4 ms·
In a peer war it's pretty damn dubious whether a B-52 with four modern engines will be more survivable than a B-52 with 8 antiques. Either way the most they'll
by lupusreal 2y ago
In a peer war it's pretty damn dubious whether a B-52 with four modern engines will be more survivable than a B-52 with 8 antiques. Either way the most they'll be able to do is launch standoff munitions from a distance they hope will keep them safe, and if it doesn't then they're dead anyway. In a scenario short of that, we're just quibbling over the degree of waste American voters will put up with (it's the military, so the answer is a lot.)
- anovikov 2y agoThat's pretty much irrelevant. Engine replacement is about increasing range and/or reducing tanker requirement/airframe wear, and reduction of maintenance costs because existing engines are ancient and their maintenance costs are high. One of the reasons this program has been postponed for so long was retirement of C-141 that left USAF with plenty of still good TF-33s. But now these are starting to run out too.
- lupusreal 2y agoYou're right, I intended to reply to the comment saying "In war, only capability matters. Nothing else". I don't think the engine replacements would/will meaningfully sway the balance of capabilities.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]