Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Have there yet been any 3-generation B-52 crew members (father->son->grandson)? I believe there've been a few father->son combinations, but I'm curious as to whether any of those sons have had children serving on a B-52.

This page has been copied verbatim from: http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html

Are we sure that this is OK? I don't see any copyright logo thingy. Theoretically, this is information in the public domain written by our government, but there still might be copyright issue. -- ansible

It's not specifically listed in the

public domain resources list. It probably wouldn't hurt to make sure. Even if it is, we need to (a) acknowledge that it's USAF material so should be taken with several grains of salt, and (b) add and edit so that it's more balanced and complies with the NPOV. --Robert Merkel

Not so much on this page, but others (notably comments on the F-15's "unprecedented maneuverability", for instance) strike me as PR guff rather than objective comment. The mentions of operational deployments also strike me as a little selectively described. Nor do they attempt compare the capabilities of the fighters with comparable foriegn planes (notably Russian and European). It's not so much what they say, it's what they don't say. --Robert Merkel

All US Government published material is public-domain (unless it's classified ;^)). I haven't done a detailed read of the B-52 page, but a quick pass through it leads me to believe it's a fairly factual writeup. I don't see any glaring violation of the NPOV rule. Sure, military equipment is mean, nasty, rotten and awful by nature: its purpose is to kill people and destroy stuff, which is regrettably sometimes necessary. The facts and the history of some piece of military equipment are nonetheless grist for an encyclopedia, be it the B-52, or the HMS Dreadnought or the Mary Rose or the Roman gladius.

I'm not disputing that military equipment is designed to kill people and destroy stuff, and that an effective piece of military equipment is one that is extra-good at the job. What I am disputing is the neutrality of the Air Force's commentary on its own places. There doesn't seem to be a single negative comment about the performance of any of their aircraft. Surely there must be the odd dog amongst the Air Force's collection. --Robert Merkel

On the F-15: the airplane has maneuverability well beyond the structural limits of the airframe (which are considerable). The USAF found this out the hard way in the early days of deployment (they came home with their skins wrinkled, much to the dismay of the maint. chiefs). That the late-number Soyuz interceptors (SU-29 & SU-31) have comparable capabilities is not germane, certainly not to the descriptive text of the bad ol' Buff (hmmm, that nickname for the B-52 ought to be in the article). -- Stranger

I think you miss my point. I was giving an example of why I thought USAF text should be taken with a grain of salt in general.

As a vet, I agree that USAF materials may need to be taken with a large grain of salt. However, for this particular article on the B52, its seems pretty accurate. It is pushing 50 years of service, which is pretty amazing. I would be much more suspicious of such material on the F117, B1, B2, etc. But not the buf. There probably were performance problems and crashes in its early years, 19502,60s, which would be very interesting to add to this page.

There were performance problems. My dad crashed a B52 in Thailand and got permission to go to the manufacturer to determine the source. They found it and it turns out that the same problem happened on Guam...maybe other places as well. The manufacturer fixed it and the B52 still flys today.

Fascinating. Could you ask your dad about the details, and then you or one of us can add it to the main page? --Robert Merkel

You know, you're not going to get too many complaints about the B-52 because the alternative, the B-47, had poor takeoff and landing characteristics. The B-47 was a known pilot killer. It was known to "porpoise". One of the reasons the 52 stuck around were the stable aerodynamics of the platform. As far as other issues go, the plane has been rebuilt so many times that any anecdotal contribution to the understanding of problems in the 52 could well have been eliminated in one of the interminable rebuilds of the aircraft.

As far as the source of this information goes, I'll credit my father, Col Gene O. Myers (ret), a B-47 and B-52 pilot. It's anecdotal, but I'll suggest my father is a reasonably reliable source, in terms of the flight characteristics of the plane. ;) Dwmyers 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be nice if someone can find a source mentioning the Cold War deployment of a B-52 being in the air at all times so the US military wouldn't be decapitated if there were a surprise Soviet nuclear strike.

might also be helpful to mention Other places (besides 1st persian gulf war and afghanistan) where b-52s were more "famously" used: i am thinking vietnam. i think the "B-52" came into the layman's vernacular BECAUSE of Vietnam... (in fact i came across this page looking for "B-52" in relation to Vietnam War but was kinda disappointed that there was nothing on this...)

I am not supprised to see nothing about vietnam deployment of B52, since this article might have been taken from source such as US goverment's military doc, Boeing's doc... All of these source must advoid exposing the heavy loss of B52 (its still a world record) during the Vietnam war, due to a numbered of reasons: failed design (which Boeing does not want to talk about) failed strategy, underestimation of enemy counter-attack measure (which US Gov does not want to talk about). You might have to seek other sources on Vietnam deployment from the "enemy side" (Vietnam, China, Soviet, ...). 193.52.24.125 06:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

With 84,000 sorties and a total of 10 B-52 losses in Vietnam and another 14 losses out of the country (7 combat, 7 operational), I think the only world record might be how few of the planes were lost doring Vietnam. Jkonrath 15:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get 10 & 14? The Vietnamese article vi:B-52 cites 34 out of 400 B52 available in 1972 were shot down during just 11 days; AP reported "If the trend continued, B-52 would become extincted after 3 months".Tttrung 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The number was 17. One in November 1972, 15 in December 1972, and one in January 1973. Everey single B-52 is accounted for by serial number--there are no "hidden" losses, no claims of "damaged" for planes really lost, etc. Since they're still flying today, so much for being "extincted" in 3 months. Also, since the Vietnamese ran out of missiles in 9 days, that would make it significantly more difficult to achieve suych a task. IOW, perhaps a "grain of salt" is called for regarding your "source"?

Am I right in thinking that the B-52 was recently re-engined with just 4 much larger engines? Or was that just a prototype or a figment of my imagination? Graham 00:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It has been proposed (by Rolls-Royce, among others) but as far as I know has not actually been done. It's possible, I suppose, that a prototype conversion has been done? —Morven 00:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See here --Rlandmann 01:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) Reuters link now gone.LanceBarber 07:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The page now states that this has been approved. What is the source for this? I've only ever heard that it was proposed.

I have removed the wording about it being approved. I find nothing in google supporting this. The link that Rlandmann referenced does not exist. See [1] --Rogerd 16:33, October 2, 2005

The last I heard on this mod was that it had been done on 1 wing of one aircraft for testing. But I think it was ultimately abandoned due to how close to the ground the outboard engine was. This caused potential problems on landing due to the fact that Air Force Pilots have a tendency to 'slam' the wingtip gear on the runway while correcting for wind. I have seen tham blow the wingtip tire on several occasions because of this.

Hi!,

I read in the late 1970's that a number of B-52F's were converted by Boeing into B-52G's by the addition of TFR and a look down Radar bulge under the chin of the B-52G. Is this really true?

I don't believe that's true. If you're referring to the "blisters" under the nose, those are for Westinghouse AN/AVQ-22 low-light-level television camera and Hughes AN/AAQ-6 forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor. These fairings/blisters are also present on B-52H's.

B-52G's had numerous changes from the 'F' models. There was an effort to reduce the weight of the airframe along with shortening the vertical stabilizer, reducing the size of the external wing tanks and moving the gunner from the tail to the cockpit. I don't think it's possible to convert a B-52F to a B-52G, but I could be wrong.

What you may have heard was a B-52F converted to a GB-52F. This would have been done for various ground tests or for use as a training airframe.--LedHed430 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The B-52F and the B-52G where for the most part almost completly diffrent aircraft. They had seperate electronics package, crew arrangments, most of the inner works. A few F models where used to test some of the new toys on the G model due to both haveing the same version of the J57 engine but to convery a F to G wouldn't really cost effective. FLJuJitsu —Preceding unsigned comment added by FLJuJitsu (talk • contribs) 22:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how permanent the URL is, but Terraserver has a link to an aerial photo of "B-52 Aircraft, Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona" ("17 km SE of Tucson, Arizona, United States 5/16/1992") -- if you're wondering where all the B-52's are.

