/k/ - Weapons

>>556342

>jalopnik

carl_the_cuck.bmp

shit site, and not news, it's been slated to retire since the replacement was announced.

>>556556

Why keep B-52s instead though?

Is the upkeep of a literally century old airframe more cost effective than a 20 years old one just because it's not stealth?

>>556754

>B52

>literally century old

Lern2English. Fucking Greekposters.

>more cost effective than a 20 years old one just because it's not stealth?

Radar and stealth technologies are constantly improving. As detection equipment becomes more advanced the gains you get from an older stealth plane become smaller and smaller, eventually coming close to the effectiveness of a normal bomber, but at a far greater price, at which point you just got a less effective and more expensive bomber in your arsenal.

>>556342

I want to eat that croocodile!

>>557079

>Lern2English.

What's your objection with the sentence, mustafa?

>>557088

It's another 34 years before it becomes a century.

>>556754

Because they need something to drop all those dumb atomic bombs on Russia.

And yes, it's that retarded.

>>557094

I was talking about the time they are planned to start retiring, which is around 2045.

>>556342

That thumbnail.

Fucking feels, man. But you know what, maybe it's better he died early. That way he never got old. Let's face it, most of us strive to die old and we don't even know why. We wanna live long and be safe, but fuck knows why.

>>557129

https://kek.gg/i/4q944h.jpeg

>>557129

The way he died though…

>>557148

I don't think the greatest crocodile wrangler in the world wants to be compared to some steroid taking shitskin who kept rejecting women because he was scared they would laugh at his 2 inch penis.

>>556360

Rogoway on Foxtrot alpha was ok until they fired him. Not sure if this Ballaban guy is a faggot.

>>556754

Because of the way B-52 airframes are made, pressurizing only a tiny cabin, they have a lot less flexing in flight. Also they have no exotic materials to maintain after each flight.

It's basically a steel I-beam with jet engines attached, it can't grow old.

>>557175

And that's supposed to be a fucktonne better than B-2.

One of the big problems of the Spirit was that it couldn't do real SEAD or strike missions. It was just too big, and not enough could be built. That one is 1/2 the size and 1/4 the price, USAF will be able to build 4 of them for every B-2 and still have 2x the carried payload.

It's a way better solution.

>>557181

>>557181

> will be able to build 4 of them for every B-2 and still have 2x the carried payload

>less than $200m per piece for a strategic stealth heavy bomber

Sounds way too optimistic. If that was the case maybe they should also fit them an AA radar and have them carry AMRAAMs so it can replace the F-22 and F-35 too.

>>557787

A B-2 is about 2.1 billion, 1/4 of that is 500 mil not 200 mil bro.

>AA radar and have them carry AMRAAMs

It's 0.45 mach and made of composites, so particularly stiff turbulence can disintegrate it let alone high g forces.

A Tu-95 Bear is almost twice as fast.

>>557809

>A B-2 is about 2.1 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

Unit cost: $737 million (1997 approx. flyaway cost)[3]

I know it's been two decades but how much worse can it be?

>>557812

I heard it was 2 billion. Maybe total program cost divided by number built?

>>557866

Could be that plus inflation. Btw what is the non-projected and actual cost of the F-35 program at this point? How the fuck is a pricetag of less than 100mil possible even if the actual cost is one tenth of the projected one?

>>557175

>aren't they replacing it with the Northrop Grumman B-21 anyway?

>>557181

>And that's supposed to be a fucktonne better than B-2.

This.

Despite how cool they look the B-2s are largely a failure.

They need special runways to land, they don't have the range to be strategic bombers and the air-force never bothered to develop missiles with half a decent range to compensate that. As a result they can't actually go drop their dumb bombs on Russian bases without getting air refueled from within Russian radars IDs areas.

It's great to have a sneaky plane, it's less great when you have a totally non stealthy nanny plane advertising it's presence…

A strategic bomber need a combat range of around 3500-4000 nautical miles.

That's the reason why the B-52s and TU-95 are still in service.

Because besides the Tu-160 (which there never was many to begin with), there has been nothing but failure to design proper strategic bombers (on both sides) once all bomber designers from WWII retired…

>>557930

Say whatever you want but the B-1B is a sexy and efficient strike platform even if it does not fully qualify as a strategic bomber.

They'll do the same with the B-2 as they've done with the F-117. Place the majority of them in Type-1000 status at Tonopah, keep a few active and maintained for use as testbeds.

>>557154

would the airforce produce more b52s if they could?

Why don't we produce mini b52s?

>>559052

Because, although I'd settle for a re-engine of the beast, the air force doesn't like doing bombing. They are sky knights that ride sky stallions into combat. What kind of self respecting sky knight would ride a sky mule into combat, even if its 5x more efficient? They won't even tolerate the existence of the A-10 let alone an effective tac bomber.

>>557152

>The way he died

He got caught in a sting operation gone wrong.

>>558263

The F-117 sucked to fly though and was worth shit when it got shot down by some autistic Slavs.