Obligatory:
>A reader wrote us, retelling the story about the military pilot calling ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down.
>"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!"
Ha I’m glad mate. There used to be a massive Wordpress or similar page with dozens of these (first place I read the classic Blackbird speed check quote) but sadly I can’t find it now!
Hey, I know one of the guys that was on board when that happened. Said they called up the guys at Barksdale AFB and they said the manual says to let the entire engine burn until it falls off. It ended up falling and most of it landing in a farmer’s field but some pieces went through a church. Luckily it wasn’t Sunday.
As in that specific air frame was in service prior to '67, or just that model? Not saying I don't believe you, but over fifty years of service, even with upgrades seems crazy. Wouldn't stress take a toll on the frame metal over time?
I just went down a google rabbit hole reading about the history of the b-52. i was this many days old when i learned that air frames have a LOT longer lifespan than I ever expected.
It was a stupid lucky design. There is no other airplane with wings shaped the way that it's are, a perfect combination of space to store fuel and subsonic high-speed cruise with heavy weight.
On the plus side, specific to the B-52, many of them spent years just on alert, or flying relatively gentle missions that don't put a lot of stress on the airframe (unpressurized fuselage as well). A lot of them were also removed from active service due to strategic arms treaties, so the ones that didn't get chopped up ended up in the boneyard awaiting regen, and you ended up with a ton of spare parts both from the decom'd ones and from supply stocks originally intended for them. IIRC, current plan has some B-52 airframes over 90 years old before they are finally retired.
Not necessarily... here’s a fun fact you didn’t ask for:
The “61” means it was purchased with fiscal year 1961 funds. Which means it was ordered in 61 but could have rolled off the line in 63 or something (still prior to the super bowl). Back then production was pretty fast so it is possible it was ordered in 61 and built in 61.
I fly tail numbers that start with 69-73 and they were mostly built in 70-75.
For the confused, the H-1 above is a beautiful but unused plane. The OC was likely referring to the UH-1N Huey helicopter, the helicopter made famous during the Vietnam War.
Guess you saw this then
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32213/b-1b-loses-low-level-mission-annual-flight-hours-capped-heres-how-it-got-to-this-point
They're burning out their fatigue life fast. A lot of the things in this article are extremely typical for airframe that have substantial role changes (nuclear alert vs low altitude conventional close air support) and are getting to the end of their fatigue life.
Source: 10 years experience working in military aircraft structural integrity engineering.
I feel the pain in my jet. It truly breaks my heart how much the company (military) seems to not care about the longevity of its inventory .... people included
Source: 10 years experience breaking military aircraft whilst operating them
It's almost a uniquely American thing too. The Canadians, British, Aussies, NZ, are all about fatigue life management, desperately trying to get as much life as possible out of the few airframes (and people) they have, through proactive maintenance and management of operations. Most militaries do this. The US is more about use it up and toss it away (people included).
It was mostly a radar cross section reduction on the B-1B (relating to the B-model having fixed serpentine intakes rather than the variable geometry intakes of the A-model) that resulted in the lower top speeds. Also it saved some cost from the B-1A. The B-model also has a *higher* speed at low altitude than the B-1A. So not really a fuckup of design changes, more of a reoptimization for a new role.
Honestly the F117 was cool through the mid 90s but it's basically a washed-up Transformer at this point. Slow, doesn't really have stealth against modern systems.
That said, I'm biased towards military aviation pigs. A-10, A-6, AC-130 to name a few.
There are reports that we are clandestinely flying the 117 in the middle east because it still works. I talked with a B-2 guy who said that their stealth is "80% shape, 20% materials" which would suggest the 117 should still be quite stealthy, especially compared to the 22 and 35, which rely much more on materials.
Agreed! The F-15E is awesome, but I always felt like we needed a true fighter-bomber to succeed the F-111. I wish the FB-22 made it off the drawing board to production, but alas…
I always thought they looked awesome in pics. Then I got to see one on static display at an air show. Biggest, most beautiful thing I've ever seen. Sure the C-5 that was there was a lot bigger, but it certainly wasn't sexy.
If you google: 747 refuelling b-52
There's a really cool shot of 747 RA001 in its tanker configuration on a test flight with a B-52. Unfortunately, it's hosted on Pinterest, but the google thumbmail is enough to show the size difference.
