Talk:B-52 Stratofortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the B-52 Stratofortress article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Related task forces...


	United States military history task force

	B-52 Stratofortress is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

[edit] Family Affair?

Have there yet been any 3-generation B-52 crew members (father->son->grandson)? I believe there've been a few father->son combinations, but I'm curious as to whether any of those sons have had children serving on a B-52.

[edit] Unique Landing Gear

I think a little blurb about the B-52's fairly unique landing gear should appear under features - namely its ability to angle its gear in order to do a crab landing. I don't know very much about it other than it could do it, so I dunno if someone wants to write it up. -lommer 05:56, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] US Gov't Source Material

This page has been copied verbatim from: http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html

Are we sure that this is OK? I don't see any copyright logo thingy. Theoretically, this is information in the public domain written by our government, but there still might be copyright issue. -- ansible

It's not specifically listed in the public domain resources list. It probably wouldn't hurt to make sure. Even if it is, we need to (a) acknowledge that it's USAF material so should be taken with several grains of salt, and (b) add and edit so that it's more balanced and complies with the NPOV. --Robert Merkel

The USAF disclaimer page says it is public information. I will add this to the public domain resources page. What specifically violates NPOV? It could probably be changed easily enough, but I'm not sure what th eproblem is. - Tim

Not so much on this page, but others (notably comments on the F-15's "unprecedented maneuverability", for instance) strike me as PR guff rather than objective comment. The mentions of operational deployments also strike me as a little selectively described. Nor do they attempt compare the capabilities of the fighters with comparable foriegn planes (notably Russian and European). It's not so much what they say, it's what they don't say. --Robert Merkel

All US Government published material is public-domain (unless it's classified ;^)). I haven't done a detailed read of the B-52 page, but a quick pass through it leads me to believe it's a fairly factual writeup. I don't see any glaring violation of the NPOV rule. Sure, military equipment is mean, nasty, rotten and awful by nature: its purpose is to kill people and destroy stuff, which is regrettably sometimes necessary. The facts and the history of some piece of military equipment are nonetheless grist for an encyclopedia, be it the B-52, or the HMS Dreadnought or the Mary Rose or the Roman gladius.

I'm not disputing that military equipment is designed to kill people and destroy stuff, and that an effective piece of military equipment is one that is extra-good at the job. What I am disputing is the neutrality of the Air Force's commentary on its own places. There doesn't seem to be a single negative comment about the performance of any of their aircraft. Surely there must be the odd dog amongst the Air Force's collection. --Robert Merkel

On the F-15: the airplane has maneuverability well beyond the structural limits of the airframe (which are considerable). The USAF found this out the hard way in the early days of deployment (they came home with their skins wrinkled, much to the dismay of the maint. chiefs). That the late-number Soyuz interceptors (SU-29 & SU-31) have comparable capabilities is not germane, certainly not to the descriptive text of the bad ol' Buff (hmmm, that nickname for the B-52 ought to be in the article). -- Stranger

I think you miss my point. I was giving an example of why I thought USAF text should be taken with a grain of salt in general.

As a vet, I agree that USAF materials may need to be taken with a large grain of salt. However, for this particular article on the B52, its seems pretty accurate. It is pushing 50 years of service, which is pretty amazing. I would be much more suspicious of such material on the F117, B1, B2, etc. But not the buf. There probably were performance problems and crashes in its early years, 19502,60s, which would be very interesting to add to this page.

There were performance problems. My dad crashed a B52 in Thailand and got permission to go to the manufacturer to determine the source. They found it and it turns out that the same problem happened on Guam...maybe other places as well. The manufacturer fixed it and the B52 still flys today.

Fascinating. Could you ask your dad about the details, and then you or one of us can add it to the main page? --Robert Merkel

You know, you're not going to get too many complaints about the B-52 because the alternative, the B-47, had poor takeoff and landing characteristics. The B-47 was a known pilot killer. It was known to "porpoise". One of the reasons the 52 stuck around were the stable aerodynamics of the platform. As far as other issues go, the plane has been rebuilt so many times that any anecdotal contribution to the understanding of problems in the 52 could well have been eliminated in one of the interminable rebuilds of the aircraft.

