Posted on 04/11/2012 8:58:30 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Speaking as someone who knows absolutely nothing about airplanes (and feel free to criticize) - shouldn’t we have something newer/better by now?
Why haven’t all these been replaced by the B-2?
HEAVY METAL!!!!
Delivering the goods since 1952!
Computers apparently can’t beat a well handled sliderule.
And it seems like just yesterday they were singing “Rock Lobster.”
The B1 and B2 were pretty good — but you have to face physics. Thrust to weight to capacity to speed eventually are variables that can only be tweaked.
We had in the USA in that era the aircraft equivalent of the Founding Fathers of the USA. People who grasped physics and engineering and took them to their limits — in a very short time.
After a certain point, everything is incremental until a fundamental change is found (like anti-gravity).
For the same reason, the DC-3 is still flying: Damned good design. I once worked near Wichita Fllls, TX, Every day going to work I would drive past the B-52s lined up on the runway at Shepard AFB. Man what power they exuded. And the men flying them were the elite of the USAF.
IIRC, it would be too expensive to replace the B-52 with a new, similar airplane when these ones just keep going.
I suspect that replacing with the B-1 Lancer (the "Bone") makes more sense than replacing with the B-2, when it gets to that. I also suspect that there are perpetual Pentagon committees debating this topic on an ongoing basis.
.
We have a fairly large B1B Lancer force of bombers, but very few B2s. So far nothing that can equal the all around capability of the B52. They have all been upgraded electronically and in other ways. What we need is a new bomber that performs like the B52, with a reasonable cost.
As in the translation from sail to steam, and the development of the battleship ending with the likes of the Missouri. People do have a magical notion of physics, but we are still building on the physics of a hundred years ago.
In contrast, the B-2 has finicky stealth coatings that make it absurdly expensive to fly and maintain, it carries a much smaller conventional bomb load; and, with only 20 B-2s available, it is best reserved for missions that require stealth.
In effect, the B-2 is the shiny new luxury car that you keep in the garage and drive only on special occasions, while the B-52 is the old SUV that you use everyday because of its size and versatility.
The B-1b Lancer was supposed to replace it. It can carry twice the ordnance payload and fly 327mph faster than the B-52 at their top speeds.
The B-2 stealth bomber was also supposed to replace it.
Good history. The B-52 was the end product of twenty years of engineering. Some of the engineers who worked on the first Boeing bombers undoubtedly contributed to the B-52. As my dad said, no substitute for experience, and when they retired they were replaced by men who had never got their clothes dirty.
When did they produce the last B-52s?
Sputter, uh....what....huh?
The year before I was born, 1962 was the last production year.
Wiki has a nice graphic on b-52 models v production year. The H models (last ones produced) were made in 61-63. They made just over a hundred of the Hs.
>>Sputter, uh....what....huh?<<
I take it back! It WAS yesterday!
(aren’t you supposed to star on Lobsterman or some other Deadliest Catch derivative...?)
;)
>>As in the translation from sail to steam, and the development of the battleship ending with the likes of the Missouri. People do have a magical notion of physics, but we are still building on the physics of a hundred years ago.
<<
Yes we are, but you can see other comments on the downsides.
Gravity is 32 f/s^2 — until about 100 years ago, it was impossible to overcome things like friction, aerodynamics, etc.
Look at the SR-71. Given current knowledge of physics and engineering, there will never be a better plane. It exactly balanced all the known forces on a razor’s edge.
I am not saying there won’t be something better someday. I am saying that we pushed the envelope as close to the edge that we need a new fundamental change to overcome the diminishing returns level we have hit.
But I agree that a lot of it is will. We sent men to the moon using 1/1000 of the computing power in your smartphone. Now, we walk away from space travel saying “it is too hard.”
I am giving credit where credit is due and pointing out the distance between, say, a B-24 and a B-52.
But it frustrates me as well that we have stopped pushing (see the political destruction of the F-35 and the political knife in the back of the F-22).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.