B-52 Retirement Time

[specter177]

I heard that the B-52 is slated to stay in service until around 2050. Does anyone know if this is true?

[AMDDDA]

I'll bet that it will go down before 2020, assuming that there aren't any more "advancements" towards the program.

[flyboy 28]

They're slated to start phasing them out in the mid-2040's. They're a fine airplane and the air force has no need to retire them.

[Craig.]

so that would make it what? 100 years old for the program?

[Brett_Henderson]

The fun reference in the 1980s, was that the B-52 was older than its pilot.

Soon.. they'll be able to say that the B-52 is older than the pilot's grandfather..  :D

[specter177]

In 2050, I believe the youngest B-52 will be almost 80 years old.

[The Ruptured Duck]

NEVAR!

my friends dad works at Boeing here in Wichita has been working on new display systems for the 52 day and night

[Splinter562]

There are B-52 flight crew members who's fathers served in the exact same position that they are in on the B-52. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who's fathers and grandfathers all served in the same position on the B-52.

[C]

Depends how long they are needed. If you need an aircraft to loiter round with a bomb bay of JDAMS for a few hours, why replace it? As long as the aircraft is within its hours and fatigue life, then it could be almost indefinate.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

The USAF is trying to fly it past 2040 for what ever reason, like the F-14 the amount of work going in to it, is greater then what it actual flies. The thing was not even designed to fly this long, Boeing even said so on the Discovery Channel in an inter view back when it was first made. They gave 20+ years then they said technology will allow them to come up with some faster, stronger and more maneuverable. But after so many upgrades and models, now when you talk to a Boeing rep they say "It's a testament to how good our products are,....the last pilot of the B-52 mother has not even been born yet."

But yet they are trying there hardest to replace the Tanker which is only a 2-4 years younger, on the grounds of pilot safety and man hours needed to fly, but no one wants to make the same argument about the B-52.

Who wants to fly around in the same plane 50-80+ year old plane that their grand parent flew around in when they were in there 20's, and the plane already had some age on it then.

I know people love the B-52 before you jump on my case about it, but there is a thing called metal fatigue, and unless they are replacing the original ribs and spars when it goes into depot, something is bound to happen some time.

[C]

But yet they are trying there hardest to replace the Tanker which is only a 2-4 years younger, on the grounds of pilot safety and man hours needed to fly, but no one wants to make the same argument about the B-52.

I suspect (in fact I'm fairly sure) said tanker fleet flies a lot harder (hours wise) than the USAF '52 fleet nowadays. Secondly I also suspect the economy of the tanker fleet is a longer term priority (ie, a nice modern, efficient, low fuel burning airframe. A bit like an A330... ).

As for flying, quite often it is an honour for someone to go and fly the same type their father, or even grandfathers flew (I know a few). As for the '52, I'm sure that as the first '52 pilots could be well in their 80s by now, one of their grandsons or grandaughters has already flown the aircraft.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Not saying it is a bad plane, but when my dad was in the USAF guarding them, they were already 25+ years old, now I'm in and he is out, and they are getting ready to hit the 60 year mark. let alone if I have a child the joins also and they are still flying around then, I would be against them being a pilot and flying the very plane there grand dad used to guard in his 20's.

Let alone telling some one else that there-great-great-grand dad flew this same plane over Nam, and now you get to fly it too.

Upgrading 40's tech to 2100st tech is not cheap, let alone the old fuel consuming loud motors. Only thing it has on any other bomber right now is range do to the massive wing span and fuel load. And with all the cables and pulleys still in use, that adds lots of weight that would be eliminated by a newer fly by wire EMP shielded bomber.

[DaveSims]

Not saying it is a bad plane, but when my dad was in the USAF guarding them, they were already 25+ years old, now I'm in and he is out, and they are getting ready to hit the 60 year mark. let alone if I have a child the joins also and they are still flying around then, I would be against them being a pilot and flying the very plane there grand dad used to guard in his 20's.

Let alone telling some one else that there-great-great-grand dad flew this same plane over Nam, and now you get to fly it too.

Upgrading 40's tech to 2100st tech is not cheap, let alone the old fuel consuming loud motors. Only thing it has on any other bomber right now is range do to the massive wing span and fuel load. And with all the cables and pulleys still in use, that adds lots of weight that would be eliminated by a newer fly by wire EMP shielded bomber.

There had been talk of replacing the engines on the ole -52.  They would replace the eight with just four high bypass turbofans.  The Air Force did try to find replacement aircraft, in the B-1 and B-2, but the B-52 has still survived in limited numbers.  They are cheaper to operate than the newer stealthier numbers.

[C]

In 2050, I believe the youngest B-52 will be almost 80 years old.

88, to be precise.

There had been talk of replacing the engines on the ole -52.  They would replace the eight with just four high bypass turbofans.  The Air Force did try to find replacement aircraft, in the B-1 and B-2, but the B-52 has still survived in limited numbers.  They are cheaper to operate than the newer stealthier numbers.

I believe there may have been a plan -I've certainly seen drawings of the proposal. My brain seems to tell me it was a Rolls Royce proposal using the RB211 as seen on the Tristar, 757/747/767 etc, which has more than twice the trust of the TF-33's on the B-52.

As for the aircraft, I don't know haw many are active, but I suspect it isn't many more than 20, leaving a fair number in storage I suspect, which could be how they will extend it's service so long.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I have been told of the plans to upgrade the motors, but with the wing drop after fully fueled or armed, the only motor that would fit would be the same ones used on the E-3C, or E-8C, and you would just get slightly better power, so they decided not to waste the money.

I personally think that it did a excellent job, served its country well ,and deserves a retirement much like the C-141, they never failed at doing their job, it's just that they are old and something should take its place.

If they did the R&D on a B-1C, and fixed all the issues with the B-1B it could be the very plane that the B-1A was meant to replace the B-52 with, and they would have the funding to do this if they were not putting it into upgrading the BUFF.....It worked on the C-5M