• Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m still surprised theres not a gunship version, thing could carry a fuckload of dakka.

      • too_high_for_this@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The B-52 is designed to fly high-altitude at high subsonic speed. And they’re not very maneuverable. They’re meant to fly straight to a target, drop a payload, and GTFO.

        Gunships fly low and slow, banking in a circle to keep their guns on target. For a B-52 to do the same maneuver, it’d have to be higher and much further away.

        This is like saying we should make a Chinook bomber because it could carry a lot of bombs. Like yeah, it could, but there’s better options.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It depends on what kind of gunship you want, lots of guns can fit on a b52 that can’t on an ac130. A series of 155s or bofors 40mk4s, mk38 bushmasters or stripped down 5" guns all of which fire rapidly, automatically and at ranges the ac130 could not touch with significant increases of time on target.

          It doesn’t need to be maneuverable, gunboats don’t go in without air superiority anyway. That said they’re way more maneuverable and controllable then you’d imagine. It wouldn’t need to be one or the other, you could have both running counter pylon turns covering up for the gaps in each other’s capabilities.

          https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-usaf-b-52-strategic-bomber-did-a-fly-by-below-the-flight-deck-of-uss-ranger-aircraft-carrier/amp/

          Notably many people said the ac130 was not a useful idea.