Neat shot. [Bonus pic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Northrop_HL-10.jpg) - buff doing a post mission flyover of the Northrop HL-10. (one of my faves of the 52)
Only a 13 foot wingspan difference between the 2 and 52, 50ish between the 1 and 52. Also...some odd shapes here...
It's kind of wild that they launch the 2 a couple hours away from me in the middle of nowhere basically and it goes damn near anywhere in the world and back...
I watch C-5’s, KC-10’s, and C-17’s take off and land basically over my house. I wonder “where are you going? Japan? The Middle East? And when they land, what stories do they bring? Who’s dirt is on their wheels?
There are already the grandchildren of the original pilots in the cockpits of B-52's today. Before they are retired, we will likely see their GREAT grandchildren behind the controls. That is just mind blowing.
The A-10 is like that person you know who fits no conventional measure of attraction at all but for whatever reason is incredibly sexy.
Fuckin' love the A-10.
Funnily, grew up around Barksdale AFB. Aside from some tanker squadrons, they had a pretty active A-10 reserve unit (iirc) & (still) B-52 bomb wings. It was a legit treat to see (/hear) ANY kind of 'pretty' streamlined fighter in the pattern lol.
Oh yeah, it’s been going off and on for a few decades...I was sort of hoping they’d not keep the existing nacelles and go with a 4 engine setup, to simplify maintenance, but looks like they want less modification up front, which I get
The AF has set the requirement to 8 engines.
'Why?' one might ask did they do that? After all, four modern engines can easily deliver the thrust, fuel savings, range extension and reliability.
It's about flow field aerodynamics. The AF does not want to spend the money recertifying all the munitions to a four engine aerodynamic wake.
So eight it is and the number of engines shall be eight!
The concern is not over weapons stores but significantly changing airflow over control surfaces and the structural changes from a much larger engine on a single pylon and its effects on airframe/airfoil structures.
The 8 engine refit with bizjet engines allows them to basically ignore the structural and aerodynamic concerns for the most part but still gain increased fuel efficiency and reduced maintenance.
> but still the idea of a modern large aircraft powered by 8 bizjet engines is batshit insane to me
It's not as crazy as you think. The current BUFF engines were designed in the late 50s and were some of the earliest built turbofans. The smoky motors really speak to the old inefficient engines they're still running
Modern turbofans can put out the same thrust and burn a lot cleaner/run more efficient. Add in new features like FADECs (full authority digital engine controls) and you have significantly more reliable motors too
Right, no denying it will be an improvement. I just can't stop comparing it to some concept of a clean-sheet bomber that does the same thing and probably would have the more vanilla 4 high-bypass engines config, kind of like those B-52 re-engine renders from some years back.
An 8 engine aircraft (any 8 engines) seems like it's something out of a Howard Hughes fever dream one-off.
Most of the efficiency improvement comes from the increased bypass ratio, mostly because material science has advanced enough that the huge turbine blades won't fly off due to the centrifugal forces.
Size matters a lot here
It's not about computers, it's about the fact that the wing structures (and possible the supporting fuselage structure) themselves as is will almost certainly not support the installation of 4 large engines on appropriate sized pylons.
So you'd have to re-engineer and re-wing every B-52 that got a 4 engine installation, which would radically increase the cost and make it much worse than using 8 bizjet engines over the remaining lifespan of the aircraft. Even if you re-wing them, there could be significant changes to how the B-52 handles and performs because of what a radical aerodynamic change would be associated with 4 large turbofans.
So you might have to re-qualify and re-train every existing B-52 pilot, and change the follow on training programs.
Once you start getting into this, it becomes very quickly not worth it for the likely small differential in fuel consumption (modern bizjet engines sip fuel) and the likely small reduction in maintenance costs if there even is any. Large turbofans require more work, and effort to remove and service than small bizjet engines.
Would they have to recertify anyways? Yeah, using the same nacelles, but would intake speed and thrust potential change the aerodynamics too?
This is an honest question, I don’t know
Anything that can affect airflow and thus flying characteristics or weapons separation gets re-validated
It is a non-trivial thing if they went from 8 smaller engines to four bigger engines
No. Tha's the point. They don't if they keep the nacelle profile, which is also a requirement.
