Why This Obsolete Bomber Will Outlive EVERYTHING
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- The B-52 Stratofortress is expected to be in service well into the 2050s, and yet, the B-1 Lancer and the B-2 Spirit bombers are expected to retire in the early 2030s. But why is an older airplane going to out-serve much newer and more capable bombers? It's not that simple, or as we like to say it, it's #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
Tiger beat-Tigerblood Jewel
All Parts Equal - Airae
As history unfolds - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
Ostinato - Vieveri
Displaced - Robert Ruth
Flightmode - Chris Shards
Chaos Theory - Ava Low
We Are Giants - Silver Maple
Hyena - Tigerblood Jewel
Virginia Highway - Tigerblood Jewel
Footage:
National Archives
Rolls-Royce
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Other Aircraft: "The B-52 is obsolete."
The B-52: "I will be the flyover aircraft for your retirement ceremony."
It will be at the post nuclear war flyover ceremony of not dying
@@deusvult6920 Cringe username aside, there will be no nuclear war as every nuclear power in the world has responsible nuclear weapons policy.
My "best comment of the day" award goes to you sir, congrats!
The joke I heard is like this 😁
The last B52 pilots will fly back from the airplane graveyard in a DC3
The last DC3 pilots will fly back from the airplane graveyard in a C172
The last C172 pilots will drive back from the airplane graveyard in a WV beattle
The last WV beattle driver will walk back from the junkyard wearing RedWing boots
When you fly your airplane to the boneyard you will get a ride back to your base on a B-52.
Something crazy is that the time jump between the B-52 entering service and the present day is longer than the jump from the wright flyer to the B-52.
It's incredible to think how much WW2 advanced the aviation industry.
Good perspective!
@@Jabberstax The Nazi bomber plan was a great influence on the B2 Spirit, atleast I believe. The design is almost identical.
@@chad6243 It was Nazi Germany who first put a jet fighter into action. At the end of WW2 both the UK and the US took German engineering plans and the physical planes back to help develop their own jet engines and fighters.
@@chad6243 I might be wrong but I remember reading that an American engineer was developing a flying wing beforehand. Undeniable that they had a huge influence on aviation though.
Just imagine in the future you're a Space Force pilot in your highly advance space craft orbiting Mars and you see a 200 years old bomber somehow propelling itself in the vacuum with it's jet engine wondering how the hell is the thing is still in service
Nah bro you’d be the one piloting it
And then as you reach the surface to reclaim some rogue colony of rebels you get shot in the chest by a 200 year old M2 machine gun that somehow also refuses to die.
@@ric84 even better - M2s don't need any real modification to work in space
You'd have to imagine it because we've never even been to space.
And then you see that it's still being refueled by a KC-135
One retired B-52 pilot had lost his favorite tobacco pipe “somewhere” on his bomber. Even though his faithful crew tore the plane apart they couldn’t find it. 25 years later his granddaughter returned it to him wrapped up as a birthday present. Believe it or not she was assigned to the same B-52 as her grandfather and found it!
Wow! Just, wow. Nice.
SOURCE PLEASE!!!!
@@mq5731 Source: Trust me bro
Sweet story, but that makes me never ever want to fly in one. That had to be at least like 18ish years minimum in between? That's sketchy as hell. You know they don't maintain them as well as they say.
@@rickwilliams967They maintain them a lot better than they used to. Since 1990, you saw 4 crashes, 1 per ten years that could be attributed to the condition of the aircraft, with the 4th being attributed to the pilot trying to handle the aircraft like a fighter and his superiors failing to subject him to consequences over a series of previous behavioral violations.
Before 1990 though… yeah, accidents were abundant.
B-52 is like that piece of gear on your character that is way under the character level, but has such a useful unique effect that there's nothing newer that's overall better.
yea...
borderlands 2.....
Quite the opposite
@@CRITICALHITRUlook, it's the "I want to be controversial" comment. you were noticed, now off to the cave.
@@ivoivic2448 ironic.
Don’t forget the C-130, a cargo plane from the 50’s that’ll also live forever. My dad always said “when they retire the last C-17, the crew will fly home on a C-130.”
Or maybe even a DC-3! There's hundreds of them out there still in daily commercial service with the old radials, and several outfits completely rebuilding them with longer fuselages, bigger wings, and new turboprop engines. The airframes are so robust that the FAA is certifying the rebuilt aircraft as zero-hour new. I love those things.
The C-130 has new models coming out all the time, unlike the B-52, the C-130 is always brand new off the assembly line. The oldest model C-130s that are still being used are the H and W models, much younger than the B-52 airframes.
@@originflightstudios so if my country have C130H..... that's mean it's old than B52.
@@mohammadnoormauludadnan1847 No, H models are younger than the B-52...you should reread my reply
@@originflightstudios oh I get it. ...just like younger brother.tq
There is a key reason the B-52 continues in service: It’s effectively a flying truck chassis that can be put into a wide range of roles with different payloads. The ballistic missile effectively rendered the strategic bomber role obsolete decades ago, but the capacity of the B-52 to carry out a wide range of other mission types has kept it alive while several generations of other bombers have come and gone.
Wouldn’t say that Strategic bombers are obsolete, the USAF is investing billions in their development
All that time sitting nuclear alert kept the fleet young. It's basically an 'arsenal ship' now.
Has anyone told the B2 that strategic bombers are obsolete?
@@LeviBulger probably has, since it's also doing similar jobs as B-52
@@SerhiyS-j6v Maybe what Michelle meant was that the days of strategic bombers carrying a 10 megaton free fall thermonuclear bomb and dropping it right over the target are gone, but with stand off conventional or nuclear armed warheads, they are still relevant.
