Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:B52 Today Bears No Resemblance to B52 in 1965 (Score 1) 403

by 3263827 (#39709103) Attached to: Sixty Years On, B-52s Are Still Going Strong

They have hundreds of engines in depot from the aircraft that were sent to Davis-Monthan. Now if they want to run these birds past 2040, it might get a little problematic, but I don't see the AF spending $10 billion to re-engine a bird that already is long in the tooth when they're dreaming of things like the Next Generation Bomber...

Comment: Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score 1) 403

by 3263827 (#39704805) Attached to: Sixty Years On, B-52s Are Still Going Strong

Raise your hand if you know nothing about the term "collateral damage." Thought so.

The days of carpet bombing Iraqi divisions is long gone. Even during GW1, it wasn't common. And in Afghanistan, PGMs are the most likely weapon to be used so we can avoid having Al Jazeera rage about us wiping out a wedding party. Hell, we didn't even use carpet bombing in Tora Bora when OBL was holed up in the hills.

Sure, carpet bombing has a great psychological effect on its target, but today's civilian authorities won't use it.

Comment: Re:B52 Today Bears No Resemblance to B52 in 1965 (Score 1) 403

by 3263827 (#39704339) Attached to: Sixty Years On, B-52s Are Still Going Strong

There have been proposals throughout the last few decades to re-engine the youngest B-52s, but they've never gotten off the ground. It's not really clear that the fuel savings would pay off when you consider all the costs involved. Part of me thinks that the AF would rather keep buying shiny new fighters.

Plus the CFM-56 is a straightforward one for one re-engining on the 707 series planes like the KC-135. Re-engining the B-52 would involve dramatically modifying the fuel delivery system as well as modifying the engine pod mounting points.

In 1869 the waffle iron was invented for people who had wrinkled waffles.

Working...