B-52 Is Upgrading To B-52J,Why United States Unwilling To Retire This Old Warhorse?

[@lawrencegore6647]

When the B-52 was designed in 1948, the most powerful engines developed only 10,000 pounds of thrust. Thus, eight were required to get the plane airborne. Today''s engines can develop up to 78,000 pounds of thrust, so if the plane were designed today it might only have two engines. The existing B-52H Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines develop 17,000 pounds of thrust. The Rolls Royce replacement engines were designed to have the same size and thrust as the existing engines so as not to require airframe redesign. The airframes of the remaining 76 B-52H's are over 60 years old. We designed the B-52G/H in 1956 for high-altitude bombing. The emphasis in structural design was minimum weight, to maximize range. But in 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we redesigned the structure to meet SAC's new, more severe usage and service life requirements. These notably included low level terrain avoidance training to penetrate enemy radar, often under extreme gust and maneuver conditions. The emphasis in structural design shifted to toughness and durability. The primary structural components are never replaced. The reason for their longevity is that usage has not been as severe as was projected. As Chief of Structures Technology at Boeing-Wichita at the time of the 1960 redesign. I am honored to say I chose the materials, the analysis methods, and the limiting stress levels for the redesign. I am now almost 97, and I am thrilled to see these planes still flying, and projected to do so for many more years.

[@thedailygreatness]

SALUTE to you my friend and fellow American! Thank you for the first person account of this magnificent bird of prey. I'm sure you feel extraordinarily proud of your and your team's work. It is my goal to make contributions to our nation of a similar magnitude and quality as yours. 💯💯🙏🙏

[@Mike-eq4ky]

Your brilliant progeny may become the only military aircraft to see a hundred-year active service life! May you do so as well and beyond. Simply amazing...

[@joelobryan1212]

The Big D's (B-52D) had the tall tail (same as A's), and were not well suited for the low altitude penetration roll. Thus the G/H's had the fat tail. SAC only allowed the D( tall tails) to go to Guam to bomb NVietnam because they had less technology (EWO and E/O and TF Radar systems) than the USSR intended penetrating G/H's. What Buffs have going for them now is an enormous fuel capacity, which significantly reduces logistics of refueling, both at ground stops and inflight. The internal bomb bay is enormous and the external hard points at robust (it launched carried and launched the X-15 with ease), thus allowing for a robust Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) of new weapons systems/missiles (potentially highly compartmented, classified payloads) to be loaded and carried safely externally or internally , and jettisoned if an emergency arose. The B-1 has no external stores carriage capability, and the B-2/21 internal bay imposes strict size limits.

[@GeorgeLucas1138]

Damn this guy is the literal expert on this subject

[@ToreDL87]

@@GeorgeLucas1138 Might seem that way to you, but in 10 years time you'll be old enough to have the ability to retain, compartmentalize and rationalize information and use it to talk your way in & out of desired/undesired situations, the same way they're now teaching you in school. Anyone can google everything the guy said, doesn't take all that much.

[@stan1027]

At different times during my Air Force career, I was a crew chief on the B-52D, B-52G, and B-52H aircraft. And I loved every minute of it! Awesome aircraft!

[@SanDiegoHarry1]

water wagons!

[@twobitsworth1556]

'71-78 - 93BW/OMS Castle -crew chief D and F . Retired USAF

[@phillipmcmurran8991]

I was at Barksdale from 78 to 82 as a gunner on a B-52G and my wife was a crew chief on a B-52G

[@billjenkins687]

Thank You for your dedication, sir.

[@mikewaterfield3599]

She has lived over generations of detractors. Long live the buff.

[@fw1421]

I was in the USAF at Barksdale AFB in the late 1970’s and there was talk back then to put more modern engines back then. It’s about they updated the BUFF. It’s an amazing warplane and very versatile.

[@94520shatto]

Only an Artificial Intelligence announcer would not know the proper way to identify the new engines of the B-52. (2:31 on the video)

[@SanDiegoHarry1]

Back when Boeing actually did engineering

[@mikegardner107]

@@94520shattoOne of several such gaffes that are common to AI BOTS.

[@patrickweaver1105]

@@SanDiegoHarry1 They still do but the design criteria have changed. Nowadays it's about "efficient" design. Meaning as cheaply as possible to fulfill a limited lifetime and mission. The B-52 was designed from the ground up to have a long-life airframe and they built a lot of them. We still build some aircraft like that, but they aren't the sexy ones you hear much about in the news. For instance, no carrier aircraft is long lived. Slamming into the deck at 134 knots and being jerked to a halt is hard on aircraft. So is being yanked to 165 knots in two seconds from a standing start.