We see that with Russian bombers taking off from Russian airbases and releasing cruise missiles into Ukrainer whilst still in Russian airspace.
This plane is like an old truck. You're not sure of its intentions, you're not sure if it's been reliable but it's here and it does the job
Like my old Toyota, the B-52 is workhorse
Yeah if your "old truck" has had a frame up rebuild about five times and is on its sixteenth new engine.
@@maulrat588 i drove old trucks with i don't remember how many miles and they worked perfectly
That is a perfect analogy. I was born in 53 and to think it is a year older than I am is amazing. Wish I could have that many rebuilds.
i drove old trucks and never had parts brake off mid ride lmao
One of the coolest parts of the BUFF is that a man flew the same jet his grandfather, and father flew.
And his kid might fly one too
In 2070, after first contact with the Vulcans, Warp nacelles were fit to the B-52 to facilitate defense operations from the Moon.
Yes.
"Make it so."
Engage 👉🖖
Scotty, we need more power!!
KHAN!
17:14 as an aircraft mechanic, that is a *massive* depot operation. You're effectively rebuilding the airplane from the ground up (the wings are pretty vital.)
I don’t know I think the engines are the only thing needed to fly
Lol
Wouldn't be one wing enough?
Two seems excessive
@@TheSeppentoni just wait until you uhewr about the elevators
Yeah I think that was the rebuild of that boneyard jet "Lazarus"
Ah buff
It’s amazing to think that some of the people who helped design aircraft during the First World War, or could remember the first flight of the Wright Brothers, probably had a hand in designing and building the B-52 bomber. An aircraft that will probably still be in service when the first humans walk on Mars. Truly an amazing piece of aviation, and American history.
It is amazing but we're not walking on Mars. We'd die in a few minutes. Someone may plant the Stars and Stripes on Mars but it will be very quick. Mars is unbelievably hostile to life as the Earth knows it. We'll probably put some robots on asteroids if we find some valuable elements.
They'll probably modify the B-52 so that it can fly to Mars. ;)
@@myblacklab7 MORE POWER!!
Fake news the earth is only 3,000 years old according to the bible
nobody is going to walk on Mars.
I flew the B-52 in the early 70's. I didn't think then, nor do I think now, that it was a particularly dangerous aircraft to fly (outside of combat missions, of course). We did have equipment problems, though. We had a fire in the forward equipment bay (the radar dish). And I remember a fire in a cable bundle on a new equipment installation. Had a bird strike on the front window due to low level flight. It was my impression that most of the accidents with the aircraft were due to "crew error".
Hm arguably a crew error is also an error in design. Some airplanes generate fewer crew errors than others, but the crews are the same.
@@Merthalophor That is one way to look at it, but flawed I think. Equipment is equipment. One has to remember these were built before the time of automation that we live in today. Most items had to be activated manually. It is a bit unfair to compare to modern equipment. You have to look at it from the perspective of the era it was produced.
@@timlovett6200 its really not. Many, MANY so called "human errors" are avoidable through good design.
As a designer or engineer you should never go "oh its the humans fault", when their might be ans often are actual solutions. Otherwise the problem will just reappear.
And such good design isnt tied to automation either.
I worked on G models. 80s it was a second strike aircraft at the time.
On the other hand. Something in the area of 11-20 (depending on sources, and ignoring any 'secret' crashes the USAF didn't reveal) crashes over 70 years isn't shabby at all for a plane that went through a 24/7/365 run of missions for 8 years.
It’s not obsolete. It’s just an incredibly adaptable design that has allowed the Air Force to consistently add/replace various parts and instruments, thus allowing the aircraft to last for a very long time, and with more upgrades in the works, including a recent engine replacement project, the aircraft will still continue to fly for hopefully another 25+ years. In short, not obsolete, just a design that can stand the test of time. Hints why I sometimes call it “The Brick”
This video is full of propaganda. The first two statements made are already lies. I hear two more lies and I'll stop watching.
“Old not obsolete”
Well said! 👍🏻
It is just "adaptable" as any plane if your only task to be a weapon truck...
Nothing special.
People over at Quora are upset that you murdered 1 million Iraqis.
I think people often confuse old with obsolete. If something still does the job it is far from obsolete
The BUFF is the AK 47/74 of planes
As long as the U.S. Force maintain air superiority in every conflict it enters, the B-52 will never be obsolete...
Like a matchbox
The B-52 was a "long range missile carrier" 50 years ago! How is that any different than what its mission is now? In other words: The mission has remained the same. It is, therefore, NOT obsolete.
The Fairey Swordfish got the job done. It was still obsolete.
My dad built these in the late 50s . It's crazy to think he had a hand in the greatest bomber ever. Rip Dad
May he Rest in Peace
It is sure scarry to see a few b-52s fly together in a pack
I agree, along with the Tu-95
I'm, sure there are still some of us left who had Dad and the War stories. My father was a physician, and he wanted to join the WWII effort in the worst way, only he was 4-F due to asthma. But he did go to work in a veteran's hospital, caring for the horrible wound injuries for soldiers who came home with them, and probably saved some lives or at least made the patients have a better outlook on life when he got through with them. My Dad's stories are probably why I support the Wounded Warriors today! I've seen some incredibly awful injuries in the ER from MVA's, and other traumatic accidents, but probably nothing like he saw and cared for with combat soldiers. That's part of why I still have so much respect for our military veterans. That and the song "He's Not Heavy, He's My Brother" which I listen to now and again to remind myself of what our fighting soldiers do to keep our Country free!
