Other Aircraft: "The B-52 is obsolete." The B-52: "I will be the flyover aircraft for your retirement ceremony."

@deusvult6920

Жыл бұрын

It will be at the post nuclear war flyover ceremony of not dying

@SHVRWK

Жыл бұрын

@@deusvult6920 Cringe username aside, there will be no nuclear war as every nuclear power in the world has responsible nuclear weapons policy.

@combatengineer8575

Жыл бұрын

My "best comment of the day" award goes to you sir, congrats!

@ricardokowalski1579

Жыл бұрын

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

@sd906238

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Jabberstax

Жыл бұрын

It's incredible to think how much WW2 advanced the aviation industry.

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

Good perspective!

@chad6243

Жыл бұрын

@@Jabberstax The Nazi bomber plan was a great influence on the B2 Spirit, atleast I believe. The design is almost identical.

@Jabberstax

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@charliebrown1006

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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!

@ronjon7942

Жыл бұрын

Wow! Just, wow. Nice.

@mq5731

3 ай бұрын

SOURCE PLEASE!!!!

@tylerpierce618

2 ай бұрын

@@mq5731 Source: Trust me bro

@rickwilliams967

Ай бұрын

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.

@tompowers4013

28 күн бұрын

And these are the planes the US uses still.... Smh..

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

@cannabislife1688

Жыл бұрын

Like my old Toyota, the B-52 is workhorse

@maulrat588

Жыл бұрын

Yeah if your "old truck" has had a frame up rebuild about five times and is on its sixteenth new engine.

@themetalslayer2260

Жыл бұрын

​@@maulrat588 i drove old trucks with i don't remember how many miles and they worked perfectly

@pumberdog

Жыл бұрын

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.

@KorEditing

Жыл бұрын

i drove old trucks and never had parts brake off mid ride lmao

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

@mrpineapple3942

Жыл бұрын

Nah bro you’d be the one piloting it

@ric84

Жыл бұрын

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.

@dsdy1205

Жыл бұрын

@@ric84 even better - M2s don't need any real modification to work in space

@deusvult6920

Жыл бұрын

You'd have to imagine it because we've never even been to space.

@dvdraymond

Жыл бұрын

And then you see that it's still being refueled by a KC-135

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.”

@jadefalcon001

Жыл бұрын

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.

@originflightstudios2863

Жыл бұрын

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.

@mohammadnoormauludadnan1847

Жыл бұрын

@@originflightstudios2863 so if my country have C130H..... that's mean it's old than B52.

@originflightstudios2863

Жыл бұрын

@@mohammadnoormauludadnan1847 No, H models are younger than the B-52...you should reread my reply

@mohammadnoormauludadnan1847

Жыл бұрын

@@originflightstudios2863 oh I get it. ...just like younger brother.tq

My dad built these in the late 50s . It's crazy to think he had a hand in the greatest bomber ever. Rip Dad

@Alex2K

Жыл бұрын

May he Rest in Peace

@dedsussybaka4619

Жыл бұрын

It is sure scarry to see a few b-52s fly together in a pack

@brendonnz1964

Жыл бұрын

I agree, along with the Tu-95

@mjleger4555

Жыл бұрын

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!

@Lungoose

11 ай бұрын

Yo daddy n the other builders bummed in dem all yo pops was like this 😮AHHHHHHHHH GAWDAM UHAHHHHHHOHHHHSHEEET

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.

@cavaleermountaineer3839

Жыл бұрын

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.

@myblacklab7

Жыл бұрын

They'll probably modify the B-52 so that it can fly to Mars. ;)

@MrFister84

Жыл бұрын

@@myblacklab7 MORE POWER!!

@denny414

Жыл бұрын

Fake news the earth is only 3,000 years old according to the bible

@gregarioussolitudinist5695

Жыл бұрын

nobody is going to walk on Mars.

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.

@AzillaKiami

10 ай бұрын

yea...

@moneyzoner

9 ай бұрын

borderlands 2.....

