Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "The BUFF Is Going to Live Forever! The B-52J/K update" video.

@mahbriggs LOL, that didn't take long. All I can say is you need to read more regarding current and future operations. The B-52 has already provided close air support. The A-10 cannot operate in hostile airspace any more than the B-52 can. Any fighter or bomber in the inventory can now provide CAS, and most have, including the B-1 and B-52, with greater survivability than an A-10 flying low and slow over the target. Your vision of CAS is very outdated. You need to keep up with the times.
4
@mahbriggs "if all the B52 can do is operate from over the horizon in a hostile environment, fail to see what it can do that a cargo plane can't!? Yes, you do fail to see that a B-52 can drop every dumb and precision guided weapon in the inventory, including the coming hypersonic weapons, in a number of different operational circumstances. All the short-range slow-moving C-130 could launch is Rapid Dragon. There is no comparison in combat versatility.
4
It has multiple uses. One is launching volleys of cruise missiles at important fixed targets deep in enemy territory, and it can do this from bases within U.S. if necessary. Or it can drop just about any weapon in the U.S. inventory over more permissive airspace. Over a modern battlefield it will be more useful for on-station close air support than an A-10 will be due to longer loiter, a larger magazine, and more survivability than an A-10 trying to use a gun or dumb bombs.
3
@mahbriggs You are obviously not paying attention. I said the B-52 can't penetrate hostile airspace. It is a well-known fact, but you apparently think USAF does not know this. Another thing you don't seem to know is that the B-1 can't penetrate either, which is which is why it is scheduled for retirement. The only USAF penetrating long range bomber is the B-2, which will also be replaced by the coming B-21. But it will not replace the B-52, which is still a reliably useful bomb truck in permissive airspace. With the new engines the B-52 will be more reliable and less expensive to maintain than the B-1, which has become a maintainability challenge. They are already retiring a portion of the B-1 fleet in order to use the O&M funds and parts of those airplanes to sustain those still operating. I'm not going to address the lack of logic in the rest of your statements because you don't recognize logic. You have no idea what is going on and should try reading a little before coming to your uninformed and poorly reasoned conclusions.
3
No, about the same thrust according to what I have read. They will be much more economical to operate and maintain and will pay for themselves.
3
That was considered for some time but ultimately rejected. They would have to reengineer much more of the airplane to accept four larger engines. It is less expensive and time consuming to drop in eight smaller engines. The F-130 engines to be used are much more efficient and also cheaper to maintain than the TF-33 engines they will replace, so the new engines will pay for themselves. I think they are getting a good deal on these engines.
2
Reload? You mean from a cargo plane in mid-air? There is nowhere for the B-52 to carry weapons other than the bomb bay and under the wings, so where would these reloads come from?
1
There is a lot of airframe life left in these airplanes. They are the youngest B-52s to begin with, and they have spent much of their years on the ground standing by for war rather than flying.
1
Which radar would that be? They are picking one of the more advanced and versatile existing radars in service. They don't need to spend money to develop a new radar for the planned uses of this airplane.
1