Yo daddy n the other builders bummed in dem all yo pops was like this
😮AHHHHHHHHH GAWDAM UHAHHHHHHOHHHHSHEEET
Brings back memories as a refueler in the Air Force during the 80’s while at Castle AFB. Took me 2 hrs to fully refill a single BUFF. Close to 40000 gallons of JP4. If I was in good terms with the pump house operator who supplies fuel from the storage tanks, he’d go against tech orders and switch to two pumps to increase fuel supply volume to my hose cart and refill of a BUFF would take 1 hour. Remember those freezing winter temperatures on the flightline as I worked nights. Wind howling. Standing in front of the diesel APU exhaust just to stay warm during refueling. Great conversations bullshitting on our mics with the crew chief and ops working the tank controls in the cockpit during the long hours. Now I’m closing in on 60 and would not trade those memories of my enlistment for anything.
and my dad works at Nintendo
@@DGP406 do you really think someone would steal valour by saying they refuelled B52s? It's not exactly a glorious job, I'm pretty sure this guy is real
@@alexbrown1050 for me is an absolutely badass job
@@DGP406 You do realize the Armed Forces isn’t just something you see on TV and video games, right?
people getting triggered by syber-VHS for nothing smh
The fact that the engineers that work on her are by now almost dead while their creation is still here as a proof of their amazing work. Congratulations to every people that make her, queen of the sky alongside Concorde
they are definitely not "almost" dead
An aircraft that accidentally nukes a foreign country is anything but a "queen of the sky"
@@portablerefrigerator4902 the bomber is some 70 years old; at the youngest, the engineers who originally designed the plane have to be at least 90 years of age.
@@Melonist yes thats literally what I said
@@portablerefrigerator4902 fair enough
It seems that the USSR's greatest defense against Operation Chrome Dome was the B-52.
You just said the opposite.
what?
@@infernodotdash2203 Read it again.
@@jorossmiguel9843 he didn’t, the b52 had tons of problems
@UCJlizNS2UB4bMoKnfdLZQnw Yeah, i know, just thought it might make some people confused as to what he is referring to.
I'm an old Air Force pilot and loved the engineering of the B-52 and the C-130 Hercules. Both were invaluable in Vietnam. But the real take-away from this video is about maintenance: if you replace the parts in your car prospectively, as the Air Force has done with these planes, you will never have to buy a new one until the parts are no longer made. I bought a 1997 Ford Expedition new and maintained it the Air Force way. It still runs like new, and I haven't had a car payment in 22 years.
Very cool. How many miles you drive it?
Gary, I've had a 73 Chevelle for 30 years, replaced the motor shortly after I bought it for 1K, and through proper PMCS (I am Army, you all might call it something else?) still have it. Runs great, looks like "S". Along with my other vehicles that I have always owned for over 15 years. Yeah to your no car payments comments!
Did you mean proactively? Interested in the approach
700,000 miles on a '97 Tacoma but swapped out the engine for a rebuild at 500,000 (scorched head gasket) in 2019. Curiously, I had a heart attack On May 13th of the next year. We came close to achieving unalived status at a similar time, apparently.
Indeed, invaluable in Vietnam, and you still got ur a$$ kicked badly by the Viet Cong.... we want peace in this world, not some BUFF flying over killing innocent people
It should be noted that the airframes of bombers like the B-52 don't age anywhere as rapidly as the airframes of commercial passenger jets. Airline companies try to keep their jets flying in the air as much as possible because a parked jet is a jet that isn't making money for the airline. The B-52's, on the other hand, spend many more hours parked on the ground and only fly for training missions and combat.
The design standards for airliners is not the same as far the B52. The skin on the B52 is much thicker. Also, aircraft don't age by the hours in flight. The only thing that matters is the number of flight cycles. If a single aircraft stays at altitude for four days, that is one flight.
Also, the military doesn't leave them parked. They are constantly flown for training purposes. Not just their own training, but training the refueling crews, the fighter crews and others. They experience more flight cycles than most airline aircraft.
In other words. Your wrong.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 well, you have one slight problem.
you're*
other than that, nice information.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Nope, you are wrong.
1. Not only cycles are matter, also the hours. BWT there is cycle for the airframe and also for the engines.
2. The pressurization cycle of the B-52 is lower as well as the FH. An average airliner in a single year can fly 3000-4000 hours while a single B-52 flies maybe 500-600.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Would like to add that most of the B-52 is unpressurized. Unpressurized planes don't see the stress pressurized ones do. That is on reason we see DC3's and DC4's still flying. GO BUFFALO AIR :)
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Actually you're wrong and he was correct
The B52 is capable of flying much higher than 50,000', but the official ceiling is listed there because the USAF regulations state that if you are flying above 50,000', you need a pressure suit (those space suit things you see U2 and SR71 crews wear). I've heard more than one ex-B52 crewmember hint that they would fly higher, but in that "wink and a nudge" kind of way.
75,000 ft with minimal payload and pressure suits
50k feet with weapons, 70k feet with none.
@@singularityraptor4022. If we want to be as accurate as possible: Some airframes are quite capable of at least 75k ft providing light payload and pressure suited crew.
@@singularityraptor4022
At about 63,000 feet (47 mm of Hg), blood will boil at 98° F (without a pressure suit.)
Ebullism is a painful way to go…..
Just like the max ceiling of the Sr71 was 85,000 and Mach 3.2…🤣
Have a soft spot for BUFFs. Back in the early 80’s as an USAF AutoTrack Radar Specialist, 1CEVG, we had many electronic war games and radar bomb scoring runs with these big critters. It was an awesome site to see these huge planes flying sometimes what looked like treetop level. So low at time the tracking radar would break full auto lock going through the trees. ECM capability of these things couldn’t be fully utilized during training runs due to the havoc they would create on civilian electronic equipment. It was sad seeing them being chopped up after the service they performed for so long. Thanks so much for this video! Long live the BUFF!