@CRITICALHITRU

8 ай бұрын

Quite the opposite

@ivoivic2448

8 ай бұрын

@@CRITICALHITRUlook, it's the "I want to be controversial" comment. you were noticed, now off to the cave.

@CRITICALHITRU

8 ай бұрын

@@ivoivic2448 ironic.

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.

@user-ek8uw1rt6z

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn’t say that Strategic bombers are obsolete, the USAF is investing billions in their development

@bertg.6056

Жыл бұрын

All that time sitting nuclear alert kept the fleet young. It's basically an 'arsenal ship' now.

@LeviBulger

Жыл бұрын

Has anyone told the B2 that strategic bombers are obsolete?

@piscessoedroen

Жыл бұрын

@@LeviBulger probably has, since it's also doing similar jobs as B-52

@Hattonbank

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ek8uw1rt6z 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.

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.

@fish_citizen

Жыл бұрын

I don't think anyone questioned adding so many back ups on a fricking doomsday device

@endyoutubecensorship6639

Жыл бұрын

I bet most designers thought 4 was too few. Some bureaucrat probably thought 4 sounded good and made it a spec.

@ronjon7942

Жыл бұрын

I had the same thought as Ben, and wonder if they started out w fewer but added more after a 'learning opportunity' or two.

@myblacklab7

Жыл бұрын

@@endyoutubecensorship6639 Sounds about right. Love your username!

@MicroageHD

Жыл бұрын

Nope, I don't think an engineer would say that. Maybe the higher ups in the corporation but not the engineers.

My dad was a B-52 pilot during Vietnam War and the plane has outlived him and may outlast me

@michaeldickmeyer493

2 ай бұрын

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!

In 2070, after first contact with the Vulcans, Warp nacelles were fit to the B-52 to facilitate defense operations from the Moon.

@angusmatheson8906

Жыл бұрын

Yes.

@FusionAero

Жыл бұрын

"Make it so."

@lindacondray7918

Жыл бұрын

Engage 👉🖖

@dr.jamesolack8504

Жыл бұрын

Scotty, we need more power!!

@dansmith1661

Жыл бұрын

KHAN!

One of the coolest parts of the BUFF is that a man flew the same jet his grandfather, and father flew.

@drksideofthewal

Жыл бұрын

And his kid might fly one too

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.

@dakota4766

Жыл бұрын

Very cool. How many miles you drive it?

@michaeldickmeyer493

2 ай бұрын

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!

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 !

@Jnor116

9 ай бұрын

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.

It seems that the USSR's greatest defense against Operation Chrome Dome was the B-52.

@jorossmiguel9843

Жыл бұрын

You just said the opposite.

@infernodotdash2203

Жыл бұрын

what?

@jorossmiguel9843

Жыл бұрын

@@infernodotdash2203 Read it again.

@benbencai8208

Жыл бұрын

@@jorossmiguel9843 he didn’t, the b52 had tons of problems

@jorossmiguel9843

Жыл бұрын

​@UCJlizNS2UB4bMoKnfdLZQnw Yeah, i know, just thought it might make some people confused as to what he is referring to.

I think people often confuse old with obsolete. If something still does the job it is far from obsolete

@curtisthomas2670

Жыл бұрын

The BUFF is the AK 47/74 of planes

@fretsward2225

Жыл бұрын

As long as the U.S. Force maintain air superiority in every conflict it enters, the B-52 will never be obsolete...

@axel3895

Жыл бұрын

Like a matchbox

@badguy1481

Жыл бұрын

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.

@mikepotter5718

Жыл бұрын

The Fairey Swordfish got the job done. It was still obsolete.

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.

"Giant Flying Dump Trucks" is the greatest description of a heavy bomber I have ever heard. Nicely done.

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”

@lookoutforchris

Жыл бұрын

This video is full of propaganda. The first two statements made are already lies. I hear two more lies and I'll stop watching.

