu-16
And? It's so heavily modded that it's not the same thing anymore.
Different engines, avionics, weapons and internal systems.
Another "look same so is copy" retard
>Different engines
Licensed built copies
>Avionics
Licensed built copies
>Weapons
Licensed built copies
>Internal systems
Licensed built copies
It was built with chink quality so it's different (for better or worse)
Name the so called licensed copies then.
Engine, Avionics, Weapons and systems
Sure, H6
Anything else you need?
Name all the: Engine, Avionics, Weapons and systems of the H-6
I mean, the T-99 is based on the T-72, but that's an example where it is foolish to say it is a copy anymore. The active protection systems, the laser blinder, the radar, jamming, EFP AP, fire control, etc. are all new, as is the armor material and even the transmission.
There is no perfect dividing line for what is more a copy and what is more a new thing, but the T-99 is by this point a significant step up from anything Russia builds, except for the T-14's on paper specs, but that doesn't really exist. So it's a case where licenses copies is how the product started, but now the Chinese MBT has pulled significantly ahead.
The J-15 is another example that isn't quite as obvious. It has some advantages over the Flanker but airframe wise it's not that different. The big advantage is that Chinese missiles, particularly BVR are better, the EW is significantly better, etc. It's a better bird but still quite similar, although once they are modified for CATOBAR and can launch with bigger loads that will make things a bit more different.
The Flanker normally looks better because China doesn't paint their birds very often, but the Flying Shark is a sexy plane when dressed up. The thing IS actually pretty cool, a carrier plane that can hit Mach 2.5, cool airframe. Unfortunately, it's a design that was getting obsolete as it got pushed out and they don't seem like they are going to build many. It's basically a stop gap so they can gain carrier experience while they wait for the carrier variant of their F-35 clone (the J-31/J-35 Snowy Owl) out to replace it.
Let me guess, a BRZ and GT86 are completely different cars?
Do they have the same engine? I know Subaru loves their boxer designs.
Both use a Subaru flat 4 and were made in the same Subaru plant in Gunma along with the often forgotten scion FR-S.
This kind of thing isn't really that uncommon in the auto industry.
Take Honda slumming it with Isuzu for a while because they couldn't/didn't want to develop a traditional SUV.
BRZ and GT86 use the sames engine, Tu-16 and H-6 doesn't. D30KP and WS-18 uses different engine core,
>Early in 1956, the Soviet Union agreed to license production of the Tu-16 to the People's Republic of China. Signed in September 1957, the agreement granted China two production aircraft, a semi-knocked-down (SKD) kit, a complete knock-down (CKD) kit, a set of blanks, and various raw materials to jumpstart Chinese manufacture, all from Plant No. 22 in Kazan. In 1959 a team of Soviet technicians were dispatched to China to assist in the start of Chinese production where they remained until fall 1960.
enjoy your 50 cents and a pity (you)
They don’t do elephant walks? I don’t get it…
>Why doesn’t the US develop a new bomber
No one tell him about the B-21
>comparing stealth bomber to long range strategic bomber
Why didn’t the Apache replace the Chinook helicopter? After all, they’re both helicopters.
The B-52, B-1, B-2, and B-21 are all long-range strategic bombers.
The B-52 has a range 4x the brand new B-21.
The B-21's range isn't publicly available.
>In December 2022, an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report advocated the acquisition of a number of B-21 Raiders to enable Australia to have a greater long-range strike capability.[56]
>The report states that a B-21 could fly 2,500 miles (4,000 km) without refueling while carrying more munitions as compared to the maximum 930 miles (1,500 km) range of the RAAF's F-35 fighter jets, which require air-to-air refueling.
>An open report by a foreign think tank
Especially a stupus one, since there is absolutely zero goddamn chance that the US sells it’s state-of-the-art stealth strategic bomber to anyone.
Hell, has the US EVER sold a strategic bomber to anyone?
B-24s come to mind
I know we lent some B-29s to RAF in the early 50s as a stopgap until their V bombers entered service, but I think
is right. The B-24 was probably the last US strategic bomber sold abroad.
Forgot the picrel.
Both the B-47 and B-58 were offered to the RAAF to replace the Canberra, but they were deemed to be too expensive.
The B-52 needed that huge range because it served a deterrent role in the nuclear triad. It needed to be able to take off with nukes and deliver city destroyers in population centers.
The US has since spent trillions updating its nuclear arsenal and developments in AA have meant that but non-stealth bombers are not a particularly useful part of the triad. At best they offer the threat of larger, higher yield weapons coming in during the chaos of after an initial ballistic missile and SLBM wave.
So all they are used for now is firing off large missiles from a mobile platform or dropping fuck tons of ordinance when there is total air supremacy, like when the US was pounding Wagner into the ground in Syria with a comic surfeit of firepower (an AC-130 and a B-52 lol).
There is no reason to make a new bomber like the B-52. The US has already paid to update the existing one's and all a newer airframe would get you is a slightly more fuel efficient, faster, and lower RCS plane. But it still won't be fast or stealthy, so why bother. The use case will be the same. The savings on fuel would take forever to materialize. The money is better spent improving the electronics on the existing birds and updating the missiles they are going to hurl.
The b1, b2 and b21 are all strategic bombers. Are you stupid?
We really need IQ tests to post here
in many ways the mulatto republic is simply keeping archaic technology it doesn't understand and is incapable of replacing in service
B-1
B-2
B-21
B-52s give aircrews rock lobster to eat
Long story short, the B-52 is still the backbone of the US strategic bomber force because its a low $/lbs. of ordnance bomb/missile truck.
