Of all the bombers in world history, none has lasted longer or been more successful than the B-52. Why is this? What does the B-52 have that the others do not?
>>29949761
8 turbojets
>>29949761
That payload, also your mom.
>>29949761
Because of the simple requirements for a bomber.
It needs to carry a big payload and go in after air superiority is established. It's not a strategic bomber. It literally just has to be able to carry shit.
Even still, it's old as fuck and should be looked at for replacement.
>>29949761
There was a lot of them and they did things good enough for a long enough time that tons of spare parts are available. It will be retired once the abundance of stockpiled parts dry up.
>>29949810
I really doubt it's going anywhere. Honestly, it just works. I'd be willing to bet it'll be the first centinnial bomber
>Bomb truck isn't exactly the most technologically-demanding role
>Great payload
>Simple airframe that takes upgrades easily
>>29949761
>can carry a load heavier than tumblr whales
>can fly without some engines on
>can stay airborne forever
>badass looking
ahem
>>29949761
A mixture of nostalgia and a metric fuckton of cannibalized parts. It's the worst of the 3 current bombers the USAF employs, to the point that it badly needs another retrofit to maintain operational effectiveness.
The fact that it's more than half as old as human flight and still flying is impressive, but the fact that the B-1B costs more per flight hour(see cannibalized parts paid for decades ago) is the only practical reason that they weren't all done away with after the last disarmament treaty.
>>29949810
>It's not a strategic bomber.
It used to be. It was originally designed to deliver strategic nuclear weapons, either by launching cruise missiles or dropping free-fall hydrogen bombs. It also carpet-bombed in Vietnam and Iraq in a tactical role.
If it needed to do the bomb-truck thing to level industrial zones, oil refineries, rail stations, or ship yards like B-17s and -24s did in WWII, it would do very well in that. It could be put back into that role if the need arose.
Times change, and the aircraft was adapted to fight in a more tactical role.
It does what it was designed to do, there's not much need right now for a heavy bomber so we will keep it in service until our heavy bomber requirements change
>>29949880
That aircraft never fired a shot in anger until ISIS and Syria just last year.
Meanwhile B-52s were killing commies in the 60s.
>>29949761
Americas defense budget.
>>29949880
The Bear is functionally a B-52 equivalent. The B-52 is older and has seen more usage.
It's a great candidate for second place.
>>29949920
I think you're thinking about the Blackjack, the giant B-1 clone.
The Bear, a derivative of a copy of a B-29, has been in service for long enough that it has to have seen combat at some point.
>>29949920
They used the bears in Afghanistan in the 80's....
>>29949880
>B-52
First flight-15 April 1952
Introduction-February 1955
>Tu-95
First flight-12 November 1952
Introduction-1956
Why must slavs always make a nuisance of themselves wherever they go?
>>29949761
because it's not fancy.
no frills, no bullshit.
no fucking stealth, none of that.
just a big, subsonic jet bomber with 70k pounds of fuck you in the bomb bay
>>29949761
When all you're doing is freedom deliveries to countries with literally no air defense, it doesn't really matter. It's a fat whale that would be completely unusable if not for our complete and absolute control of the skies.
>>29949936
>>29949945
no, seriously
The Tu-95 got its first taste of actual combat in the Syrian Civil War
>This marks a truly historic moment for the Russian Air Force. Now, the Bear and the Blackjack have taken part in an actual battle for the first time in their history
>This marks a truly historic moment for the Russian Air Force. Now, the Bear and the Blackjack have taken part in an actual battle for the first time in their history.
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151118/1030302801/russia-syria-isis-tu160-tu95-strategic-bomber.html
>>29949948
Shit genetics?
>>29950080
So let me get this straight...they've had these things in service since the mid 50's, fought a fair number of wars in that time period, and never once brought out their B-29 rip-off? Not even once?
Stalin would be ashamed of such a waste of the people's resources. The capitalists at least used their bombers to blow up silly savages on a few occasions.
>>29950039
>I don't know shit about ALCM
We know
>>29950166
They were to busy playing marco polo over alaska with the US air force.
