zzrmark

It's a goal of mine to see the last one retired from active service before I kark it.

Pulaski

I suspect the you're going to be disappointed as I think they are currently being refurbished with an expected operational life extending into the 2050's, and I would be surprised if that isn't extended further in future.

steveq

Plans are that the plane will be first to reach 100 year service life. The grandaughters of men who flew them in the 50s are now flying the same tail numbers.

Pulaski

In the USAF, yes - but I'll bet that there will still be DC-3's flying in revenue earning service when their airframe reaches 100 years old, and many of those have 20+ years on the oldest flying B-52's. Today the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the DC-3 is only 16 years away! It's crazy to think that the DC-3 was introduced just 33 years after the Wright brothers' first flight, and yet is was such a good designed that it has pretty much defined the term "stand the test of time".
Enlist or commission today to work on, or fly, B-52s and you can look forward to a whole career working on that aircraft.

steveq

The B52 for you, your children and your childrens' children.......

caretaker

zzrmark

That was my point.

Pulaski

I did wonder if you meant that you are hoping to live to a ripe old age, rather than hoping to see the B-52 scrapped, which was my first impression.

Steerpike

That's some good looking wing I like how there's no annoying muzak (other than intro/outro).

And that's some more good looking wing! One of my top 10 all time favorites!

civilservant

Question is does for -52 deserve it's nickname? B.U.F.F?

I don't think they are bad looking myself. Better than the F-117 anyway, but not as good as the old Aardvarks or the B-1.

Pulaski

I'd say BUFF is totally not fair, I rather like it too, and it is clearly a stepping stone from the WWII bombers that went before to modern swept wing designs. But I don't that comparing it to much smaller aircraft is fair either as the B-52 has unique load and range capabilties that put it in an entirely different league from the F-111 and F-117.

I did notice, on checking the Wikipedia article, that the USAF is finally, more than 40 years after it was first considered, planning to award a re-engining contract for the B-52 fleet in May of 2021.

civilservant

So is it better looking than the Bone then?

I looked at Wiki too, I didn't realize that the last constructed airframe was delivered to USAF in 1963

Pulaski

The bone is just weird, IMO. Smooth and stretched and unlike anything else - about what you'd expect if you took a contemporary fighter design and scaled it up by nearly 200%.

The B-1 is so different from the B-52 that I couldn't really compare them - I just like the understated menace of the B-52. In many respects it's more like a cargo plane than a bomber, but even with conventional payload you'll know when you've been visited by a Big Stick!

civilservant

It really is comparing apples and oranges again. They are both long range, heavy strategic bombers, but their missions are very different.

The B-52 is your classic 'send over many aircraft with many bombs because many are going to get shot down' theory of sttrategic bombing from WWII, where is the Bone is 'deep strike, fast, get in, drop a nuke, get out' thinking from the cold war.

I personally prefer the bone, but that primarily is because of the swing-wing.

I miss the Tomcat

caretaker

Even though it's jet vs prop I'd compare it to the Tupolevs, for mission similarity and diversity of payloads. When the Russians turned the Bear into a revolver full of cruise missiles everybody had to get that stand-off capability. I'm impressed by the airplanes, but dismayed by the misuse of resources. If Russians and Americans want to show off, instead of constant patrolling, just have a competition, fly them to Sub-Saharan Africa and see who can drop the most food.