[@Defender78]

i recall watching documenataries from the early 1980s, and even back then the 52 was referred to as "elderly", when the airframes built in the early 60s, that at the time, were only 20-23 years old. Well, then, it was thought the B-1 was going to woooosh! replace it by the end of the 90s. Um, yeah.

[@PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars]

Let's face it. The B-52 was built at a time when Boeing actually knew how to build aircraft. The airframe is amazing, there's a reason it was christened "Stratofortress"!

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

What makes it amazing?

[@threestrikesmarxman9095]

@@rudolphguarnacci197 The youngest airframe, or least oldest I should say, is from October 1962. They are 60 years old and are planned to fly until they are at least 90 years old. A B-52 once lost its vertical stabilizer to really bad turbulence and still managed to land, get repaired, and return to flightworthy status. In its 60 years of service, it has gone from dropping nuclear bombs to conventional iron bombs to to precision-guided bombs to launching cruise missiles. It's entirely possible for B-52 pilots in 2024 to fly the same exact aircraft their great-grandfathers flew in 1964. There's a joke in the USAF bomber crew community that when the last B-1/B-2/B-21 flies to the Boneyard for retirement, their crews will fly back home on a B-52.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

@@threestrikesmarxman9095 Amazing.

[@Stargazzer811]

@@threestrikesmarxman9095 They probably will. By then the Buff will probably be serving in its 2nd life, as a military airliner. Another 30 odd years of that shouldn't hurt LOL

[@nutsackmania]

Uh have you seen how the landing gear work on the B-52? The plane literally doesn't have enough yaw authority so it has to have a completely ridiculous circus going on down below.

[@kurkruk70]

The BUFF doesn't have to be stealthy with the development of the rapid dragon system. It can just sit hundreds of miles off the coast of a country and poop out cruise missiles as it sees fit.....

[@briancooper2112]

So.

[@mitseraffej5812]

I thought the Rapid Dragon was a system for launching cruise missiles from cargo aircraft with a back door, not a bomber with a bomb door.

[@JP-st2mk]

After I got out of the Navy in "64 I went to work for Boeing in Wichita. My first job was helping build conventional bomb racks for the 52s. Actually got to climb into and look around in one that was in the hanger being worked on. Awesome to say the least.

[@robertnorthrup1914]

I was a kid living in the Seattle area where these were built at the Boeing plant at Boeing field. My dad took me to the field and we drove out near the end of the runway (before fences were required) and one was getting ready to take off. It flew over our heads about 200 feet up. The noise was so loud that rocks and gravel were bouncing on the ground. Awesome day!

[@elultimobuho]

For me it is an excellent airplane that has demonstrated great resistance, safety and versatility, whose renewal-update price is more than justified, since the cost of manufacturing and previous updates is more than amortized. Its usefulness and reliability are virtues that make our decision to modernize it excellent. Countries would very much like to have them, including mine, not because of their nuclear USE, with four or five many Countries would have more than covered many air defense and control needs. Its fuel cost is more than rational, if it is only used out of necessity or training. Greetings and thanks for sharing your work. 🇪🇸👍🇺🇸💪 👌❄️

[@mikegardner107]

I think improved fuel consumption rate is the reason for the new engines. They’re the same thrust, why replace them unless there’s another advantage.

[@elultimobuho]

@@mikegardner107 🇪🇸 🙂👍 👌 🎗️

[@jameswalker7899]

This is an impressive explanation for why the lifetime of such an old aircraft is being extended. Warmest compliments. Thank you. :)

[@korvusknull1447]

Did anyone else notice the grey alien in the front window at the 10.41 mark? Love those upgrade boys and crew sense of humor....

[@baystgrp]

