It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


B-52 in 2055?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:34 PM
The B-52 is expected to stay in service until 2055. I think that would make it the aircraft with the longest service record, besides the C-130...

Anyway, will the B-52 really stay that long? It is very easy to upgrade and fairly cheep, that is if you consider a multi-million aircraft to be cheap... With the B-2 costing 2.2 BILLION EACH, I think the B-52 will stay in service a lot longer than expected!

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:39 PM
As time goes on, the mission of the B-52 changes. It no longer performs one task as Strategic Bomber. The BUFF plays many newer roles, including many in the Research and Development Arena.

The B-2 will most likely not be as fortunate as it has been made a premier dedicated platform with little space for improvement. As advanced as the B-2 is, eventually, something will come out that is better than it and that will get replaced.

The C-130 has lasted as long because it's just as adapt at job-changes as the B-52, just look at the myriad ways you could apply a C-130.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:45 PM
I think it's the HC-130, but I love the idea of putting a vulcan cannon on a C-130 and a howitzer on the side! It's so adaptable.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:03 PM
The B-52 won't live that long. They're going to reach the end of the airframe lifespan well before 2055. And we all saw what happens when they reach that point with the F-15s.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:31 PM
The B-52 did the maiden flight in 1952 (Wikipedia).

If that aircraft is still in service in 2055, do you think there might be a genuine 100 year old part on any given aircraft.

Major structural parts like some rib, stiffener or frame, etc.

Or do you think that all parts would have been replace several time over in major overhaul.

P.S.: I work in the aeronautic industry (helicopter) and I know of some customer, still having 20 or 30 years genuine parts on their helicopters, but perhaps not 100 years.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:38 PM
The primary component that is going to cause the death of the B-52 is a structural member that would cause an almost total rebuild of that section of the airframe. If you're going to spend that much money to replace it, why not just rebuild the airframe and start over.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:00 PM
The real question needs to be what will replace it in that role ?

People can and will argue that the bomber is obsolete, but that did not stop BUFF being used in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.

There will still be a need for an alternative aircraft to drop large bomb loads.

My humble suggestion to Boeing is before production of the C-17 winds up and tooling is lost, that they produce a study on a bomber variant of the C-17.

There would be Centre of Gravity issues to address but it is not an impossible task.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:02 PM
They have a manned and unmanned concept in the works. It won't be a heavy bomber like the B-52, but they'll definitely get the mission done.

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 06:43 AM
The big advantage of the B52 is that its the cheapest way to deliver gps bombs or air launched cruise missles.

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:59 PM
Isn't it a widely acknowledged fact that the average B-52 has been 'virtually' ( media speak for spending huge sums of money to replace anything that experiences wear&tear) rebuilt numerous times each? I am fairly confident that given the current pentagon mockery that is called R&D B-52's will be flying well into the next century if not to exactly 2055.
They may keep telling you that two dozen high performance planes are better than 50 with lesser capabilities but what they don't seem to want to talk about is that you could in most circumstances have afforded at least half a dozen while heavily investing in evolutionary development!


posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:13 PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Honestly, I can see that it'll be refitted with composite everything and maybe more efficient engines, like several of other USAF planes. Also, the airframe doesn't carry the loads that the fighters do - they just get up to altitude and cruise for the most part. Occasional low altitude stuff. Nothing major.

top topics


log in