Wow - that is some truely awesome imagery (try zooming out a bit even). Anyone know of similar photos that are PD or GFDL compatible? -Lommer | ^talk 23:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These pics are public domain USGS aerial photographs. -- Toytoy 03:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

worldwind://goto/world=Earth&lat=32.15041&lon=-110.82428&alt=600

NASA World Wind, also public domain -- Toytoy

03:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the B-52 have the record for the longest service of any aircraft? Perhaps that could be added to the trivia section. Ryan Salisbury 22:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. The USAF still uses at least one C-47 (T model) at Hurlburt Field by the 6th Special Operations Squadron. Numerous other countries still use this airframe in their militaries. This is only one example (could be more), but it proves your assertion false.

That C-47 was still there last time I was on Hurlburt (though they don't call it a C-47, its a Tubro Blazer or something close to that) But the B-52 has the record for the longest service in fleet use as that C-47 is a one of a kind deal. FLJuJitsu

This article should be improved because it has too much focus on the weapons the B-52 can deploy, and it lacks a good depiction of the reasons why the B-52 is "the bomber" (not only in military terms). The missions against Laos during the Vietnam War? Why is it a symbol for the cold war? --Keimzelle 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The preceding was originally placed in the article by Keimzelle along with the "cleanup-date" tag...I have moved it to the talk page, where this type of content belongs --Rogerd 01:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The cleanup tag annoys me to no end, since it's used almost exclusively by lazy editors who refuse to actually do the work required to improve an article. If this article needs work, do it, don't insert a tag commanding everybody else to. The reasons cited above seem particularly weak, so I'm removing the cleanup tag here. If you disagree, please fix the article instead of reinserting the tag. --Bk0 03:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen to that - I wholeheartedly agree. -Lommer | ^talk 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I asterisked out a swear word on the 22nd of August, 2005. I noticed today (17th September), that it is back. Looking at the document history, it looks like somebody considered my change to be vandalism and undid it. Is it really Wikipedia policy to allow offensive language? It seems to me that changing the last three letters of the f-word to *** lets someone who wants to know about it know about it, without forcing those who object to see it. I personally would rather have the full word asterisked out, but I know some people will want to know about it, so I just changed the last three letters.

It is now September 25th, and nobody has said anything about this. Unless somebody gives me a good reason the f-word should be left, I am going to change it back to f***.

I believe the reasoning is that wikipedia has a policy of not censoring content in any way unless such content is outright illegal in the USA. Saying "fuck" is very direct, and there is no room for misinterpretation. I fail to see how f*** is any less offensive, and it is certainly less clear. I'm not the one who made the change, but I'm pretty sure that's the logic behind it. -Lommer | ^talk 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

But f*** doesn't force someone like me, who finds that sort of language offensive, to see it. I personally would prefer to not even leave the 'f', but I know some people will want to see what the word is. I think changing it to f*** is a reasonable compromise. Also, what if children doing research for school or for fun come on here? You don't really want Wikipedia to be innapropriate for children to be on, do you? It's not censorship to change it to f***, it's just making it less offensive.

I also made a similar change to the F-4, but apparently it didn't get saved or something, because I couldn't find it in history. However, someone else made the same change (to the F-4), some somebody agrees with me on this.

Another thought: Pornography is not illegal in the USA, surely Wikipedia policy would/should not allow it anyway?

A few comments:

1. I, and several other wikipedians, feel no obligation to make this site sanitized for children's use - and I see nothing wrong with a child seeing the f-word in an academic context.
2. Your analogy to pornography is flawed - material that is not encyclopaedic is obviously not permitted, but as a point of fact wikipedia does include nude pictures and more when they are encyclopaedically relevant.
3. I found a policy page on this, you may wish to read it and the associated talk page:
   Wikipedia:Profanity

-Lommer | ^talk 22:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The closest thing to a consensus that I could find on the talk page was to put information that is offensive or disturbing on a separate page that would nobody would go to without knowing what kind of information would be there. For example, an article on Saddam Hussein would link to another article that had pictures and other information about some of the gruesome ways he tortured people to death. In this case, however, the information (what BUFF stands for) is to small to be worth another page, so that's not a good solution in this case.

In many things, like politics, people can just agree to disagree. In this case, however, that doesn't work so well. We have to either do what one side wants, or do what the other side wants, or compromise. I thought changing it to f*** was a reasonable compromise, leaving the information there, but putting it in a less offensive form. But plainly some people don't like that. Does anybody else have an opinion on what we should do here?

I first came here to read about military aircraft, just because I enjoy it. But if I could come across offensive language without warning, I will have to find somewhere else. I don't object to it being in article, like the article on the f-word. That article, it is obvious that it will have offensive language. I will never read that article. This case is different. I have no objection to that information being there for those who are looking for it, but people should not find it by accident. An article on torture in Iraq under Saddam is obviously going to have information that some people will find disturbing. An article on pornography is going to have information that I (and others) would consider inappropriate. People can make a decision not to read those articles. But in a case like this, somebody can (I did) come across information that they find disturbing or offensive by accident. That can chase people away from Wikipedia.

Also, you have no problem with a child seeing the f-word in an academic context. I do. Also, what about a child reading articles on military hardware for the fun of it? Many little boys would do that, and they shouldn't learn to use offensive language from it. (nobody should be using offensive language anyway, but that's a debate for another day.)

Why do you object to changing it to f***? I don't think that's censoring it, and anyone who knows the f-word will know what it means, but it makes it less offensive for those who don't want to see it, and keeps children who don't know the word from learning it. If parents don't mind their children seeing it, then their children will have undoubtedly have heard them say it enough that they will know what it means. - Unsigned

Wikipedia is

WP:NOT sanitized for children, and Big Ugly Fat Fucker is the meaning of the acronym. I appreciate your views on this, but community consensus seems pretty clear on this specific issue. - CHAIRBOY (☎

) 17:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As a former BUFF crewdog, I can also attest that the acronym wasn't sanitized from "Fucker" to "Fellow". Why people want to sanitize the name of a machine designed to kill people numbering in the millions is totally beyond me. Choirboys weren't flying the planes. Jongleur 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From

Wikipedia:Profanity

, In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols.

I removed your edit from the F-4 article for the same reasons. This is an integral part of these aircrafts' culture -- it's not all Red Baron gallantry. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like reasonable people should be able to compromise on this, since the term (sanitized or not) isn't really crucial to understanding the nature or details of the aircraft itself. Maybe a warning somewhere about language that might offend? Another point to note is that all this "I was IN the air force, and I know..." is a bit disingenuous. Yes, the BUFF acronymn was always commonplace, but as someone who read plenty of USAF publicatons ranging from Airman to tech pubs (mostly out of desperation), I don't recall seeing even ONE instance of the F-word being used in print in articles about the 52.