Admired this aircraft since I was a boy in the 1950s. Still admire it even though my entire infantry company (First Air Cavalry Division) narrowly avoided, not by anything we did but by mere moments, being caught is an ARCLITE bomb strike in Vietnam in 1969. We were moving slowly through a heavily forested area near the Cambodian border when I (company commander, captain, 23 years old… yup) received a FLASH OVERRIDE radio call from my battalion operations officer. A cell of three B-52’s was on its way to unload a huge number of “dumb” iron bombs on a target box and we were just inside it. Somehow, there had been a coordination error, discovered literally at the last moment. We had seen and heard the devastation these ARCLITE strikes could cause from a distance and the thought of being hit by that was all the motivation we needed. Not to put it too elegantly, we hauled our tails as fast as we could on a 90 degree azimuth and kept going until we got the radio message to take cover… which was a joke because there was no possible way to take cover against what was coming… we all tried to make ourselves very small against the forest floor (it wasn’t jungle - dense forest and vines and bamboo) the bombers were so high up they couldn’t be heard, but the sound of the bombs coming down and passing thankfully just over us was a low moaning sound that grew louder and louder until they all started exploding. The blast and shockwaves threw us up in the air and down against the forest floor, and went on and on. When it was over we were lip-reading each other and I could barely hear the operations officer in the radio. I have had severe hearing loss since, as have a very great number of the men in my company. I still think the B-52 is a great aircraft, even though in that role of dropping “dumb” 😊bombs back in the Vietnam war it almost killed us all, one afternoon in 1959.

[@Nail56]

Hope I didn't dial up that strike. I worked Cambodia a bit as a FAC. Brought in two arc-light strikes.

[@mikegardner107]

After two weeks of B52s incessantly pounding the top of their bunkers Iraqs Elite Republican Guard troops surrendered to Schwartzcoff’s troops en mass, begging the handful of American soldiers to capture them. Maybe you understand why.

[@dfirth224]

I lived 60 miles from Castle AFB in Merced, CA. That was one of the primary training bases for B-52s and KC 135 tankers. They circled Merced day and night making touch and go landings. No one in Merced ever complained about the noise (they were LOUD) because the government money for the base made up more than 50% of the city budget. After the Cold War ended in the 1990s it was revealed the Castle mission was to practice aerial refueling over Alaska. This was the plan if we ever bombed the Soviet Union.

[@gordonallen9095]

Served in 15th AF SAC when the AF still had B-52D models flying with an ACTUAL tail gunner in the rear of the aircraft.

[@danielhixson3717]

Hi to all Abilenians who grew up with this aircraft regularly flying overhead, along with the KC-135. For most of us, the 52 went into service BEFORE we were born and it seems it could stay in some kind of service long after we're gone. AMAZING.

[@danielhixson3717]

Point in fact. If you learned to ride a horse at Huey Lamb's place, these planes regularly interrupted his lessons.

[@9HighFlyer9]

I spent my summers in Spokane, WA. B-52s and KC-135s flying into Fairchild were a constant presence overhead there also. Now the B-52s are long gone and its just KC-135s.

[@larryfulkerson4505]

The last pilot to fly the Buff hasn't been born yet.

[@douglaskattau9241]

Their grandparents probably haven’t…

[@dennisswaim8210]

Big load of stuff to a point a long ways away. Hard to argue with that. Constantly upgraded and improved while the basic airframe was payed off before most of us were born.

[@delavan9141]

"precision strikes with unguided bombs" LMFAO!

[@davidcalvin4215]

Re: The B-52s non stealth capabilities. That makes it a punch you know is coming but there's nothing you can do to stop it.

[@LaptopLarry330]

If a B-52-J Bomber flies into an area, any potential enemy would not know what to expect from it. It may have dumb bombs, it may have smart bombs, it may have cruise missiles, it may have some BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter” bombs, it may have atomic bombs, it may have hydrogen bombs, it may have leaflets on board, or even a load of food supplies to feed hungry people.

[@PapaOscarNovember]

Basically, B-52 has become a flying missile frigate, capable of carrying out a wide range of missions.

[@badguy5554]

I flew the B-52H's in the early 1970's with the "gigantic" Hound Dog, long ranged missiles, that were hung on the B-52H's wings. So now its not just the weapons the B-52H's can carry in their bomb bays...it's all the MUCH SMALLER, long ranged missiles, it can carry on its wings.

[@tommypaget2294]

The US is smart in keeping their B-52s. It’s a non- stealth heavy bomber, not intended for first day of war, but, in my opinion, to bring the enemy to the negotiation table cost-effectively. The fancy (and very expensive) guided missies are great for precision, pin-point strikes, high-value targets, however, like in the last Gulf War, the republican guards, even with no high tech weapons are still wiling to fight the US Army to the end. Of course, the US will win, but at what price? I still remembered the CNN reports of B-52s hammering the republican guards day and nights for 4 straight days into submission…..the Republican Guards commanders asked to sign the surrender treaty. Cost-effectively winning a war.

[@frankmcgowan3371]

And the B2 makes the TU-160 look like a dinosaur. What’s your point?😂🇺🇸

[@Ram-1231]

Bro. Don't be intellectually lazy. TU-160 is a COMPLETELY brand new airplane. The two aren't as comparable as the TU-95 is to the B-52. You shouldn't open your mouth if you don't completely understand what you're talking about. But then again if you knew what you were talking about you would have respect for it and you wouldn't have said anything in the first place.