>>29950039
You do know the B-52 is one of the few planes in the USAF arsenal with electronic warfare capabilities, right? Not to mention it has a crewman whose only job is electronic warfare?
>>29950166
Funny enough, they never felt it justified to bomb the fuck out of Mujahideen on the scale we did. It was also not nearly as big as Vietnam.
>>29950166
It wasn't really meant to be a bomb truck. It was strictly strategic i.e. nuclear cruise missiles and anti-shipping weapons.
It was a great saber-rattler weapon and made friends with a lot of American fighters, but it got used like other strategic nuclear weapons: all show and no action
>>29950201
And I'm sure that comes in handy when nothing they're fighting can reach them at altitude in the first place.
>>29950607
let's just say that's wrong.
>>29950619
okay, lets say that.
what are they fighting in this pretend world of yours then?
>>29950728
basically any non-MANPADS SAM.
>>29949761
Really, it has only stuck around this long because congressional shenanigans keep getting its replacements cancelled.
Expect its service life to be extended to 2100 after the B-21 gets canned
>>29949772
Low bypass turbofans on the current versions.
>>29949761
It was made in a time when the US was able to DELIVER. It was before the excessive complications set in and the rot. Somewhere around 1970 the rot hit the US and shortly thereafter much of the rest of the West.
It was also about using the simplest tech that did the job. With no frills there were little crew comfort but then again there were far far fewer parts that could fail.
THEN:
U2, SR-71, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo
AFTER:
F-35, Space Shuttle, failed human space projects, numerous failed lunar and Mars base projects, National infrastructure falling apart, Computer systems penetrated by foreigners with no good intents.
F-16 is from the transition era and has held up fairly well.
>>29952347
Balkanization when? I'm ready
>>29949761
Are we forgetting Tupolev 95 Bear today anon?
>>29952347
So all the people who have grown up in this marxist/globalist era after WW2 you mean?
>>29949936
>Blackjack, the giant B-1 clone.
>The Bear, a derivative of a copy of a B-29
So much insecurity in this post. Do Americans actually believe that Tu160 is a copy of B1 ?
How desperate do you need to be to try and claim that Tu95 only exists because of B29?
So petty.
>>29949880
I would say TU95 has been more successful than B52. While B52 and Tu95 are still good for dumb bombing and stand off strike - Tu95 is far more versatile.
From the top of my head we have seen an airliner, a photo reconnaissance plane, maritime surveillance / ASW, AEW&C, ELINT and even a nuclear powered version.
Many of those are still in service.
The Russians have had far more service from the T95 airframe than the US has had out of B52.
>>29949920
>That aircraft never fired a shot in anger until ISIS and Syria just last year.
Putting aside the fact that you are wrong, it is hardly a design fault of the airframe that Russia hasn't gone to war as much as the US.
>>29952347
>AFTER:
>F-35, Space Shuttle, failed human space projects, numerous failed lunar and Mars base projects, National infrastructure falling apart, Computer systems penetrated by foreigners with no good intents.
Space shuttle suffered from technical issues (repetitive stress plus the fragile nose tiles). If we made one today it would likely be much better. Hell the x-37 basically is a mini shuttle and seems better too.
>failed lunar and Mars projects
1- money is not infinite. It cost $100 billion over a decade to reach the moon and other APOLLO launches, the ISS cost $150 billion and counting. Space is crazy expensive.
2- no reason to. We reached the moon, the Soviets tapped out. We set our lunar record over 40 years ago, and no one has come close since. Likely once China puts a man on the moon we will step it up, due to prestige.
3- technical aspects haven't been fully resolved. A trip to Mars would be hazardous due to radiation. Muscle atrophy happens in zero-G despite astronauts doing heavy PT every damn day. It would be easier to go to a pre-made base built by robots.... But those robots don't exist yet. Lastly I'm sure those people would like to come home at some point, so you are designing a whole return process too, and fueling it.
>space projects
There are plenty of space failures in the 50s and 60s too. We literally put a rover the size of a smart car on Mars. Spirit and opportunity rovers were basically invincible and their missions lasted much longer than the builders intended. We recently got pics of pluto. Just because you need to go to the top of the tree to get apples doesn't mean the apples are worse than the low hanging ones, it just means that the low hanging ones got picked early.
