Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBoeing 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.
On this day... Article milestones
October 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 30, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 3, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 15, 2010, April 15, 2012, April 15, 2019, and April 15, 2022.
Current status: Good article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
PS Excuse my english. I wanted to say "Remaining" instead of "reminding".
The B-52H that was destroyed at Guam on Wednesday May 18, 2016 was tail number 60-0047 and named "Neanderthal" at the time of the crash. The loss of a 56 year old military aircraft with no injuries is not notable and I will remove it from the article again if no one objects. Samf4u (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samf4u I object, and think the crash is important to add. Note, notability does not to contents of articles.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again, as there's no consensus here to keep it in the article. Note that WP:Notability only applies to articles, but the word "notability" is still used in the English language for concepts other than WP:N. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was minded to restore, but noticed there was a discussion here. IMHO, as the aircraft was written off, AIRCRASH is met. I probably wouldn't support a stand-alone article, but it is certainly worth a mention. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we have invoked "hull loss" for military aircraft in the main article, if we had a stand-alone List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress then it would apply but not here were we should only list the more notable accidents which for military normally means it has to have killed something or hit something notable. A list of hull losses for most military would run into hundreds or thousands (or even tens of thousands for second world war types) clearly something we dont normally do in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about WPCRASH. The reason I thought the the B-52 loss was important, is because the number of planes is small, with no new B-52s being built, and no actual replacement aircraft for the B-52 mission.

Also, a suggestion, it would help explain in WPCRASH the reason for not listing all crashes, "A list of hull losses for most military would run into hundreds or thousands (or even tens of thousands for second world war types)" per above. Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it's notable. Regardless of whatever amount of "meh" may exist out there, the B-52H remains one of the key backbones to deterrence by aggressors, we only have 79 left, and they're 60 years old. I strongly recommend it be considered for those reasons alone, not to mention a variety of others. Clepsydrae (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 1963 crash near Grantsville, MA be included in this list? 3 crew members died and a broken arrow incident. [1] and [2] 313-matt (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)313-matt[reply]

Certainly. Broken Arrow incidences are quite rare. Clepsydrae (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I started to add to the article more of the hull losses and deaths/severe injuries with the B-52. I was surprised at the number and then came here and found this Talk discussion. I think including all losses, as mentioned above, would make this article very large and overwhelm the article. I am proposing to create a separate article List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (from above) and then link this to the main article and reduce the main article to include only those incidents with a loss of control of nuclear bombs. I am open to suggestions. Darrend1967 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the page.Darrend1967 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure I understand the encyclopedic value of the cost table for individual bits of eaach model, propose it can be removed as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both historic and current costs for all U.S. aircraft in the inventory are highly notable, and used in a large number of routine analyses and academic endeavors. As a college professor and former military aviator, I very strongly recommend against any such removal. Clepsydrae (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In service date[edit]

The article says: "The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952.". Boeing says "The first B-52A flew Aug. 5, 1954." The previous flights seem to have been of the YB-52. Anyone see any reason why this correction should not be made? Jim Whitaker (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The in service data is when a military aircraft is declared operational, such as Initial operating capability. This is not tied to a first flight. --Finlayson (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The B-52A model began with the third B-52 aircraft, which did indeed conduct its first flight on August 5, 1954. The YB-52's maiden flight counts as "The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952." Clepsydrae (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The article implies that all B-52 models prior to the B-52H were armed with .50 caliber machine guns and expressly states this was the armament for the B-52A. Through the first half-dozen B-52Bs, the planes were armed with two 20mm guns, which used an entirely different fire control system than was installed for the quad 50s. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it with reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's no mention of the guns under the armament section at all … (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, as the currently-flying models no longer possess them. Maabonnet (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SAC "inactivation"[edit]

Strategic Air Command was, in fact, disestablished. This was accomplished by inactivating Headquarters, Strategic Air Command. However, the command is an establishment, not a unit (unlike its headquarters) and is established and disestablished, not activated and inactivated. The cited source for changing "disestablished" to "inactivated" is a Public Affairs caption to the command's emblem. A minor technicality, and not worth making the change. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engine update and upgrades section[edit]

The current CERP program is going to include alot more than just engines, as laid out in my recent addition to the upgrades section. I think that the portion on the various historical programs that aimed to upgrade the engines should remain where it is but the information about the current program (that has led to the selection of the rolse royce engine) should moved into the upgrades section of the article. Obviously I want to seek some consensus here before I do this but it makes more sense to have the information about the CERP program located in one place in the article rather than either duplicated or having information about the sensor/radar/communications ect upgrades in the engine retrofit section or having the information split as it currently is. Tamoraboys (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CERP (the Commercial Engine Replacement Program) is, as its name implies, just about the engines, and is in itself the largest modification in the aircraft's history. The aerodynamic effect of the larger nacelles has to be assessed and the digital controls of the new engines have to be integrated with legacy systems. The radar upgrade is a separate programme under separate contract. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove ARRW references from the Armament section[edit]

The ARRW program was recently canceled. Maabonnet (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023[edit]

The number in inventory says 72, but the contingent numbers after add up to 98. My request is for clarification. 2600:1700:3130:AE10:542C:B6B2:B104:D923 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: As far as I understand, those are separate categories. Inventory, active service, long term storage are all separate from one another. However, this isn't my topic of expertise. If you have specific research questions, you can always ask at the reference desk (WP:RD). Actualcpscm (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]