Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated A-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. A-Class
A-Class article A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article was a past Collaboration of the Month.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Cold War (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Strategic Air Command B-52 Stratofortress Losses in the Vietnam War[edit]

This B-52 bomber "lost in combat chart" was made for one primary reason: Too many "properly sourced" references have been stating different numbers of B-52s lost in the war. Some say 30, some say 31, some state only 15 were shot down, and some say 16. There are other examples, but those few samples will suffice. To settle this issue once and for all, those B-52 losses were documented by Serial Number, Date, and Cause. And of course, they are clearly referenced. To my surprise, and I never knew this, and no one bothered to research it, one B-52 was damaged by a NVAF MiG-21 then it was downed by a SAM. Maybe the NVAF was right after all, maybe one of their -21s did down a B-52, that the USAF flatly and adamantly denies! Interesting, that a MiG-21 should strike a -52 with it's Atoll missile and almost within seconds a SAM hits it? Those -21s were specifically trained to intercept the -52s, and were specifically trained to stay out of the SAM kill zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"the USAF flatly and adamantly denies" Sounds like some sort of sinister govertnment conspiracy, like the Roswell Incident! In reality, probably some PA officer somewhere didn't have any difinitive information after some 30 or 40 years. Even at the time, it's dark, there's confusion, and even the crew (if any of them survived) weren't sure what happened. Did a similar thing after the Gulf War with Iraqi aerial losses and there were a few that weren't possible to square with all of hte conflicting points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Landing airstrip length requirements[edit]

I saw the B-52 Stratofortress that is on display at IWM Duxford recently and the caption says when it flew in to the Museum on 8 October 1983 it landed on the grass runway there, the shortest airstrip a B-52 has ever landed on. What is the minimum requirement for landing the plane, how long is the Duxford airstrip and is this claim true? (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source but here is a video of the landing [1] I have no idea if the claim about being shortest is true, perhaps somebody else will be along soon. The physical runway is 1503 metres (4931 feet approx) although I think they need to close the nearby motorway to use the full length so the declared every day use length is less. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bail out link[edit]

At the very end of the first paragraph of the Design --> Overview section, there is a link to the page for Bail out, however that page concerns economic bailouts. No page exists for bailing out of an aircraft. What should happen to the link? Hentheden (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That link has been changed from [[bailout|bail out]] to [[parachute|bail-out]] since parachute was the closest relevant page I could find. Thanks for pointing this out. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please make obscenity in BUFF obsure by using F#@k7r or similar[edit] (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Please see WP:Offensive material about replacing letters. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of USAF B-52 losses in the Vietnam War 1965–1973[edit]

Individual combat losses are not really notable and this table doesnt add much to the article, suggest we remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, overly detailed and out of balance. The B-52 has participated in several other wars/operations that do not have loss tables. A similar table in the Northrop F-5 article was removed for these basic reasons. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I concure, it is undue weight and unbalanced - if the other sections don't get one, it shouldn't. I'm fine with a summary statement. Kyteto (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see some comparable B52 losses. But, I believe no other B52s have been lost to direct enemy action since the Vietnam War. Consequently, there can be no other sections to receive such data. I do note with interest however, that at least 3 B52s had been blown out of the skies in December 1972 during the Linebacker II campaign, which is also known as the Christmas Bombing operation; allegedly by MiG-21s:
  • B52 serial number 56-0622 was heavily damaged by a -21 then destroyed by a SAM.
  • B52 serial numbers 56-0674, 56-0584, 56-099, and 56-0605 were knocked down on 26 thru 28 December 1972.
Those dates coincide with NVAF MiG-21 claims, although listed in the table as SAM kills, of course. During the era of the cold war it would not be acceptable for the USAF to admit that a relatively modern interceptor such as the MiG-21 could knock down the mightiest bomber ever made. So it could be a convenient coincidence that those B52s had been recorded as downed by SAMs, instead of MiGs. The chart gives information that is more accessible to researchers and writers, rather then deciphering the narrative portions, which at times appear to be somewhat confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:53, 26 November 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Disagree: Many wiki articles contain tables, this B52 article contains at least 3; Aircraft deliveries, Aircraft production, and Cost per aircraft, in addition to the Operational combat losses. Of those 4 total, what the B52 did in its only war against a determined enemy...and for the first and only time against the latest technology of Soviet Ground Air Defense and high altitude interceptors, not to mention Soviet bomber interception tactics ("one pass, haul ass") is probably more notable than how many non-combat roles it participated in.
  • The Operational Combat Loss table, as is probably the intention of most tables, allows readers to take in information with one sweep of the eyes, rather than having to fight their way through non-combat data. This OCL table shows the who, what, when, how, and why of the Strategic Air Commands B-52 in it's only war in which it suffered losses against Soviet Surface to Air Missiles and modern high altitude interceptors, in this case, the MiG (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with retention of the table. Nearly every Wiki article has one, and I see no difference between this one and any other wiki table. As a matter of fact, this particular table appears to be more informative than the average combat aircraft table that I have yet seen. I might add, other wiki tables appear to be of less importance in comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2015‎ (UTC)
As has been said before clearly not every wiki article has a list of combat losses and I suspect if any exist then it is an oversight, combat losses are rarely notable for a military aircraft just doing its job. We already have sufficient information in the text about the B-52 combat role. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the table is going to be kept, then can the dates be corrected? Several don't make sense. In addition, I can't find the reference that many of these quote as source. Norman21 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Even more reason for the table to go. To the IPers above, this discussion is only about the table of losses not other unrelated tables. I'll remove it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

B-52 taken out of boneyard[edit]

A current article about a b-52 taken out of the boneyard to replace one damaged in service; seems to have information about the status of the b-52s in the Air Force that may be of value to this piece.