Again, no denying that BUFF is the most common way to refer to the plane, but let's be honest, it's not as if the front gate of the Base had a sign that read "Home of the Big Ugly Fat Fucker!" To the extent that the acroymn was therefore a sort of inside joke, making a big deal about it on the main page of this article threatens to have the same effect that making a big deal about a secret fraternity handshake has on those not honored enough to have been in the fraternity: it could alienate and annoy, rather than inform. C d h 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read

WP:NOTCENSORED — BQZip01 — ^talk

16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As for none in publication, my father (who flew on BUFFs) has written two and a third is in the works...and yes, it was included. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the background section, it says that "Two B-52 prototypes were built, and were designated XB-52 and YB-52. In actuality, both aircraft were almost identical, but the YB-52 incorporated enough changes to warrant a different designation." Though I know nothing about the YB-52 and XB-52, I don't see how the two aircraft can be nearly identical if they are significantly different to have different designations. Is the similarity mainly cosmetic? —The preceding

Both the XB-52 and the YB-52 featured the tandem cockpit seating. What led to the YB-52 is according to Knaack's bomber encyclopedia a request from Boeing mid-1949 to fit out the second XB-52 (49-231) with additional tactical equipment to use it as production prototype. The USAF agreed and the second XB-52 was subsequently redesignated YB-52 in June 1951. The side-by-side cockpit then was introduced with the B-52A. --80.137.51.154 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For more information on just about any US military aircraft tail number and what happened to it, check out this site: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html

I found the tail numbers for the Blackhawks that crashed in Somalia and the B-52H that crashed at Fairchild AFB in 1994 at that site. -LedHed, 18 November 2005

In the Background section of the article, it states: "The J57 engines were still new and unreliable. Alternator failure caused the first fatal B-52 crash in February 1956, which resulted in a brief grounding of the fleet. B-52s were grounded again in July because of fuel and hydraulic system problems. "

I wonder if there's a reliable source for the claim regarding the alternator failure. Never seen a USAF plane that had an alternator, and even if the author meant "generator," there was one per each of the 8 j-57s, so it's hard to see how that alone would have been ruled the cause of the crash. Maybe it's correct, but it's an odd fact if so. C d h 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The XB-52 and YB-52's cockpits were changed to the current side-by-side pilot seating arrangement after Curtis LeMay visited Vickers and flew in a Vickers Valiant piloted by Vickers' test pilot Brian Trubshaw. The flight convinced LeMay that the XB-52 and YB-52s tandem seating arrangement was unacceptable and he then made the requirement for the change to side-by-side seating in the B-52A. It's mentioned in Trubshaw's autobiography; Brian Trubshaw: Test Pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.10 (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says, SAC ordered the B-52s to make a steep turn after dropping the bombs ... the turn made the B-52s face into a 100-mph headwind, which slowed their escape. Can somebody explain what that is all about? Where's this 100-mph headwind coming from? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More generally, this new section is interesting, but it may be too detailed for an overview of the B-52 given the level of depth in the rest of the article. It also seems less than neutral. Maybe it should be shifted into a specific article about the raids. --Robert Merkel 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, the material below has been removed from the article, on the basis that it is too detailed (and belongs in an article on the Linebacker II raids rather than an overview of the B-52), and it presents only one viewpoint. --Robert Merkel 05:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, SAC ordered B-52s to attack from highly predictable, precisely-timed, repetitive positions and altitudes. This eliminated the element of surprise. The NVA were able to aim their Soviet-built

SA-2 Guideline Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) by simple timing and azimuth

prediction. Further complicating the situation for the B-52s was the fact that SAC had used the same jamming (electronic countermeasures) techniques for years, thus enabling the NVA to develop counter-countermeasures.

The NVA were surprised at first, but after a few nights of these repetitive tactics, they figured it out. The NVA blasted several B-52s with direct hits. Two were damaged severely and crashed near U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Base. The situation would have been even worse for the B-52s if not for the inaccuracy of the SA-2 system and the inexperience and errors of its NVA operators.

SAC refused to change its tactics even when shown that the existing tactics were ineffective and highly dangerous to the aircraft and crews. In part, this was due to indecision on the part of SAC's commander. Also, because of a "top-down" culture which had been originally established for

General Curtis LeMay

, SAC refused to listen to the suggestions of its aircrews. The LeMay culture had discouraged open and frank discussion to the point that only "yes men" made it to the top of the SAC organization where, potentially, they might have been able to prod the SAC commander into a change of tactics.

SAC commanders did their best to suppress revelations about their incompetence, even going so far as to suggest that their one of their critics was mentally unstable. SAC has rewritten history in its official account of Linebacker II. This semi-fiction is still taught at the U.S. Air Force's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

Does anybody know what the demonstrated x-wind is for a BUFF? I'm not quite sure I believe the statement, The ability to crab enables the BUFF to land in conditions which would force other aircraft to go somewhere else. It was my understanding that the gear works this way because the wings are so long that if you landed in a slip, you'd scrape the upwind wingtip on the ground. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Dash-1, the maximum crab is 20 degrees either way. For navigational purposes, crab is calculated as a function of airspeed, navigators often use rules of thumb for the calculations. At 150 knots (fairly close to the recommended landing speed of a B-52) crab is a given at 2.5 knots/degree. 20 degrees of crab gives you a crosswind of 50 knots. Higher landing speeds can compensate for greater crosswind speeds, up to the designated limits of the aircraft. Obviously, with this capability, slip isn't much of a requirement in landing. Jongleur 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed (diff) this, on grounds that it is irrelevant:

Many fewer would have been shot down if not for poor planning and inflexibility by the mission planners of the USAF's

Missiles (SAMs) by simple timing and azimuth

prediction. Further complicating the situation for the B-52s was the fact that SAC had used the same jamming (electronic countermeasures) techniques for years, thus enabling the NVA to develop counter-countermeasures.

The NVA were surprised at first, but after a few nights of these repetitive tactics, they figured it out. The NVA blasted several B-52s with direct hits. Two were damaged severely and crashed near U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Base. The situation would have been even worse for the B-52s if not for the inaccuracy of the SA-2 system and the inexperience and errors of its NVA operators.

SAC refused to change its tactics even when shown that the existing tactics were ineffective and highly dangerous to the aircraft and crews. In part, this was due to indecision on the part of SAC's commander. Also, because of a "top-down" culture which had been originally established for nuclear war by

General Curtis LeMay

, SAC refused to listen to the suggestions of its aircrews. The LeMay culture had discouraged open and frank discussion to the point that only "yes men" made it to the top of the SAC organization where, potentially, they might have been able to prod the SAC commander into a change of tactics.

SAC commanders did their best to suppress revelations about their incompetence, even going so far as to suggest that their one of their critics was mentally unstable. SAC has rewritten history in its official account of Linebacker II. This semi-fiction is still taught at the USAF's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

And this:

Humiliated, the Soviet Union once again (see Cuban Missile Crisis above) backed down.

---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• It may be a relevant historical note on the use of the B-52 under two conditions. 1) It needs to be written in formal non-POV English. 2) It needs to have references. Otherwise, there is a lot of strong and very POV claims being made with no cited evidence. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 09:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. (And BTW, this isn't the first time this material is being removed--see the '100-mph headwind' section above.) ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this picture from Google maps show chopped up B52s (as described in the article...part of some disarmament treaty)? Link I'm no expert, I just looked up the base on Google to see if any of the planes were still there.

Yup, it certainly does. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats from the Boneyard at Davis-Mothan AFB, that base probably has the world's largest collection of aircraft, only 98% of them are waiting to be cut up and recycled. --Paladin 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From The START1 Conversion protocols: 7. Upon completion of the elimination process for a heavy bomber or former heavy bomber, the remains of its airframe shall remain visible to national technical means of verification at the elimination site for a 90-day period, after which they may be removed. In the case of an inspection conducted to confirm that the elimination of a heavy bomber or former heavy bomber has been completed, the remains of its airframe may be removed after the completion of such an inspection. Jongleur 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The section about Alert Duty should contain a description of the B-52 crash at Thule Air Force Base i 1968. The bomber was carrying H-bombs and the crash resulted in nuclear contamination of the area around Thule.

This article is 34 kb long and has only two references and no in-line citations. A thorough referencing job is badly needed. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed:

"Many fewer would have been shot down if not for poor planning and inflexibility by the mission planners of Strategic Air Command. Specifically, SAC ordered B-52s to attack from highly predictable, precisely-timed, repetitive positions and altitudes. This eliminated the element of surprise. The NVA were able to aim their Soviet-built

SAC ordered the B-52s to make a steep turn after dropping the bombs. This resulted in an interruption in the electronic jamming of NVA radars because the B-52s' jamming antennas, which were located on the bottom of the aircraft, were then pointed away from the radars. To make matters worse, the turn made the B-52s face into a 100-mph headwind, which slowed their escape. The NVA were surprised at first, but after a few nights of these repetitive tactics, they figured it out. The NVA blasted several B-52s with direct hits. Two were damaged severely and crashed near U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base. The situation would have been even worse for the B-52s if not for the inaccuracy of the SA-2 system and the inexperience and errors of its NVA operators.

