2mo ago

Now called The Astrofortress

TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name @lemmy.world

cm0002 @lemmy.world

2mo ago

138 10

21 comments

Hm, I do not understand the context here.
- The B-52 is very old and there is no real replacment. The newest one was made in 1962
  The C-130 was designed at about the same time and they're still making new ones right now
- Okay going to be a buzz kill here. The B52 of now is not the B52 of the past. It was designed as carpet bomber. However in the world of precision munitions, carpet bombing is just not needed. But no matter what decade you are in, war still requires a shit ton of munitions and some way of hauling them. The B52 is that munitions hauler. The reason why no replacement, is simple, good luck trying to convince the Pentagon to spend a shit ton of money to design, engineer, and build what is essential a giant glorified truck. As weird as it may seem, it makes economically sense to keep the old girl working.
  
  I listened to the Lockheed Martin episode of Acquired and man...the military industrial complex has its hand so deep inside the Pentagon's ass....
  A new plane simply is too expensive to build today. Not because it's hard. But because there are too many mouths to feed.
  
  There's tons of cargo plane models, why not use one of them?
- The b-52 is a US long range strategic heavy bomber. It's been in service for a very long time, and the reference seems to be that we'll just keep updating it until it's eventually also "new" and refreshed when the enterprise is being decommissioned.
  
  Someone else pointed out it’s now not a bomber so much as a cargo hauler, but the phrase “Bomber of Theseus” came to mind and gave me a good chuckle.
- B52 has been in service for forever, it’s a pinnacle of modern (and far future, evidently) engineering.

21 comments