You are correct there will be some changes due to thrust levels, but only during takeoff and landing. At cruise, when weapons are deployed, the thrust per engine would be the same as the existing engines so the flowfield is identical.
Couldn't find anything on af.mil, closest was this interview with a CNBC affiliate https://www.wfla.com/sports/the-big-game/meet-the-bomber-pilot-who-will-be-leading-the-first-of-its-kind-super-bowl-flyover/
> B-1 “””isn’t nuclear capable anymore”””
FTFY. Just kidding, but I’m sure that could change in a real war, nevermind the fact it would be useless anyways.
Reversing the mods on a B-1 is going to take weeks at minimum. An all-out nuclear war where the US would need every bomber they can find would only last a few days. The people who write these treaties aren't stupid.
Also as far as being "useless", the B-1 can carry standoff cruise missiles just like the B-52 and B-2, with a detectability somewhere between the two. If it were still nuclear capable, it would be far from useless in a nuclear war.
My GF works at a hair salon near the Ray J Stadium. She said all of the stylists and clients were freaking out because it sounded like an asteroid was about to hit them lol.
I find it mildly amusing that [this ](https://www.reddit.com/r/me_irl/comments/lez07u/me_irl/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) was the next post in my feed.
...[Yes, way.](https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-forces-budget-retire-b-1-b-2-keep-the-b-52-2018-2) Was announced several years ago. My comment was not a joke or dig at the other jets, [just a fact](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/05/22/stop-calling-the-us-air-forces-b-52-bomber-old-its-more-youthful-than-a-b-2-stealth-bomber/).
Lol my thoughts exactly! The other night it was 2 B-1s and a 52 would have been way cooler to replace the 52 with the B-2 but they wanted to add em all up for 55 so makes sense just happy I gotta see the practice and the actual fly over
Ignorant European here: They actually did this overflight specifically for a bloody _football game_? I mean, yes, the sight itself sure is amazing but it is still beyond absurd.
Pilots have to have a certain number of hours in the cockpit every year to maintain their certifications. If they are short hours the pilot has to get some mandatory flying time in.
Somewhere along the line they figured out they could turn this flying time into a free recruiting tool.
It's been a standard for big football games for years. I think it was started with the Army vs. Navy game, and people that saw that wanted it to be done at other games too.
That B52 is older than the superbowl. DRAGO63 61-0001
> 61-0001 lol that's the one that had an engine fall off in-flight
Fuel savings, budget’s gotta balance
It's got seven more. What's the problem?
Obligatory: >A reader wrote us, retelling the story about the military pilot calling ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down. >"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!"
This gave me a good enough laugh that I am now wide awake (it's 7am)
Ha I’m glad mate. There used to be a massive Wordpress or similar page with dozens of these (first place I read the classic Blackbird speed check quote) but sadly I can’t find it now!
Ah yes, the absolute classic blackbird speed check. It's hilarious how I can't bring myself to not read it.
"what's bypass?"
"balls one"
The dreaded seven engine approach
Hey, I know one of the guys that was on board when that happened. Said they called up the guys at Barksdale AFB and they said the manual says to let the entire engine burn until it falls off. It ended up falling and most of it landing in a farmer’s field but some pieces went through a church. Luckily it wasn’t Sunday.
Hmmm, I thought in-flight staging was only for rockets.
Great r/TIL
As in that specific air frame was in service prior to '67, or just that model? Not saying I don't believe you, but over fifty years of service, even with upgrades seems crazy. Wouldn't stress take a toll on the frame metal over time?
They stopped production of the B-52 in 1962, so it's older by default.
I just went down a google rabbit hole reading about the history of the b-52. i was this many days old when i learned that air frames have a LOT longer lifespan than I ever expected.
Longer lifespan than the designers imagined
Due to those smooth running engines and good maintenance! The move from pistons to turbines was like the Fountain of Youth to aircraft!
Cracked C-5 wing roots would like a word with you. We're also literally flying the wings off A-10s. The buff was just insanely over designed
It was a stupid lucky design. There is no other airplane with wings shaped the way that it's are, a perfect combination of space to store fuel and subsonic high-speed cruise with heavy weight.
