Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #569788
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Physics of the B-52 |
| Date | 2016-04-11 19:28 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <9gattc-714.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <13e9adba-d1e6-4aed-93a5-b3cb70c564ea@googlegroups.com> |
HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote: > > The old buff is back to work. This time in the middle east. This is > probable the most successful aircraft ever deployed by the US. Most would argue that would be the DC-3 and military variants, still being used since the 1930's. > They are old as fuck. Like 2 days older than dirt. So my question is > how much would it cost to extend them out another 100 years? You can only do that for so long before the airframe is no longer usable and airframes haven't been built since about 1962. > I'd love to see a feasibility study and a cost projection. Stealth is > not always needed. Every bombing mission doesn't require a B-2 or an F-35. The AF has been doing exactly that for decades. Sorry but they haven't sent me my copy. > And another thing... We deployed these B-52 aircraft to replace the > B-1 fleet which was rotated back to the states for maintenance. > > Why didn't we stagger the rotation in order to minimize the gap that > we called on the 52 to fill? Because things like the B-52 go in units that make up all the operational and support structure specific to an airplane. The big problem is getting everyone to agree what the real AF need is as shown by all the thrashing over the B-52, A-10, and OV-10. For years the AF only grudginly took on the close air support of ground troops role and prefered supersonic fighters and bombers. They only continued to do it because Congress threatened to take that role away, along with all the airplanes and officer slots, and give it to the Army. The realities of the Middle East has caused a revaluation of low and slow. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Physics of the B-52 HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 04:00 -0700
Re: Physics of the B-52 benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 12:51 -0400
Re: Physics of the B-52 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:28 +0000
Re: Physics of the B-52 HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 15:04 -0700
Re: Physics of the B-52 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-11 18:47 -0500
Re: Physics of the B-52 benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 21:22 -0400
Re: Physics of the B-52 "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:43 -0700
Re: Physics of the B-52 HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 04:08 -0700
csiph-web