@sovereign6445

Жыл бұрын

“Old not obsolete”

@bigdaddy7119

Жыл бұрын

Well said! 👍🏻

@militavia-air-defense-aircraft

Жыл бұрын

It is just "adaptable" as any plane if your only task to be a weapon truck... Nothing special.

@cashewnuttel9054

Жыл бұрын

People over at Quora are upset that you murdered 1 million Iraqis.

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.

@hewhohasnoidentity4377

Жыл бұрын

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.

@hanaWare

Жыл бұрын

@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 well, you have one slight problem. you're* other than that, nice information.

@militavia-air-defense-aircraft

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@danharold3087

Жыл бұрын

@@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 :)

@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24

Жыл бұрын

@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Actually you're wrong and he was correct

1:19 you can hear him try to hold his laugh in

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.

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.)

@israfelsnead2132

Жыл бұрын

I don’t know I think the engines are the only thing needed to fly Lol

@TheSeppentoni

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn't be one wing enough? Two seems excessive

@WhysafraidofCause

Жыл бұрын

@@TheSeppentoni just wait until you uhewr about the elevators

@quickstrike98ify

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I think that was the rebuild of that boneyard jet "Lazarus"

@dudeuncool5115

Жыл бұрын

Ah buff

"The B-52 Stratofortress was truly a 'F•CKER' " *I'M DYING AT THIS PART 😂*

@miragelee9754

Жыл бұрын

XD

@Joetechlincolns

Жыл бұрын

He sensored it several times prior, then let one get out. Lol

@samsignorelli

Жыл бұрын

@@Joetechlincolns As an AF vet....kinda glad he did!

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".

As habitual line crosser states, the buff is eternal. Long live Grandpa Buff.

If the bomber outlasts just about every competing bomber… is it really obsolete?

@eee9034

Жыл бұрын

Just like sloth survived everything

@garethonthetube

Жыл бұрын

Obsolescent is the word. It means becoming obsolete, but just taking a long time to get there.

@Operation_C4

Жыл бұрын

It's obsolete in it's original role

@eljayalcantara3633

Жыл бұрын

It is very obselete but it's the Pentagon who will stop and scrap it

@hphp31416

Жыл бұрын

tu95 is bassicaly only competitor and those are still flying

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

@portablerefrigerator4902

Жыл бұрын

they are definitely not "almost" dead

@domesticcat1725

Жыл бұрын

An aircraft that accidentally nukes a foreign country is anything but a "queen of the sky"

@Melonist

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@portablerefrigerator4902

Жыл бұрын

@@Melonist yes thats literally what I said

@Melonist

Жыл бұрын

@@portablerefrigerator4902 fair enough

I swear the Air Force gives their aircraft the most funny nicknames ever

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 KZread

@myblacklab7

Жыл бұрын

If all you say is true, then this is a very underrated comment.

@bwoah76

9 ай бұрын

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

@user-mm1yf7yj7u

7 ай бұрын

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

@tenkloosterherman

4 ай бұрын

It's on KZread so it must be true, right?

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".

@Merthalophor

Жыл бұрын

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.

@timlovett6200

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@thezeitos469

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@PDXDrumr

Жыл бұрын

I worked on G models. 80s it was a second strike aircraft at the time.

@orangedream267

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

@angusmatheson8906

Жыл бұрын

75,000 ft with minimal payload and pressure suits

@singularityraptor4022

Жыл бұрын

50k feet with weapons, 70k feet with none.

@angusmatheson8906

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@dr.jamesolack8504

Жыл бұрын

@@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…..

@hammersmith1653

Жыл бұрын

Just like the max ceiling of the Sr71 was 85,000 and Mach 3.2…🤣

I love how even in cyberpunk they are joking about it still flying

@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.

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.

@DGP406

Жыл бұрын

and my dad works at Nintendo

@alexbrown1050

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@clothbooster

Жыл бұрын

@@alexbrown1050 for me is an absolutely badass job

@thisiswhatilike54

Жыл бұрын

@@DGP406 You do realize the Armed Forces isn’t just something you see on TV and video games, right?

