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.
RIP
It would likely have had full fuel tanks so that's probably why we can see little debris.
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.
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.
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.
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 US plans to replace both JSTAR and AWACS with Golden Dome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...
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.
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.
The B-21 is the B-52 successor, and has to worry less about being shot down.
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?
Well, the DC-3 is a fun example, because it wasn't pressurized to start with.
But no, normally converted freight aircraft are fully pressurized; it's more expensive and more intrusive to redesign the plane to have a cockpit pressure bulkhead than it is to just leave the whole thing pressurized. There are some exceptions like the Beluga, usually due to door design constraints (at some point, making a cockpit pressure bulkhead becomes easier than making a giant pressurized door). This trend in retrofits might change; flat aft-pressure-bulkhead retrofits are becoming a thing to increase cubic footage capacity, and at some point someone might decide that the effort required to engineer and certify a cockpit bulkhead would be worth some advantage in door design or cargo capacity in a broader sense. But for now, they're usually fully pressurized.
The main reason why planes get a second life in freight is that freight carriers have _way_ more options for utilization; they fly fewer hours overall, hold the plane until it's completely full, and utilize different airports and routes. A loud, inefficient plane is OK to fly twice a day between two fixed airports with no noise restrictions, but useless to a passenger carrier who wants to make four or five turns between whatever airports are necessary and doesn't have guaranteed utilization to cover the overhead - right back to your original point, which I don't think anyone was really disagreeing with.
B-52 engine refurbishment is going to cost $15 billion for 70 odd bombers, or $214 million each. $750 million is current cost of B-21.
Notice all the references to the B-21 are future tense.
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).
They get upgraded regularly, the only reason to make more bombers is to try something different.
Do we have this class of anti-radiation weapon?
If the radar is mobile, that means that you need a true anti-radiation missile, but SAM radars aren't mobile, are they?