The physics of a strategic atmospheric bomber hasn’t changed. The B52 is close to optimal in shape for the task. A lot can change, however, both within that shell, and construction materials it’s made of.
The physics of a strategic atmospheric bomber hasn’t changed. The B52 is close to optimal in shape for the task.
I mean, the B-1 and the B-21 are also strategic bombers, came out later, are still in the US inventory, and they look pretty different. I don’t know if I’d agree with an argument that the natural convergence is towards the B-52.
I think that a better argument is that the B-52 still effectively fills a desired role better than other options in 2025, but I don’t know if I’d say that that encompasses all strategic bombing.
EDIT: I guess I should really use the B-2 rather than the B-21 for the flying wing example. The B-21 is flying, but not yet in USAF service. I was just kinda happy that I could find flying B-21 photographs.
The B1 is by far a superior plane, on a level of wikipedia-page comparisons. Faster, newer, more space, better electronics, etc etc.
The problem is, the B-52 was originally built to last basically forever. It was made to go there, drop ALL the bombs, go home and do it again and again until you’re out of bombs or targets. It’s a literal flying brick and they will never break. The B-1 was… well, lets just say it’s intended mission was highly likely one-way, either because of the enemy blowing up the plane or the country of origin.
That different strategy means the B-52 is still very popular, because you can keep it running by a one-armed chimp with a bucket of grease and a hammer. It’s easy and basically free (as far as military planes go). The B-1 very much isn’t either, and the B-2 REALLY isn’t.
And the B-2 costs a BILLION dollars. With a B. You can literally buy a dozen B-1’s for the cost of a B-2, and have money left over to buy a really nice runway too. Nobody is going to use those for anything but the most special missions. If they still made B-52H’s, you could get an entire wing of them (120 planes) for the cost of a single B-2, and you’d have spare money for a nice set of airstrips, a control tower and a small town to support it.
So, the B-52 does it what it has to do, cheaply, easily, consistently and very well. That’s why it’s still around. I’m convinced the B-1 is only still around because building more B-52’s isn’t profitable to the MIC.
The physics of a strategic atmospheric bomber hasn’t changed. The B52 is close to optimal in shape for the task. A lot can change, however, both within that shell, and construction materials it’s made of.
I mean, the B-1 and the B-21 are also strategic bombers, came out later, are still in the US inventory, and they look pretty different. I don’t know if I’d agree with an argument that the natural convergence is towards the B-52.
I think that a better argument is that the B-52 still effectively fills a desired role better than other options in 2025, but I don’t know if I’d say that that encompasses all strategic bombing.
EDIT: I guess I should really use the B-2 rather than the B-21 for the flying wing example. The B-21 is flying, but not yet in USAF service. I was just kinda happy that I could find flying B-21 photographs.
The B1 is by far a superior plane, on a level of wikipedia-page comparisons. Faster, newer, more space, better electronics, etc etc.
The problem is, the B-52 was originally built to last basically forever. It was made to go there, drop ALL the bombs, go home and do it again and again until you’re out of bombs or targets. It’s a literal flying brick and they will never break. The B-1 was… well, lets just say it’s intended mission was highly likely one-way, either because of the enemy blowing up the plane or the country of origin.
That different strategy means the B-52 is still very popular, because you can keep it running by a one-armed chimp with a bucket of grease and a hammer. It’s easy and basically free (as far as military planes go). The B-1 very much isn’t either, and the B-2 REALLY isn’t.
And the B-2 costs a BILLION dollars. With a B. You can literally buy a dozen B-1’s for the cost of a B-2, and have money left over to buy a really nice runway too. Nobody is going to use those for anything but the most special missions. If they still made B-52H’s, you could get an entire wing of them (120 planes) for the cost of a single B-2, and you’d have spare money for a nice set of airstrips, a control tower and a small town to support it.
So, the B-52 does it what it has to do, cheaply, easily, consistently and very well. That’s why it’s still around. I’m convinced the B-1 is only still around because building more B-52’s isn’t profitable to the MIC.
I went digging and what I found surprised me.
2010 numbers.
B-1 $63k / flight hour
B-52 $72k
B-2 $135k
JDAMs, dumb bombs made smart, are primarily the B-1 role. Higher tech munitions are primarily the B-52 role.
I think that when they want it done cheap they use the B-1.