Help support TMP

"B-52s Just Keep On Flying" Topic

10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest


590 hits since 12 Feb 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian12 Feb 2018 7:06 p.m. PST

The Air Force on Monday revealed its long-range plan to eventually jettison its supersonic B-1 and stealthy B-2 bombers earlier than planned while keeping the venerable B-52, an aging Cold War workhorse that first flew in 1954 and was last built in 1962, flying into the 2050s…


zoneofcontrol Inactive Member12 Feb 2018 9:05 p.m. PST

I saw this article earlier today. It is really amazing that they just keep on going. I wonder if anyone tracks the generations of airmen who fly and service these beasts. It would be neat to see if and how many generations of a given family served these aircraft.

Uparmored12 Feb 2018 11:48 p.m. PST

M2 Browning .50 cal basic design is about 100 years old isn't it? When something works, it works.

Caedite Eos Inactive Member13 Feb 2018 6:01 a.m. PST

I wonder how much Boeing would charge to spool up a new production line and make them again like the Reds are doing with Tu160s. It'd probably bankrupt us.

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 7:12 a.m. PST

Given the BUFF's ability as a stand-off launch platform
for nuke-tipped missiles, kind of makes sense, although
the newer aircraft can perform in the same role, I believe.

Perhaps the BUFF fleet is cheaper to maintain and operate ?

Of course the BUFF's can also deliver a shed load of
guided JDAMs, too. The lift capacity of the '52 is

zoneofcontrol Inactive Member13 Feb 2018 11:43 a.m. PST

I was reading some of the comments that follow the attached article. One former '52 pilot said they used to joke about the '52 doing a ceremonial flyover when the B-1 and B-2 are retired and sent to the boneyard.

That could very well happen.

Cacique Caribe Inactive Member13 Feb 2018 11:58 a.m. PST

LOL. Maybe we should be making more 52s.


doug redshirt Inactive Member13 Feb 2018 12:30 p.m. PST

They actually got the cost of the B1 below the B 52 in recent years in cost per hour flown. If they are retiring the B1 and B 2 it is only to try and convince congress to buy that new bomber they want.

The nice thing about the continuing increase in the cost of aircraft, is that soon we will only need one airbase for all 3 aircraft we will own.

Caedite Eos Inactive Member14 Feb 2018 4:35 a.m. PST

We won't even need an airbase we'll have so few there will never be any at readiness.

I wonder if the B2's stealth is effective enough against Vlad's new radar and missles to justify the cost of operation. If you can be seen anyway you might as well fly the Buff.

Lion in the Stars15 Feb 2018 8:20 p.m. PST

If you can be seen anyway you might as well fly the Buff.

Or the Bone. Either one carries significantly more bombload than the B2. Bone carries 50% more bombload internally, and another 100% if we toss the treaty agreeing to not put bombs on the external pylons. (75klbs internally and 50klbs externally for the Bone, ~50klbs internally for the B2)

I think that the B2 is still stealthy enough against any air-based radars (like missile seeker heads), but a command-guided missile controlled from the ground is probably a threat.

But the B21 is a direct replacement for the B2.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.