[@andrewday3206]

The B-1B aka Bone is more comparable to the TU-160. The TU-160 is however much larger.

[@johnharris6655]

I found reruns of the Steve Canyon show. In 1959 Canyon was flying a B-52

[@dfirth224]

It was also a newspaper comic strip in the 1950s. I remember one strip he was flying combat over Korea when he suddenly had a FLAMEOUT! Those early F-86 Saberjets had a problem with the engines shutting down during certain maneuvers.

[@Gunni4091]

The B-52 is the living, breathing example of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[@carltonstidsen8806]

Other countries are also "Fixated" on old bombers . Russia still flies to TU-95 and China still flies its version of the TU-16 .

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

Wanting to keep it around can't possibly have anything to do with wanting to save money. That's not how our military operates. It' must be that the airframe is just still very useful and that with newer and better engines it's still a beast. Everything is upgraded with these new engines of course and more modern avionics. Bomb load, range, everything. The 52 is arguably the best bomber in American aviation history. If it ain't broke then don't fix it!

[@mattorama]

What I want to know is the last time that a pilot flew a B-52 who was actually older than the airframe he was flying. Had to have been in the 90s, if not earlier.

[@badguy5554]

I flew the B-52 B and H in the early 1970's and I was born in the mid 1940's.

[@azcharlie2009]

I've wondered why they hadn't done this a few years ago. Big fan jet engines would really improve the B52's performance. The wing and fuselage are fine. They just need better engines and avionics.

[@EnterpriseKnight]

I'm pretty sure that by the end of the century we're gonna see the B52 SH on Mars.

[@jetsons101]

The B-52 get better with age, our "ugh" president on the other hand...........

[@426superbee4]

Plus there so many made. STILL A GOOD FLYING MACHINE.. Also there pay load is AWESOME, 35 tons. and a long distance high flyer, with out refueling

[@RuralTowner]

Habitual Line Crossover's Grandpa BUFF approves.

[@douglasstrother6584]

"Time to make lots of big craters, Young-uns!"

[@robcohen7678]

We're getting to where military equipment serving for centuries like in Battletech doesn't seem so ludicrous.

[@Mark16v15]

The aviation technology is going toward pilotless and bigger aircraft. When congress believes it can acquire a cheaper self-piloting behemoth that can carry dozens of cruise missiles or thousands of JDAMs, at that time the B-52 will be retired.

[@stephencannon3140]

It it possible that the next generation of B52 pilots and crew are not born yet. Take today and add about 25-26 years. That would be elementary, middle, high school, college, commissioning, pilot selection/training and B52 selection/training. Add about another year or two to get fully checked out for the left seat.

[@badguy5554]

I flew the B-52H in the early 70's. YES..a "glass cockpit" is "nice to have". But...was it REALLY necessary? And WHY did they remove the Gunner? And if that was inevitable, due to cost, why can't the EWO also run the gunner's position? And now, the most important question:, WHO is tasked to pickup the box lunches and the coffee canister, prior to flight, now that the Gunner has been deleted?

[@peteranninos2506]

Good Lord, that IS an important question! Who gets my lunch? 😅

[@jonwalter6317]

That is a great point - I've read a lot about B-52s and I had forgotten that the gunner brought the food. But on a serious note, I think they removed the gun because the operating doctrine for the B-52 changed to use only in theatres where the US had air superiority or the threat from opposing fighters was very low and tasked to be addressed by US fighters.

[@donaldbadowski290]

The Air Force has this thing about replacing aircraft. You don't replace an aircraft with a less capable one. OK, that sounds fair enough. We'll just replace the B-52 with another non-stealth aircraft, using all the advanced technology that we put into other new aircraft, both military and commercial, and we have a winner. Except that to the Air Force, less capable now means less capable than the last bomber they put out, which is now the B-21. So for now, the B-52 is a big, long range bomber and missile platform that can be used against any enemy that doesn't have air defense, like all those terrorists we've been bombing for the last 23 years. We don't need stealth against those soft targets at all. And adding stealth to an aircraft design jumps the price astronomically, up front and in maintenance costs for the aircraft lifetime. But, the Air Force doesn't want to get stuck with a non-stealth aircraft, in case they do need it. So, they just keep on with the B-52, upgrade after upgrade, kicking the can down the road.