As far as the source of this information goes, I'll credit my father, Col Gene O. Myers (ret), a B-47 and B-52 pilot. It's anecdotal, but I'll suggest my father is a reasonably reliable source, in terms of the flight characteristics of the plane. ;) Dwmyers 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War deployment

Might be nice if someone can find a source mentioning the Cold War deployment of a B-52 being in the air at all times so the US military wouldn't be decapitated if there were a surprise Soviet nuclear strike.

might also be helpful to mention Other places (besides 1st persian gulf war and afghanistan) where b-52s were more "famously" used: i am thinking vietnam. i think the "B-52" came into the layman's vernacular BECAUSE of Vietnam... (in fact i came across this page looking for "B-52" in relation to Vietnam War but was kinda disappointed that there was nothing on this...)

I am not supprised to see nothing about vietnam deployment of B52, since this article might have been taken from source such as US goverment's military doc, Boeing's doc... All of these source must advoid exposing the heavy loss of B52 (its still a world record) during the Vietnam war, due to a numbered of reasons: failed design (which Boeing does not want to talk about) failed strategy, underestimation of enemy counter-attack measure (which US Gov does not want to talk about). You might have to seek other sources on Vietnam deployment from the "enemy side" (Vietnam, China, Soviet, ...). 193.52.24.125 06:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

With 84,000 sorties and a total of 10 B-52 losses in Vietnam and another 14 losses out of the country (7 combat, 7 operational), I think the only world record might be how few of the planes were lost doring Vietnam. Jkonrath 15:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get 10 & 14? The Vietnamese article vi:B-52 cites 34 out of 400 B52 available in 1972 were shot down during just 11 days; AP reported "If the trend continued, B-52 would become extincted after 3 months".Tttrung 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The number was 17. One in November 1972, 15 in December 1972, and one in January 1973. Everey single B-52 is accounted for by serial number--there are no "hidden" losses, no claims of "damaged" for planes really lost, etc. Since they're still flying today, so much for being "extincted" in 3 months. Also, since the Vietnamese ran out of missiles in 9 days, that would make it significantly more difficult to achieve suych a task. IOW, perhaps a "grain of salt" is called for regarding your "source"?

[edit] 4 larger engines

Am I right in thinking that the B-52 was recently re-engined with just 4 much larger engines? Or was that just a prototype or a figment of my imagination? Graham 00:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It has been proposed (by Rolls-Royce, among others) but as far as I know has not actually been done. It's possible, I suppose, that a prototype conversion has been done? —Morven 00:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See here --Rlandmann 01:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The page now states that this has been approved. What is the source for this? I've only ever heard that it was proposed.

I have removed the wording about it being approved. I find nothing in google supporting this. The link that Rlandmann referenced does not exist. See [1] --Rogerd 16:33, October 2, 2005

[edit] B-52Gs

Hi!,

I read in the late 1970's that a number of B-52F's were converted by Boeing into B-52G's by the addition of TFR and a look down Radar bulge under the chin of the B-52G. Is this really true?

I don't believe that's true. If you're referring to the "blisters" under the nose, those are for Westinghouse AN/AVQ-22 low-light-level television camera and Hughes AN/AAQ-6 forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor. These fairings/blisters are also present on B-52H's.

B-52G's had numerous changes from the 'F' models. There was an effort to reduce the weight of the airframe along with shortening the vertical stabilizer, reducing the size of the external wing tanks and moving the gunner from the tail to the cockpit. I don't think it's possible to convert a B-52F to a B-52G, but I could be wrong.

What you may have heard was a B-52F converted to a GB-52F. This would have been done for various ground tests or for use as a training airframe.--LedHed430 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supercool Dude

I don't know how permanent the URL is, but Terraserver has a link to an aerial photo of "B-52 Aircraft, Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona" ("17 km SE of Tucson, Arizona, United States 5/16/1992") -- if you're wondering where all the B-52's are.