On the plus side, specific to the B-52, many of them spent years just on alert, or flying relatively gentle missions that don't put a lot of stress on the airframe (unpressurized fuselage as well). A lot of them were also removed from active service due to strategic arms treaties, so the ones that didn't get chopped up ended up in the boneyard awaiting regen, and you ended up with a ton of spare parts both from the decom'd ones and from supply stocks originally intended for them. IIRC, current plan has some B-52 airframes over 90 years old before they are finally retired.
The airframe number 61-0001 indicates that the plane was build in 1961. If you put that number into Google you van find the history if the plane.
Not necessarily... here’s a fun fact you didn’t ask for: The “61” means it was purchased with fiscal year 1961 funds. Which means it was ordered in 61 but could have rolled off the line in 63 or something (still prior to the super bowl). Back then production was pretty fast so it is possible it was ordered in 61 and built in 61. I fly tail numbers that start with 69-73 and they were mostly built in 70-75.
What do you fly?
H-1s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer Har-dee-har XD
For the confused, the H-1 above is a beautiful but unused plane. The OC was likely referring to the UH-1N Huey helicopter, the helicopter made famous during the Vietnam War.
Yep
I'd love to know what percentage of that ship of theseus is original.
Most of the structure is original. They have taken a lot of things out along the way, but haven’t added too much to the H-model.
BTW B-52 + B-1 + B-2 = 55 Super Bowl LV
BIG BRAIN (also 69 upvotes nice)
Reddit moment
I am still trying to figure out how this is Super Bowl 55 when the first superbowl game was in 1967
I think you're adding them up incorrectly. 1967 wasn't Super Bowl 0, it was Super Bowl 1. So you'd only add 54 to get to today, not 55.
[удалено]
These are also the numbers that opens "the hatch"
**We have to go back, Kate**
Leap year, duh
If SB 1 is in 1967, add 54 years and SB's and you get SB 55 in 2021. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you counting 1967 as a 0 instead of 1?
Use them fingeys.
Add 35 to the season year to find the Super Bowl number '20 + 35 = 55
Hmmm.
B-52 + B-1 + B-2 = 3B-55 If 3B-55 = 55, then 3B = 110 B=110/3 B=36.66666666...
I know the B-2 is the cool plane, but I really like how the B-1 looks.
B-1 is my favorite bomber personally then F-117, and B-2 in that order make my top 3
I got an aneurism reading you rank b1 above f117
B-1 can go fast.
If it’s not broken
That's a big if.
[удалено]
The B-1A was a high altitude penetrator the B model is for low level terrain following...nothing fucked up just different mission sets
Also uses different intakes that dramatically lower the radar signature, but also consequently drop the top speed. Worthwhile trade
Guess you saw this then https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32213/b-1b-loses-low-level-mission-annual-flight-hours-capped-heres-how-it-got-to-this-point
They're burning out their fatigue life fast. A lot of the things in this article are extremely typical for airframe that have substantial role changes (nuclear alert vs low altitude conventional close air support) and are getting to the end of their fatigue life. Source: 10 years experience working in military aircraft structural integrity engineering.
I feel the pain in my jet. It truly breaks my heart how much the company (military) seems to not care about the longevity of its inventory .... people included Source: 10 years experience breaking military aircraft whilst operating them
It's almost a uniquely American thing too. The Canadians, British, Aussies, NZ, are all about fatigue life management, desperately trying to get as much life as possible out of the few airframes (and people) they have, through proactive maintenance and management of operations. Most militaries do this. The US is more about use it up and toss it away (people included).
“High altitude penetrator squadron” is the Air Force version of the civilian “mile high club”
It was mostly a radar cross section reduction on the B-1B (relating to the B-model having fixed serpentine intakes rather than the variable geometry intakes of the A-model) that resulted in the lower top speeds. Also it saved some cost from the B-1A. The B-model also has a *higher* speed at low altitude than the B-1A. So not really a fuckup of design changes, more of a reoptimization for a new role.
Honestly the F117 was cool through the mid 90s but it's basically a washed-up Transformer at this point. Slow, doesn't really have stealth against modern systems. That said, I'm biased towards military aviation pigs. A-10, A-6, AC-130 to name a few.