[@philliplopez8745]

Will the B-52 -K fly in 2100 ?

[@danielcrane991]

The only thing in the sky that even comes close to the longevity of the B52 is a civilian aircraft that being the 747 another Boeing aircraft that will never be surpassed! Thank god Boeing is an American company!

[@RainbowManification]

This aircraft will still be in service when I kick the bucket.

[@ronaldlee3537]

The age old bugaboo, cost. The B-52 is already paid for. The $64,000 question, how much would it cost to replace the entire fleet of B-52s with the next generation of B-21s? I would suspect it would be a lot, and I am reasonably sure that Congress is going to bulk at such a huge expenditure. I remember the B1 was cancelled due to cost overruns, but was resurrected and renamed B1B, and on a per plane basis it costed something like doubled over that of the old B1. ETA the term carpet bombing was invented by the mainstream news media. And word ordinance should be used in place of munitions?

[@jimmiller5600]

Ya gotta remember that inflation was cooking during the B1-B1B phases.

[@Hattonbank]

The term Carpet Bombing was first used in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39, it's nothing to do with mainstream media, just a term used by some military strategists (and armchair warriors) to describe devastating bombing that seeks to destroy every part of a wide area.

[@wilhelmvonn9619]

No offense meant, but it's spelled ordnance.

[@c17nav]

*balk, not bulk. *cost, not costed. *double, not doubled over. Ordnance and munitions are synonymous. ETA is estimated time of arrival; its use is unnecessary in your sentence.

[@catman351]

$64,000 is very cheap.

[@limvo1260]

What happened when the B52Z need an upgrade? Are they going to call it B53A?

[@PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars]

We'll all be long gone before that mate! My guess though, would be B-52 A1. 😉

[@corey8420]

You have way too many advertisements as compared to similar channels. To such an extent I feel like it makes your videos unwatchable. Would also be nice if you used imperial measurements along with metric. Most military channels use both.

[@justincase5272]

It's a big, powered glider. Flies far, carries much, and loiters for a long time. Excellent standoff attack weapon.

[@robcohen7678]

every aircraft is a "powered glider"

[@justincase5272]

@@robcohen7678 You sound like you have a Bone to pick! Modern airliners are excellent gliders. Fighters are not. The Bone is not. I can't speak to the B-2 or B-21. Since you clearly missed it, here's The Point (again): Flies far, carries much, and loiters for a long time. Excellent standoff attack weapon.

[@robcohen7678]

Any aircraft can glide. Period.@@justincase5272

[@bobkohl6779]

B-52 designed for the PacifIc? Ahh NO. Designed for the Soviet Union. You realize some of us are educated and this video is made for pre schoolers

[@hifinsword]

As the F-22s, F-15s and F-16s are decommissioned, the pilots will be transitioned to the Buff! 😄😄😄

[@jaxspellinar]

Put a V tail on it and call it the Megafortress at this point.

[@marksages1691]

Gradpa Buff is Eternal...

[@scotthyde-t9w]

B 52 Can have a Swarm of Drones to protect and increase its lethality !!!!

[@btoogood]

So it’s going to serve into ( in your opinion) the 22nd century? Wow!

[@philmonat9352]

Great plane. Worked on B52f,d,h (Nav-Aids, 73-77)👍

[@tommypaget2294]

Because in the real world…..AirPower is just to tip the balance….youve got to control the ground to control, the area

[@mountainrunner6922]

Just a silly observation. If the B-52 is still the best design for a heavy bomber for the US arsenal, why not just start re-manufacturing the aircraft with new technologies and equipment? Start a new production line instead of continually upgrading a 60-70 yr old airframe. Certainly a fresh aircraft off the production line would be money better spent. Perhaps I'm wrong, just throwing it out there.

[@jmbig]

Un de mes avions préféré !! 🤩🤩👌👌👌

[@marshallcoleman8061]

More money for defense contractors for upgrades.

[@thegiggler2]

WTH can't we replace it though? I'm pretty sure it has to do with the broken procurement process making any replacement non-viable.

[@fishfuxors]

Because it's cheaper to upgrade than to build new. Considering what it cost to build the B2 with only a 40,000 pound bomb load, I can't imagine what a BRAND NEW bomber with a 70,000 pound bomb load would cost. The B1B is supersonic and carries just 37,000 pounds of bombs. I would compare the cost of building a new B1B to what the cost of these upgrades are.

[@grandmasterpu]

The cost of the B-2 had nothing to do with the payload and most of the numbers you mentioned are wrong.