Wow - that is some truely awesome imagery (try zooming out a bit even). Anyone know of similar photos that are PD or GFDL compatible? -Lommer | ^talk 23:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These pics are public domain USGS aerial photographs. -- Toytoy 03:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

worldwind://goto/world=Earth&lat=32.15041&lon=-110.82428&alt=600 NASA World Wind, also public domain -- Toytoy 03:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Longest service

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the B-52 have the record for the longest service of any aircraft? Perhaps that could be added to the trivia section. Ryan Salisbury 22:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. The USAF still uses at least one C-47 (T model) at Hurlburt Field by the 6th Special Operations Squadron. Numerous other countries still use this airframe in their militaries. This is only one example (could be more), but it proves your assertion false.

[edit] Cleanup tag

This article should be improved because it has too much focus on the weapons the B-52 can deploy, and it lacks a good depiction of the reasons why the B-52 is "the bomber" (not only in military terms). The missions against Laos during the Vietnam War? Why is it a symbol for the cold war? --Keimzelle 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The preceding was originally placed in the article by Keimzelle along with the "cleanup-date" tag...I have moved it to the talk page, where this type of content belongs --Rogerd 01:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The cleanup tag annoys me to no end, since it's used almost exclusively by lazy editors who refuse to actually do the work required to improve an article. If this article needs work, do it, don't insert a tag commanding everybody else to. The reasons cited above seem particularly weak, so I'm removing the cleanup tag here. If you disagree, please fix the article instead of reinserting the tag. --Bk0 03:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen to that - I wholeheartedly agree. -Lommer | ^talk 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language

I asterisked out a swear word on the 22nd of August, 2005. I noticed today (17th September), that it is back. Looking at the document history, it looks like somebody considered my change to be vandalism and undid it. Is it really Wikipedia policy to allow offensive language? It seems to me that changing the last three letters of the f-word to *** lets someone who wants to know about it know about it, without forcing those who object to see it. I personally would rather have the full word asterisked out, but I know some people will want to know about it, so I just changed the last three letters.

It is now September 25th, and nobody has said anything about this. Unless somebody gives me a good reason the f-word should be left, I am going to change it back to f***.

I believe the reasoning is that wikipedia has a policy of not censoring content in any way unless such content is outright illegal in the USA. Saying "fuck" is very direct, and there is no room for misinterpretation. I fail to see how f*** is any less offensive, and it is certainly less clear. I'm not the one who made the change, but I'm pretty sure that's the logic behind it. -Lommer | ^talk 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

But f*** doesn't force someone like me, who finds that sort of language offensive, to see it. I personally would prefer to not even leave the 'f', but I know some people will want to see what the word is. I think changing it to f*** is a reasonable compromise. Also, what if children doing research for school or for fun come on here? You don't really want Wikipedia to be innapropriate for children to be on, do you? It's not censorship to change it to f***, it's just making it less offensive.

I also made a similar change to the F-4, but apparently it didn't get saved or something, because I couldn't find it in history. However, someone else made the same change (to the F-4), some somebody agrees with me on this.

Another thought: Pornography is not illegal in the USA, surely Wikipedia policy would/should not allow it anyway?

A few comments:

I, and several other wikipedians, feel no obligation to make this site sanitized for children's use - and I see nothing wrong with a child seeing the f-word in an academic context.
Your analogy to pornography is flawed - material that is not encyclopaedic is obviously not permitted, but as a point of fact wikipedia does include nude pictures and more when they are encyclopaedically relevant.
I found a policy page on this, you may wish to read it and the associated talk page: Wikipedia:Profanity

-Lommer | ^talk 22:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The closest thing to a consensus that I could find on the talk page was to put information that is offensive or disturbing on a separate page that would nobody would go to without knowing what kind of information would be there. For example, an article on Saddam Hussein would link to another article that had pictures and other information about some of the gruesome ways he tortured people to death. In this case, however, the information (what BUFF stands for) is to small to be worth another page, so that's not a good solution in this case.

