Hacker News Reader

Comment by runjake | Hacker News Reader

I worked on B-52s and other aircraft. Their systems (bomb/nav/comm/etc) were refreshed many times and the airframes inspected and improved regularly.

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.

View on HN

Cost-effective might not be the best description. If the B2 is able to target SAMs with very low losses, then it could still be cost-effective compared to significant losses of other airframes and crews.

Cost-effective is the best description. It doesn't have to be a totality. For total operation costs (training/missions/acquisition/maintenance/capabilites), the B-52 is cheaper by orders of magnitude.

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).

Why not just start making new B-52's again?

Is there a shortage of B-52 airframes?

They get upgraded regularly, the only reason to make more bombers is to try something different.

With eight engines mounted on external nacelles, it is the complete opposite of stealth. You need complete air superiority to use it without fear of being shot down.

The eight engines is a side effect of of how large the aircraft is vs how big the engines of the day were. they are basically business jet engines by modern standards.

During the recent engine replacement project using one full sized engine per boom instead of the twin small engine nacelle was seriously considered. So 4 engines instead of 8. I suspect the reason the twin nacelle was kept was that going to 4 engines required more engineering rework than they were happy with. It certainly would have improved the b-52's range and fuel efficiency.

Either way probably a net zero on the stealth consideration.

Fun fact: with the re-engine project the b-52 now has the same engines as the A-10.

You're still only talking about the cost side. You're not talking about the effect side. So they're 2x the cost, but how much did they save in reduced casualties?

If you have updated satellite imagery and can hit the SAM with a cruise missile you don't need the B2.

Middle strike drone swarm is more likely in 2026 & as a bonus you can post the footage from it as a music video.

One does not simply take out a SAM system with a cruise missile, especially when that SAM system can also target the cruise missile. So how do you get a cruise missile to launch from the right spot where the SAM system radar can’t see it coming?

By using low-observable ("stealth") cruise missiles that fly at extremely low altitudes using terrain avoidance radar.

> using low-observable ("stealth") cruise missiles that fly at extremely low altitudes using terrain avoidance radar

Do we have this class of anti-radiation weapon?

I'm pretty sure we have this class of cruise missile. It can be used as an anti-radiation weapon if you point it at a location that has a radar on it.

If the radar is mobile, that means that you need a true anti-radiation missile, but SAM radars aren't mobile, are they?

Sure they are - the s300 system for example can be redployed quite rapidly & some like Buk have the radar even integrated with the launcher.

Also only the radar really transmits, so even if you hit it the, separate launchers might still be intact & guided by another radar if you don't destroy them.

This is why modern remotely guided middle strike drones are so dangerous for SAMs - they can basically search an area for all the SAM system components and destroy them all or most of them. Potentially much more effective than a homing missile hitting just the radar at maximum.

The b-52's role on the modern battlefield is basically a cruise missile truck. It lets you launch a bunch of cruise missiles(cough, I mean kamikazi drones, gotta use the modern lingo) from random locations.

Plot twist: some of the best precision cruise missiles are air-launched.

Can now be air launched by cargo plane as well.

why can't they reproduce it like they do shelby kit cars?

None of the major defense contractors (new or old) would be interested in doing this unless they could greatly pad out their numbers. There's a lot more money (see F-35) in building out a new system and landing the huge maintenance contract for the first 10+ years associated with it. A B-52 clone would be financially great for USAF if it could be built at an appropriate price since they have the maintenance capability for that airframe already, but no one would sell them one at the right price.

The B-21, a cheaper version of the B-2, makes more sense as new bomber since it can do the normal bomber jobs and the B-52 job of nuclear cruise missiles.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider

Notice all the references to the B-21 are future tense.

Northrup has built a couple of prototypes and supposed to deliver first one next year. The B-21 program is going really fast. Air Force are ordering 145, which is slightly more than the B-1, B-2, and B-52s.

It is just easy to not trust official predictions but of course "past performance is not indicative of future results". So we will see.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com