SAC refused to change its tactics even when shown that the existing tactics were ineffective and highly dangerous to the aircraft and crews. In part, this was due to indecision on the part of SAC's commander. Also, because of a "top-down" culture which had been originally established for nuclear war by General LeMay refused to listen to the suggestions of its aircrews. The LeMay culture had discouraged open and frank discussion to the point that only "yes men" made it to the top of the SAC organization where, potentially, they might have been able to prod the SAC commander into a change of tactics. (Surprisingly, NVA records and interviews with former SAM operators show exactly the opposite culture. Realistic discussion and innovation were encouraged among the batteries' commanders.)

Ironically, although the NVA had run out of missiles by Day Four of the campaign, and the B-52s could have bombed an undefended Hanoi, SAC was so rattled by its losses that it directed the B-52s to targets outside Hanoi, thus giving the NVA time to reload. After that, B-52 losses mounted again.

SAC commanders did their best to suppress revelations about their incompetence, even going so far as to suggest that one of their critics was mentally unstable. SAC has rewritten history in its official account of Linebacker II. This semi-fiction is still taught at the USAF's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama."

It lacks NPOV or sources. --Jackhamm 02:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This material has been repeatedly removed, by me on the first occasion. It seems to have come from

WP:NPOV or citing sources. --Robert Merkel

04:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite the source then. Regardless, the material needs to be significantly rewritten before it can belong on Wikipedia. The emphasis should be on presenting only the facts and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. Hard figures are far more encyclopedic and credible than broad statements about SAC incompetence. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I accept your criticism of the style. However, I again state that I did cite the source, and there are hard figures presented, such as the inflexibility of SAC's tactics (something I personally observed, although much later and during Cold War, not a shooting war). For some things, there is no way to say it other than to say it. I will do the best I can to rewrite. I look forward to any help you can give me. Look for my next revision. Thanks. McFresh out.

McFresh, thank you for your contributions. Let me just say how nice it is to have former crew members contributing to articles on aircraft.

The reasons why a number of us have found your contribution problematic are threefold: Firstly, we thought the sourcing was limited; I think you've resolved this to some extent. The second problem is that your contribution is presenting one view as fact. Clearly, others have a different perspective on the raids: even if it is "semi-fiction" a neutral contribution should definitely present the "official" view, as best as can be determined from published accounts. And it's not sufficient to simply add the views that you agree with (whatever their merits) and leave others to fill in alternative perspectives. You need to

write for the enemy

, so to speak. You don't have to agree with them, just present what they claim fairly. You have the resources and expertise to be able to do so better than we can.

Finally, it seems to me that so much detail on one specific raid in the context of an aircraft that has seved the USAF for over half a century in a large number of conflicts unbalances the article. I would think it more appropriate to discuss the raid in question in this level of detail with a specific article on that raid (or bombing campaign), with a briefer summary and link to the specific article here. -Robert Merkel 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I usually don't contribute much to this kind of discussion, but I think I should here. My father was a B-52 pilot, and further, not just a B-52 pilot but one who served with the Combat Evaluation Group of the 2nd Air Force (now 8th Air Force) and eventually became the commanders of the 1st CEG. The ex-BUFF pilots will know what I'm talking about. It meant their careers were in my father's hands, since he was responsible for the combat evaluations of all B-52 pilots in the Air Force, while he held that position. In short, not only was he a B-52 pilot, he was one of the best of the breed.

As far as myself, I think I mention a PhD in Biochemistry and my personal page mentions about 100 articles to this Wiki in which I have contributed. You can determine the quality of my articles by my past record.

My father just discussed this very mission with me. I fully understand that what he told me is anecdotal. But his recollection of this mission was that the flight plans were being managed by SAC headquarters, and therefore the wing DOs had little day-to-day input into the actual flight plans. What he further said to me was, "You'll never read this in any history books, but after a certain point, 45 B-52 pilots refused to go on any further missions because they regarded the flight plans as flawed." According to him after their complaints the flight plans were modified and pilots were allowed to come in at different altitudes and different headings and fly like pilots, as opposed to sitting ducks one after the other.

I can understand not wanting to get caught in the politics of war, but the full story of Linebacker II has yet to be told. The Wiki is dealing with angry, frustrated men who will at times need to let off steam. It's not going to be 100% NPOV because people died in Linebacker. And in the eyes of many pilots, it's because the whole operation was being micromanaged out of SAC HQ.

Now caveat: my father was not on any of the Linebacker missions. But his best friends were. If you need names, I'll be happy to supply them. I also know that my father spoke of a book on the Linebacker missions, which he says is for the most part, accurate. I'll be tracking down that reference in a couple days. Dwmyers 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, obviously I support a full and frank retelling of the events of the Linebacker II raids. But:

• The place to do so at length is in the article Operation Linebacker II, which should be briefly summarised here.
• If there are stories which have not been told in a reliable source (books, official reports, etc) Wikipedia can't be used as a primary source.
• If there are differing views of the raids, those views deserve an airing, so the "official" USAF view, if known, should be reported even though it may be distasteful to the men who flew the missions.

If there is a significant untold story out there, I would love to see it told. Is there some kind of assocation of pilots who flew the B-52 in Vietnam? If so, maybe they could try and interest military historians in the topic, organise some oral history interviews with the pilots and the like. --Robert Merkel 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph from the Trivia, since it is discussed in detail in Alert Duty section, and contained some inaccuracies as well:

At the time of Dr. Strangelove and for some time in the 1960s the Strategic Air Command (SAC) did fly airborne alert (Chrome Dome) with weapons on board awaiting the "Go Code". B-52s were positioned in the air 24/7 to immediately respond to the

air refueling). MiShogun

09:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I recall seeing an artists' rendering of a "Guppy" super cargo version of the B-52 sorta like the Aero Spacelines Super Guppy. Was I dreaming or was this real? The Matt Feldman Experience! 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm%7Caccessdate=2006-04-22
  • In
    A-6 Intruder
    on Sat Jun 3 22:43:46 2006, 404 Not found
  • In
    A-6 Intruder
    on Tue Jun 6 23:30:02 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
  • In
    B-24 Liberator
    on Tue Jun 13 22:52:48 2006, 404 Not found

Does anyone think its worth saying that the military channel named the BUFF their top bomber due to its innovation, payload, service length, etc? Nweinthal 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)NWeinthal

Under Trivia it was requested that a reference be provided for "It is predicted that in 2045, the Air Force will begin a partial phase-out of the B-52, after 93 years of service." Current Air Force policy has the B-52 fleet flying until at least 2040. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm I'll add this to the references list. 84.166.173.214 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose one of the pilots who contributes to this page could add a paragraph discussing the crew compliment of a B-52? Pilots, co-pilots, navigators, number of positions, minimum needed to fly, maximum compliment, and their relations to eachother? Seems relevant, but I don't know enough about it. MArcane 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't crew for this aircraft but a mechanic. One of the systems I delt with was the oxygen systems. On board there were 10 oxygen regulators, which means the aircraft could hold 10 people total. Pilot & copilot + the instructor, Nav & R Nav + their instructor (seated on what's called the shitter), EW & gunner (gunner station is no longer used but can still seat someone)+ their instructor, and the bunk. Hope this helps!

1. 43 kb and 8 citations. I have marked the article for many more where they are needed.
2. The "Trivia" section is longer than design, development, Vietnam, and Cold War combined.
3. The article layout in no way conforms to the standards set by community consensus at
   WP:Air
   .