In many things, like politics, people can just agree to disagree. In this case, however, that doesn't work so well. We have to either do what one side wants, or do what the other side wants, or compromise. I thought changing it to f*** was a reasonable compromise, leaving the information there, but putting it in a less offensive form. But plainly some people don't like that. Does anybody else have an opinion on what we should do here?

I first came here to read about military aircraft, just because I enjoy it. But if I could come across offensive language without warning, I will have to find somewhere else. I don't object to it being in article, like the article on the f-word. That article, it is obvious that it will have offensive language. I will never read that article. This case is different. I have no objection to that information being there for those who are looking for it, but people should not find it by accident. An article on torture in Iraq under Saddam is obviously going to have information that some people will find disturbing. An article on pornography is going to have information that I (and others) would consider inappropriate. People can make a decision not to read those articles. But in a case like this, somebody can (I did) come across information that they find disturbing or offensive by accident. That can chase people away from Wikipedia.

Also, you have no problem with a child seeing the f-word in an academic context. I do. Also, what about a child reading articles on military hardware for the fun of it? Many little boys would do that, and they shouldn't learn to use offensive language from it. (nobody should be using offensive language anyway, but that's a debate for another day.)

Why do you object to changing it to f***? I don't think that's censoring it, and anyone who knows the f-word will know what it means, but it makes it less offensive for those who don't want to see it, and keeps children who don't know the word from learning it. If parents don't mind their children seeing it, then their children will have undoubtedly have heard them say it enough that they will know what it means. - Unsigned

Wikipedia is WP:NOT sanitized for children, and Big Ugly Fat Fucker is the meaning of the acronym. I appreciate your views on this, but community consensus seems pretty clear on this specific issue. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

To be accurate Chairboy's definition for BUFF is correct. I maintained B-52's and we never called them "fellas" or f***'s. So if you want accuracy you must leave the profanity in the acronym. Another casualty of politcal correctness are the BUFF's nose-art and radio calls. H-models were built in 1960 & 61. 1961 tail numbers were called "ten-sixteen" for tail number 61-0016. A 1960 tail number would be called "balls-three" for tail number 60-0003, note all the zero's or "balls"? Someone, somewhere thought this was offensive. History isn't pretty, keep it accurate. -LedHed

As a former BUFF crewdog, I can also attest that the acronym wasn't sanitized from "Fucker" to "Fellow". Why people want to sanitize the name of a machine designed to kill people numbering in the millions is totally beyond me. Choirboys weren't flying the planes. Jongleur 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Profanity, In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols.

I removed your edit from the F-4 article for the same reasons. This is an integral part of these aircrafts' culture -- it's not all Red Baron gallantry. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

In the background section, it says that "Two B-52 prototypes were built, and were designated XB-52 and YB-52. In actuality, both aircraft were almost identical, but the YB-52 incorporated enough changes to warrant a different designation." Though I know nothing about the YB-52 and XB-52, I don't see how the two aircraft can be nearly identical if they are significantly different to have different designations. Is the similarity mainly cosmetic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdsr (talk • contribs) 09:55, November 3, 2005.

Well, the changes from the XB-52 to a YB-52 seem cosmetic. The both models have 1949 tail numbers (49-230,49-231). The difference was the cockpit layout. The XB-52 was tandem cockpit with a bubble canopy, similiar to a B-47 Stratojet. The YB-52 had the normal side-by-side arrangment that are more customary for larger aircraft. From the outside the changes appear simple, but there are alot of changes in wiring, plumbimg & mechanics just to move the pilot and copilot around.

