HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
60% Positive
Analyzed from 1782 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#crew#aircraft#old#planes#effective#don#still#cost#years#https
Discussion (74 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
RIP
I don't know how it is anymore, but it apparently used to be an unspoken rule that if the downstairs crew couldn't eject and survive, the upstairs crew wouldn't either.
As to why the ejection system is like this? Because the B-52 was originally designed as a high-altitude bomber.
It would likely have had full fuel tanks so that's probably why we can see little debris.
https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Display/Article/4517897/b-52...
IMO the danger to US service members outside of combat seems way too high. It's a well known fact most fatalities occur during training than during combat. (Sure this due to there being many more training exercises than active combat engagements but from a policy perspective it is very worrying).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
This is the first B-52 crash in almost 20 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OIxo00UeM
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Arrow_%28military%2...
The reason B-52s are still around is because they are combat-effective and cost-effective relative to other aircraft, such as the B-1 and B-2 (both of which I also worked on). Whatever replaces the B-52 will have to be something new and something cost-effective. I don't think that currently exists.
The B-1 has only been combat/cost effective in more recent years after an extended rough patch spanning decades -- actually, I'm not even sure it's cost-effective. The B-2 has always been combat-effective, but was never cost-effective to operate or maintain.
The B-2 does have its place and is better suited for certain jobs, albeit at too high a cost. The B-21 is purported to lower that. We'll see.
Edit: Looks like current B-2 operational/maintenance costs are now down to only about 2x that of the B-52, which is an impressive reduction (no sarcasm).
And the military has a tendency to also upgrade the avionics and capabilities at several points in the lifetime of a program. So there is a lot of tech in these planes that's much newer than 60 years old.
War profiteers say motherhood statements about the crew but don't care.
60 years of new weapons design opportunities was pocketed in pork by the politicians bought and paid for.
Planes don’t really age like that, at least not if they’re serviced. They’re constantly being rebuilt and inspected.
The only reason airliner fleets churn as much as they do is fuel efficiency and maintenance standardization.
Also airliners usually just become cargo planes for quite a long time before retirement. Eg. there's a bunch of DC-3s still being commercially operated. Jet engine noise regs killed a bunch of early jets, but older prop aircraft are still going strong.
Good point. The B-52 doesn’t pressurize the whole fuselage. Just the crew compartment.
> airliners usually just become cargo planes for quite a long time before retirement
Out of curiosity, do they not pressurize the cargo hold?
Too many types of aircraft to operate and maintain, with too few people to do it and too few available airframes to maintain a combat capability.
One year, a congressional efficiency mandate required that AFBs return any parts that hadn't been issued in the previous (90 days?). Returning their stock just because it hadn't been needed in the last 12 weeks undermined their readiness requirements, so the staff found a way around this limitation: periodically discard qty 1 of any seldom-used part and order another one to show proof of need. The congressional anti-waste attempt only served to fill their dumpster.
Along with investigating airframe selections, it would be worthwhile to audit the branches for these kinds of perverse incentives, to hear from people at all levels about which policies are helpful and which cause needless waste.
I also remember our shop being under (unwritten!) pressure from the squadron commander to spend every cent we were budgeted for (without going over!) to make sure we got at least that much last year.
If that holds for the forseen future, the B-52 will not have a real successor.
Currently, it looks like non-precision bulk bombing is just obsolete.
We "depend" on the B-52 because it still works, and there's a lot of chance it shouldn't get a replacement.
Are there any other planes we "depend" on that are old but not being replaced? Our tanker fleet is old but we are looking to replace it. Maybe some transports are getting old? But they probably don't need a new design. EWACS is old but also seeing new systems being built.
The B-21 is the B-52 successor, and has to worry less about being shot down.
The US plans to replace both JSTAR and AWACS with Golden Dome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...