Our front line bombers are officially 50 years old. Since the last B-52H rolled off the assembly line in 1962, all 74 will be over 50 next year. If we'd gone to desert Storm with 50 year old bombers, they'd have looked like this: If we'd gone to Viet Nam with 50 year old bombers, they'd have looked like this: If we'd gone to WWII in 50 year old bombers, they'd have looked something like this:
^I had to explain to my boss recently that the B-52s' "Roam" was about kinky sex. I may have destroyed her innocent teen years.
It's amazing how much service life we've been able to get out of them. I've got family with 20 years in the Air Force, now retired for 10 years, that worked on them while in and they were already old when he joined up.
The need to replace fighters is critical, as their air frames endure a stress that, over time, literally tears them apart. It is impressive that B-52's continue to serve us well. Are they safe? Are the air frames able to sustain operations? What type of fatigue do they endure compared to other platforms that have had long operation without difficulty? Compared to platforms that have had difficulty (F-15's)? It is my understanding that the B-52 currently serves primarily as a stand off weapon, that is, a way to delivery cruise missiles. So it not being stealthy isn't an issue.
When I was in the USAF bomb-loading school I was amazed at how huge these things were, and how many bombs they could carry - they're quite amazing close up!
The chronological age of the B-52s is nearly irrelevant. It's the number of flight hours that really tells the tale. And that we're still flying 50-year-old airframes is both amazing and appalling.
It ain't the years, it's the mileage! When the AF offered NASA a B-52H to replace its old B-52D that it used to launch everything from the X-15 onward, NASA didn't want it - their old D had less flight time on it than the H!
A grand aircraft. I got to see many D and G model 52's getting chopped up for the Russkies to see at Davis Monthan AFB in Az. That whole facility(and the museum across the street) is worth the trip.
I thought it was a B-52B that initially served as NASAs "mother ship" for X craft? And didn't the B-52H's (and the Gs) all get massive structural reinforcement in the late 1970s (fuselage bands) in order strengthen them for low level operation? And of course, they did not stay in the low level roll very long. And it helps to remember this: Compare the much heralded B-52 with the much maligned B-1B. When the B-1B force reached the 20 year mark for service, more than 60% of the B-1 force was still in service as opposed to less than 50% of the B-52 force at the 20 year mark.
They got rows of them B52 in the desert that they can just pull the plugs out of and within a few hours be in the air. I think its 77,000 pounds payload per bird, which is a lot of 1000 pound bombs. You make the sky dark with them and its going to be a bad day for somebody. It don't take long to deliver mega tons the old fashioned way.
You mean these? And I'm pretty sure no aircraft stored at the boneyard can be in the air "in a few hours".
^Yeah. I remember when President Carter was trying to get the SALT II treaty ratified. It was pointed out that under the treaty, more than 30 "Boneyard B-52s" were counted as "nuclear weapons delivery vehicles" despite the fact it would take more than a YEAR to get them combat ready again.
To be fair, a large number of B-52s were lined up at the boneyard for years that at least from a distance, looked like they could be flying with relatively little effort.
