it's now more than that. It can carry naval mines, ALC/AshMs & tactical nukes. Boeing would charge a lot of $ for dozens of B-747s, while B-52 airframes still have up to 2 decades, if not more, of life remaining.
Of course... a 747 could be modified to carry bombs but there is no way it could carry naval mines or nuclear bombs or cruise missiles... or could it?
M60 tanks probably have a few years worth of running left in them but should they be kept too?
that still doesn't make it a jet engine.
It uses a jet engine to power the propellers... just like a Jet ranger helicopter and most modern military helicopters use gas turbine (jet) engines to power their rotors.
I only "invented" a term to describe an engine with turbines but w/o a prop.
You do realise that a turbofan engine has large fan blades at the front that are covered by the engine, but are basically propeller blades powered by a turbojet engine... as used on most modern jet powered civilian airliners today...
U generalize many things that, metaphorically speaking, =s a floor with a ceiling. I guess being well below the Equator it's easier to overlook the difference.
Of course it is just me... the Bear clearly uses a piston engine... no... it is a radial piston engine then... no... it uses a jet engine to power the propeller blades that provide thrust... a super tucano primary trainer with a turboprop engine is the same thing or is it?
How much thrust do you get from the exhaust pipe of your car... does that make it a jet engine?
the later & less numerous M-4 Bison had 4 jets, but still with lower range than the Tu-95.
Not later... the Bison was the direct competition with the Bear and shows pretty clearly why they went for turboprop engines in the first place.
In a turbojet there is no fan and all the air entering in the air inlet goes also to the core of the engine. Therefore all the thrust come from the hot flow from the nozzle.
The only jet engines with no fan are ramjet and scramjet engines... turbojet engines use fan blades... either axial flow or centrifugal flow to suck air through the engine structure.
A turbofan has a large fan attached to the front to draw cold air that bypasses the hot section of the turbojet... you could call it a ducted fan, but unducted fan or turboprops are clearly related as also being driven by the turbojet that provides the rotational speed for propulsion.
On a turboprop the thrust generated by the turbojet is usually negligible or ineffective... its purpose in a turboprop arrangement is not to provide direct thrust... its purpose is to drive the propellers that do provide primary thrust.
By the way, now there is a campaign to substitute the current B52 engines with 8 business jet engines (high bypass turbofan), and the 3 main western engine manufacturers are competing for it.
Hahahahaha... what a joke.
Where are all the F-16 fans who think the biggest problem with the MiG-29 is the fact that it has two engines because one engine is cheaper and better than 2... why are they always scarce when talking about the worlds only operational 8 engined jet aircraft... I mean I realise the purpose of US weapons is to waste money... but do they have to be so obvious about it?
he B-52 has in recent years racked up mission capability rates of 60 percent, far above that of the B-1 and B-2, which are at about 40 and 35 percent, respectively.
Well you would think by now the bugs are sorted out, but what sort of availability rates do 747s achieve?
The B-52 costs about $70,000 per flying hour, roughly half that of the B-2—even before it gets more efficient engines.
Again, so what... you are comparing it to a very very expensive white elephant...
The B-52 “has good bones,” Rand said, noting that the B-52H spent most of its service life on ground alert for nuclear operations, and still has many thousands of hours of airframe life
They were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are bloody ancient... it says a lot of American ingenuity and technology that they can't make something newer and cheaper and better.
The reality is that none of the current US bombers is useful against Russia and soon they wont be any use against China in a first strike role... so expensive and cheap are useless, yet in a second strike after ICBMs and SLBMs have landed any will do... aren't you so glad the US military is so smart that they keep these dinosaurs when they could be using modern materials and modern systems in a much more efficient modern design that could just do the job in a cost effective way...
Just a hint at the stupidity and corruption in the US.
Which shows that they r still valuable platforms worth keeping, like the Tu-95/142s that r also being re engined.
Yeah... not really the same thing there actually... the current fleet of Bears had a design upgrade in the 1970s when the wing was completely redesigned and improved and the in service Tu-95 Bears were made in the 1980s and the 1990s so they are actually younger than many of the B-1B and B-2 aircraft the US has... but of course much cheaper to operate.