[@m0ondoggy]

I wonder if boeing will figure out a way to make the J blow it's doors out in mid flight?

[@ivanivonovich9863]

The "BUFF' will live on for a long time. New engines will give it better power, greater range & better fuel econmy.

[@jred4421]

Gotta luv the AI (robot) voice over in this video...the adults in the room truly know....

[@ScienceChap]

You do know that most combat aircraft in the US inventory are not stealthy?

[@geoeneas]

If Russia replaced the Tu95 the USA would replace the B52.

[@진형김-b5t]

B-52 조기경보기를 만들면 어떨지?

[@elultimobuho]

Demasiado grande, habría lugar para además equiparlos con cuatro o seis misiles y o Drones de largo Alcance. Un saludo, 🇪🇸 👍 👌 ❄️

[@frankmiller95]

Seeing one these things up close evokes the same feeling as seeing a nuclear missile sub under similar circumstances. Personally, that thought is "l'm looking at the end of the world."

[@billmullins6833]

Why is the U.S. unwilling to retire the BUFF? Because it does the job it is need to do and it could not be replaced for MANY TIMES what it costs to upgrade it. So long as the B-52 continues to be useful the USAF will keep flying it even though there are pilots flying the same aircraft as their GRANDfather! Sadly Boeing appears to have lost its way. Witness the 737-Max debacle and the utter disgrace of the Boeing Starliner.

[@michaelpierce8469]

The B-52 is the longest range bomber in the USAF with one refueling. You could not build that plane now USAF regs would not allow it.

[@SteveAdams-q5q]

Its rugged,reliable and gets the job done on a long haul bomb run! That's why the Big Buff has been in service so long and why it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future! 😎🤘👌👍

[@TheBeast-tj9qo]

The 52 is 70 years old, not 66 years old..

[@stupidburp]

Simple: The US didn’t buy enough B-1 and B-2 to cover all needs. B-1B got handicapped by treaty forcing removal of nuclear weapons capability snd yet still was by far the most used bomber over the last decades. B-2 was acquired in tiny numbers and was almost entirely reserved for nuclear deterrence sitting in hangars.

[@thomasjcox]

F that if I was the us i would not honor that treaty.

[@stupidburp]

Yeah it was a bad deal. But on the upside it is about to expire.

[@sim-sam]

It's not the video, it's the AI-Narration...

[@426superbee4]

He hee if it flies? why RETIRE IT.. Like a cup of coffee, GOOD TO THE LAST DROP

[@CarlosGarcia-fi4yu]

So, the USAF has gone to change the B-52's engine from an American made to a British one?

[@Sirithil]

The BUFF is eternal.

[@robertbrannan9375]

Why the hell you gonna give stats on the metric system on a plane built by merica..

[@Hackenberg]

Hilarious how the Air Force will keep the B-52 alive for 90 years, but wants to ditch the A-10.

[@williampaz2092]

There is no replacement for the B-52. But the US Air Force HAS been working on the A-14 “Wild Wolf.”

[@94520shatto]

Only an Artificial Intelligence announcer would not know the proper way to identify the new engines of the B-52. (2:31 on the video)

[@inoculateinoculate9486]

Pretty sure it's just a text-to-speech app

[@94520shatto]

@@inoculateinoculate9486 .... Is that why all the videos have the same announcer, the same text-to-speech app?

[@wowiego8669]

The "Beef ifty 2"

[@russell7489]

Its being upgraded because there has never been a better bomber built anywhere in world . Duhhhhh 20 cruise missiles deployed per flight from upwards of what 60,000 feet, giving the cruise missles unparraled range while sparing 10 t0 20 fighter bombers from a half day mission stressing them out ot the max

[@mantori762]

One version will have new engines, one will only have the new radar.. i guess the J will have both..

[@davidoverholt251]

Well you all, the new Buff J (66 years old) is the most awesome bomber of all time! With new 8 engines and the payload it can carry, even the stupid people in congress can understand national security and cost effectiveness! This Boeing Mistress J is the most loved lady in the sky!

[@Rangera-ct1xu]

putting it bluntly, fighter guys do not like bombers! No bombers, no Air Force. if i can roughly quote one senator. "what is your global strike ability?" in the mid to late 90s the Air Force nearly ceased to exist. that is why they are keeping the B-52, B-1, and B-2 in the inventory. when i flew B-52s we had thousands. today the Air Force has less than 200 bombers of all types total.

[@georgekraus9357]

Right now the USAF can't even keep their senior pilots, many of them leaving for high salaried jobs in the airlines ($200k to $300k a year working only 80 hours a month!!!)