Both the XB-52 and the YB-52 featured the tandem cockpit seating. What led to the YB-52 is according to Knaack's bomber encyclopedia a request from Boeing mid-1949 to fit out the second XB-52 (49-231) with additional tactical equipment to use it as production prototype. The USAF agreed and the second XB-52 was subsequently redesignated YB-52 in June 1951. The side-by-side cockpit then was introduced with the B-52A. --80.137.51.154 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For more information on just about any US military aircraft tail number and what happened to it, check out this site: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html

I found the tail numbers for the Blackhawks that crashed in Somalia and the B-52H that crashed at Fairchild AFB in 1994 at that site. -LedHed, 18 November 2005

[edit] 100-mph headwind?

The article says, SAC ordered the B-52s to make a steep turn after dropping the bombs ... the turn made the B-52s face into a 100-mph headwind, which slowed their escape. Can somebody explain what that is all about? Where's this 100-mph headwind coming from? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More generally, this new section is interesting, but it may be too detailed for an overview of the B-52 given the level of depth in the rest of the article. It also seems less than neutral. Maybe it should be shifted into a specific article about the raids. --Robert Merkel 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, the material below has been removed from the article, on the basis that it is too detailed (and belongs in an article on the Linebacker II raids rather than an overview of the B-52), and it presents only one viewpoint. --Robert Merkel 05:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, SAC ordered B-52s to attack from highly predictable, precisely-timed, repetitive positions and altitudes. This eliminated the element of surprise. The NVA were able to aim their Soviet-built SA-2 Guideline Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) by simple timing and azimuth prediction. Further complicating the situation for the B-52s was the fact that SAC had used the same jamming (electronic countermeasures) techniques for years, thus enabling the NVA to develop counter-countermeasures.

The NVA were surprised at first, but after a few nights of these repetitive tactics, they figured it out. The NVA blasted several B-52s with direct hits. Two were damaged severely and crashed near U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Base. The situation would have been even worse for the B-52s if not for the inaccuracy of the SA-2 system and the inexperience and errors of its NVA operators.

SAC refused to change its tactics even when shown that the existing tactics were ineffective and highly dangerous to the aircraft and crews. In part, this was due to indecision on the part of SAC's commander. Also, because of a "top-down" culture which had been originally established for nuclear war by General Curtis LeMay, SAC refused to listen to the suggestions of its aircrews. The LeMay culture had discouraged open and frank discussion to the point that only "yes men" made it to the top of the SAC organization where, potentially, they might have been able to prod the SAC commander into a change of tactics.

(Surprisingly, NVA records and interviews with former SAM operators show exactly the opposite culture. Realistic discussion and innovation were encouraged among the batteries' commanders.)

Ironically, although the NVA had run out of missiles by Day Four of the campaign, and the B-52s could have bombed an undefended Hanoi, SAC was so rattled by its losses that it directed the B-52s to targets outside Hanoi, thus giving the NVA time to reload. After that, B-52 losses mounted again.

SAC commanders did their best to suppress revelations about their incompetence, even going so far as to suggest that their one of their critics was mentally unstable. SAC has rewritten history in its official account of Linebacker II. This semi-fiction is still taught at the U.S. Air Force's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

[edit] Crabbed landing gear?

Does anybody know what the demonstrated x-wind is for a BUFF? I'm not quite sure I believe the statement, The ability to crab enables the BUFF to land in conditions which would force other aircraft to go somewhere else. It was my understanding that the gear works this way because the wings are so long that if you landed in a slip, you'd scrape the upwind wingtip on the ground. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Dash-1, the maximum crab is 20 degrees either way. For navigational purposes, crab is calculated as a function of airspeed, navigators often use rules of thumb for the calculations. At 150 knots (fairly close to the recommended landing speed of a B-52) crab is a given at 2.5 knots/degree. 20 degrees of crab gives you a crosswind of 50 knots. Higher landing speeds can compensate for greater crosswind speeds, up to the designated limits of the aircraft. Obviously, with this capability, slip isn't much of a requirement in landing. Jongleur 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff removed

I've removed (diff) this, on grounds that it is irrelevant:

Many fewer would have been shot down if not for poor planning and inflexibility by the mission planners of the USAF's Strategic Air Command (SAC). Specifically, SAC ordered B-52s to attack from highly predictable, precisely-timed, repetitive positions and altitudes. This eliminated the element of surprise. The NVA were able to aim their Soviet-built SA-2 Guideline Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) by simple timing and azimuth prediction. Further complicating the situation for the B-52s was the fact that SAC had used the same jamming (electronic countermeasures) techniques for years, thus enabling the NVA to develop counter-countermeasures.

