Why not just start making new B-52's again?

You're still only talking about the cost side. You're not talking about the effect side. So they're 2x the cost, but how much did they save in reduced casualties?

The b-52's role on the modern battlefield is basically a cruise missile truck. It lets you launch a bunch of cruise missiles(cough, I mean kamikazi drones, gotta use the modern lingo) from random locations.

One does not simply take out a SAM system with a cruise missile, especially when that SAM system can also target the cruise missile. So how do you get a cruise missile to launch from the right spot where the SAM system radar can’t see it coming?

Middle strike drone swarm is more likely in 2026 & as a bonus you can post the footage from it as a music video.

Plot twist: some of the best precision cruise missiles are air-launched.

The B-21, a cheaper version of the B-2, makes more sense as new bomber since it can do the normal bomber jobs and the B-52 job of nuclear cruise missiles.

B-52 engine refurbishment is going to cost $15 billion for 70 odd bombers, or $214 million each. $750 million is current cost of B-21.

On a practical level, computer power and FEM etc. have changed aero/astro and the relevant physics at the level you can do engineering with, from people I know in those industries.

> Out of curiosity, do they not pressurize the cargo hold?

Well, the DC-3 is a fun example, because it wasn't pressurized to start with.

But no, normally converted freight aircraft are fully pressurized; it's more expensive and more intrusive to redesign the plane to have a cockpit pressure bulkhead than it is to just leave the whole thing pressurized. There are some exceptions like the Beluga, usually due to door design constraints (at some point, making a cockpit pressure bulkhead becomes easier than making a giant pressurized door). This trend in retrofits might change; flat aft-pressure-bulkhead retrofits are becoming a thing to increase cubic footage capacity, and at some point someone might decide that the effort required to engineer and certify a cockpit bulkhead would be worth some advantage in door design or cargo capacity in a broader sense. But for now, they're usually fully pressurized.

The main reason why planes get a second life in freight is that freight carriers have _way_ more options for utilization; they fly fewer hours overall, hold the plane until it's completely full, and utilize different airports and routes. A loud, inefficient plane is OK to fly twice a day between two fixed airports with no noise restrictions, but useless to a passenger carrier who wants to make four or five turns between whatever airports are necessary and doesn't have guaranteed utilization to cover the overhead - right back to your original point, which I don't think anyone was really disagreeing with.

There are systems that are in bombers that Rapid Dragon does not deal with, and you need to expand the transport fleet that the Army and Navy and you also want for other missions. It's great for pounding fixed positions where you can load up and program on ground but not readjust in the air based on how it's going.

Also not all munitions work effectively with it. A dedicated bomber enables things like MOAB.