[@bizjetfixr8352]

In the meantime, the drive to cut A&P pay and jobs continues unabated. While at the same time, the problem of "can't find experienced help" keeps getting worse. Here's a challenge for all the pilots out there. Pretend you go AOG out in BFE, with a problem (pick one, any one). Then call around, and find out how long it will take to get someone out to fix it. Need a Honeywell "box" for an airplane over 10 years old? Good luck. 30 day wait times are getting common. Assuming the repair parts are still available. The "pilot shortage" may fix itself, when all of these older, unrepairable airplanes are grounded due to lack of parts, and the people to fix them

[@dukeford]

It's only been that way for the last 50 years.

[@generator6946]

Why don’t we build new ones?

[@devilsoffspring5519]

They already have the ones they need. These puppies don't come cheap

[@BPD1586]

Bring back the enlisted tail gunner position on the 'J' model

[@TAllyn-qr3io]

There are only two answers to that question. “Why keep the B52 around”? Dependable and costs less than development of an entirely new strategic bomber. But, the MIC will do what they do, politicians will either create jobs or maintain jobs in their districts. They salivate big time if a new base/post is announced. 🫡

[@badguy5554]

I flew a different aircraft in Vietnam and was present during one of the last, major battles, in South Vietnam in mid-1972. I watched the B-52's ELIMINATE, the North Vietnamese army attacking the city of An Loc, just north of Saigon. The enemy had put the city under siege and the South Vietnamese army had taken up defensive positions within the city limits. As soon as the North's army "showed itself" it was instantly neutralized by B-52 bombing raids. The North, arrmy was like a hoard of ants against a can of raid. If B-52's had been approved for use in the NEXT North Vietnamese invasion of the South, in 1975, there would still be a free and independent South Vietnam. As far as I'm concerned the B-52 WON the Vietnam War for the USA and South Vietnam..DESPITE...the South's betrayal in 1975 by the leftist American (Democratic) Congress's "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

[@808bigisland]

Sad

[@rfjohnson69]

Your analysis is the military aspects is spot on but your understanding of the geopolitical underpinning is just.... Bad. We were never going to win that war. No capabilities from a military standpoint was going to overcome the fact that it is impossible to fight an insurgency without either overwhelming force and the will to kill lots of innocent people or the desire to attack the proxy backers to cut off supplies. Since that would have resulted in a war with the USSR that likely would have gone nuclear, it was not going to happen. It's the exact same thing the Russians saw in Afghanistan in the 80s. We supplied the resistance fighters with weapons and the Russians could not stop it.

[@badguy5554]

@@rfjohnson69 Don't agree. The military WON the Vietnam War in 1973, after the bombing of Hanoi. The war was over. South Vietnam was free and independent. Richard Nixon had PROMISED the South Vietnamese government that B-52's would AGAIN be used if the North attempted an invasion in the future. ONLY the betrayal of the leftist Congress in the United States allowed the North Vietnamese to be successful in 1975 where they COULD NEVER be successful in 1972. South Vietnam was lost to the Communists because of DIRECT SUPPORT from the Democratic Congress in place at the time.

[@bantumwt]

@@rfjohnson69 On that, my friend, I think you are very wrong. I was stationed on board Red Crown just off the coast of North Vietnam during Operation Linebacker II. At the end of that operation, the North was literally a smoking pile of rubble. And if unconditional surrender had been the goal of the US, a couple more weeks of that kind of bombing would've resulted in that. They would've had no choice. And Russia offered no help to them. Russian pilots died in that fighting. And Russian ships abandoned the area.

[@robcohen7678]

Yeah but the "leftist Democrats" were the ones who started the USA's participation in the war in the first place, remember?

[@B-A-L]

If it ain't broke don't fix it, just give it a new lick of paint!

[@Taffeyboy]

It just keeps looking better every decade!

[@Justone372]

The B52 strikes fear into the minds of enemies like no other plane. It’s the aircraft carrier of the skies.

[@keithad6485]

I am still surprised at the number of these bombers made (over 700) and its predecessor, the B47 (over 2,000 made only to be completely replaced about 14 years later by the B52). These manufacturing numbers for heavy bombers are staggering. And even more surprised to read that USAF are likely to retire the B1B and B2 in around 2040 long before the B52! Wow, B52 will see the B1B and B2 come and go and it will still be operational! BUFF - one of my top five favorite aircraft.

[@AtomicSquirrelHunter]

It's like an old man with washboard abs and python arms.