I will work on expanding the important sections (that is, not Trivia), but what suggestions do you guys have for the Trivia? As I see it, the options are: a) integrate into text; b) cut down significantly or remove altogether per

Is there any way to incorporate this information in Wiki format as Anecdotal? Much of the information is verifiable by other members of the B-52 community, but for reasons of security or "other", there are no verifiable on-line or print sources for this information. I know that outside of the Wiki community, there are Oral History projects that are attempts to incorporate this sort of information, information that will almost ineveitably be lost when the people who experienced the events pass on. It would seem like this would fall in the same category. Jongleur 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be good for

F-105 Thunderchief page for an example). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and verifiability is paramount. - Emt147 ^Burninate!

01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a better way to satisfy both readablity and noting what needs to be verified. Donovan Ravenhull 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put inline notation in place of the {{

fact}} tags, such as <!-- fact --> in a commented fashion, since it's primarily for editorial purposes. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk)

21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your options are: a) Do it now or b) Have someone do it to you when you apply for A-class or FA status. I tag based on my experience pushing articles through both reviews with the idea that something that looks "fine" or "obvious" to you isn't. Meanwhile, your logic appears to be "let's remove the Fact tags because they make the article look bad."

More importantly, the cumbersome tags are easily converted into neat small numbers by adding the needed references. Why not address the needed citations instead of complaining?

And if I sound irritated, it's because your ONLY contribution to this article was complaining about all the Fact tags. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware there was a 'number of edits' requirement to make a formatting issue. I was not trying to step on your, or anybody elses, toes, but trying to make this article more readable while following the

Be Bold

guideline.

As for the subject at hand, the majority of visitors to a given page are reading it for information and as such, are not dedicated editors. I visisted this page out of a general desire to learn a bit more about the BUFF, but had trouble with ^{[citation needed]} being nearly every other line in sections. It was to the point that I nearly stopped reading it.

I am not a B-52 afficando who knows were to cite the various items on the page. If I was, I would be wading in here to work with you and the others. As it is, I am a casual editor to Wikipedia who simply wants to see it more accessable to the casual reader.

Thank you for your time. Donovan Ravenhull 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the use of {{

fact}} can be obtrusive at times. However, we do have a need to track changes. Perhaps we should use a compact form such as {{?}} or some other symbol that would be less ugly but whose meaning would still be obvious to editors. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk)

18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my decision to simply wipe all the {{

verify}} might have been rash, but lets find a happy medium. Donovan Ravenhull

20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the sources you cite for wiki articles. However it is a huge leap to go from what is in there to destroying and article with #60 tags and then threatening another editor with bad faith editing after doing so. Emt147 you have mangled several articles and LEFT THEM THAT WAY. After having spent a day and a half footnoting and removing ^[citation needed] tags from the F-86 article and 3 days on the T-34 I assure you that I contribute to the wiki effort. I agree there is slop in some of it. I agree we can use more footnoting. What I don't agree to is the 5 minute edit leaving an article completely unreadable. It is a disservice to our readers it is a disgrace to put out such a poor product to our consumers. I find it disgusting that we allow someone to mangle an article and walk away with it as "a job well done". The F-86 article looks like it spent 20 to 40 days like that... what excuse is there for doing that??? That isn't a service to our readers at all! I'd like to think customer service isn't dead even in a voluteer effort but that is what this argument is. I actually saw a ^{[citation needed]} on a statement about sloping armor in a tank article! That isn't facts to be verified its physics for God's sake! I'll read the sections again but frankly I think some of you own the entire community an appology. I'd ask that you not threaten any more editors as well please. If you want to block me feel free. Tirronan 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and features have been moved to the

Done and done. Before someone objects, look how long the article is already (and this is without expanded Cold War and modifications sections!). I think referenced information about B-52 the airplane outweighs unreferenced speculation about B-52 the haircut. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Object? Hardly...what you've done is great. Akradecki 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have done it my self, but I wasn't sure if you left it there on purpose, or if it was an oversight. Thanks~ -

BillCJ

I think this is a good idea, to move all of the cruft to a separate page. I did something similar a while back, moving all of the trivia cruft associated with

WP:AVTRIV, I just wanted to get the trivia garbage out of the article, which you have also done. Thanks. --rogerd

17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

where did the trivia go? The Trivia page redirects to the main page where there is no trivia. If There was a place for trivia i would add my favorite personal observation from Incirlik AFB in Turkey: The wings of a fully fulled Buff take off before the body. The go from wingtip landing gear support to slightly arched upward. Saltysailor (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely rewrote much of the article (tired, might not get to B-52G and H until tomorrow).

• I do not have much information on post-Vietnam and Cold War operations, so help there would be appreciated (please
  cite your sources
  when you add material).
• Trivia and Features have been moved to a separate page because they doubled the size of this (already quite lengthy) page and frankly ruined the quality by virtue of being uncited and poorly written.
• The images are a total clusterf*ck now, and some are oddly sized because people insist on removing sizing tags from non-thumb images. Again, if someone could nicefy or make a gallery at the bottom, that would be swell.
• Btw, I'm by no means claiming to be a shining example of writing, but when I say "needs more on development" in my assessments, this is the type of expansion I have in mind (yes, I know, it's not always doable). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you remove the {{fact}} tags, read

You were well aware of the citation source. Instead of adding it, or at the least adding a cite tag to the current version, you chose to revert the page to a less perfect version, a version with the incorrect year, and with a more ambiguous link to the USAF B-52 page in external links. Use a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Unthinking revert wars are disruptive editing. Next time, when you have the information required to fix something, fix it, don't make things worse by reverting to an edit that contradicts the information in known citation source. Or just don't show up. - MSTCrow 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know that the change you make in one edit is connected to a reference you make in another? Why not do it right and put the citation in the first time around? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following text. It's anecdotal, poorly written, and lacks citations. The material would be better suited for the Linebacker II article or a separate "B-52 in Vietnam" article. It's too much text for the main B-52 page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Stratofortress had been bombing communist targets for eight years and had lost 13 B-52s during that time, all due to operational causes. In November 1972 two battle-damaged B-52s made it back safely to their Thailand base, but on 22 November 1972 a Stratofortress from the 96th Bombardment Squadron was hit by shrapnel from an exploding surface to air missile (SAM), just seconds after releasing his bombs, causing fire in the fuselage which spread towards the wings. The pilot, Capt. Norbert Ostrozny, attempted to maintain a high enough altitude to reach the Thailand border in an attempt to make an emergency landing. When Capt. Ostrozny safely crossed the border, his burning bomber's engine quit, his starboard wing tip tore off and he ordered his crew to bail out. All six crewmen survived. On 18-19 December 1972 the first night of President Nixon's Linebacker II campaign, 129 B-52s attacked North Vietnam in three waves. With approximately four hours between waves, and ten minutes between the 3 plane cells, the bombers struck the MiG-21 airfields, railway yards, radio stations and storage facilities. During this first attack of Linebacker II, SGT Samuel Turner became the first B-52 tail gunner in history to shoot down an attacking MiG-21 with his .50 caliber machine guns.^{[citation needed]}