@chloekaftan

Жыл бұрын

people getting triggered by syber-VHS for nothing smh

Long as the B-52 can carry modern stand off cruise missiles, she will never be "obsolete".

@naughtiusmaximus830

Жыл бұрын

It will outlast the USA that’s for sure.

@Ass_of_Amalek

Жыл бұрын

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.

@battleshipiowa2052

Жыл бұрын

He's immortal bro

@patrickweaver1105

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@ser43_OLDC

Жыл бұрын

@@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

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

Great video! You explained everything so clearly.

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.

@20772

Жыл бұрын

Ccc cccc ccc cc cc cc cc cv ccc cc c c cv

@20772

Жыл бұрын

C c

@20772

Жыл бұрын

C v v v

@20772

Жыл бұрын

V c

@20772

Жыл бұрын

V v v

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!

@54DonaldB

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jasperthehairycaterpillar1168

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@davidguenther8170

Жыл бұрын

I was in the 1CEVG at Det 4 outside of Kaiserslautern Germany. We did the first B-52 training missions in the European theater.

@ebadd3468

Жыл бұрын

@@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!!!

@solargoomba

Жыл бұрын

I run the EW shop at barksdale. It is sad seeing what they are doing to my baby

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!

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.

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.

@jameskeith7608

Жыл бұрын

Well nobody did did they?

@vijay-jw8gq

Жыл бұрын

@@jameskeith7608 ok keith

@Kazperh

9 ай бұрын

@@jacknewman9106 ok jack

@imagereader_9

8 ай бұрын

@@jameskeith7608 grow up arschloch

@tenkloosterherman

4 ай бұрын

I think that is a bit too much credit for the BUFF, excellent aircraft that it is though.

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.

@prasannakumaris7149

Жыл бұрын

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

@prasannakumaris7149

Жыл бұрын

J

@prasannakumaris7149

Жыл бұрын

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

@classarank7youtubeherokeyb63

Жыл бұрын

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.

@amschind

Жыл бұрын

@@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 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

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.

I like how you just gave up the censuring 2 minutes in.

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

There we go. De-platformed. Oh well, we had a good run, won't you say? 😅

@somethingelse4878

Жыл бұрын

Lol i thought that or he slipped past that one

@viruspter1dactl

Жыл бұрын

@@NotWhatYouThink already responding???

@fatbomber9215

Жыл бұрын

@@viruspter1dactl its not what you think

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

Yeah it slipped. We didn't notice. So wonder how many people won't either. (some clearly did notice it!)

The amount of accidental nuke crashes/drops is insane

She's still an amazing BOne Rd I spent many hours on it still makes me smile

B-52 should be thought of more as a flying missile frigate than a bomber.

@JRyan-lu5im

Жыл бұрын

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.

@hazmatt3250

Жыл бұрын

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.

@SHVRWK

Жыл бұрын

They still have carpet bombing capabilities so no.

@originflightstudios2863

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@JRyan-lu5im

Жыл бұрын

@@originflightstudios2863 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.

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.

@originflightstudios2863

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Sipahidesign

Жыл бұрын

1

@StrikeEagleCinema

Жыл бұрын

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

@astroclone

Жыл бұрын

@@StrikeEagleCinema the air force f'd that up.

"I call it a super-duper missile." God, I love that man... 😄

The department of defense loves this plane so much they would rather adapt the plane to the new modern bombs than build more new types of bombers. Long live BUFF

“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.

@GaadhiMahendra

Жыл бұрын

🤣🤣😂

@michaelf.2449

Жыл бұрын

Does buff stand for big ugly flying fucker?

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.

You're such a great history teller, be proud!

Excellently researched and professionally presented.

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

@moteroargentino7944

Жыл бұрын

Kinda like watching an elephant poo then 🤣

@thenevadadesertrat2713

Жыл бұрын

I had a feeling of being really scared when I saw them at Davis-Monthan in AZ.

