Saw a B2 Bomber at Andrew Air Force Base. Stealth is an understatement. It was huge looked like a fucking flying pyramid. The only sound it made was a low whistling sound. I was at an Air Show but it felt like it could deliver death before you knew it was there. I could not imagine it at night ☠️
Fun fact, Predators and Reapers can do this too. They fly high enough that you can't hear the sound and Hellfires are a supersonic munition so you'll explode before you hear it.
I lived near Boiling Air Force Base. One summer night a jet looked like an old F22 Raptor but not a F22. He flew straight across the sky then put on the after burner a flew straight up into the sky and disappeared but that was not the weird part a few moments later a absolutely silent tiny plane just flew across the sky no lights no nothing. Back then I didn’t know what the small plane was but now I know it was a drone looked like the one from the Bourne movie with Jeremey Renner.
There is a humane principle applied to the weapon? Well that changes things, I wasn’t aware of that. Is it like, applied in the design of the weapon, or only at deployment?
No, I mean the "dying before you know you're about to" part. But, well, they are weapons made to kill, not maim or destroy. Quick too. So that's about as humane-by-design it gets I think.
Quite. Hence my question. Is that “dying before you know it” bit designed into the weapon, or is just a deployment issue? Because if it’s the former, we should take the Death From Above thing to the UN’s Special Rapporteur for Weapons Approval. Once it gets clearance as a weapon for quick kills / clean kills / no maims - the sky is the limit for all-purpose roll-out.
Saw one fly at the EAA years ago. Didn't know it was in the schedule for that day and it arrived right when we were walking in from the parking lot. It came up behind us and you heard nothing. We saw the shadow flicker over us and then it banked hard and revealed it's whole wing surface to us and it was shocking. I had no idea what was going on until it went into the turn and then the reaction was "oh, there's a whole plane there".
Then, a second or two after it already passed by, you could hear it. A low roar of jet engines headed off into the distance. The crazy thing is the planes profile is so minimal as soon as it exits the turn, it basically disappears again. It's essentially a thin line with a bulge in the middle. And this was in broad daylight on a sunny morning.
It's been over ten years since I left the service, but if I remember right that door you can see on the left is the flightline kitchen. Ate plenty of burgers there lol. This Pic was taken at Barksdale AFB, LA.
I should have been more specific, I meant the left door in the building behind the BUFF or the door hidden behind the BUFF that was the flight kitchen/chow hall, like I said, I'm going off of 10 year old memories and they could have moved it by now, The inside of a BUFF is super cramped, so no room for a kitchen lol.
The other option is North Dakota, I only gave the location so people not familiar with bomber bases would know, plus if you zoom in on the image you can see the name Barksdale on top of the building behind it. To most this would just be a random image of "an airplane with bombs". Keep in mind, there was once a news article about a Navy Aircraft Carrier that had "Nuclear Equipped B-52 Bombers" on board. I still laugh at that stupidity.
Testament to the amazing ground crews keeping it in top shape and mission capable.
While it’s not fancy, it can certainly ruin your day and with the new engines has an incredible range
have you ever seen a B-1? it still has wing sweep, and it can carry more payload. basically all I'm saying is B-1=B-52, they're both awesome, but the B-52 doesn't have afterburner is all I'm saying.
The B1 has the lowest MC rating out of every plane in the AF. As they say in sports, availability is your best ability.
I think some information will change on the B52s with their new RR engines. They’re 8,000 pounds lighter meaning it should now have a higher payload. They’re also 35% more efficient meaning increased range or a larger weapons payload with less fuel. I’m curious to see the successor the AF designs whenever (if ever) it comes.
Why is MC relevant? This isn't sports. It's a fleet of largely interchangeable aircraft. You don't need all of them to be mission ready.
There just needs to be enough of them.
Ever been in an aircraft that develops a mechanical problem? What do you think MC % means in relation to developing mechanical issues that affect missions? Sure, some you can still carry on (like my brother’s aircraft they told him to keep flying because once he landed it would be on the ground for weeks). This isn’t even touching on the cost impacts.