Tail gunner on a B-52 about the same time. We had a training flight with fighters over water off Norfolk. Late at night on our way back the Norfolk ATC called us up and asked if we could turn on our jammers. Apparently, he somehow got permission for us to jam the ATC frequency (very close to the same frequency the Soviet's used). We where over eastern KY and the EW turned on the jammers. The ATC's response was "HOLY SHIT, I can't see anything, my entire scope is nothing but white." That's about 350 miles.
@@54DonaldB Lol! I can Imagine. I worked for the FAA after leaving the AF. I was a ATC radar tech and I’ve seen ATC’s response when something goes hinky. You must have flown through Richmond KY’s range. DET.8 I was there until 86 with some TDY up in Scobey, MT at a mobile Detachment, think it was MD 34 but can’t remember now. It was awhile ago, lol. They shut it down in ‘94…Now look what’s happening and no SAC😑
Edit: They shut Richmond down in 94. We were located on the Bluegrass Army Depot full of nerve gas. They would forget there was an AF radar site there when there were gas leak scares. We were the only active duty on the depot except for the med clinic doctor. The rest was contracted security.
Probably did EW against your crew and also scored you bombing run.
I was in the 1CEVG at Det 4 outside of Kaiserslautern Germany. We did the first B-52 training missions in the European theater.
@@54DonaldB I was Range Controller at White Sands Test Range about the same time. They would regularly test their ECM on captured Soviet radar from Afghanistan. Ahh good times!!!
I run the EW shop at barksdale. It is sad seeing what they are doing to my baby
on that nuke crash. Do you think the people making the nuke questioned the need for 4 triggering mechanisms? I can imagine one engineer asking another why they need a fourth and the other being adamant that they add a 4th only for them to say told you so 50 years later when it gets declassified.
I don't think anyone questioned adding so many back ups on a fricking doomsday device
I bet most designers thought 4 was too few. Some bureaucrat probably thought 4 sounded good and made it a spec.
I had the same thought as Ben, and wonder if they started out w fewer but added more after a 'learning opportunity' or two.
@@endyoutubecensorship6639 Sounds about right.
Love your username!
Nope, I don't think an engineer would say that. Maybe the higher ups in the corporation but not the engineers.
If the bomber outlasts just about every competing bomber… is it really obsolete?
Just like sloth survived everything
Obsolescent is the word. It means becoming obsolete, but just taking a long time to get there.
It's obsolete in it's original role
It is very obselete but it's the Pentagon who will stop and scrap it
tu95 is bassicaly only competitor and those are still flying
The B-52 was a "standoff missile carrier" over 50 years ago. It was clear, even then, that attempting to penetrate enemy anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems was problematic. So the way the B-52 is being used today, as a long ranged missile carrier, is nothing new.
Ccc cccc ccc cc cc cc cc cv ccc cc c c cv
C c
C v v v
V c
V v v
It's an amazing warbird. One terrifying factoid: its wings "flap". It was a marvel of technology in the early 50s, and its intercontinental range was the key factor that converted the hydrogen bomb from a crazy science project into a weapon of war (much like what the B-29 had done with the original fission weapons). However, it was still the early 1950s and they were still working with riveted aluminum and EARLY turbojets. The engineering required to get under the weight targets while still hitting durability requirements (see video) was astonishing, but it lead to compromises. One result of that is that the wing structure could not be all that rigid- making one as stiff as a B-2 or B-1 or B-21 would've required advanced composites and titanium alloys that were still decades away. So they built wings designed to flex a bit. It is apparently very disconcerting to people who aren't familiar with the aircraft, but one of those things that you just get used to.
I have no praise for this Buff bomber plane it was given to a nation that fought four wars with India. They used to bomb a military hospital a Ambala in Punjab duri
J
During the war inspite of a big Red Cross mark on its roof The air crew opened the bomb bay to to roll down several bombs on the hospital below shame on the pilots and crewl
Is that not something they would fix when the materials came? Do we still not know how? Seems like flappy wings would wear down much faster than stiff ones.
@@classarank7youtubeherokeyb63 Absolutely. A modern composite airframe would rapidly fatigue itself to death with much less deformation, and the wings on say a B2 flex FAR FAR less. The rather extreme wing movement wasn't regarded as a feature, just a necessary expedient in light of extreme range/weight constraints and the materials available at the time.
My dad was a B-52 pilot during Vietnam War and the plane has outlived him and may outlast me
My step-brother flew these out of Loring AFB, Maine in the late 80's. Visited him there once during a cold December week. He is the one I learned the acronym "BUFF" from. Thanks, Brother!
"The B-52 Stratofortress was truly a 'F•CKER' "
*I'M DYING AT THIS PART 😂*
XD
He sensored it several times prior, then let one get out. Lol
@@Joetechlincolns As an AF vet....kinda glad he did!
Kind of reminds me of my little crew vehicle in Kerbal Space Program. It was truly awful, but I needed it, so I kept using it, until I figured out all the problems, and now it's the design I'm most proud of, and that I trust the most.
Something worth mentioning is that the buff was extremely instrumental in the space program and the overall development of air launched systems. The X-15 rode on a B-52 to great success and without the B-52, we probably would have never made it to the moon.
Well nobody did did they?
@@jameskeith7608 ok keith
@@jacknewman9106 ok jack
I think that is a bit too much credit for the BUFF, excellent aircraft that it is though.
From a US Air Force Vet. The B-52 bomber has never been obsolete!
It is the biggest and most powerful bomber ever. And with its ability to carry various payloads long distances and continue to get major upgrades it will be in service for a very long time !
The b-1 actually is able to carry a bigger payload, and had the strategic arms reduction plan not been put in place they would be nuclear capable. The b-1 got nerfed in a very unfair manner.