(Surprisingly, NVA records and interviews with former SAM operators show exactly the opposite culture. Realistic discussion and innovation were encouraged among the batteries' commanders.)

SAC commanders did their best to suppress revelations about their incompetence, even going so far as to suggest that their one of their critics was mentally unstable. SAC has rewritten history in its official account of Linebacker II. This semi-fiction is still taught at the USAF's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

And this:

Humiliated, the Soviet Union once again (see Cuban Missile Crisis above) backed down.

---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be a relevant historical note on the use of the B-52 under two conditions. 1) It needs to be written in formal non-POV English. 2) It needs to have references. Otherwise, there is a lot of strong and very POV claims being made with no cited evidence. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 09:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. (And BTW, this isn't the first time this material is being removed--see the '100-mph headwind' section above.) ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Chopped" B52s

Does this picture from Google maps show chopped up B52s (as described in the article...part of some disarmament treaty)? Link I'm no expert, I just looked up the base on Google to see if any of the planes were still there.

Yup, it certainly does. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats from the Boneyard at Davis-Mothan AFB, that base probably has the world's largest collection of aircraft, only 98% of them are waiting to be cut up and recycled. --Paladin 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From The START1 Conversion protocols: 7. Upon completion of the elimination process for a heavy bomber or former heavy bomber, the remains of its airframe shall remain visible to national technical means of verification at the elimination site for a 90-day period, after which they may be removed. In the case of an inspection conducted to confirm that the elimination of a heavy bomber or former heavy bomber has been completed, the remains of its airframe may be removed after the completion of such an inspection. Jongleur 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B-52 crash at Thule

The section about Alert Duty should contain a description of the B-52 crash at Thule Air Force Base i 1968. The bomber was carrying H-bombs and the crash resulted in nuclear contamination of the area around Thule.

[edit] References

This article is 34 kb long and has only two references and no in-line citations. A thorough referencing job is badly needed. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I removed:

"Many fewer would have been shot down if not for poor planning and inflexibility by the mission planners of Strategic Air Command. Specifically, SAC ordered B-52s to attack from highly predictable, precisely-timed, repetitive positions and altitudes. This eliminated the element of surprise. The NVA were able to aim their Soviet-built SA-2 Guideline Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) by simple timing and azimuth prediction. Further complicating the situation for the B-52s was the fact that SAC had used the same jamming (electronic countermeasures) techniques for years, thus enabling the NVA to develop counter-countermeasures.

SAC ordered the B-52s to make a steep turn after dropping the bombs. This resulted in an interruption in the electronic jamming of NVA radars because the B-52s' jamming antennas, which were located on the bottom of the aircraft, were then pointed away from the radars. To make matters worse, the turn made the B-52s face into a 100-mph headwind, which slowed their escape. The NVA were surprised at first, but after a few nights of these repetitive tactics, they figured it out. The NVA blasted several B-52s with direct hits. Two were damaged severely and crashed near U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base. The situation would have been even worse for the B-52s if not for the inaccuracy of the SA-2 system and the inexperience and errors of its NVA operators.

SAC refused to change its tactics even when shown that the existing tactics were ineffective and highly dangerous to the aircraft and crews. In part, this was due to indecision on the part of SAC's commander. Also, because of a "top-down" culture which had been originally established for nuclear war by General LeMay refused to listen to the suggestions of its aircrews. The LeMay culture had discouraged open and frank discussion to the point that only "yes men" made it to the top of the SAC organization where, potentially, they might have been able to prod the SAC commander into a change of tactics. (Surprisingly, NVA records and interviews with former SAM operators show exactly the opposite culture. Realistic discussion and innovation were encouraged among the batteries' commanders.)