1/2
>>29952623
the Bear has taken a pure strategic role from what i understand. nukes and ALCM's. things that would tend to start WW3 if used in anger.
so yes, Syria was its combat debut.
>>29949867
>can carry a load heavier than tumblr whales
>>29952347
>>29952649
>computer systems
Infiltration is inevitable. It's a new war front. Look up espionage during the Cold War, infiltration wasn't uncommon. The CIA collected soviet trash as one of its most successful projects. Phone tapping was widely used too. We practice cyber war too, look at Stuxnet. It's entirely likely we are just more subtle about it, or more likely we don't wield it like a cudgel to beat on competing businesses for financial records and stuff. After all, what does China have that we are going to steal? General tsao's real chicken recipe?
>national infrastructure
True, but this is due mainly to your congressman, state coffers, and improved gas efficiency. The national highway fund is based on a tax per-gallon on gasoline. As efficiency rose the fund drained. Electric cars are a deal issue, as they don't pay into the system, they are thus free riders. One solution to more accurately reflect highway wear and tear is to check how much you drove via the meter on your dashboard that says how far your car has gone, then tax accordingly. Ie., if you drive 25,000 miles this year you pay $300 in tax, if you drove 50,000 you pay 500, etc.
Energy infrastructure has been going up for shale and alternatives. This is a deliberate policy choice to move from coal.
>f-35
Expensive, but not ludicrously so. Cheaper than the legacy craft it is replacing when all factors are considered over its 50 year lifespan. Eventually will reach 85 million per. A lot in absolute terms to many people, but for its capabilities (still growing, and will continue to grow with block upgrades just like every craft before it) it is affordable. The acquisition was a clusterfuck, but it's been less troubled than many planes. The f-16, for what it's worth, had a tendency to lawn-dart and die. The f-35 has proven its engine to be very reliable.
>>29952649
>We reached the moon, the Soviets tapped out
More like they finally realized dickwaving isn't all space has to be and started focusing on building space stations that would actually benefit us all more than a stupid flag on a rock.
Imagine we have been sending people for quite some time and we still didn't have much clue what space does to humans for extended periods of time and they were talking about sending people to fucking Mars then? Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
>>29949945
>>29950204
TU-16 was used in afghanistan.
Mainly in gigantic large scale operation to flush out the mujahideen dropping 5000kilo or 9000kilo HE bombs.
>>29952741
No they ran out of money and collapsed, losing the cold war which was more about econonomy and culture.
Meanwhile US culture has spread around the globe, even to rus and USSR, and US is still the only ones with a flag on the moon.
Star wars was all about draining what little was left of the soviet gold reserves after 20 years of horrible mismanagement and corruption.
>>29952741
They literally couldn't get a reliable moon rocket.
The N1 was an abysmal failure of a project that had a tendency to explode in glorious fashion.
If you can't reach the moon, you aren't going anywhere farther.
That said they do get credit for the early space stations, but it's not like America never built them, or failed to build them due to technical lag or failures. We spit out or own. The soviet failure to reach the moon was a purely technical failure involving their inability to into hydrogen fuel, engine reliability faults, and iffy re-entry. When the rockets worked, they worked. But a good chance to end up in flames would deter most missions...
>>29949836
>first centennial bomber
>not the Tu-95
Not even a vatnik, but that thing will be kept around out of sheer russian stubborness and lack of funds.
>>29953028
you mean the bomber that went into service a year or two after the BUFF?
>>29952728
bullshit
>>29953028
The Tu-95 is no longer used as a bomber though. it's purely recon now a days.
>>29949867
>can carry a load heavier than tumblr whales
>>29949887
>B1-B
>costs more per flight hour than the B-52
>>29953044
>>29953114
Fair. Didn't realize the changes in roles and for some reason my retarded mind couldn't realize B52 entered in 1952.
>>29952623
>Tu-95 is more successful than B-52 because Russia used it for other roles.