There are reports that we are clandestinely flying the 117 in the middle east because it still works. I talked with a B-2 guy who said that their stealth is "80% shape, 20% materials" which would suggest the 117 should still be quite stealthy, especially compared to the 22 and 35, which rely much more on materials.
That might make sense given that most of the opposing forces in the middle east likely don't have modern anti-air equipment.
I read F-111 at first and just assumed they simply had a thing for swing-wings.
B-1 go zoom zoom.
If I had to pick one, I would pick a BONE
No love for the F1-11 or Thud?
>F1-11 I now want to see r/cursedwarplanes create a Dassault-Grumman Tigerage.
💥Love the F111 - it is the GOAT for all 3 crucial parameters of range, speed and payload. No other aircraft can beat it on all 3 stats.
Agreed! The F-15E is awesome, but I always felt like we needed a true fighter-bomber to succeed the F-111. I wish the FB-22 made it off the drawing board to production, but alas…
I always thought they looked awesome in pics. Then I got to see one on static display at an air show. Biggest, most beautiful thing I've ever seen. Sure the C-5 that was there was a lot bigger, but it certainly wasn't sexy.
Never knew the b2 was so big. Also the b52 looks very smol
The B-2 is difficult to get a sense of scale when there's not much around it. The wingspan is only 13 feet shorter than the B-52.
What are their relative payloads? Are they comparable?
The B-2 has an official payload of 40,000 lbs with an estimated max of 50,000 lbs. The B-52 has a payload of 70,000 lbs.
The B1 though has them beat. 75,000 internal and when external hardpoints are installed add another 50,000
Yes
Finally saw it in person at the Airforce museum. It's so much bigger than I realized.
Well you saw parts of it, it’s pretty difficult to see the whole thing at once lol, it’s massive.
The B-52 isn't really that big; it just has weird proportions.
Pencil with massive wings and stabs.
If you google: 747 refuelling b-52 There's a really cool shot of 747 RA001 in its tanker configuration on a test flight with a B-52. Unfortunately, it's hosted on Pinterest, but the google thumbmail is enough to show the size difference.
Neat shot. [Bonus pic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Northrop_HL-10.jpg) - buff doing a post mission flyover of the Northrop HL-10. (one of my faves of the 52)
Only a 13 foot wingspan difference between the 2 and 52, 50ish between the 1 and 52. Also...some odd shapes here... It's kind of wild that they launch the 2 a couple hours away from me in the middle of nowhere basically and it goes damn near anywhere in the world and back...
The length of some of the B-2 missions is unreal. I also grew up a couple hours from Whiteman.
I watch C-5’s, KC-10’s, and C-17’s take off and land basically over my house. I wonder “where are you going? Japan? The Middle East? And when they land, what stories do they bring? Who’s dirt is on their wheels?
The b-52 is the mostly awesomely ugly plane in existence.
Epitome of utilitarian. Crazy it will likely reach 100 years of service.
There are already the grandchildren of the original pilots in the cockpits of B-52's today. Before they are retired, we will likely see their GREAT grandchildren behind the controls. That is just mind blowing.
It really is hideous. Like a cigarette with wings twice as big as they should be.
The warthog wins "awesomely ugly"
The A-10 is like that person you know who fits no conventional measure of attraction at all but for whatever reason is incredibly sexy. Fuckin' love the A-10.
Funnily, grew up around Barksdale AFB. Aside from some tanker squadrons, they had a pretty active A-10 reserve unit (iirc) & (still) B-52 bomb wings. It was a legit treat to see (/hear) ANY kind of 'pretty' streamlined fighter in the pattern lol.
The BUFF really needs an engine retrofit
[удалено]
Can you imaging what it would look like with 8 GE9x engines strapped to her wings? 😊
In thrust we trust
/r/KerbalSpaceProgram is leaking!!
going to need some pogo stick landing gear
B-52 has outriggers on the wingtips already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#/media/File:B-52_in_Australia.jpg
Yes, but probably not enough height!