SAC commanders did their best to suppress revelations about their incompetence, even going so far as to suggest that one of their critics was mentally unstable. SAC has rewritten history in its official account of Linebacker II. This semi-fiction is still taught at the USAF's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama."

It lacks NPOV or sources. --Jackhamm 02:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This material has been repeatedly removed, by me on the first occasion. It seems to have come from User:Mcfresh who clearly doesn't understand WP:NPOV or citing sources. --Robert Merkel 04:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, fellow Wikipedians. Yes, this information came from me. I DID cite my source, which is stated in the beginning of the Combat Record section, namely the book "The Eleven Days of Christmas." No offense intended, but I believe I am justified in putting this information back to the way it is supposed to be. If you have counter-sources, then fine, let's discuss it. However, until that time I will put it back.

Let me say this, too, and again no offense. I have personal experience in the United States Air Force as a B-52G/H Instructor Electronic Warfare Officer (1982-1989). I served on Alert duty and amassed 1360 flight hours.

The book I cite (incidentally, written by a fighter pilot who served during the Vietnam Era) is quite well-documented. It mentions technical data which match what I observed, taught and read in official manuals. Furthermore, Michel's observations about SAC culture and tactics match what I observed during my (Cold War) service and what I gleaned from the "old heads" who had been there in Linebacker II.

I am more than willing to discuss this, and I ask your forgiveness for my relative lack of Wikipedia skill--I am new to this--however, I believe my sources and qualifications outweigh the countervailing argument. In fact, there is no countervailing argument other than "who says?" I say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcfresh (talk • contribs) 10:02, May 7, 2006 (UTC)

Cite the source then. Regardless, the material needs to be significantly rewritten before it can belong on Wikipedia. The emphasis should be on presenting only the facts and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. Hard figures are far more encyclopedic and credible than broad statements about SAC incompetence. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I accept your criticism of the style. However, I again state that I did cite the source, and there are hard figures presented, such as the inflexibility of SAC's tactics (something I personally observed, although much later and during Cold War, not a shooting war). For some things, there is no way to say it other than to say it. I will do the best I can to rewrite. I look forward to any help you can give me. Look for my next revision. Thanks. McFresh out.

McFresh, thank you for your contributions. Let me just say how nice it is to have former crew members contributing to articles on aircraft.

The reasons why a number of us have found your contribution problematic are threefold: Firstly, we thought the sourcing was limited; I think you've resolved this to some extent. The second problem is that your contribution is presenting one view as fact. Clearly, others have a different perspective on the raids: even if it is "semi-fiction" a neutral contribution should definitely present the "official" view, as best as can be determined from published accounts. And it's not sufficient to simply add the views that you agree with (whatever their merits) and leave others to fill in alternative perspectives. You need to write for the enemy, so to speak. You don't have to agree with them, just present what they claim fairly. You have the resources and expertise to be able to do so better than we can.

Finally, it seems to me that so much detail on one specific raid in the context of an aircraft that has seved the USAF for over half a century in a large number of conflicts unbalances the article. I would think it more appropriate to discuss the raid in question in this level of detail with a specific article on that raid (or bombing campaign), with a briefer summary and link to the specific article here. -Robert Merkel 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I usually don't contribute much to this kind of discussion, but I think I should here. My father was a B-52 pilot, and further, not just a B-52 pilot but one who served with the Combat Evaluation Group of the 2nd Air Force (now 8th Air Force) and eventually became the commanders of the 1st CEG. The ex-BUFF pilots will know what I'm talking about. It meant their careers were in my father's hands, since he was responsible for the combat evaluations of all B-52 pilots in the Air Force, while he held that position. In short, not only was he a B-52 pilot, he was one of the best of the breed.

As far as myself, I think I mention a PhD in Biochemistry and my personal page mentions about 100 articles to this Wiki in which I have contributed. You can determine the quality of my articles by my past record.

My father just discussed this very mission with me. I fully understand that what he told me is anecdotal. But his recollection of this mission was that the flight plans were being managed by SAC headquarters, and therefore the wing DOs had little day-to-day input into the actual flight plans. What he further said to me was, "You'll never read this in any history books, but after a certain point, 45 B-52 pilots refused to go on any further missions because they regarded the flight plans as flawed." According to him after their complaints the flight plans were modified and pilots were allowed to come in at different altitudes and different headings and fly like pilots, as opposed to sitting ducks one after the other.

I can understand not wanting to get caught in the politics of war, but the full story of Linebacker II has yet to be told. The Wiki is dealing with angry, frustrated men who will at times need to let off steam. It's not going to be 100% NPOV because people died in Linebacker. And in the eyes of many pilots, it's because the whole operation was being micromanaged out of SAC HQ.

Now caveat: my father was not on any of the Linebacker missions. But his best friends were. If you need names, I'll be happy to supply them. I also know that my father spoke of a book on the Linebacker missions, which he says is for the most part, accurate. I'll be tracking down that reference in a couple days. Dwmyers 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, obviously I support a full and frank retelling of the events of the Linebacker II raids. But:

The place to do so at length is in the article Operation Linebacker II, which should be briefly summarised here.
If there are stories which have not been told in a reliable source (books, official reports, etc) Wikipedia can't be used as a primary source.
If there are differing views of the raids, those views deserve an airing, so the "official" USAF view, if known, should be reported even though it may be distasteful to the men who flew the missions.

If there is a significant untold story out there, I would love to see it told. Is there some kind of assocation of pilots who flew the B-52 in Vietnam? If so, maybe they could try and interest military historians in the topic, organise some oral history interviews with the pilots and the like. --Robert Merkel 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alert Duty

I removed this paragraph from the Trivia, since it is discussed in detail in Alert Duty section, and contained some inaccuracies as well:

At the time of Dr. Strangelove and for some time in the 1960s the Strategic Air Command (SAC) did fly airborne alert (Chrome Dome) with weapons on board awaiting the "Go Code". B-52s were positioned in the air 24/7 to immediately respond to the National Command Authority. For example, missions from Homestead AFB, Miami, FL flew to orbit-on-station over the Adriatic Sea, refueled over Spain both going and coming (there was one notorious collision/crash on this route in 1967), and landed in Miami 26 hours later. During 22 hours of this time the B-52H could turn and immediately strike all six targets in southern Russia (without additional air refueling). MiShogun 09:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guppy proposal

I recall seeing an artists' rendering of a "Guppy" super cargo version of the B-52 sorta like the Aero Spacelines Super Guppy. Was I dreaming or was this real? The Matt Feldman Experience! 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm|accessdate=2006-04-22
- In A-6 Intruder on Sat Jun 3 22:43:46 2006, 404 Not found
- In A-6 Intruder on Tue Jun 6 23:30:02 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
- In B-24 Liberator on Tue Jun 13 22:52:48 2006, 404 Not found

maru (talk) contribs 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top bombers

Does anyone think its worth saying that the military channel named the BUFF their top bomber due to its innovation, payload, service length, etc? Nweinthal 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)NWeinthal

[edit] Edits

Under Trivia it was requested that a reference be provided for "It is predicted that in 2045, the Air Force will begin a partial phase-out of the B-52, after 93 years of service." Current Air Force policy has the B-52 fleet flying until at least 2040. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm I'll add this to the references list. 84.166.173.214 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crew?

I don't suppose one of the pilots who contributes to this page could add a paragraph discussing the crew compliment of a B-52? Pilots, co-pilots, navigators, number of positions, minimum needed to fly, maximum compliment, and their relations to eachother? Seems relevant, but I don't know enough about it. MArcane 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/-/5/Talk%7EB-52_Stratofortress_7e7f.html"

Categories: United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | B-Class aircraft articles | Top-importance aircraft articles | WikiProject Aircraft articles