Comments on: Not your father’s B-52

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:12:25 +0000

Please remove the irrelevant (mainly spam) and also the nut case postings. Good info otherwise.

By: an ton

an ton — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:13:54 +0000

Iam searching for my father;goes by “Jerry” the officer in vietnam war; bien hoa, cu chi.
Please visit http://www.myspace.com for picture.

By: Agent

Agent — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:32:01 +0000

Being limited in what I can say:
New bomber research is and has been current for some time, but there is no pressing need to build a new long range bomber fleet for the following reasons:
Most nations can not shoot down/intercept the BUFF
Long Range Bombing is largely handled by the B2
Long range missile systems and drones look to be the future.
I personally love the BUFF, and I imagine that an engine retrofitting will take place in the not to distant future. The BUFF will be in service, I imagine, until 2050 with ease.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:07:55 +0000

Does anyone out there remember the 99th Bomber Wing Squadron that flew the B-52s in VietNam (Bien Ho)? Approximately 1968–1972.

By: James

James — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:16:28 +0000

Jerry
You can read about the structural life limits of the B-52 at this site
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm
Basically, in theory an airplane such as the B-52 could be flown indefinately, if cost was not a factor. The frame structure, has a certain structural life, and the upper wing surface is the first major structural component predicted to fail.
So yes, it is possible to replace the surface, but from a cost perspective it would not make sense. It is my understanding that the B-52 production molds have been destroyed or lost years ago. One of the reasons the bone yard is maintained, is to have a ready supply of spare parts for the old gals.
If [and its a big if] the technology developements in rapid protyping machinery continue to the point that large scale high strength components can be produced, the economic case against rebuilding the B-52 will go away.
The H model, was reengineered to address the stress issues. Wing stress was one of the main reasons the older B-52’s were retired. With the B-52 going back to its original role of a high altitude bomber, the structural upgrades to allow it to act as a low level bomber are allowing the B-52 to become the longest active duty bomber in existance.

By: Jerry Hatch

Jerry Hatch — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:04:48 +0000

I flew the H model back in 69–73 out of the Kinch in the U.P. of Michigan. Great plane then and sounds like it still is. Question: The article states the current problem with the BUFF is its “upper wing surface.” Could you elaborate on that. Is it possible to replace that surface? The big problem in the ’70’s on the D models out of Thailand was wing spar cracks. All flights were red lined as one flight only back then. Cracks were spanded by thick slabs of steel bolted to each side of the crack.

By: Ctzhenderson

Ctzhenderson — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:50:05 +0000

If the Air Force is planning to keep the B52s around for the next fifty years, they should upgrade the engines on the airframe now.The R+D was done on an engine upgrade in the late 90s.
A engine upgrade would extend the range of the B52, lower the operating costs and pay for itself it 3–4 years of use. It needs to be done now.

By: KTLA

KTLA — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:23:47 +0000

Would it be cost effective to divert money on the more advanced bombers to have Boing start up a B-52 production line or something?
Or maybe convert some 787s? Dunno, just sounds like good old fashioned bombers are the better way to go, save up our money for advanced stuff further down the road.