@encross8058

Жыл бұрын

@@moteroargentino7944 lmao

@badguy1481

Жыл бұрын

A contract has already been signed to replace those old P&W engines with RR's.

@joshuakhaos4451

Жыл бұрын

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 love how he blured the word "fu**er" everything except one😂😂

3:48 wow that was close

The buff lives forever 💀💀💀💪

There are stories of 4 generations of families serving on the B-52, great grandparents, grandparents, parents, and now children

America has three ways of naming things: M1 M11311172F "High Altitude Air Assault And Attack Munition " aka "HAAAAAM" or "Super duper missile"

The first 52 i remember was 1962. Tben a 52 flying at about 500 ft caused the bus I was on to drift on the highway in Kansas in 80. As a young Army 2lt it startled me. Still does now.

5:40 wait wait wait hold up. We nuked Spain? Why have I not heard of this before?

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.

@hazmatt3250

Жыл бұрын

@@PietriGuitars Who?

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.

@Condorito380

Жыл бұрын

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.

Truly a plane of a legacy, history rolled into one bird. In my years of Air Force career, I was pleased to have met many legacy people, like General Stewart, the father of sac. The many grandsons granddaughter of the first flight.. to the designer of the B2. B52, B22. Notice I put the b2 before the b52.. cause he designed built the b2 first .. inside truth and fact .. I started my career in the icbm moved to the b52 and saw the first b2 .. absolutely a wonder of my life . Buff .. ooh served in 91 in support and ground desert storm . Watched as she did her job very well . I salute u and too those that serve her now .

3:53 this is why you dont deprive the hard working troops of sleep. Absolute insane how they function and no wonder no one wants to enlist and feels bitter.

2:00 uncensored😬😬🔫🔫👍👍

@imalright561

Жыл бұрын

He was caught in 4k

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

You got us! 😅

@tupolev.designs

Жыл бұрын

@@NotWhatYouThink naaah, you just violated the b52, now it wants revenge, sleep well tonight my friend

@dibyanshudalai1178

Жыл бұрын

Myself dibyanshu dalai

@peterpham6288

Жыл бұрын

Caught in 5.1 surround sound

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 🤣

That tail didn't fall off, it was shot off and the BUFF still brought its crew home.

I worked on the G models for a couple of years in the early 80's. I hated having to deal with wiring problems as the wiring had been TCTO'd to death (Time Compliance Technical Order, AKA modifications) and the wiring going into connectors was brittle and difficult to work with.

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

@billmoyer3254

Жыл бұрын

that they are useful is one sick thought

@hankkline7300

Жыл бұрын

In 1963 during basic training, I was impressed with the firepower of a BAR

@joefell7845

Жыл бұрын

@@billmoyer3254 The Universe is a very violent place, you'll have to deal with it.

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.

The buff getting it's tail cut off made me cry

Can you imagine if a nuke ACCIDENTALLY goes off in the States? Goodbye nuclear space engines!

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.

The B52 will outlive us all. Personally love the family story of Capt David Welsh. Grandfather flew the BUFF in Vietnam, his dad flew it in in the 80s. At this rate if he has a son, he'll get a chance.

imagine using a 100 year old plane , damn that's gonna be cool in the 2050's

Wow, I never knew the B-52 had so many early 'teething pains'. I had only ever considered their successful Vietnam/post-Vietnam/current use.

famous engineering quote: if you keep fixing it you eventually run out of problems

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

@rcstl8815

Жыл бұрын

That was Looking Glass.

4:05 did he said yuba city California what a coincidence that just so happens to be the city I was living right next to

Stand salute, to one of the greatest planes on the planet. Its still a honor to see them. I have more faith in the B52 than todays planes.

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.

@ArrowBast

Жыл бұрын

it cannot be louder than the blundering tu-95 and its contra rotating turboprops lol.

@nordan00

Жыл бұрын

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!

