Originally Posted by
chevvron
I wouldn't call a bomber which has been in service for over 50 years as being 'short lived'.
I think there was a good serving of irony in the original post. Not only generically "in service", but the current active fleet includes actual airframes procured in 1960. This is similar to its KC-135 stablemate (the original Boeing 717 by the way), and its long standing equivalent, the Tu-95.
By way of comparison, the Royal Air Force's Lancaster PA474 was a sprighty 28 years old when it embarked on its second career as a heritage demonstrator with the BBMF.