Big 52l keeps reinventing itself.👍💪
Long as the B-52 can carry modern stand off cruise missiles, she will never be "obsolete".
It will outlast the USA that’s for sure.
russia has been doing the equivalent of that with its strategic bombers (pretty direct equivalents of the B-52 and the B-1 I think, the bear and that big swing-wing) in the ukraine war. I'm not sure if they haveeven flown them into ukrainian airspace at all.
He's immortal bro
@@Ass_of_Amalek Most of the big Russian bombers have been retired. The Soviets didn't really build them to last. Most of the remaining aircraft are being used in a maritime role. They had some in Syria for a while.
@@patrickweaver1105 false. No so many has been retired, they are constructing new one and they have been use a lot during Siria war and during ucraine but less
It's worth noting that the KC-135 that did so much of that in flight refueling is only 4 years younger than the B-52, and is only now being replaced, which will take many more years.
The C-135 airframe is going to stay with the Air Force for many years to come. The tankers might be going out, but the RC and WC will be around for a long time.
1
Even the KC-46 is not doing the greatest job in replacing 135s. With all the issues we have had upon delivery of the 46s, the air force is posturing to double down on the 135
@@StrikeEagleCinema the air force f'd that up.
Absolutely love this plane. I was born on Barksdale AFB, my dad was on BUFF crews for 11 years. We moved away for a decade or so, then moved back so he could work with Global Strike. I’ll always have a soft spot for the BUFF. I sure miss hearing them fly around.
@@PietriGuitars Who?
The remaining 76 operational B-52H's are 60 years old, We designed the B-52G/H in 1956 for high-altitude bombing. The emphasis in the structural design was minimum weight, to maximize range. This resulted in metal fatigue problems. 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, 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 main reason for their longevity is that the usage has not been as severe as was projected. As Chief of Structures Technology at Boeing-Wichita at the time of the redesign. I am honored to say I chose the materials, the analysis methods, and the limiting stress levels for the redesign. I am now 95 and I am thrilled to see these planes still flying, and projected to do so for many more years.
I like how you just gave up the censuring 2 minutes in.
There we go. De-platformed.
Oh well, we had a good run, won't you say? 😅
Lol i thought that or he slipped past that one
@@NotWhatYouThink already responding???
@@viruspter1dactl its not what you think
Yeah it slipped. We didn't notice. So wonder how many people won't either.
(some clearly did notice it!)
Back in the mid-1970's I was in Air Force air defense radar and sometimes we would have B-52's show up to practice being intercepted by our F-101B's and F-106's. The first thing they did was call us up on frequency about an hour beforehand and give us an ECM request, a list of all the frequencies they wanted to use against our interceptors. We would then call our local ATC Region Control Center and pass on the request. They would check to see if it would harm any essential ATC radar systems in the area and get back to us with what they had approved. We would then call up the B-52 and pass it on to them. No way could the B-52 use all the electronic warfare resources they had because it would electronically blind radar sites everywhere around us. It really was an amazing airplane and keeps getting better.
I love how he blured the word "fu**er" everything except one😂😂
"Giant Flying Dump Trucks" is the greatest description of a heavy bomber I have ever heard. Nicely done.
Seeing a B52 in real life causes a combination of feelings of majesty at its size and design and also astonishment at the amount of crap that comes out of its engines
Kinda like watching an elephant poo then 🤣
I had a feeling of being really scared when I saw them at Davis-Monthan in AZ.
@@moteroargentino7944 lmao
A contract has already been signed to replace those old P&W engines with RR's.
I grew up in Wichita KS and saw these plus the other 2 Planes often. But the B-52 was almost a daily sight. I remember them Flying the B-2 bombers growing up in the 90s, My grandparents live about a mile/mile and a half from the base. So whenever I was over there, I'd usually see them doing test flights with it throughout the weekends. It used to drive their old dog insane as they flew it around due to the noise.
They never flew it that high for some reason, Which I never minded. It was fun to be in their back yard and watch it fly around their end of town. But as the 2000s wore on, I saw the B-2 less and less until I just never saw it anymore.
I was a in first grader when my dad was stationed at a SAC base.
I can still feel and hear those B-52's taking off 60 years ago.
It is unbelievable that they will out live me.
“I’ve failed over and over again. And that is why I succeed.” - Michael Jordan
Also, definitely BUFF.
At least, that is what I thought after minute 2.
🤣🤣😂
Does buff stand for big ugly flying fucker?
Great video and very informative. I also enjoyed reading the comments from all the vets that flew or were around them. Good peak into history.
B-52 should be thought of more as a flying missile frigate than a bomber.
In which case you would think there would be a argument to create a modern heavy aerial capabilities platform. The only thing keeping B-52's relivant is that they can be outfitted with numberous heavy missiles. They are far from being lateral bombers, which means they are essentially strike missile launch aircraft.
Essentially. The role of conventional bomber could easily be distributed between the three active bombers we have, but the B-52 is the only one that can handle so many different types of missiles at once.
They still have carpet bombing capabilities so no.
@@JRyan-lu5im the reason there isnt an argument to create modern heavy aerial platforms for missiles is because you can fire/drop/launch smart bombs/missiles from a dumb platform like the B-52 rather than spending billions on research and development for a "smart" platform that does the same thing.
@@originflightstudios The problem is that the B52 leaves a massive footprint, isn’t very fast, isn’t agile, and is a maintenance liability whose only saving grace is a lack of utilization. While a program to reinvent the wheel sounds like a pointless cash burn, to me it would a project to guarantee availability, operation longevity, and growth potential of strike capabilities. Basically the B-52 as it stands are airframes that are shoehorned into a potentially critical specialist role where the Air Force has no other options. But that’s my opinion.