So? You could do them with a modified B-52 (and maybe better since there's more room for equipment in a 52). The USAF decided to do a lot of those things with a Boeing 707 airframe instead:
>RC-135
>KC-135
>EC-135
>E-3
There's a reason why Russia replaced some of those other Bear variants with the fuckhuge IL-76 platform.
The B-36 (which is much more analogous to the Tu-95) was the USAF's testbed for a nuclear-powered aircraft. Both the US and Soviet Union abandoned that idea anyways for the very same reason: expense and liability in a crash.
The Bear airframe was pretty lousy for airliner service, which is why production was phased out by jets after only 30 or so were built in only 5 years and the much better (for passenger travel) Ilyushin jet replaced it. No passenger would want to ride in a cramped bomber with that characteristic contra-rotating turboprop noise. You could easily pressurize and install seats in a B-52 airframe; that doesn't mean it's good either.
>Putting aside the fact that you are wrong...
It's not wrong. It was armed and ready to fly combat missions at a moment's notice, but it never fired or dropped on an enemy. It did do some of your aforementioned duties (SIGINT, AEWC, etc) in Afghanistan, but not battle. It didn't truly fight until the Syrian Civil War.
>>29952623
see >>29950080
there's a source
>>29953044
But B52 wont be around in 2052...
The newest airframe is from 1962, the newest Tu95 is from the mid 90's. No matter how many engine swaps and computers you put in it, it is a heavy aircraft that suffers metal fatigue.
the US plan of 'At least 2040' is over ambitious. I'd guess a plane will fall apart some time before then and the whole fleet will be grounded then replaced with missiles and other aircraft.
Tu95 will serve on in additional support roles.
>>29953266
What does 707, B36 and things that never happened to the B52 have to do with a comparison between the two aircraft?
As I just said, Tu95 has a role in the future, B52 wont. Afghanistan will be the last time area bombing is needed. The stand off role alone isnt enough to keep B52 hanging around in a time when the US is spending less and less of defence.
>>29949761
It didn't have government ministers who were stupid enough to think missiles could do everything. That is what spelled the end for the V-bombers in Britain.
>>29953097
Which claim, exactly?
>>29949761
Doctrine changed. The original plan was to replace the B-52 with a generation of supersonic bombers (XB-70), but then ICBMs came out and the newest SAMs were showing they could threaten bombers even if they were flying at Mach 3 and 70,000ft.
Everything shifted towards low-level penetration, which the B-52 could do better than any of the supersonic bombers, so it stuck around. The Air Force tried to create a better replacement in the form of the B-1, but that ended up getting cancelled, uncancelled, and finally put into service, but only with a reduced order that made it insufficient to replace the B-52.
Then they decided they wanted stealth, so the B-2 came along, only for the end of the Cold War to fuck up everything and see the order cut from ~130 to 20, meaning we were again left without enough bombers to replace the B-52.
Now the hope is that a combination of the LRS-B and 2037 bomber will manage to get enough bombers in service to fully replace the B-52, but development cycles are long, so the thing won't actually be leaving service until 2045.
>>29952525
>How desperate do you need to be to try and claim that Tu95 only exists because of B29?
That's pretty much true though. It was developed from the Tu-4 "Bull", a Soviet unlicensed copy of the B-29. Sure, the Soviets would probably have developed a plane to fill the same role even if they hadn't copied the B-29, but it wouldn't be the same as the Tu-95.
>>29952728
You are a colossal cock gobbler
>>29953415
they decided that low-altitude ingress was stressing out B-52 wings too much, so they stopped training for that as much
>>29953690
>>29953097
>somebody's well thought-through analysis disagrees with my memes
>>29953198
Swing-wings are expensive to maintain. Why do you think we ditched the Tomcat?
>>29949948
Jesus I want to start kissing his abs and chest, work my way down, and suck his cock
>>29953690
Again, I ask "which claim" do you disagree with? Why?
>>29953787
In all fairness, do you really think someone who's rebuttal was
>You are a colossal cock gobbler
is going to be able to give you the answer you're looking for?
>>29949761
B-52 remembers one very important fact:
"payloads, not platforms."
