It's too old. It belongs in a museum.
>>29759546
Just needs love and new engines. Most of the frames are still pretty good to go.
k
>>29759564
We're going to get to a point where the United States is fielding B-52s that aren't even 1% original. Hell we could get to a point where the BUFF is the world's first centennial bomber.
>>29759564
New engines and a new rotary launcher.
just have Boeing whip up a 787 based bomber.
it will fly farther faster and carry more than the B-52.
>>29759731
>rotary launcher
Gross. They put them in the P-8 for sonobuey and kind of forgot that wind stream was a thing. If they were modified/adapted for "other" things would be interesting to see though.
Course goes back to why bother with the B-52 at that point instead of a RORO C-17/C-5 mod.
>>29759789
Proofs?
>>29759789
>>29759791
Goes with why build fucking planes at all instead of just artillery/missiles
The B-52's are zero use in a real war anyways as they are SAM fodder
>>29760044
but that's a 747
I think we should keep them in service- or at least one in service- until 2052.
That way we can say we have a plane that was in service for 100 years.
>>29759546
Nope. Good as new. Russians are scared shitless of it.
It's a shame they're still being cut to pieces at AMARG and laid out in the desert for Russian satellites to confirm destruction, and then sold for scrap.
>>29759587
>be inna air force
>assigned to B52
>get idea
>"this is going to be fucking awesome"
>put camera in front of bomb chute during training run
>it's fucking awesome
>>29760198
> tfw they hang back spamming MALD II and JSOW-ER from standoff range, creating space for Growler, Lightning II, and UCAV to do SEAD/DEAD.
>>29759712
>we could get to a point where the BUFF is the world's first centennial bomber.
isn't that the plan right now?
I partly have to wonder why though, I'd always assumed it was sheer size and capacity, but apparently the B1 can carry a bigger payload.
>>29759546
Calm down Indie.
>>29759546
Most mesums are shit, they don't know the history or details of what they have.
Annoyingly thorough digitization is a vastly superior alternative to museums when it comes to preservation.
>>29761131
yeah but if you look at the arsenal plane concept it still makes more sense to adapt a C-17 to that role vs a B-52. C-17 has a payload rating of 170,900 lbs vs B-52's 70,000. Question would come down to if they could create a good enough RORO system to adapt to the C-17 and how much ordnance can physically fit with their delivery packages. Then a good enough software to account for the CG shift as stuff is expended.
The plus of using a C-17 based system as purely RORO would be that you could adapt any C-17 to fit the role as needed in theory. So the plane that just came in day prior with connex's/troops got modded overnight and is now a flying bomb taxi. Compared to the B-52 where it's just.... kinda.... there.
>>29761437
Sure. And why not both? If they actually do decide they need arsenal planes that badly, the B-52 makes a good interim solution while they get the new hotness online.
>>29759546
SO DO YOU!
>>29761437
tractor trailer could haul more than either for a tiny fraction of the cost
whats the point?
>>29761567
GOOD ONE
>>29760281
We should keep them in service until at least 2952.
First millennial aircraft still in service.
>>29759546
So does 9mm and marriage but they don't look like they're gonna be put away any time soon.
>>29759546
until you come up with a new sub-supersonic (or maybe supersonic), fixed wing, heavy bomber carrying 80k plus pounds of ordinance and is nuclear capable, shut the fuck up.
B52 is fine.
just needs some new engines, new bomb rack, and maybe some new avionics.
the B52 would've been gone by now if the government didn't have a shitfit over the issues the XB70 was facing.
>>29761272
The B-52 isn't incredibly cutting edge or capable but it is relatively cheap to operate.
It wouldn't fare very well in a conflict with Russia or China but in an environment where almost any bombing we do is against sand countries with jokes in lieu of AA systems it's not a bad plane to keep around.
>>29759722
Pic related is what most nations think when these start heading their way
>>29761873
Isn't that the same explanation /k/ shits all over for the A-10?
>>29762024
yes, yes it is
>>29762024
so what you're saying is that we should put a GAU-8 on a B52?
I fully support this plan.
>>29762091
i second this motion
>>29762091
third
>>29762091
please do not give the people false hope
>>29762091
This needs to happen.
>>29762024
The tactical airfleet is larger in number, but with much faster turnover of types and frames. Since B-52 represents a substantial part of the strategic bomber fleet, it makes sense to keep squeezing more out of them. A-10, by contrast, represents a small and specialized portion of the tactical "fighter" spectrum.
Eliminating B-52s would require building a new fleet of bombers to replace them- with all the associated support infrastructure. Eliminating A-10 doesn't call for a new fleet of anything, since its roles are already adequately served by existing and incoming aircraft.
>>29762091
Can we do what we did with the C130 to the B52?
>>29762014
3 of the 4 horsemen
just need a 4th bomber
>>29762201
the guns would be facing down, but we probably could.
get it done, darpa
>>29762204
It's right there, between the B52 and the B1
>>29762304
>>29762304
does the 117 count?
>>29762231
Buy why? Did the C130 just not have anything there in the fuselage where the "AB-52" would?
>>29762352
>two bombs
no
an F15E would be a better fit than that baby shit
>>29762417
don't 117's fligh in 2-4 ship configurations?
>>29762410
the new B52 is too thin in the fuselage to support large guns firing across it while housing a crew and ammo, plus targeting shit.
also it would be much easier to conceal these weapons if they folded up in the bomb bay.
>>29762091
why just one?
>>29762582
how about one on every engine mount?
>>29759546
>Read OP's post in Henry Jones Jr's voice
>>29762683
>we named the dog indiana