Enemy SAM defenses shot down one B-52 from the 340th Bombardment Squadron in the first wave, a second B-52 from the 2nd Bombardment Wing flying in the second wave, and a third B-52 from the third wave belonging to the 99th Bombardment Squadron. On 20-21 December 1972 99 B-52s again attacked northern targets, this time the defenders fired approximately 220 surface to air missiles and MiG-21s joined the attack damaging one B-52 and doing double duty as FAC (Forward Air Control) by flying along the bombers and calling in adjustments to the anti-aircraft crews. Six B-52s went down during this strike. December 21-22, 1972, was the second phase of the campaign, and the 4th day; this time the B-52s struck the north with thirty B-52D models and the more vulnerable B-52G models hit enemy missile sites in South Vietnam, with thirty bombers. The B-52s attacking the north came under the usual SAM assault although this time one of the bombers piloted by Capt. Peter Girouix (96th Bombardment Wing) dropped out of formation just seconds before his bomb run, due to a technical failure, becoming separated from his bomber formation the tail gunner immediately radioed his pilot that a MiG was on their tail, Capt. Girouix took evasive action, the tail gunner opened fire, the MiG fired two air to air missiles; then the MiG turned away as they had now flown over another SAM site, two of which were fired. One of the missiles struck the aircraft, three of the crewman were lost, and three became POW's — Capt. Giroux, Capt. Camerota, and the tail gunner MSGT LeBlanc. Two B-52s had been lost during this strike. December 26-27, 1972, the final phase of the bombing campaign, resumed with 120 B-52s flying in 10 waves. It was estimated that 72 of the bombers would strike the northern capital at the same time, so precision bombardment was a priority. Two B-52s, one from the 449th Bombardment Wing, and one from the 22nd Bombardment Wing, were lost to SAMs during this strike. On 27-28 December 1972, the 9th day of the campaign, sixty B-52s struck the north, losing two more bombers, one each from the 28th Bombardment Wing and 7th Bombardment Wing.^{[citation needed]}

The last B-52s shot down in the war occurred on 3-4 January 1973 when a SAM struck a bomber from the 307th Stratigic Wing, there were three survivors from that aircraft; the second B-52, also from the 307th SW, was heavily damaged and returning from an Arc Light raid in the north, and made an emergency landing in South Vietnam, were it was written off as damaged beyond repair; all six crewmen survived.^{[citation needed]}

My edit was reverted as trivia. This is not trivia. As a former BUFF sheet-metal mechanic, I can tell you that half the maintainers didn't know what a "Stratofortress" was. They were all BUFF's, always had been, always would be. I believe this transcends trivia as it is, indeed, a way of life. I'll cite the article on the

I pulled it again. Please provide a credible reference before adding contents to this article. Also, this factoid is not so notable as to be in the second sentence. We all appreciate your service and your personal biases towards the aircraft, but let's keep it

neutral shall we? - Emt147 ^Burninate!

23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment the "not censored for minors" bullshit, there is no good place for the BUFF nickname in the article right now. I tucked the "F" word pretty far down on the F-4 page and was pretty much able to avoid bowdlerizing and edit wars there, but B-52 does not have that same multitude of names. The BUFF probably does belong, as a sentence at the end of operational history, perhaps. But as long as Wikipedia remains the total clusterf* that it is, putting it into the intro paragraph will attract nothing but trouble. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• His version was a mess, I don't argue with that, and I'm not for it. Also, I understand your point on it not being in the Intro. THanks for the clarification on it all. -
  BillCJ
  00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This sorta harkens to the recent discussion on the

SR-71 Blackbird page. There, the two prominent nicknames are in the lead paragraph. I grew up in a B-52 town, and they were always BUFFs, and same goes over at EDW. I can try to find some refs (shouldn't be too hard), but maybe, as a project, we need to decide a consistent way (and place in the article) to handle the prevalent nicknames. Akradecki

00:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I put it in as the last sentence of the Design/Development section (the operational history is too chronologically broken up to fit it in). I think in general it's okay for one or two common nicknames to be in the last sentence of the lead section (see F-100), and BUFF would've been fine where the guy put it except for the inevitable edit war that would start because of the expletive. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! -

BillCJ

00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fat and Flying?

The following is copied from talk:Buff#BUFF ~ B52-H Nickname, since it is probably more important here; please respond below the box, instead of at its original location.
--Jerzy•t 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The text for the B-52G mentions a 12,000 gallon tank for the water injection system. This site http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b52_15.html mentions a 1,200 gallon tank. 12,000 also seems a lot compared to the about 49,000 gallons fuel. A typo ?

And apparently it was removed in the B-52H. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b52_17.html

Martin Heidemann —The preceding

I believe that the 12,000 gallon figure for the B-52G is correct. The plane was redesigned with each model, the water-injection system was frequently changed due to problems with various components, as well as rethinking of basic aircraft design. The J-57 engines on the models up through the "G" variant needed the extra boost that water-injection supplied, especially in warmer weather. The TF-33 turbofans gave the "H" variant so much more thrust that water-injection was no longer needed and thus was not included for the "H" model. Globalsecurity.org discusses each of the variants and the changes made at each stage, and supports the 12,000 gallon capacity of the "G" model at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52g.htm . Unfortunately, I only have the Dash-1 for the "H" model, I didn't save the copies I had for the "F" or "D" Jongleur 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, 12,000 gallons of water weighs 96,000 pounds. It's either 1,200 gallons, 1,200 pounds, or 12,000 pounds. A KC-135A carried 670 gallons with half the engines so it's logical to conclude that 1,200 gallons is the correct figure.--Asams10 05:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All B-52s prior to the H-model had 4 50.cal. guns in the turret. This was changed to the a variant of the M61 for the B-52H. Given that the specs are for the -H only, the M61 is correct. -

But that would require actually reading the article and noting the variant described. Much easier to just edit in something you read about on the internets. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The

Is the second paragraph about replacing the B-47 truly accurate? They have a service entry date of only about 4 years apart, and then served concurrent for at least 11 years in the bomber role. The medium bomber role was then taken up by the B-58 Hustler, not the B-52, and the B-58 was in turn replaced by the FB-111, and ultimately the F-15E. --OuroborosCobra 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The B-47 was the first true all jet bomber the USAF had. Technology had not kept up with the USAF's aspirations for a Seversky Strategic Bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_de_Seversky). With massive funding the B52 gave the USAF a bomber of such advanced technology and capability that is in service today. The Hustler (much cooler looks) was never operationally practical as it had been designed for an H-bomb that was much bigger than the one deployed. So USAF went to the B47, not quite a strategic bomber, to the B-52, and the B58s were not in service long, because they weren't practice. The FB-111 was not a serious medium bomber, more of an overgrown attack plane. The F15 Strike Eagle is tactical attack plane. The XB70 and B1 were unsuccessful attempts to replace the B52. The only USAF plane that can replace the b52 is the Northrop B2. Saltysailor (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC) my opinions based on those who flew them and designed them.

The B2 is too expensive to replace the B52 and it never has or will replace it.It compliments it but that's about it.

FB-111 is a "serious" medium bomber,the thing is that engine design and power improved greatly between the B-47 and the FB-111,that it more than filled it's intended role.The F-15E was more or less the replacement of that,considering that the role of "medium bomber" has no meaning anymore as the modern strike planes can carry those bomb loads. --213.118.26.179 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing this article due to an admin making it suitable for a FA recommendation, I would like to rationalize some of the citations and references to a consistent and standard cataloging style. One of the alterations I will institute is a singular Modern Language Association (MLA) format for references and a Harvard Citation format for all cites. If there is any concerns about this step, please indicate here before I begin. FWIW [:¬∆ Bzuk 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

I say have at it... and more power to you. Binksternet 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please start by reading Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Asams10 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Read it, thanks. BTW, I have in passing, 33 years+ as a librarian, probably some of the cataloging stuff stuck. LOL {:¬} Bzuk 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC).