There are stories of 4 generations of families serving on the B-52, great grandparents, grandparents, parents, and now children
2:00 uncensored😬😬🔫🔫👍👍
He was caught in 4k
You got us! 😅
@@NotWhatYouThink naaah, you just violated the b52, now it wants revenge, sleep well tonight my friend
Myself dibyanshu dalai
Caught in 5.1 surround sound
1:19 you can hear him try to hold his laugh in
America has three ways of naming things:
M1
M11311172F "High Altitude Air Assault And Attack Munition " aka "HAAAAAM"
or
"Super duper missile"
In the Museum of Flight in Seattle, the Boeing exhibit includes a silver 14-inch balsa model of what is unmistakably a Stratofortress. It was built in a Dayton hotel room one weekend in 1948 as part of a Boeing technical proposal for an eight-jet-engine bomber. The Air Force liked what it saw and the result was the B-52. Best visual-aid bang for the buck ever.
I can confirm to this day that engineers at Boeing are told that story as part of their mythic heritage. Boeing ain't what it was, but every engineer I've worked with is 100% about doing it safe and doing it right.
I don't know why but I laughed so hard at 2:00 . Something about how you censored F***** twice in the video beforehand made it totally unexpected when you just said the full name 🤣
I live in Louisiana and close to Barksdale AFB and couldn’t count how many B52 I’ve seen fly over but it’s still one hell of a sight everytime.
I have lived near the base most of my life ! hey neighbor .
We were really hard on the B-52s road hard and put up wet. Every time one took off it wouldn’t land for almost 30 hours and they did that for years. In a very harsh environment. If it doesn’t fall apart when you kick the tire it’s a miracle.
I love how incredibly old weapons like the B-52 and browning M2 are still very useful and nowhere near retirement in this modern day and age
that they are useful is one sick thought
In 1963 during basic training, I was impressed with the firepower of a BAR
@@billmoyer3254 The Universe is a very violent place, you'll have to deal with it.
I was in the Air Force from 1979 - 1983. Stationed at Mather AFB it was mainly an ATC base ( air training command ) with a SAC wing located at the base. Which meant there were B52's taking off and landing there all day long. What I remember most about them is that they were without a doubt one of the loudest and I mean loudest planes I have ever heard taking off as well as landing. The fact that they've been around this long even though they've had their problems means at some point there doing something right. Very right. I tip my cap off to these noisy fu....rs.
it cannot be louder than the blundering tu-95 and its contra rotating turboprops lol.
I was in the Buff wing at Mather from 86-89. Yes, the Buff was loud, even inside it. But it was nowhere near as loud as a B-1!
@@nordan00 they were wet takeoffs. And yes I was also there. Swine bunnies. 😁
As habitual line crosser states, the buff is eternal. Long live Grandpa Buff.
Well that was unexpected 😂 1:14
Yep 😂💀
Edit: i didnt stole ur comment, didnt notice ur comment
What's interesting, years back someone like Discovery Channel, Nat Geo, or one of them ranked the B-52 as the #1 bomber of all time because of its modularity (aka they could easily gut the interior and upgrade it).
Also, from what I recall, I thought only 2 bombers were in the air at any given time
That was Looking Glass.
famous engineering quote: if you keep fixing it you eventually run out of problems
yeah thats the thing with grandpa buff, he can drop anything.
the moment someone says: the enemy is that way, he just destoys "that way".
Over 90% of the B-52 fleet have been retired. The ones still in service were the latest model and have been majorly upgraded.
That's true, but like he said, even the newest B-52's in service rolled out in 1962, so we're still talking about the 60 year "latest" model of a 70 year old design. Mind you, I'm okay with that, airframes of this sort were pretty much perfected by 1962.
@@jermainerace4156
My point was that over 90% are long gone.
@@alanstevens1296 they are just spare parts and airframes. however the USAF does keep many airframes ready for assembly for replacement of damaged frames or if a need for more b52s arise.
@@Drbeattles
Over 90% of the retired airframes were scrapped.
@@alanstevens1296 they aren’t scrapped like you think. Most of them are sitting in the bone yard which is considered “scrapped”. However they are constantly being pulled out of said boneyard. Plus the “newest” b52 was built in 1962 so of course there’s going to be a lot of them out of service. we don’t need 744 of em in constantly ready. Hell we don’t even have that many of ANY aircraft in current service.
One thing often overlooked is how NOISY those things were. Way back around 1963 our family drove to Dayton Ohio, my father was going to a conference there. Starting back, we stopped at a gas station just east of Wright-Patterson AFB. There was a B-52 refueling about 200 yards away with the engines running. It was so loud it was impossible to hear one another. I still remember the strained face of the gas station operator.
Many years later I was able to walk around and under one at Offut, NE. "A plumbers worst nightmare" under there. The number of hydraulic lines, tees, and valves was astounding. A military analyst once told me the availability rate for the B-52 was secret but was around 45%.
The B-52 is not obsolete. It has upgraded electronics for self-defense and stealth. New engines use less fuel and have more power. It will be around for many years.
It kinda is against anything with modern anti air
That’s why it can carry cruise missiles so it can hit shit outside of the anti air range
@Akiara Anything is vulnerable in the battlefield if it is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Air defenses have a limited range, as long as you stay outside of it you should be fine. Or destroy/disrupt said defenses. Or operate where they don't exist. Or carry different missions other than attack ones.
@@moteroargentino7944 thats why i said "with modern anti air they're obsolete"
@@akiara8491 Obsolete means no longer in use or no loger useful. The thing is, the B-52 can perform more tasks where it's still useful, so it's only obsolete as a conventional bomber, but not as an aircraft.