I leave it to people more familiar with the topic to determine if such is the case:

Wowaconia (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not really notable to the B-52 overall given its long history. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Elimination under START[edit]

I'd love to see some clarity on what of the B-52 force was actually eliminated under the START I treaty, and when. Two useful links I'll refer to below:

Under "Post Vietnam service" it currently states that "all B-52Gs remaining in service were destroyed per the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)". This sounds like this occurred before the Gulf War (the next section), yet as per the disposal-article at least 39 B-52Gs were destroyed between 2011 and 2013 as part of the New START treaty.

It can't be that "remaining in service" didn't count the units in the boneyard, as the factsheet states that the B-52G was used heavily in the Gulf War, and no B-52s had ever been reactivated until Feb 2015.

Based on the disposal-article, it's unclear whether part of the problem was that under the START I treaty the aircraft were "cut into pieces" but under New START they specifically needed to have the tail section severed.

It also states that they "cut the 365 B-52G bombers into pieces", but there's no source for this number. However, the factsheet states that the total number of B-52Gs (both built and converted) was 193, so I do not understand where the 365 number comes from.

I don't understand what happened to all the earlier B-52s that were produced - I wonder if what was destroyed under START was a combination of all of these, so not specifically the B-52Gs, and certainly not "all" of them.

cfmdobbie (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparable Role?[edit]

Victor, Vulcan, and Valiant were all medium, not heavy bombers, so more equivalent to the B-47 than B-52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing[edit]

Wow! This is impressive; didn't know Guam had one.

Headline-1: B-52 bomber flies over South Korea as rift with Pyongyang deepens

QUOTE: "The B-52 was joined by South Korean F-15 and U.S. F-16 fighters and returned to its base in Guam after the flyover, the U.S. said.

"This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland," said Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., commander U.S. Pacific Command, in a statement. "North Korea's nuclear test is a blatant violation of its international obligations."

The warplanes’ flight follows a victory tour by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to celebrated the country’s purported claim of a hydrogen bomb test. Kim is seeking to rally nationalistic pride as the rest of the world is outraged over reports or the test." -- AstroU (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Confusing range in lede[edit]

The last sentence in the lede is confusing, but so is the following cited source:

The use of extended low altitude operations to insure the B-52's penetration capability further degraded the design strike range. The overall inefficiency of jet engine operations at low level, coupled with slower operating speeds, greatly reduced range at low altitude. For example, if the B-52H flew at high altitude on a nuclear strike mission, it had a maximum unrefueled range of approximately 9,000 nm. On a similar strike mission with 2,400 nm flown at 500 feet, the operations planners could count on only a 6,300-nm range with the addition of one refueling.

What exactly is a "similar strike mission"? Is the range at 150 metre altitude 2,400 nautical miles ( I assume yes)? What exactly is the "could count on only a" bit meant to convey? Does it mean after the low altitude stretch, the B52 needed refueling and could only continue 6,300 nm at some unspecified altitude? Or does it first fly 6,300 nm, then get refueled and is limited to 2,400 at low altitude? Can anyone help clarify this? -84user (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It think "similar" just means another nuclear strike mission, with the last 2400 nm flown at very low level rather than high level it can only go a total of 6300 nm (base to target, but even then would need to be refuelled at some point) if it kept at high level all the way it could go to a total of 9000 nm (base to target without refuelling). MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense about thermonuclear weapons[edit]

"It was the first air-dropped thermonuclear weapon." What?? Hiroshima, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs, not thermonuclear weapon, which is a fusion or hydrogen bomb. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable B-52 accidents[edit]

I see the recent B-52 crash at Guam affected (=destroyed) a B-52 wich was one of six airplanes sent from Minot AFB for a short stage at Guam. The aforementioned list was completed with this event. Could the airplanes serial be found and added? I did not find the info anywhere; but I would know, since my cherished 1:72 model, Nº 61040, the last one to roll out from Boeing around 1966, was (short time after to Captn Hollands accident at Fairchild AFB) reassigned to Minot AFB so there is a chance that "mine" could be the one now missing. Best regards and thanks (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an accident that is really notable enough to be be included in the article, old aircraft fails to takeof nobody hurt. The aircraft is possibly 60-0047. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've got the point. But just for the record, B-52 fifty years after they was made, still are the best ande most reliable war machines in the States, and the reminding planes (about 70 or some) are kept updated to extend lifespan until 2040. Amazing...

Thanks for the data — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC) PS Excuse my english. I wanted to say "Remaining" instead of "reminding".


There is no need to spell out the anecdotal meaning of BUFF.. this site is of possible interest to juveniles and don't need this bad language.. Any adult who reads.. big ugly fat f****r known exactly what the author is implying... I changed this twice and but it was put back to its crude form almost immediately.. I believe the author is doing this as a matter of personal principle without regard to the age of the reader... Chrispaul1 (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, Wikipedia is not Censored is Policy on English Wikipedia. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)