The large number of citations from Knaack need to be consolidated in some way, are they all necessary? FWIW Bzuk 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

When the article goes through the FAC process, if every little number and point is not referenced, someone will be sure to point it out. It does make this ref section a little long, but what can ya do. Other sources can replace some of the Knaack ones to make it look (and be) a little varied, but this list is still going to be long, me thinks. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Trevor, What I am seeing is a number of instances where the references can be combined, for example, two sentences cited from p. 310-312, rather three different passages individually cited as p. 310, p. 311, and so on. But a different reference source would proably work better as well. FWIW Bzuk 01:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

A chunk of text about the proposals to re-engine the B52 seems to have gone missing in recent updates, wether intentionally or notNigel Ish 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to close a ref tag, so it was still there, just hidden, now fixed. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a suggestion on the peer review of diving the long development section with 1 or 2 subheaders. I added one, but it's not very good ( thanks Bzuk ;) ), any suggestions? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How long runway does it need to land or take off? --Apoc2400 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no single answer to how long a runway a B-52 needs for landing or takeoff. Like all airplanes, the length needed is dependent on a lot of factors. Aircraft weight varies with fuel and weapons loads. Air temperature, air pressure vary. Most of the bases that B-52's operated out of had runways 10,000 feet or longer. A heavily laden B-52 might need all of the runway to takeoff. The two stateside bases currently used for B-52 operations are Minot AFB (13,197')and Barksdale AFB (11,756'). Anderson AFB on Guam has two runways (10,558' & 11,185'), Diego Garcia (12,003') and RAF Fairford (9,994') All of those bases have been recently used for combat or support operations. They'll occasionally fly in for airshows at installations with much shorter runways. Jongleur 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgot Moron AB, Spain at 11,800 ft. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asams10 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The B-52H in Minot opperate off a 15,000 ft. runway with the airport in the city used for emergencies only (10,000 ft.). I know any runway less than 12,000 ft. forced the B-52 to have serious weight restrictions imposed on it in order to land. More weight = more momentum = less stopping power.

I noticed the article made the claim that the B-52 has the longest range of any bomber without refuelling. I edited this to state that it had the longest range of any USAF bomber ... although I don't know if this is accurate as I don't know the ranges of the B-1 or B-2. However it is most certainly not the longest range bomber ... the Tu-160 has more then double its range without refuelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.231.92 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

the range of the B2 is classified, but due to its extreamly low drag and efficient modern engines it can go farther than a B52 Saltysailor (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there should be a comma after the date in the last paragraph, might want to consider moving the date to the end of the sentence. Just inserting the comma will make it seem that LeMay's direct interventions occurred on the date, although I do not believe that is how the sentence should be read with the comma in place. --Born2flie 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Other choices:

FWIW, "just playing with words," the first version is the more standard form. Bzuk 20:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

Would anyone want to edit on how the variants differ? How about from a visual standpoint? The aft most fuselage in the G and H are very much different from the earlier variants.

The only major difference between the B-52G&H modles vs. earlier models was the vertiacl stabalizer, having been cut from a nice triangle to a more conventional style. I never got a good explination as to why, though I suspect it was to reduce the crosswind yaw. The only other external difference I can think of is the H model (not sure if the G had them or not) has 2 teardrop shaped camera housings under the nose and 2 smaller teardrop domes on either side of the nose.

The vertical stabilizer was reduced in size to prevent problems during turbulence which were responsible for early turbulence-induced structural failures,. After altering the tail, they tested it in severe conditions. The result, even the modified tail snapped off of the airplane! (They were able to control the aircraft and bring it back for a landing, though). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The B-52 has appeared in many books and movies during its 50+ years of active service. Some of these include:

• Bombers B-52 a 1957 film starring Karl Malden, Natalie Wood and Nelson Leigh
• A Gathering of Eagles, a 1963 movie starring Rock Hudson
• Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb the 1964 Stanley Kubrick
  film
  • The B-52 bomber gained notoriety after
    B-29 Superfortress bomber. His guess was so accurate that his production company was later investigated by the Department of Defense. The flying model also shows the characteristic upswept wing tips of a flying plane. Major T. J. “King” Kong (played by actor Slim Pickens
    ) is famous as the pilot in a cowboy hat who rides the bomb down to its target.
• Santa Claus Conquers the Martians a 1964 low budget B-movie which makes use of stock footage featuring a B-52
• Trinity's Child a 1983 Novel which was later made into By Dawn's Early Light
• EB-52 Megafortress
  series.
• By Dawn's Early Light a 1990 HBO TV Movie adopted from Trinity's Child a novel by William Prochnau
• Stolen Thunder a 1993 novel by David Axton about the hijacking of a B-52 bomber

Since this list was part of the deleted B-52 Trivia page, keeping it here is appropriate.LanceBarber (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? The Dr Strangelove one is genuinely noteworthy and should be in the article. The rest is worthless. What are "upswept wing tips"? --John (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Partly agree with my friend John. I'd say all worthless except Dr. Strangelove and Bombers B-52, the latter not for its quality as a film but because there aren't that many movies around proclaiming a generic piece of military hardware as the hero - and it was a pretty significant piece of Cold War propaganda at the time. BTW, re. Dr Strangelove, if you want to be pedantic you could add that although the B52 model was clever, the plane's shadow on the ground clearly belonged to something else, a B17 by the look of it (but that's just my own observation, you'd want to find a citation). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As for upswepted wings... if one is flying behind a BUFF, you'd notice the wings are bent upwards. Since the length of wings are longer than the fuselage the weight and forces on the wings causes this physical condition of the wings. Also, the 52 has no ailerons and would not be functional in the curvature of the upswept wings. The 52 makes its turns and banks using spoilers and the rudder. LanceBarber (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know about the wings being bent upwards on a real B-52 in flight. Much as I love the film, the model sequences in Dr Strangelove were the film's least convincing feature. I didn't notice the wingtips feature in the film. And yes, the shadow of the camera plane shows up and it was a B-17 (I think). --John (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to The Military Channels documentary program Top Tens:Bombers The B-52 is expected to remain in active service as far as 2045. Meerkkat (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Meerkkat

The Military Channel and especially the program you quoted are HIGHLY unreliable sources. In fact, watching the shows, I have sat tallying the inaccuracies and got bored before the first commercial. It's not only pure crap, it's quite condescending. --Asams10 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen similar B-52 service length estimates of 2045 listed in Air Force Magazine which is put out by the

Air Force Association. Sf46 (talk

) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I share your scepticism about the use of The Military Channel as a reliable source. However, this link gives "beyond 2040", so Meerkat seems to be essentially right. Remember to remain

civil when discussing improvements to articles. Thanks, --John (talk

) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Who do I need to be civil to? The History Channel? --Asams10 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE. You could begin by apologising to him as it seems he was right and you were wrong. "Crap" is not good encyclopedic language here. --John (talk

) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John, lay off. I was CLEARLY directing my criticism towards the History Channel and warning the poster off of that program. You've been on my case since you didn't get your way on the whole 'flag icon' fiasco you stirred up. You're hardly reading my posts with any objectivity. Do I chase you around and respond to your posts? --Asams10 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis of my supposed motives for posting here is noted. I find it hilarious (and a little sad) that you think I would chase you around. As I said, I agree with your opinion on using the Military Channel as a reliable source, but as I said, it's better not to be rude to new posters here. A skim through

WP:BITE will clue you in, should you need clued in. --John (talk

) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

50000 feet is 15240 meters not 17000 meters. Changing to 15000 meters from 17000 since 15240 meters is a little bit too exact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.218.214.2 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Who changed back to 17000 meters? 17000 meters is 55774.2782 feet according to google. If there are two different sources for metric and feet, an explanation is needed.123.218.214.2 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold textI am trying to find out how many B52s have crashed for reasons other than being shot down or mid-air collisions. In other words, from mechanical failures.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmgdl917MAG1966-1972 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 July 2008

Please sign your request. Use four tildes to automatically provide a signature and date. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

This website list the history of each B-52 [3]. You will need to start at Fiscal Year 1949 and work through to the B-52Hs in Fiscal Year 1961. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cool if someone who has it could add the unique b-52 drone at the beginning of the article. It would make the article Multimedia and all that. 72.75.74.172 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the B52 sound that someone thought would be cool. http://www.therecordist.com/assets/sound/mp3/Jet_B52_Engines.mp3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmgdl917MAG1966-1972 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please put your comments to the bottom of the "string" so that they can be easily found, and don't forget to sign your submissions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

I came to this article with the question: "how big is a B52 in comparison to an A380 or a Boeing 747?" When looking for the length and wingspan I got bored and gave up.

