Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

F1grid t1_jaaf2wg wrote

And likely another 60 years.

9

Isteppedinpoopy t1_jaaff7t wrote

I hear they’re even doing a Las Vegas residency now

17

mojoxer t1_jaagh4p wrote

True. But they are all kind of like the Ship of Theseus now.

7

Animal_Prong t1_jaagk2z wrote

Yah they are gonna get phased out of use and replaced by the b21

−12

TwoFrontHitters t1_jaahax1 wrote

A testimony to Western maintenance discipline. Other countries can't keep 10 year old planes in the sky.

31

nuxes t1_jaapq5z wrote

Replying to Animal_Prong (#2,082,325)

More likely the B-2 will be retired before the B-52. They are enormously expensive to maintain and shelter. One of the goals of the B-21 was to significantly reduce the operating cost.

6

Thunderbird120 t1_jaaqq3u wrote

Replying to Animal_Prong (#2,082,325)

Nope, they live on. The B-21 replaces the B-1 and the B-2 but the B-52 continues. There are a lot of roles which don't need stealth but do need significant payloads, range, and the ability to bolt large, oddly shaped things under the wings. The B-52s theoretically take some pressure off the B-21s for things like chucking long range cruise missiles or deploying MALDs. You can technically do that out of cargo planes these days but the B-52s already exist, are a little better for the role, and don't really cost that much to operate.

11

ShEsHy t1_jaar9lj wrote

Ship of Theseus, or is aluminium just that good of a material to survive 50+ years of use?

38

5kyl3r t1_jab76ru wrote

absolutely loud things they are, and a cool shrieking sound they make. must just be what happens when you throw that many jet turbines onto one aircraft

3

BroseppeVerdi t1_jabb77b wrote

They're pretty well armored planes, you know. You can bang, bang on the door all day long.

1

Hsensei t1_jabgun5 wrote

They are on their 3rd generation of pilot

7

Semirgy t1_jabrtcy wrote

While true, they’ve all been heavily modified/updated over the decades.

4

Singeezie t1_jac2jlg wrote

The Air Force recently decided to extend the service life of the B-52 through the 2040s. At that point, some of the B-52 airframes will be 90 years old, making the planes considerably older than anyone flying them!

3

Scrappy_The_Crow t1_jac60wz wrote

Replying to ShEsHy (#2,085,469)

Depending on the model, BUFFs have had significant refitting of structural components. Some D models were re-skinned on the lower wings and parts of the fuselage in the 1970s (the Ds were retired in '83) and the Gs and Hs had wing spar replacements in the late '70s, as low-level flying was taking a toll (the Gs were retired in '93).

Overall, all military aircraft are subjected to significant testing, both at the airframe level and component level for some things (like landing gear), with replacement as necessary.

17

mortalcrawad66 t1_jach96o wrote

And they're slatted to 2050. So 98 years of service

1

humdrumturducken t1_jache7q wrote

Crazy when you think about it, it'd be like if we were still using WWI biplanes into the late 1970s.

2

SFXBTPD t1_jacneqw wrote

Replying to ShEsHy (#2,085,469)

Basically to get unlimited fatigue life with aluminum parts you need to keep the cyclic loading below 5% of ultimate.

So all the aluminum will eventually need to be replaced.

I don't know what the 'safe life' or a B52 is, but they estimate a number of hours/cycles for crack growth to begin and base maximums around that.

The air force does damage tolerance analysis too (for life after crack formation), but I think that started after the b52 program (and i cant remember details offhand)

8

ShiningRayde t1_jacy7rx wrote

Meanwhile, my phone battery after 6 months of use...

1

adamcoe t1_jad4tgq wrote

Replying to TwoFrontHitters (#2,082,561)

A testimony to the military industrial complex and an essentially unlimited amount of money.

But sure, western maintenance, whatever gives you an old fashioned, red blooded American chubby

−9

adamcoe t1_jadxv58 wrote

Replying to adamcoe (#2,109,780)

Rain your downvotes on me by all means, you know I'm right and every one is confirmation of it. Honestly it'd be a little sad if the world's most grotesquely funded military wasn't maintaining their stuff well, wouldn't it?

0

Anthologeas t1_jae4el1 wrote

Replying to adamcoe (#2,109,780)

While I agree that the MIC and the US defense budget in general is a financial hole that siphons money away from much-needed social programs, I think your position is misinformed. The institutional discipline at all levels of the DoD which would have been essential to maintaining these platforms over such an extended period of time is extremely rare. Look at the state of the Russian, Iranian, or Canadian militaries. Regardless of the money piped into them, each of these militaries have squandered their resources and even accept deficit equipment on the date of procurement.

Adding the endless budget to the mix just makes this feat more impressive as, unlike many of the aforementioned militaries, it would have been comparatively easy for the DoD to write the B-52 fleet off as obsolete decades ago in order to invigorate a new procurement cycle.

2

kelldricked t1_jaeirng wrote

Replying to F1grid (#2,081,846)

A few probaly but i doubt they will keep the fleet the same size. these bombers are only usefull if you have totall air controle or you need to redesign them as a mobile longrange weapons platform.

Like wouldnt require a advanced anti air system to fuck it up.

1