What is it that’s “wrong” with the B-52 that it’s service life couldn’t be extended indefinitely?
If the airframes are old, couldn’t they be reproduced? I mean, this is 50 year old tech put together with 50 year old processes. Surely these components could be made today just as easily as they were in the last century.
Or is it the design that’s inadequate somehow? Why can’t it be tweaked rather than replaced with a $multi-billion new model that would be unproven and likely over budget?
It’s already been refitted with revised engines (multiple times, IIRC), so presumably that could continue to happen as engine tech evolves.
It just seems to me we have a proven, working platform that has managed to adapt nicely over the years. Aircrews and pilots are familiar with it, training program is established, spare parts are in inventory. I like new planes as much as the next person, but it seems the B-52 has proven itself as effective at what she does.
Or maybe we no longer need a bomber that does what the B-52 can do?
There’s nothing wrong with it as long as they are safe.
The airframes are very old...
The problem is tooling. They can upgrade/fix the existing airframes with on hand equipment.
To “re-produce” a B52 Boeing would have to make all new tools. The line has been closed for years.