A short section at the start with these numbers would be nice. 78.16.153.234 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not information that is difficult to find. The more important figures are Max Takeoff Weight and Payload. You're speaking about two different designs serving two different purposes. Not sure there's anything notable in a comparrison. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost all aircraft pages on Wikipedia have section called "Specifications". Usually this is about two-thirds way down the article. Those measurements are almost always listed there. On some articles such as those on airliners, the info is in a table, while on others it is in list form. The section does not compare other types of aircraft, so you'd have to get the info from each article. Hope that helps. -

talk

) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a little blurb about the B-52's fairly unique landing gear should appear under features - namely its ability to angle its gear in order to do a crab landing. I don't know very much about it other than it could do it, so I dunno if someone wants to write it up. -lommer 05:56, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

The C-5 can do that with its main gear. But you're right, the 52 does have a unique arrangement, especially with the wingtip wheels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C d h (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is called a tandem wheel arrangement. It is not entirely unique (see

U-2

). The B-52 is unique in that it can turn its landing gear up to 20 degrees into the wind. The reason for this is that they cannot crab into the wind like other aircraft in the landing phase...especially with full tanks (their wingtips would strike the ground before any main gear from a normal fuselage-mounted gear system)

If I am not mistaken, the C-5's system is more for steering while on the ground (the wheels turn in order to MAKE a turn), not for landing (The wheels turn in order to land in a straight line while facing off to the side). — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One reason for the landing gear arrangement is aerodynamic stowage of the main gear. It is amasing to watch them deploys they dont come out like normal gear. Saltysailor (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From [1.0 B-52 Evolution] v1.0.1 / 1 of 2 / 01 jul 03 / greg goebel / public domain:

The landing gear scheme was unusual and elaborate, and in fact was kept secret during development. The main landing gear was organized in four big twin-wheel trucks mounted in the fuselage. The trucks were arranged in pairs, fore and aft of the bombbay. Each truck in each pair opened under opposite sides of the fuselage, with the truck on the left retracting forward and that on the right retracting backward. The trucks rotated 90 degrees to lie flat in the fuselage when retracted. Each truck could be extended or retracted independently.

The trucks could be steered up to 20 degrees in either direction from the centerline, allowing the bomber to takeoff or land at an angle in a crosswind. The steerable landing gear also helped during landings if an outboard engine failed. Some sources claim, plausibly, that the forward trucks could be turned 55 degrees off the centerline for taxiing. A small, stalky outrigger landing gear was fitted in the outboard section of each wing to prevent the wingtips from dragging the ground. Each outrigger retracted sideways into the wing, towards the fuselage. The outriggers would in principle permit a safe landing if only one truck in each pair could be extended. If the wing tanks had been drained, the outrigger wheels would usually not touch the ground on a landing.

As with the B-47, the landing gear arrangement prevented the bomber from performing a nose-up rotation during takeoff. To deal with this issue, the B-47 had been designed to sit on the runway with a nose-up attitude. In contrast, the B-52's fuselage was kept level, while the wing was canted up six degrees instead. This meant that the machine could be climbing rapidly when the nose was still pointed down, an experience that probably felt something like riding in an elevator

See also undercarriage and undercarriage arrangements. Pasted by Pawyilee (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"To deal with this issue, the B-47 had been designed to sit on the runway with a nose-up attitude. In contrast, the B-52's fuselage was kept level, while the wing was canted up six degrees instead." This is untrue. The large flaps on the B-52 changed the relative angle of attach of the wing so that it could climb with the fuselage level with the ground. The wings, however, were fixed. At cruising speed with the flaps retracted, the fuselage is level. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The 6-degree cant was built in, not cranked in for take-off; though I'm not sure "cant" is the proper term--I think it's dihedral. BTW, did you mean to move this just this part of the discussion to the bottom of the page, or the whole topic? Whatever you intended, the topic's [edit] button doesn't work. Pawyilee (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not sure what it's talking about. Dihedral is not the word either as the B-52 is really flat-winged when it's under load, though there's significant anhedral when the plane has full tanks. The wings flex so much that it's kind of silly to state it has either anhedral or dihedral... just that the wings flex. Still, the that doesn't help the plane climb any better. Perhaps you speak of the angle of incidence?

Yes, except that I didn't know it until you told me. Thanks. Pawyilee (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, i've read the ref as suggested in the edit that changed 32 to 18 while changing the criterion from "in" to "during" VN. Neither version makes sense on its surface, and i'm too tired for another try at making either one line up with the source(s). It appears that either one detracts from the article at this point, so i'm moving the 'graph here.
Before the edit:

Thirty-one B-52s were lost in Vietnam,

After:

Eighteen B-52s were lost in combat during Vietnam,

Common ending:

<ref>Mac’s Facts no. 46 (B52 Combat Losses/Operational Losses in Vietnam). www.nampows.org. Retrieved:

16 October 2007

.</ref>

in the course of flying 126,615 combat sorties.

<ref>Dick and Patterson 2006, p. 165.</ref>

Of these, 18 were shot down or damaged beyond repair by ground fire (including surface-to-air missiles). Two B-52Fs were lost in a midair collision during the first Arc Light mission. Seven B-52Gs were lost during Linebacker II, six to SAMs and one to structural failure.

<ref name="knaack"/>

and the knaack ref is to

Knaack, Marcelle Size. Post-World War II Bombers, 1945-1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1988.

ISBN 0-16-002260-6. Post-World War II Bombers, 1945-1973 (PDF)

.

--Jerzy•t 08:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• There were 18 "Combat Losses" of B-52's accounted for during the Vietnam War. That's short, sweet, and to the point. How is there any misinterpretation going on here? Where's the lack of clarity? We lost B-52's on a regular basis before, during, and after the war for non-combat related reasons, so the war was irrelevant to this statistic. We're talking a combat record here. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, N4T; glad not to have to sort this out alone, and hopefully the "misinterpretation" you're asking about is just me misinterpreting what you've written, perhaps because you know what you're talking about, and many of our readers, like me, don't, and need more help than would be obvious to you, in making sense of it. Perhaps the most important clarification i can ask you for is the two 18s: are they the same 18 planes, or is that just a coincidence that's confusing me? Tho i couldn't make much sense out of

Thirty-one B-52s were lost in Vietnam ... Of these, 18 were shot down or ...

but

Eighteen B-52s were lost in combat during Vietnam ... Of these, 18 were shot down or ...

sounds like something no one would bother reiterating.
In fact, it finally occurs to me that an unclear antecedent may be a crucial element of my confusion: does "these" (in "Of these, 18...") refer to the 126K sorties? I think of aircraft as things that can be lost, but sorties as events, of which i would say something closer to

Thus 18 of 126K sorties resulted in loss of the corresponding aircraft.

If all we need here is to polish the wording, that's good news!
I'm also going to look back in the edit history, and see what evidence there is of where that "31" figure came from; altho it is possible that an editor failed to read an existing reference, hopefully they didn't just pull that number out of their back pocket, and it's likely to be worth figuring out what they were talking about, since your sense is that they obviously couldn't be accurately talking about what you expected them to be talking about. And any guesses you can make, on 2nd or 3rd thot, could well be more valuable that what i'll be to turn up.
'Preciate your speaking up.
--Jerzy•t 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, could it be that 31 = 18 losses due to enemy action + 13 due to the same sorts of mishaps that destroy aircraft during flights and taxis for training, maintenance-related, and Cold-War "strategic standing alert" (my groping for the correct term)?
  --Jerzy•t 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  

1. The two tables (costs and production numbers) should be in the same format and layout. Do people have a preference which?
2. The three-view in the specs section is of an earlier B-52 model while the specs are for the H model. Until we can find a B-52H 3-view, I propose we remove the drawing altogether. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)