To be fair, the vertical stabilizer didn't just fall off... the B52 lost its vertical stabilizer when it hit clear-air turbulence. Thst lasted for 9 seconds. Too much stress for most any airframe. AND 1:41 that crash was due to a pilot intentionally crashing the plane. You can find that story on RUclips
If all you say is true, then this is a very underrated comment.
isnt 1:41 the one where they were practicing for an airshow and then they lost control which made them crash? if thats true it doesnt sound intentional lol, also heard that the b52s took around 5 seconds to respond and reflect, so this accident sounds well... like an accident
The o e that crashed practicing for an airshow, the pilot was a "hit-dog", ku d of like Maverick from top gun and had been reprimanded multiple times for unsafe flying, he had a habit of flying the '52 like it was a fighter plane. There were actually many of his crew that had asked to be transferred because he was unsafe and he should have lost his airforce wings the first time he was caught flying like an idiot.
Just goes to show that there are old pilots and bold pilots but there is never old and bold pilots
It's on RUclips so it must be true, right?
Damn. This bomber was introduced before I was born, and will almost certainly outlive ME. Too bad we can't make more of these.
My cousin just got his wings in the air force and was assigned to the B52. Such an awesome plane and I’m so happy for him.
Imagine being bombed by the B-52 in 2052 and learning that the thing that bombed you was in use a century ago...
The idea that the enginges require the use of protective kit is so bad ass, could you imagine how awesome it would be to start one of those up!
No aircraft is 100% safe to operate and all carry inherent risks. The first half of this clip implies that the B-52 had a high accident/mishap rate, but compared to other aircraft in the US inventory over the years, the accident to flight hour ratio of the B-52 is not markedly higher than most
Exactly - flying 24/365, they were making hours/miles - hard to compare with fighters that maybe fly a few hours per week/month? Lockheed Starfighters were called widowmakers for a reason...
Plus one should see the accidents per flight hour rather than the total. With so many in the air, statistically some accidents are bound to happen.
Crash landing after running out of fuel is not the fault of the aircraft and should not be deemed as one.
@@totoitekelcha7628 Unless the fuel meters/system was faulty...
@@ibubezi7685 They said the regueller aircraft is not available due to weather or some problem on the refueling aircraft not the bomber.
The B52H Stratofortress is a beautiful bomber, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the b21 raider.
B21 raider is useless if enemy has advanced military satellite, stealth fighters and many of them. The future bomber must have powerful afterburning engines capable of flying faster than Mach 1.5, AESA radar with air to air capability + stealth.
Sounds like you want many accidents to happen. This bomber is not beautiful. It's aging and this is probably starting to show. The Air Force is using it less and less. In a few years you will hear it is getting retired.
@@jayjay53313
No, it isn't. You don't know what you're talking about. 😆 No, the future aircraft MUST NOT have powerful afterburning engines. You think you know something about technology but you don't know how inefficient afterburning is. 😆 Don't talk about technology. Ever heard of supercruise? That's what it will be using. Military satellites will be useless because they cannot detect it. Not only that but it will have a new stealth technology that will help it conceal its presence even to radar systems that can detect stealth aircraft.
B1-B Lancer hands down 💥
@@jayjay53313 Bombers can be escorted by fighters, they don't have to fight everything
It can't outlive Queen Elizabeth the 2nd
Facts
Sure it will.
Well when your brought up with privilege and have had a silver spoon and millions of pounds of tax payers money going towards you, as well as thousands of 'servants' and maids and ladies in waiting, its not that great of an achievement. I'd respect and average Joe or Jane who's worked all their lives living pay cheque to pay cheque more for reaching old age.
Yeah, but can she drop nuclear bombs ? I dont think so
I am starting to doubt that when the Queen is absent to more events of her own Platinum Jubilee. Just recently, she announced she won't be attending the Friday Church service at the Westminster Abbey after getting tired out of watching a military parade from the Buckingham palace balcony yesterday...
My grandpa was a B-52 captain for a while, first in the ‘Nam, and then was part of Operation Chrome Dome, he definitely swore by these things
"Pieces of it would just fall off" and "nuclear bombs" are not things you want in the same sentence
Had the B-52 been a disaster for "the first few decades", it wouldn't have been in service after the first few decades. Very few designs are in use seventy years after their first use, and we're almost exclusively talking small arms, not highly sophisticated aircraft. The B-52 has been replaced by several more modern and more capable bombers - that somehow faded into oblivion because they couldn't deliver on their promises.
It's like how London keeps running on infrastructure built during Victoria's reign, even after more than a centuries worth of replacement systems have long since fallen apart.
The B-2 can deliver on promises, it's just stupid expensive to operate and maintain, hence the desire for the B-21.
The B-1 is another story, but even that is seeing multi-role service.
1:17 - I've never understood the nickname BUFF for the 52. The thing is skinny as a rail, proportionally much narrower for its length than most large planes. It was purposely done that way to increase capacity without increasing drag, for extended range. If you want a plane to live up to the name BUFF, try the C-5 which is half again as long as the B-52 and a LOT thicker through the fuselage.
Yeah but if you're a person just looking at it it's pretty big
Likely reference to flying characteristics. I can't imagine it to be very maneuverable at altitude. Just speculation.
The C-5 is "FRED" - Fucking Ridiculous Economic/Environmental Disaster
Compared to the sleek, cutting-edge supersonic bombers of the late 50’s early 60’s, it looks like a flying brick.
Nah I would call the C-17 the TUFF, Thicc Ugly Fat Fker. Its too stout to be considered big imo.
I love how even in cyberpunk they are joking about it still flying
I am honored to have been made (at James Connolly AFB, TX) the same year as the B-52. 70 on October 14 this year.
‘What a long, strange trip it’s been.’