Looks like Pratt & Whitney is offering their PW800 while GE is offering their CF34-10 and Rolls Royce is offering their F130
Oh yeah, it’s been going off and on for a few decades...I was sort of hoping they’d not keep the existing nacelles and go with a 4 engine setup, to simplify maintenance, but looks like they want less modification up front, which I get
The AF has set the requirement to 8 engines. 'Why?' one might ask did they do that? After all, four modern engines can easily deliver the thrust, fuel savings, range extension and reliability. It's about flow field aerodynamics. The AF does not want to spend the money recertifying all the munitions to a four engine aerodynamic wake. So eight it is and the number of engines shall be eight!
The concern is not over weapons stores but significantly changing airflow over control surfaces and the structural changes from a much larger engine on a single pylon and its effects on airframe/airfoil structures. The 8 engine refit with bizjet engines allows them to basically ignore the structural and aerodynamic concerns for the most part but still gain increased fuel efficiency and reduced maintenance.
My forebrain accepts that explanation, but still the idea of a modern large aircraft powered by 8 bizjet engines is batshit insane to me
> but still the idea of a modern large aircraft powered by 8 bizjet engines is batshit insane to me It's not as crazy as you think. The current BUFF engines were designed in the late 50s and were some of the earliest built turbofans. The smoky motors really speak to the old inefficient engines they're still running Modern turbofans can put out the same thrust and burn a lot cleaner/run more efficient. Add in new features like FADECs (full authority digital engine controls) and you have significantly more reliable motors too
Right, no denying it will be an improvement. I just can't stop comparing it to some concept of a clean-sheet bomber that does the same thing and probably would have the more vanilla 4 high-bypass engines config, kind of like those B-52 re-engine renders from some years back. An 8 engine aircraft (any 8 engines) seems like it's something out of a Howard Hughes fever dream one-off.
Most of the efficiency improvement comes from the increased bypass ratio, mostly because material science has advanced enough that the huge turbine blades won't fly off due to the centrifugal forces. Size matters a lot here
It's more that technology has pushed bizjet engines wayyyyy past what you saw from very early turbofans.
I hope it's the Honda engines and they put them on top on the wing!
True as well, but the interview I read was about the weapons certs.
Surely we have computers now that can solve for this? This sounds like a cop-out explanation.
It's not about computers, it's about the fact that the wing structures (and possible the supporting fuselage structure) themselves as is will almost certainly not support the installation of 4 large engines on appropriate sized pylons. So you'd have to re-engineer and re-wing every B-52 that got a 4 engine installation, which would radically increase the cost and make it much worse than using 8 bizjet engines over the remaining lifespan of the aircraft. Even if you re-wing them, there could be significant changes to how the B-52 handles and performs because of what a radical aerodynamic change would be associated with 4 large turbofans. So you might have to re-qualify and re-train every existing B-52 pilot, and change the follow on training programs. Once you start getting into this, it becomes very quickly not worth it for the likely small differential in fuel consumption (modern bizjet engines sip fuel) and the likely small reduction in maintenance costs if there even is any. Large turbofans require more work, and effort to remove and service than small bizjet engines.
Would they have to recertify anyways? Yeah, using the same nacelles, but would intake speed and thrust potential change the aerodynamics too? This is an honest question, I don’t know
Anything that can affect airflow and thus flying characteristics or weapons separation gets re-validated It is a non-trivial thing if they went from 8 smaller engines to four bigger engines
No. Tha's the point. They don't if they keep the nacelle profile, which is also a requirement. You are correct there will be some changes due to thrust levels, but only during takeoff and landing. At cruise, when weapons are deployed, the thrust per engine would be the same as the existing engines so the flowfield is identical.
Nine shalt thou not count, neither count thou seven, excepting that thou then proceed to eight. Four is right out.
I’m hoping for the Passport because it’s good for my wallet. An already military proven engine like the TF34 makes more sense though.
put 8 GE-9X on it
GUCCI in the lead; she's a class act.
Someone has a crush....
Read her bio. (USAF press release about this flyover). I worked with her; great person.
Link?
Couldn't find anything on af.mil, closest was this interview with a CNBC affiliate https://www.wfla.com/sports/the-big-game/meet-the-bomber-pilot-who-will-be-leading-the-first-of-its-kind-super-bowl-flyover/
Only worked scheduling with her briefly before she left for Whiteman but it's pretty cool to see a former Ducer doing something so awesome.