@bullpup33

Жыл бұрын

@@nordan00 they were wet takeoffs. And yes I was also there. Swine bunnies. 😁

Well that was unexpected 😂 1:14

@yes-mv2ub

Жыл бұрын

Yep 😂💀 Edit: i didnt stole ur comment, didnt notice ur comment

17:00 Woo! Let's Go Thunder!

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.

@akiara8491

Жыл бұрын

It kinda is against anything with modern anti air

@killerdragon2011

Жыл бұрын

That’s why it can carry cruise missiles so it can hit shit outside of the anti air range

@moteroargentino7944

Жыл бұрын

@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.

@akiara8491

Жыл бұрын

@@moteroargentino7944 thats why i said "with modern anti air they're obsolete"

@moteroargentino7944

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Over 90% of the B-52 fleet have been retired. The ones still in service were the latest model and have been majorly upgraded.

@jermainerace4156

Жыл бұрын

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.

@alanstevens1296

Жыл бұрын

@@jermainerace4156 My point was that over 90% are long gone.

@Drbeattles

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@alanstevens1296

Жыл бұрын

@@Drbeattles Over 90% of the retired airframes were scrapped.

@Drbeattles

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

It’s so fun to watch a video of a plane I’ve worked on. I wish I could remember which plane I welded on because that almost never happens on the flightline

Former B52 crew chief out of Barksdale AFB. I sure do miss that old boy. Crawling from the front to the back was always quite an adventure. The tail gunner is no longer an option but that was pretty cool. While refueling on the ground you could listen to everything in the air. Military and commercial.

Hey, don't disrespect my B-52. I saw them flying low, in and out of Carswell AFB in the 60"s. I have tinnitus today thanks to the B-52, (and the tankers, and the Hustlers, and...and...etc.) The B-52 is a very distinctive shape, an awesome sight, and I will always love it. I have to admit, one of them had a flap fall off on takeoff one day in Ft Worth. It circled all day to burn fuel. The radio stations covered it and my elementary school kept the kids informed. When it finally came in to land over the school the kids all went to the windows to look. Sure enough, one flap was gone.

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.

@jayjay53313

Жыл бұрын

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.

@bobfg3130

Жыл бұрын

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.

@bobfg3130

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Blake4625kHz

Жыл бұрын

B1-B Lancer hands down 💥

@hphp31416

Жыл бұрын

@@jayjay53313 Bombers can be escorted by fighters, they don't have to fight everything

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

@ibubezi7685

Жыл бұрын

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...

@moteroargentino7944

Жыл бұрын

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.

@totoitekelcha7628

Жыл бұрын

Crash landing after running out of fuel is not the fault of the aircraft and should not be deemed as one.

@ibubezi7685

Жыл бұрын

@@totoitekelcha7628 Unless the fuel meters/system was faulty...

@totoitekelcha7628

Жыл бұрын

@@ibubezi7685 They said the regueller aircraft is not available due to weather or some problem on the refueling aircraft not the bomber.

A tool or weapon is not obsolete because it is more than 10 years old. The good old hammer has been around for centuries and is performing quite satisfactorily, thank you very much. Useful is as useful does.

I never flew the B52H model that's flying now. But I did fly the B52F model during flight training and upgraded to the B52G on Guam for VietNam bombing missions. B52Ds and B52Hs were also used for bombing missions. Then I went on SAC alert in the 70s after VietNam. In the three models I flew and all the hours I accumulated over the years, I had only one major problem with the B52G I was flying at the time, but it got us home. It is one fantastic aircraft (even though it didn't have ailerons).

It can't outlive Queen Elizabeth the 2nd

@ch1lly05

Жыл бұрын

Facts

@jaybee9269

Жыл бұрын

Sure it will.

@David-qp9bq

Жыл бұрын

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.

@mattiabonanni9130

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, but can she drop nuclear bombs ? I dont think so

@theotherohlourdespadua1131

Жыл бұрын

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...