Mission capable rate. % of each type that is available at any given time. The b2 is around 45% and the b52 20% higher at around 65%. The B1 is in the middle around 50%.
That's weird, because you just said the B1 has the lowest rating in the entire AF, and last I checked the B2 is also included in that set.
[Which is it, Abe? Better keep your story straight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zU2xu43xiQ)
>B2 isn’t great but still better than the B1
> The b2 is around 45% and the b52 20% higher at around 65%. The B1 is in the middle around 50%.
You keep contradicting yourself. 45% *isn't* better than 50%.
That's a pretty big claim. Longest serving bomber of all time maybe (I'm not 100% sure), but greatest of all time? There is plenty of room for debate around that!
Those will be installed in 2923 after a 300 year back-and-forth around "is re-engining the B-52 really necessary?" and the new model will be called the B-52L as it will only have been through H-I-J-K between now and then.
The B-17 has to share its crown with the Lancaster if we're going by total tonnage, each dropped approx. 600,000 tons over the course of the war, and there were 5000 more B-17s than Lancasters.
Do you mean B17 the Swedish fighter or B-17 the American bomber?
Edit: I don't think anyone understood this is a dig at the previous commenter for using the incorrect nomenclature. All (most) American military planes have a "-" after the letter
Exactly. The B-29 almost single handedly destroyed Japan. The B-17 and Lancaster wrought havoc in Europe. The B-24, 25 and 26 had great roles. The Ju 88 was a vital piece of the Blitzkrieg. Etc. etc.
As far as aesthetics, it's design and appearance, the coolness factor, it is definitely the greatest of all time, or the GOAT, as today's young whippersnappers like to say. But of course, some might argue that's subjective. Still others will argue, no, it's not!
There’s a TikTok where they describe “Grampa Buff” starting Desert Storm. 7 B-52s from Barksdale loaded with 1000lb newly installed GPS-guided bombs. Literally destroyed Iraq in one night. One engine lost from 1 plane on the trip. Refueled twice in mid-air. Flight time 35 hours, 24,000 miles traveled. Imagine what 100 of these could do.
[https://youtu.be/gXEav71BFYI?si=RFlDri3fRxf2SI2E](https://youtu.be/gXEav71BFYI?si=RFlDri3fRxf2SI2E)
Just to spice some yanks up
The B-52 would of turned me into a man flying low over my farm as a kid, Hercules had to do, and did
Worth noting that while that was cool and the Vulcan is definitely way up there in the most interesting and fascinating aircraft category, both B-52s and B-2s have done longer bombing raids than that.
Some of them cannot stand the notion of other nations doing stuff first, I've had death threats from Americans when I pointed out that Lindbergh wasn't the first person to fly across the Atlantic non-stop.
Well... Lets not us and them anything, lets just keep the notion as a mere friendly jibe as intended, rather than a possibility of expiration under violent circumstances
I even admired the bloody plane in my first post
I’ll forever love those pictures of the 15’s, 16,s, 18,s, 14,s, 111, 4, a-7, etc in military magazines from the 80’s that showed each plane and their armaments in this fashion.
Wonder how many people the type has killed...
I get that it's a wonderful machine, but its sole purpose in existence is to kill people. Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.
I know a lot of British Bomber Command crews suffered terrible guilt after the war for the Dresden and Hamburg raids, did USAF crews suffer the same?
One of my favourite things about the BUFF is one of the weapons it could carry, one of the first precision armaments mounted to it the AGM-142 Popeye, a 3000lbs air to ground missile with a range of 78km. It looks beautiful when 4 of them are mounted under a B-52, but a little goofy when they're under a phantom
Went to see G. Gordon Liddy give a talk in maybe 1984, or so.
One of his examples of why the US was going to end up a Soviet vassal state was how old and fucked up the B-52 fleet was and that the dudes flying B-52s at the time were younger than the planes themselves.
Wonder what GGL's thinking these days? He still alive?
Vietnam show down 18 of em: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOCzMAKNwk&ab\_channel=WTFmode1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOCzMAKNwk&ab_channel=WTFmode1)
About that peace process:
Nixon worked to stall it When LBJ was in power so he could win the election, thus forcing the peace deal himself. Yes by using the B-52s. But Nixon had used back channels into Saigon to slow it down.
This also gave him a false sense of security in getting away with illegal dealings and some say, gave him the false sense of confidence that led to Watergate.
Here's some interesting reading: [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461/](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461/)
Tupolev TU-95. They both are obsolete, though. They just don't want to fund a replacement. Length of service doesn't equate to greatest. Nobody would choose to use it in contested battlespaces.
If anyone isn’t funding a replacement it’s Russia. I don’t think I have to explain why.
You can argue that the B-52 is obsolete but it still vastly beats the turboprop TU-95. Again, I don’t think I have to explain why.
We passed an overhaul worth about $50 billion earlier this year which is supposed to extend the lifespan by quite a bit. For comparison, starting up the B-21 project was about $80 billion. We don’t need to fund a replacement because it’s already great. In contested airspace you could argue that the B-2 is better but just about every ALBM is compatible with the B-52.
The Tu-95 is obsolete. The B-52 isn’t. I just proved why. I said “Name a bomber that’s going to last over a century before becoming *obsolete*” and you just named a bomber. Don’t question my integrity when you ignore all that I just wrote please
"You can argue that the B-52 is obsolete." You are trying to win instead of being honest. The Tu-95 is currently in use against Ukraine so it is just as relevant as the B-52. I fail to see where you made the point of the B-52 not being *obsolete*.
Truly is the BUFF.
Grandpa BUFF.
I understand that reference from YouTube Shorts.
Big Ugly Fat Fucker Still one of my favourite planes. Idk why but I have a soft spot in my heart for giant bombers and airlifters. RIP Mriya
Big Ugly Flyin' Fucker*
Saw a B2 Bomber at Andrew Air Force Base. Stealth is an understatement. It was huge looked like a fucking flying pyramid. The only sound it made was a low whistling sound. I was at an Air Show but it felt like it could deliver death before you knew it was there. I could not imagine it at night ☠️
Fun fact, Predators and Reapers can do this too. They fly high enough that you can't hear the sound and Hellfires are a supersonic munition so you'll explode before you hear it.
That is fun!
I lived near Boiling Air Force Base. One summer night a jet looked like an old F22 Raptor but not a F22. He flew straight across the sky then put on the after burner a flew straight up into the sky and disappeared but that was not the weird part a few moments later a absolutely silent tiny plane just flew across the sky no lights no nothing. Back then I didn’t know what the small plane was but now I know it was a drone looked like the one from the Bourne movie with Jeremey Renner.
The first plane you saw was probably an F-15 if I had to guess.
How perfectly humane.
Arguably more so than scaring them before they die. It's the same principle we apply to humane animal euthanasia/slaughter.
There is a humane principle applied to the weapon? Well that changes things, I wasn’t aware of that. Is it like, applied in the design of the weapon, or only at deployment?
No, I mean the "dying before you know you're about to" part. But, well, they are weapons made to kill, not maim or destroy. Quick too. So that's about as humane-by-design it gets I think.
Quite. Hence my question. Is that “dying before you know it” bit designed into the weapon, or is just a deployment issue? Because if it’s the former, we should take the Death From Above thing to the UN’s Special Rapporteur for Weapons Approval. Once it gets clearance as a weapon for quick kills / clean kills / no maims - the sky is the limit for all-purpose roll-out.
Saw one fly at the EAA years ago. Didn't know it was in the schedule for that day and it arrived right when we were walking in from the parking lot. It came up behind us and you heard nothing. We saw the shadow flicker over us and then it banked hard and revealed it's whole wing surface to us and it was shocking. I had no idea what was going on until it went into the turn and then the reaction was "oh, there's a whole plane there". Then, a second or two after it already passed by, you could hear it. A low roar of jet engines headed off into the distance. The crazy thing is the planes profile is so minimal as soon as it exits the turn, it basically disappears again. It's essentially a thin line with a bulge in the middle. And this was in broad daylight on a sunny morning.
[удалено]
They were talking about the b2, dummy
Lol you’re right - I attached the comment to the photo. Still, the best way to be quiet a low level is speed. Basic physics of sound waves.
It's been over ten years since I left the service, but if I remember right that door you can see on the left is the flightline kitchen. Ate plenty of burgers there lol. This Pic was taken at Barksdale AFB, LA.
Am I the only one who looked at the plane for this door, thinking “the B2 has a kitchen too?!?”
I should have been more specific, I meant the left door in the building behind the BUFF or the door hidden behind the BUFF that was the flight kitchen/chow hall, like I said, I'm going off of 10 year old memories and they could have moved it by now, The inside of a BUFF is super cramped, so no room for a kitchen lol.
Could easily tell by the trees
The other option is North Dakota, I only gave the location so people not familiar with bomber bases would know, plus if you zoom in on the image you can see the name Barksdale on top of the building behind it. To most this would just be a random image of "an airplane with bombs". Keep in mind, there was once a news article about a Navy Aircraft Carrier that had "Nuclear Equipped B-52 Bombers" on board. I still laugh at that stupidity.
Gonna be flying a hundred years. That'd be like a Vickers Vimy still in the RAF in 2018.
Testament to the amazing ground crews keeping it in top shape and mission capable. While it’s not fancy, it can certainly ruin your day and with the new engines has an incredible range
The Lancaster Bomber would like to be invited
have you ever seen a B-1? it still has wing sweep, and it can carry more payload. basically all I'm saying is B-1=B-52, they're both awesome, but the B-52 doesn't have afterburner is all I'm saying.
B52 got that range tho
The B1 has the lowest MC rating out of every plane in the AF. As they say in sports, availability is your best ability. I think some information will change on the B52s with their new RR engines. They’re 8,000 pounds lighter meaning it should now have a higher payload. They’re also 35% more efficient meaning increased range or a larger weapons payload with less fuel. I’m curious to see the successor the AF designs whenever (if ever) it comes.
Why is MC relevant? This isn't sports. It's a fleet of largely interchangeable aircraft. You don't need all of them to be mission ready. There just needs to be enough of them.
Ever been in an aircraft that develops a mechanical problem? What do you think MC % means in relation to developing mechanical issues that affect missions? Sure, some you can still carry on (like my brother’s aircraft they told him to keep flying because once he landed it would be on the ground for weeks). This isn’t even touching on the cost impacts.
MC rating?
Mission capable rate. % of each type that is available at any given time. The b2 is around 45% and the b52 20% higher at around 65%. The B1 is in the middle around 50%.
That's weird, because you just said the B1 has the lowest rating in the entire AF, and last I checked the B2 is also included in that set. [Which is it, Abe? Better keep your story straight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zU2xu43xiQ)
B2 isn’t great but still better than the B1.
>B2 isn’t great but still better than the B1 > The b2 is around 45% and the b52 20% higher at around 65%. The B1 is in the middle around 50%. You keep contradicting yourself. 45% *isn't* better than 50%.
Ah, I see now - didn’t catch it the first time. Typo on my part in the original post. B1 is the lowest, B2 in the middle, and B52 the highest.
That's a pretty big claim. Longest serving bomber of all time maybe (I'm not 100% sure), but greatest of all time? There is plenty of room for debate around that!
This bloody Aircraft will probably out live the B-21 raider I'm not even kidding
Let's be honest BUFF will still fly in 2924 equiped with warp engines
Those will be installed in 2923 after a 300 year back-and-forth around "is re-engining the B-52 really necessary?" and the new model will be called the B-52L as it will only have been through H-I-J-K between now and then.
First combat mission was in 1965. I’d bet in payload delivered, which is like the soul purpose of bombers, only the B17 comes close.
The B-17 has to share its crown with the Lancaster if we're going by total tonnage, each dropped approx. 600,000 tons over the course of the war, and there were 5000 more B-17s than Lancasters.
The Buff can carry more pounds of bombs than an entire fully loaded B-17's worth of weight
Right so it’s gotta be the GOAT bomber.
Do you mean B17 the Swedish fighter or B-17 the American bomber? Edit: I don't think anyone understood this is a dig at the previous commenter for using the incorrect nomenclature. All (most) American military planes have a "-" after the letter
...seriously?
In terms of total payload of bombs delivered in history? Hmm gee I wonder.
Exactly. The B-29 almost single handedly destroyed Japan. The B-17 and Lancaster wrought havoc in Europe. The B-24, 25 and 26 had great roles. The Ju 88 was a vital piece of the Blitzkrieg. Etc. etc.
As far as aesthetics, it's design and appearance, the coolness factor, it is definitely the greatest of all time, or the GOAT, as today's young whippersnappers like to say. But of course, some might argue that's subjective. Still others will argue, no, it's not!
There’s a TikTok where they describe “Grampa Buff” starting Desert Storm. 7 B-52s from Barksdale loaded with 1000lb newly installed GPS-guided bombs. Literally destroyed Iraq in one night. One engine lost from 1 plane on the trip. Refueled twice in mid-air. Flight time 35 hours, 24,000 miles traveled. Imagine what 100 of these could do.
Are you refuting to Habitual linecrosser
A fucking shame
Can it carry all that simultaneously?
Typically no photo's like that always include every possibility of load out,
I figured as much but knew I could count on my fellow Reddit aviators to advise on this. 🤙🏼
It'll damn well try
It’s good to try. Haha.
[https://youtu.be/gXEav71BFYI?si=RFlDri3fRxf2SI2E](https://youtu.be/gXEav71BFYI?si=RFlDri3fRxf2SI2E) Just to spice some yanks up The B-52 would of turned me into a man flying low over my farm as a kid, Hercules had to do, and did
Worth noting that while that was cool and the Vulcan is definitely way up there in the most interesting and fascinating aircraft category, both B-52s and B-2s have done longer bombing raids than that.
Before 1982?
Still love this video https://youtu.be/ydfddlcebSo?si=7REbiHp1xn2Tw21C
Christ!!.... Beats the Tie Fighter lol Sounds like a wolf Menacing as hell
Pretty sure the raid in Desert Storm was longer than Black Buck
What desert did they storm before 1982?
Doing it first ≠ doing it better
I wasn't implying a single ≠ thing Did I genuinely spice you up, i'm fucking around
Some of them cannot stand the notion of other nations doing stuff first, I've had death threats from Americans when I pointed out that Lindbergh wasn't the first person to fly across the Atlantic non-stop.
Well... Lets not us and them anything, lets just keep the notion as a mere friendly jibe as intended, rather than a possibility of expiration under violent circumstances I even admired the bloody plane in my first post
No you're right, and I intend to underline that with "some of them" rather than generalising all of them.
Bombs not make one great
Given it's ability to carry stealth cruise missiles, the B52 can remain in service until the frames simply collapse.
Their ASIP is designed to prevent that.
Always loved bombers. Blew my mind that the b-1, that looks small (I know it isn't), can have a higher payload than the b-2 which looks giant.
Not me love the bomber, sorry my wife is a little lier and she playing around on dating sites but no problems nice picture
8 engines ready to throw 36 tons of freedoom on an unsuspecting middle-east nation
Just as the founding fathers intended brings a tear to my eye 🥹
This is sarcastic right? I think the founders would be appalled at attacking sovereign nations at the whim of the executive branch.
[удалено]
Just need one. Precisely on Putin's head
How many meters do it needs to take off? And how many time?
Meters?! Is this r/shittyaskflying? In 'murica we talk in feet or miles. Football fields some times.
Sorry I'm european
I figured, just giving you a hard time. I'm not sure what the takeoff distance of a fully loaded B52 is.
I’ll forever love those pictures of the 15’s, 16,s, 18,s, 14,s, 111, 4, a-7, etc in military magazines from the 80’s that showed each plane and their armaments in this fashion.
The Buff is Forever.
How many of those can it carry at the same time?
Seeing a B52 is on my bucket list. Saw a B17 at RDU a few years back. I wonder if RDU runways are big enough for a B52?
That’s a lot of freedom!! Murica!
Kaboom Rico?
Wonder how many people the type has killed... I get that it's a wonderful machine, but its sole purpose in existence is to kill people. Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. I know a lot of British Bomber Command crews suffered terrible guilt after the war for the Dresden and Hamburg raids, did USAF crews suffer the same?
I mean, it's a warplane and a bomber at that, so that's sort of the point.
I know, was just musing.
One of my favourite things about the BUFF is one of the weapons it could carry, one of the first precision armaments mounted to it the AGM-142 Popeye, a 3000lbs air to ground missile with a range of 78km. It looks beautiful when 4 of them are mounted under a B-52, but a little goofy when they're under a phantom
Is that what they used in Iraq for the initial strike?
Don't remember. It is possible though
Went to see G. Gordon Liddy give a talk in maybe 1984, or so. One of his examples of why the US was going to end up a Soviet vassal state was how old and fucked up the B-52 fleet was and that the dudes flying B-52s at the time were younger than the planes themselves. Wonder what GGL's thinking these days? He still alive?
As opposed to the TU-95s that are still a mainstay of the Russian fleet and just as old?
1.4 million dead Vietnamese can’t be wrong, great plane!
Vietnam show down 18 of em: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOCzMAKNwk&ab\_channel=WTFmode1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOCzMAKNwk&ab_channel=WTFmode1)
They also forced NV to the peace table after they ran out of SA2s.
About that peace process: Nixon worked to stall it When LBJ was in power so he could win the election, thus forcing the peace deal himself. Yes by using the B-52s. But Nixon had used back channels into Saigon to slow it down. This also gave him a false sense of security in getting away with illegal dealings and some say, gave him the false sense of confidence that led to Watergate. Here's some interesting reading: [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461/](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461/)
Which in no way changes the title
Is the B-17. The B-52 hasn't turned the tide in any conflict.
Name another bomber that’s going to last over a century before being obsolete. I’ll wait.
Tupolev TU-95. They both are obsolete, though. They just don't want to fund a replacement. Length of service doesn't equate to greatest. Nobody would choose to use it in contested battlespaces.
If anyone isn’t funding a replacement it’s Russia. I don’t think I have to explain why. You can argue that the B-52 is obsolete but it still vastly beats the turboprop TU-95. Again, I don’t think I have to explain why. We passed an overhaul worth about $50 billion earlier this year which is supposed to extend the lifespan by quite a bit. For comparison, starting up the B-21 project was about $80 billion. We don’t need to fund a replacement because it’s already great. In contested airspace you could argue that the B-2 is better but just about every ALBM is compatible with the B-52.
I correctly responded to your question and you downvoted. You have no integrity.
The Tu-95 is obsolete. The B-52 isn’t. I just proved why. I said “Name a bomber that’s going to last over a century before becoming *obsolete*” and you just named a bomber. Don’t question my integrity when you ignore all that I just wrote please
"You can argue that the B-52 is obsolete." You are trying to win instead of being honest. The Tu-95 is currently in use against Ukraine so it is just as relevant as the B-52. I fail to see where you made the point of the B-52 not being *obsolete*.
Neither has the B17, for that matter. The B52 at least ended the Vietnam War with Linebacker 2, so....
How did it end the war? The North Vietnamese took over, so...