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

The last B-52 was delivered around 1965, the first, around 1954.

[@keithad6485]

I like your analogy. @@AtomicSquirrelHunter

[@davidoverholt251]

Just saying that the BUFF is the most feared from above in 70 years! Never know what the BUFF Payload maybe, only the Captain and the Crew will know once they took off!

[@martykarr7058]

I think one of the reasons that there were soo many B-47s built was because ICBMs were just coming online, there weren't as many as there were when the BUFF came around, and they weren't as accurate as they are today.

[@uncbadguy]

I worked on the Buffs D models. I did get to fly an Air Force simulator that was so big they had it in TWO pullman cars (As in RAILROAD). It is a truly fun monster to fly. I did an aileron roll at 40,000 ft. You might think I broke the airplane. BUT NO!!! If I had a choice of which crew position to fly in it would be the Weapons Officer aka bombardier.

[@drcovell]

You should be a *Triple-threat man*as pilot, navigator, or bombardier! I had the privilege of knowing one of those men!

[@willischang6956]

It’s like comparing a light pick up truck to a giant dump truck. Both have their advantages and drawbacks

[@gaius_enceladus]

It's being kept because it's the perfect tool for the job - just as the A-10 Warthog is the perfect ground-support aircraft.

[@AtomicSquirrelHunter]

Yup. Same reason the C130 has been around 65 years. KC135's as well.

[@Christopher-li6gg]

Exactly°°💯💯👍👍

[@Jake-rs9nq]

The F-111 was an even better ground-support aircraft, but that didn't stop the Air Force from retiring it when costs became too high. Sometimes there are better options, even if there is a strong emotional attachment to the aircraft. The A-10 will be retiring over the next decade. In fact, several dozen are being retired this year.

[@nercksrule]

The BUFF is being kept in service because the fudds would riot if they had to admit that their favorite aircraft from the 60s is past it expiration date. They were being shot down by first generation SAMs in Vietnam. The B-52 can carry 70,000lbs of ordnance. The B-1 can carry 125,000lbs of ordnance. The A-10 has the highest blue-on-blue fatality record of any USAF aircraft. The majority of its kills on armored targets was achieved with AGM-65 "Maverick" missiles. The modernization program to convert an A-10 to A-10C costs more than a F-35. Basically, the only thing the A-10 is "good" at, is making both hostiles and friendlies duck and cover when the GAU-8 is fired. Its MOA is measured in tens of meters, instead of feet.

[@selfdo]

I keep saying if the USAF doesn't want the A-10 anymore, as they've been trying to get rid of it for THIRTY years at this point, then transfer the remaining fleet to the Army and the MARINES. Ground support aircraft units should be organic to those formation they support, anyway!

[@stephencurry8552]

One of my favorite airplanes. Just gorgeous from every angle. Designed with paper and pencil and slide rules! Awesome engineering from men and women who knew what they were doing.

[@WootTootZoot]

Do not underestimate Grandpa Buff. He is wise and can teach you many things. He has faced enemies, stood guard over his family, known many warriors and defenders, known joy and sadness. He has known peace and war. He can lead you confidently, as few can. Thank you, Grandpa Buff of The Ancient Ones.

[@csmooney]

You might want to include the ramifications of the START treaties. According to the treaty, Russia and the United States agreed to allow only one long range bomber per country that had external bomb racks. These bomb racks give the B-52 ordnance flexibility that that the B-1 nor B-2 possess. The B-1 actually does have hard points under its wings, but the external racks are not mounted due to the treaty limitation. The same treaty ramifications is why Russia keeps its TU-95 Bear bomber active.

[@Turboy65]

We should never have agreed to that treaty, as the Russians have never abided by it. Good aircraft were destroyed to pay lip service to a FANTASY. But yes, we can restore external stores capability to the B-1 easily enough. Just chip out a little epoxy from some mounting points and some connectors.

[@MoAndAye]

Something to think about: just 45 years after the Wright brothers proved that controlled, powered, flight was even possible, the United States was capable of putting pencil to paper on the creation of an aircraft so powerful, so advanced, that the aircraft could possibly survive as a functional and useful system for nearly 200 years and outclass the engineering/industrial/economic prowess of every other nation on earth except one. If one looked backwards in time that same distance, the USA was not even an independent nation.

[@TimRHillard]

Who would play Love Shack for us if there were no B52s???

[@memadmax69]

"Why they unwilling to retire"? Because of the bombs. The bombs are designed for this aircraft.

[@geonerd]

Ugh. The Robovoice makes listening SO tiring.