1) The B-21 exists, and is expected to outnumber the B-52 within the next 20 years.
2) Rapid Dragon also exists. That gives a couple hundred C-17s roughly the same cruise missile capability as B-52s.
>The B-21 exists, and is expected to outnumber the B-52 within the next 20 years.
Lmao they said the same thing about the B-2 in the 90s, and they ended up building like 20. Quit falling for US military bullshit copium.
Is it our fault we lacked a peer opponent for 35 years?
Because the Cold War ended, same reason we only built a fraction of planned F22’s
Because you can't beat perfection.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a-look-back-at-all-the-b-52-variants-as-the-iconic-bomber-hits-70
>Verification not required.
>Why doesn’t the US develop a new bomber?
They did, the B-21 Bomber.
>The last B-52 was built before the Vietnam war and yet it is still the most common bomber in the US Airforce, with plans to use it into the 2050s.
It's a missile bus, all it needs to do is fly and carry a heavy payload, the B-21 is one that needs all the bells and whistles. The whole point of keeping the B-52 is that they can be kept at low-ish cost, ordering a hundred new planes at full price defeats their purpose.
Non-stealth strategic bombers are a technology that hits the crossover point of "fully matured" and "no longer really important." No country has developed a new one in decades because the ones that already exist are good enough and the money is needed to develop more useful weapon systems like stealth fighters and cruise missiles.
Because the buff can still fuck up our enemies just as well as the other bombers and does so for a lot cheaper.
B-1 is slated for retirement sadly, B-2 costs ungodly amounts of money to fly a single mission, & the B-21 is a ways off.
B-52 will continue to be the workhorse because unlike the others it's cheap to fly, easy to maintain, and very reliable.
Plus it just looks menacing.
It's a good plane. The only retarded part is still not replacing those engines designed in the 50s. They could get like 25% greater range with off-the-shelf airliner engines.
>He doesn't know
I know, but it should have happened a decade or two ago. Last time around, It was delayed based on faulty DoD cost reports, I believe. Basically, they did the math and the result was that it would be cheaper to just depend on air-tor-air refueling for the extended range for the rest of it's lifetime rather than replace the engines. Only mistake was, and I shit you not, the $/gallon for the a2a fuel was exactly the same as the price you get for pumping fuel on the ground, instead of a hundred times more expensive as it is IRL.
There have been many studies on replacing the engines over the years, it was just never picked up until now. In fact, the engine they are going to replace it with is a commercial business jet engine. But it's still long overdue.
It was in the mid/late '90s. USAF wanted to re-engine them in order to save money, which was hard to come by during the Peace Dividend years. It also promised to dramatically increase range via improved fuel efficiency.
John Freaking McCain joined the Democrats to kill it, because they thought it was a waste of money (they expected the USAF to retire the B-52s by ~2010--who needs bombers, anyways). The USAF then tried to bypass Congress by using funding from their maintenance accounts, on the grounds that the new engines would literally pay for themselves within 6-8 years. McCain threw an absolute hissy fit and got the whole thing killed and buried in an unmarked grave until after his death.
So, yeah, BUFFs could have had new engines 20+ years ago.
Aircraft engines aren't "plug and play". Or at least aren't as universally compatible with most airframes as you might think they are.
Are "bombers" even a thing that's really worth investing in? Isn't it better to just outfit smaller, faster jets to also be able to occasionally chuck a missile at a high value ground target?
Bombers are required to drop ordinance on specific high valued targets, like fortified positions requiring rhe use of MOAs, and if heavy support is required then a strategic bomber can loiter much longer while carrying more munitions than their smaller counterparts.
Right, but is it really necessary to specifically invest in a super fancy bomber with all sorts of bells and whistles? It seems to me that a relatively slow chonky plane carrying a large amount of bombs is just inherently vulnerable and needs to have the way cleared for it ahead of time, so you'd rather allocate funds to have cutting edge tech in other aspects of your air force, thus leading to an old design like the B-52 to be "good enough".
Range is a limiting factor. You will never get a smaller faster jet to travel across continents without multiple mid air refueling, which is expensive for the handful of countries with the capability to do so, and beyond the capability of most other countries.
The US knows where every chinese ship, plane and tank is at all times. There is no reason to risk a nonstealth bomber when you can have a steal bomber with long range missles. Just takes you a few more days or nights.
>a new bomber?
b1
b2
b21
>what is the B-21
You dumbasses are always complaining about the US military wasting money on things that don't need to be changed or fixed, let them use the B-52s, they work.
They should put the F-35 engine.
I bet the B-52 could go super sonic then.
1. B-21 is being built as we speak. It is a bomber.
2. Discounting doctrinal relevance, I suspect a new heavy bomber design on the scale of B-52 is hamstrung by the same challenges as next generation refuel and transport: namely, making an extra-big stealth plane.
I kind of wonder if not only will those two get consolidated into a stealth MRTT, but if a heavy bomber could be as well. Just have one modular stealth jumbo that can be fitted for all three missions. What could go wrong with a program that combines the concepts of F-35 and LCS?
at least it doesn't have propellers
What is the B-21 Spirit?
Americans are some of the most deluded fucks on the planet. It's genuinely fascinating.
Dunno people say the B52 is eternal, but I bet those twin engine pods could be replaced with modern high bypass turbofans, only they wouldn't physically fit, cause the wing is not high enough.
Looks to me, at least a partial update is in order.