How the hell isn't the B-52 succumbing to airframe metal fatigue?

How the hell isn't the B-52 succumbing to airframe metal fatigue? I'm sure maintenance can only do so much after so long.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The ship of Theseus syndrome

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They basically take these bros apart piece by piece and rebuild them.

      it is vital that we transfer their machine spirits safely and carefully

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because the airframes are likely completely different from the original airframes.

      These are incorrect; the answer is that large body aircraft simply experience far less metal fatigue than smaller ones due to larger surfaces and do not make really any high-g maneuvers. Additionally, they're relatively irregularly flown. Consider that 747's ~3000 hours per year can last upward of 30 years, it's not that surprising that B-52s that fly 120-200 can last per year can last 60

      Besides the maintenance, it's because the B-52 was engineered to carry much larger ordnance loads than it does (due to treaties) and was overbuilt for that job as well; they wanted to be damn sure that as many B-52s got through Soviet air defenses as possible to deliver their payloads, and part of that was making them excessively durable.

      This also contributes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >that B-52s that fly 120-200 can last per year
        It's not that low.

        > The "oldest" B-52H is at about 21,000 hours and only experiences about 380 flight hours per year.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Interesting, was going off of average NATO utilization rates, guess B-52 is above average. Point still stands, an order of magnitude below commercial airliners

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because the airframes are likely completely different from the original airframes.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They basically take these bros apart piece by piece and rebuild them.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They should have replaced it with an airliner derivative a long time ago. Continuing to operate the B-52 is really dumb.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No ur dumb

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's so outdated that replacing it with an airliner would be a huge performance upgrade, while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate. They should have revived the 747 cruise missile carrier and used it to replace the B-52.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nah.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Retard.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              No u

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no u

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No u

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no u

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No me

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No him

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No u.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate
          and "only" taking 10 years of development and 10's of billions of dollars in R&D and feasibility studies.
          If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This makes more sense when you realize that SAMs designed and operated by NATO rivals have a much better track record with hitting commercial airliners than they have with military aircraft.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn’t work, the structure of an airliner isn’t optimized for carrying bombs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, which is what leads to

        >while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to operate
        and "only" taking 10 years of development and 10's of billions of dollars in R&D and feasibility studies.
        If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

        You could start with a 747 or similar airliner, but by the end it'll be nothing like the original and cost 5x as much because you don't have airlines ordering 100s of them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well, 747's are all on the ground now, so that would be necroing a plane to replace a zombie that's still flying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are over 100 747-8 in service, first flight was in 2010. Not exactly an old plane.

            Yes, older 747 models are mostly out of service, but it's hardly dead.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Besides the maintenance, it's because the B-52 was engineered to carry much larger ordnance loads than it does (due to treaties) and was overbuilt for that job as well; they wanted to be damn sure that as many B-52s got through Soviet air defenses as possible to deliver their payloads, and part of that was making them excessively durable.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Built without planned obsolescence

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The real secret is that the only job it really has is to fly in straight lines and deliver the load. The load is a collection of the most advanced missiles and drones ever made, and the only other changes to the aircraft have been airframe upgrades to keep them flying and minor quality of life upgrades like flatscreens in the cockpit. Fly in a straight line and deliver the super duper Metal Gear Solid missiles to a point between 5000 and 500 km of the enemy's max detection range, depending on what exactly is being launched.

      You really don't need to reinvent the wheel, cliché as it is to say it like that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Built without planned obsolescence
      boomer retard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No u

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're getting new engines you fucks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OP is literally talking about airframes you fuck

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    B-52 should be scrapped. We have better science and materials now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No it shouldn't. There's no point in making a new B-52 when it works fine and there are better designs to spend money on.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We do but the B-52 isn't going to be much better if you changed all that shit.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *