Hm, I do not understand the context here.
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
243 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6788 readers
341 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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?
Military aircraft have lots of specific technical requirements that civilian planes dont deal with.
There are plenty of military cargo planes. They have the C designation. C130 is a popular one.
Thats tiny baby plane. Need big big plane, but not too big. Just right size and range.
There are a whole shit ton of models for every need and size.
Let me know which one is right Ill let the Joint Chiefs know.
If you are the one claiming it's the perfect cargo plane, even better than cargo planes, it's on you to prove it. What even is this conversation, it started you thinking cargo airplanes were civilian and then you just duck and weave on everything in the weirdest way.
I think the missing piece here is that B-52 isn't just a pretty good cargo hauler, it's a pretty good cargo hauler that we don't need to buy a whole new airframe to get. Think of it less as "we're commissioning these B-52s" and more as "hey look we found a way to use all these B-52s we already had" only this just keeps working forever.
Well they upgraded all the engines at some point. I don't know the cost breakdown between engines vs frame but I don't think it's good.
Gotta be cheaper than buying new planes which would also have new engines. Generally there needs to be a pretty substantial increase in capability before it's worth retiring an existing platform, especially in a logistics role where you don't get as much benefit from the bleeding edge because nobody's supposed to be shooting at you in the first place.
You need new electronics for the new engines, new training for the new handling, etc etc. The cost difference to existing cargo planes that are already in service is becoming less and less. This could easily be a case of being penny wise and pound foolish.
I never claimed any of that. Perhaps you are thinking of something else?
Because of the military industrial complex.
... Which still benefits from making military cargo planes.
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.
Heh, I like that.
It can definitely haul cargo, and we have much less use for the type of bombing that it does in modern times. It was still built as a strategic bomber.
B52 has been in service for forever, it’s a pinnacle of modern (and far future, evidently) engineering.