Reading between the lines...
We built 740 of those beasts back when we thought we were going to fight
Russia. 76 of them are still in service.
I'm also thinking about our spending on fancy new bombers seems similar
to our Littoral Combat Ship, Crusader artillery, and similar programs
where they make something very cutting edge that ends up with glaring
flaws, or they're as expensive as three of the older models, or they're
impossible to maintain.
I'm sitting comfortably in my armchair, so my opinion might count for
nothing on this topic, but it seems like for military equipment you'd
want to start with simple and rugged and go from there. Maybe they
should just make an updated B52 rather than reinventing the wheel.
On 12/7/2015 10:06 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Imagine if you had active equipment in your network that was first
produced in 1952, the last ones were built in 1964, and you didn't
expect to retire them until at least 2040, because none of the
intended replacements had worked out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/b-52s-us-air-force-bombers.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress
