Flying a 100 year old aircraft into combat...

[Truckman]

This boggles my mind...

If Air Force plans hold up, the B-52 will be approaching nearly a century of service by 2050. To keep the airplane flying, the service plans to equip each B-52 with new engines, which are expected to be so much more maintainer-friendly and efficient that they’ll pay for themselves in just 10 years.

Another article by the same author talks of the possibility of reducing the number of crewmembers required to fly the soon-to-be century old bomber for mission capability...

Collins also said that Air Combat Command is considering the possibility of reducing the number of aircrew on the B-52, now that certain functions requiring weapon systems officers can operate autonomously. No decision has been made in that regard, Collins said.

“Discussions continue with Global Strike Command about crew size,” Collins said.

When you start with a good design, and nothing exists on the drawing board that can accomplish the same job, keep 'em flying......Ben

[wacojoe]

Astonishing. Will we still have a supply of enough Jihadis to bomb in 2040 to justify keeping these boys around?
Answer: the supply is endless.

[Billy_Rightwing]

Was at Eielson AFB near Fairbanks when they showed up, stood in aw seeing them, same as U2 came about the same time. Belonged to the base flying club and could wander around the flight line, bet that's not something one could do now.

[Independent Voter]

I question the re-engining statement. To do so would require a total restructuring of the wing spars do to the weight distribution and thrust changes. Not going to happen I M O. Crew size is questionable also. Pilot work load " could " be a factor in the ability to turn on and off systems in a hostile environment and the ability of automated systems to adapt to changing conditions may not be workable.

Automation is often not the best method of doing something.

[Dave Grubb]

My SIL began and ended his AF career flying the B-52s. Based on many hours of discussions with him there would have to be significant changes in the cockpit to allow crew reductions. He now flies Boeing wide bodies for United and he will compare the systems in both and the difference in pilot involvement between the two---it is literally night and day. Just for the record, he holds a reverent regard for his old "home".

[Truckman]

I question the re-engining statement. To do so would require a total restructuring of the wing spars do to the weight distribution and thrust changes. Not going to happen I M O.

One of the articles I posted agreed with you...It was proposed several years ago to replace the eight P&W's with four more efficient fan jets...It was decided then that not only would the wings and control surfaces have to be re-engineered and restructured, but the rudder would also need replacement (something that had already been done in the past)...It was decided then that the cost could not be justified by the savings...

The current plan is to replace all eight of the now more than 50 year old P&W's with eight other engines which are not only more efficient, but require less maintenance and overhaul...The savings in doing so can pay the costs of the change over a ten year period...The proposed engines require overhaul at the 30,000 hour point, which would be beyond the expected service life of the B-52 fleet...Theoretically, the new engines could go on to new life in other aircraft after the BUFF is finally retired (if ever)......Ben

[Phillbo]

When was the last time we used a B-52?

[Dave Grubb]

Today---they are diploid to the vicinity of Iran.