The B-52 is not the sum of it's systems, but just a platform that dumps shit. It was built to be durable, and if you have ever had the displeasure of working on one; while archaic, it is brutally rugged, and honestly, could be easily modernized.
Shit. They will modernize it. Look at the OP picture for fuck's sake. Its a metal tube, with wings. Want to rewing it? what the fuck ever, why not. Want new engines? sure. Its a metal tube with wings. Its not a collection of systems with a frame built around it, it is a frame with a bunch of systems stuffed in it.
There is the key difference. It also helps that as missiles get cheaper, smarter, faster, and better, having a faster, more powerful aircraft becomes less important.
step 1: get munition to altitude
step 2: get munition to standoff range.
step 3: release.
You dont need a hypersonic bomber to release a hypersonic munition. Earth is only so big, and our logistics enable us to reach pretty far as it is.
>>29953827
Fair enough, I expect too much of this place sometimes
>>29949761
A big weewee.
>>29953415
>But B52 wont be around in 2052...
The B-21 LRS won't be able to fully replace the BUFF until 2037 at bare minimum. I wouldn't make any bets on the B-52 not making it a full century.
>>29953832
Don't forget that there will always be times when you need to absolutely bomb the living dog shit out of everything. And the B-52 excels in that department.
>>29952362
>Balkanization when?
I am not sure what you mean. My point is not that we entered an era of divisive thinking, it is that things went to pot, for reasons that are not clear.
>>29952511
>So all the people who have grown up in this marxist/globalist era after WW2 you mean?
I am not pinning the blame on anyone specific since I can see the result but not the underlying cause. There were some interesting talks about this edge back in the day on alt.cyberpunk but again noone could see why it turned to pot. The when is more clear, somewhen around 1970.
>>29952649
>Space shuttle suffered from technical issues (repetitive stress plus the fragile nose tiles).
Back in the day when I worked on Quality Assurance and Auditing we learned to look for the root cause and with all respect the technical issues do not appear to me as the root cause. Management was. The techs warned against launching Challengers. The management demanded launch. Seven astronauts killed, billions of equipment destroyed and the entire space program set back years. It is worth noting that in spite of 7 dead there were NO convictions, not even a trial.
> If we made one today it would likely be much better.
Perhaps. I am not so sure. Technically the capacity is there but what about meddling management? This relates to the rot I mentioned above: NASA went from being a get up and go! to a career plan for the ruthless.
>Hell the x-37 basically is a mini shuttle and seems better too.
This does give me some hope. It may be that the military has a different ethos, at least in places. For some genuinely innovative thinking (no cliches) you might look up https://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/ I participated and it was a great time. And people believed in it.
>>failed lunar and Mars projects
>(no money, no reason, tech)
Sure. And I agree. So why then even start? These were all initiated when the Russians and later the Chinese started mumbling about bases on the Moon and Mars. It ended in a paper exercise that went nowhere but was hardly for free.
>There are plenty of space failures in the 50s and 60s too.
One of my (late) lecturer was part of the space race and he told us all tales of pioneering spirit. Yes, true there were setbacks. And they pulled through. Every time. Apollo 13 was peak performance.
>Spirit and opportunity rovers were basically invincible and their missions lasted much longer than the builders intended. We recently got pics of pluto.
Very true. That is why I qualified my statement as *human* space projects
>>29952728
>True, but this is due mainly to your congressman
Again I submit this is management of today.
>been less troubled than many planes
I'd like to see documentation on that. I notice that F-16 is getting increasingly bad mouthed and again I cannot remember all these problems people talk about.
I wonder when we will see fatigue problems on F-35. There are some oddly sharp corners on the air intakes that intrigue me.
>>29953415
They do depot level rebuilds on the B-52 airframes when needed. Major structural members are replaced as well as skin that shows signs of stress. Many B-52s still flying are like the farmer's axe, it's the original axe he's had for sixty years, he's only replaced the handle eight times and the head twice.
>>29953751
Forgot to say no homo
I'd like to say that the Bear is just fukken awesome. Dat top speed
>>29952728
>what does China have that we are going to steal? General tsao's real chicken recipe?
lel
