4 ms·

> There will come a time when we don't need to redesign our aircraft every few decades any more than we do our infantry's rifles. Except that the M4 is from 19

> There will come a time when we don't need to redesign our aircraft every few decades any more than we do our infantry's rifles. Except that the M4 is from 1994, making it significantly younger than the B52.

rangibaby 11y ago
I think it's possible to convert an M4 into its contemporary M16 and vice versa.
- dsr_ 11y ago
  The M16 entered service in 1963. The M4 is a derivative.
  - rangibaby 11y ago
    I know that, but the M4 is based on the M16A2 from the 80s.
CydeWeys 11y ago
Huh? The M4 was directly based on the M16, which was based on the AR-15, which was all ultimately based on the AR-10, which was first made in the mid 1950s, thus making it almost exactly as old as the B-52 bomber. There's a lot more differences between a B-52 bomber when it first rolled off the production line and what they're like now than there are between an AR-10 and a modern M4, though of course the rifles are a lot less complicated.
- morgante 11y ago
  So then maybe we should just rebrand the "modern" B52 and call it a day.
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    It's not really analogous because the rifles that are called M4s today aren't retrofitted versions of the same actual rifles that were previously AR-10s. This all has to do with rifles and airplanes being very different from each other in size, complexity, and cost, so there aren't many accurate analogies to be made.
    - LyndsySimon 11y ago
      Are you sure about that? The lower receiver - the part of the gun that's a controlled "firearm" - is identical between the AR-15, M-16, and M-4. The only things that really change are the barrel length and the parts that go in the lower to differentiate between automatic fire and burst fire. the "real" AR-15, by Armalite - not the semi-automatic version commonly available to civilians.
      - nl 11y ago
        True, but they are physically new devices. The B-52s are the same planes as were built in the 50s (not just the same designs. It's true that there aren't many parts in those planes that exist from the '50s, but and M-4 isn't a AR-15 that was taken the factory and rebuilt - it is a brand new rifle.
      - CydeWeys 11y ago
        There are still some old lowers kicking around in the military, but most aren't that old. When the Army buys M4s from manufacturers, they're getting complete new rifles, with new lowers. We need some actual military people to chime in here, but I believe that most rifles in current use don't have parts on them dating back anything close to the 60s, unlike B-52s, every single one of which has a majority of parts (including the entire airframe) dating back to the original manufacture date between 1952 and 1962.
  - sirkneeland 11y ago
    Boeing has pretty much perfected that with the 737 series
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      The next generation of 737 is really good. It's got better engines, the winglets for improved efficiency, and all that jazz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation Unfortunately it wouldn't make a good bomber because of the basic layout of the plane. Compare the overall top-view layouts of the 737 vs the B-52, paying special attention to wing attachment points and where the bombing bay is, and you'll see what I mean.

rangibaby 11y ago

I think it's possible to convert an M4 into its contemporary M16 and vice versa.

dsr_ 11y ago
The M16 entered service in 1963. The M4 is a derivative.
- rangibaby 11y ago
  I know that, but the M4 is based on the M16A2 from the 80s.

CydeWeys 11y ago

Huh? The M4 was directly based on the M16, which was based on the AR-15, which was all ultimately based on the AR-10, which was first made in the mid 1950s, thus making it almost exactly as old as the B-52 bomber. There's a lot more differences between a B-52 bomber when it first rolled off the production line and what they're like now than there are between an AR-10 and a modern M4, though of course the rifles are a lot less complicated.

morgante 11y ago
So then maybe we should just rebrand the "modern" B52 and call it a day.
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  It's not really analogous because the rifles that are called M4s today aren't retrofitted versions of the same actual rifles that were previously AR-10s. This all has to do with rifles and airplanes being very different from each other in size, complexity, and cost, so there aren't many accurate analogies to be made.
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago
    Are you sure about that? The lower receiver - the part of the gun that's a controlled "firearm" - is identical between the AR-15, M-16, and M-4. The only things that really change are the barrel length and the parts that go in the lower to differentiate between automatic fire and burst fire. the "real" AR-15, by Armalite - not the semi-automatic version commonly available to civilians.
    - nl 11y ago
      True, but they are physically new devices. The B-52s are the same planes as were built in the 50s (not just the same designs. It's true that there aren't many parts in those planes that exist from the '50s, but and M-4 isn't a AR-15 that was taken the factory and rebuilt - it is a brand new rifle.
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      There are still some old lowers kicking around in the military, but most aren't that old. When the Army buys M4s from manufacturers, they're getting complete new rifles, with new lowers. We need some actual military people to chime in here, but I believe that most rifles in current use don't have parts on them dating back anything close to the 60s, unlike B-52s, every single one of which has a majority of parts (including the entire airframe) dating back to the original manufacture date between 1952 and 1962.
- sirkneeland 11y ago
  Boeing has pretty much perfected that with the 737 series
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    The next generation of 737 is really good. It's got better engines, the winglets for improved efficiency, and all that jazz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation Unfortunately it wouldn't make a good bomber because of the basic layout of the plane. Compare the overall top-view layouts of the 737 vs the B-52, paying special attention to wing attachment points and where the bombing bay is, and you'll see what I mean.