I was at Minot AFB '81-'84, KC-135As. Other side of the ramp was all B-52Hs, 1960/1 production. If you want to see something really impressive, see an entire bomb wing (5 Bomb Wing was 20 tankers, 15 bombers at the time) do a MITO (minimum interval take-off). We did one for Global Shield in 1983.
B-52 at F86 Sabre funeral: “Who’s the FF now, Sabre?”
@1:40 that footage is actually not from an airframe mishap but a pilot that wanted to fly it like it was a fighter and had a very hazardous attitude. Happened at Fairchild AFB during an airshow.
99oo9
My dad was a B-52 jet engine mechanic for a few years. Before he worked on a F-15 Eagles. He worked I'm the 5th bomb wing in North Dakota.
My dad's friend also was a mechanic for the B-1 Bomber
I remember being out there at this little air museum and me and mom came out and I hear a sound like the end of the world. I go “Quick, LOOK UP!”
Four B-1’s taking off in formation, full afterburner right over our heads
According to my time working in aviation, a big reason the B-52 are kept is that they are entirely analog planes rather than digital, meaning that in the event of an EMP(Such as from a nuclear explosion), they would still be able to fly.
Oh boy. I...I just don't know how to respond. Next.
I actually got to see one last weekend in Gwinn Michigan. Which was the home of the KI Sawyer Air Force base, unfortunately no longer in operation. I was amazed how huge it was. I’m a big fan of that big beast lol
I still see them nearly every day above my hometown. Hope to see it reach a century of service!
Go to Tucson Arizona and go to the Air Museum and you can go into them. You can walk around inside them.
@@jordancambridge4106 Thank you I just went to see it today
@@jordancambridge4106 thank you that would be a great museum to see unfortunately I don’t know if I would ever get that way.
I've seen that "static display" at K.I. I don't believe it was an H-model, though, like the ones they flew there until the base was shut down.
We stayed at a hotel in Seattle & were convinced it was such a good deal until we realized the hotel was just below the landing path of B52's. Those monstrosities are so loud with 8 jet turbines each. At 6:30 AM here came one of those flying fortresses. "Let's get up." Those are what the Vietcong feared in Vietnam.
Yep. But the Vietnamese still defeated the US.
I remember going to the St. Louis 4th of July airshow many years ago and one of the planes that flew along the Mississippi River was a B-52. It was thrilling to see!
60 years passed from the Wright brothers flight to the B-52.
60 years have passed since the last B-52 models were made.
Put that into perspective.
It will continue to fly for the next 30+ years, meaning air frames will be 80-90 years when they are finally retired.
Missiles will probably never be recallable because if you have a way to tell the missile to go back home, the enemy can do the same to your missile
9:30 Wow, this plane can go for 15km without refueling. Amazing
Ok let me weigh in on a couple of images/ clips ... the one showing the B52 missing its vertical tail IIRC happened here in Eastern Colorado. Experimental flight checking on cross wind handling. After losing its tail it flew across the country and safely landed in Arkansas. Next ...
The clip showing the BUFF falling down and crashing this is just before the clips of the ejection seats in our documentary here. This was due to pilot error ...a wonderful catch phrase... in this case the crew were practicing for an airshow. The command pilot had already been called out for exceeding the B52s design limits. He refused to pay attention to either his commander or the flight manuals. Cranking the B52 into that turn exceeded its ability to maintain altitude... how do I say it... not level flight because its in a turn but... let's call it steady flight and as we can see in the clip it slid down and crashed.
3:24 states the BUFF earned the 2nd F because 9 nuclear armed B52s crashed during the 8 year long operation Chrome Dome. Hasn't checked into losses of nuclear or otherwise armed B47s which were lost at a rate of 1 to 3 a week during the 1950s. We were essentially operating on a wartime tempo from post WW2 until the late 70s
The simple (compared to insane stuff onboard more modern planes) design helps in updates. It's kind of like replacing pieces on a Lego plane with this one.
Some modern fighter jets are actually built to allow for updates. E.g. the Saab Gripen E, because it's impossible to build a plane that won't become obsolete without upsates.
I swear the Air Force gives their aircraft the most funny nicknames ever
During the B-52 development, the engineers tried to avoid a USAF aircraft maintenance worker who would always be sitting in the cockpit waiting for them to arrive, and badgering them over their choices of equipment placement. "You can't put that there! I have to get to the panel on the wall."
The computers have gotten smaller, and that only makes room for more and better equipment.
In the summer of 1986, I was serving aboard the USS Georgia SSBN 729 (Gold) as we completed a refit from the tender USS Proteus in Guam. I remember B-52s from Andersen AFB flying low overhead. Pretty impressive.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's the month of January that's the real problem and not BUFF.
This is kinda the paradox to the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” cuz they’re constantly fixing it and now it’s the best thing flying.
Can we just take a min to appreciate the research that must go into each one of these videos. Well done.
B-52s effectively are old trucks that still have the room for carrying newer weapons. I still think we should've come up with a newer platform that doesn't need to be revolutionary like being supersonic or stealthy but fixes the fundamental design drawbacks i.e fewer, more efficient engines, better control surfaces, a more efficient and better designed wing, and more commercial commonality so costs don't burden us so heavily 50 years later.
For that we'd have to have had some form of upper management that could actually reap the rewards of the 50-year cost savings, which is approximately 0 people right now
Apparently when the last of them retire they will have been in service for almost if not 100 years a a phenomenal achievement for keeping them around for so long
“Super duper missile”
“Superconducting super collider”
Someone needs to hire professional nick namers
*Super professional super-namers.
You guys did. You had him on staff for 4 years...
It is totally amazing that the pilots are about half the age of the airframe and none of the current pilots were alive when the plane they are flying was built.
I worked on B-52s in the mid to late 1980s. Every one of them is older than me (last H model rolled off the assembly floor in late 1962) by at least a year.