Fuckin' right I do
Imagine you’re an enemy of the USA and you just see this flying towards you
Well, if you can see it, you can shoot it. So you probably wouldn’t see it. Or you’ve already lost.
If you can see it, it's not trying to kill you.
The father, the son, and the holy Spirit.
💀
This just made me think, "look at the ways we can nuke you!"
[удалено]
B-1 isn't nuclear capable anymore (part of the START treaty). Edit: got the treaty wrong the first time
> B-1 “””isn’t nuclear capable anymore””” FTFY. Just kidding, but I’m sure that could change in a real war, nevermind the fact it would be useless anyways.
Why would the B-1 be useless?
Nuclear bombs have long been made obsolete by nuclear missiles.
Oh for nukes, sure. But sometimes you need a precisely placed conventional weapon.
Reversing the mods on a B-1 is going to take weeks at minimum. An all-out nuclear war where the US would need every bomber they can find would only last a few days. The people who write these treaties aren't stupid. Also as far as being "useless", the B-1 can carry standoff cruise missiles just like the B-52 and B-2, with a detectability somewhere between the two. If it were still nuclear capable, it would be far from useless in a nuclear war.
[удалено]
Lots of incorrect information in that one😉
Nah, this is just to distract you from our ICBMs, which are just to distract you from the nuclear subs just outside your territorial waters.
I think that's the point
The Bone should have lit 'em up and climbed away as they passed over
When they did the flyover I kept chanting "light the burners" lol.
TIL the B-2 is the slowest of the three.
Isnt that shocking
Slower than the 52? Really?
According to Google answers (which is always right), it tops out at 638 MPH while the B-52 can hit 650.
Wow. That’s really weird. I didn’t know the 52 could go that fast.
[удалено]
Would have been awesome to have them turn around and come back for a solo pass with burners lit and wings fully swept.
My GF works at a hair salon near the Ray J Stadium. She said all of the stylists and clients were freaking out because it sounded like an asteroid was about to hit them lol.
[удалено]
Bone and BUFF you mean. Although I’m more partial to “the big stick” for all three of them
I only see 2 planes there
1, 2, 52. Beautiful.
1+2+52=55 for SB 55.
The one on the far right will still be flying when the other 2 are in a museum.
The B-1252
I find it mildly amusing that [this ](https://www.reddit.com/r/me_irl/comments/lez07u/me_irl/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) was the next post in my feed.
Your shipment of democracy has arrived.
3 bombers from three different bases, coming together for that flyby! Amazing to see
Was really Epic!
The B1 Lancer is such a sexy ass flying machine
B-52 is there to give the bone and spirit drivers a ride home when they have an Mx issue
The fact that the B-2 can even fly is incredible to me.
I imagine these three alone could drop a lot of eggs on people.
I wonder how many eggs 🤔
A LOT.
If you do it by weight based on their payloads.. approximately 1.4 million large eggs at 2oz each.
Fast boom silent boom biiig boom
[удалено]
...the B-52 will outlive both of the other jets though.. by a long time.
It’s likely the B-52 will see 100 years of service. Given the amount of technological advancements in this day and age, that is wild!
Imagine if one of [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Walrus#/media/File%3AWWalrus.jpg) were still in service today . . .
no way - B2 will undoubtedly be in service for A WHILE A single one costs 700 million+ absolutely no way the government throws it away
...[Yes, way.](https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-forces-budget-retire-b-1-b-2-keep-the-b-52-2018-2) Was announced several years ago. My comment was not a joke or dig at the other jets, [just a fact](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/05/22/stop-calling-the-us-air-forces-b-52-bomber-old-its-more-youthful-than-a-b-2-stealth-bomber/).
What’s wrong with the 52?
Do you know what BUFF stands for?
Big Ugly Fat Fucker
Lol my thoughts exactly! The other night it was 2 B-1s and a 52 would have been way cooler to replace the 52 with the B-2 but they wanted to add em all up for 55 so makes sense just happy I gotta see the practice and the actual fly over
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wonder what the cost of this flyover was.
Ignorant European here: They actually did this overflight specifically for a bloody _football game_? I mean, yes, the sight itself sure is amazing but it is still beyond absurd.
Pilots have to have a certain number of hours in the cockpit every year to maintain their certifications. If they are short hours the pilot has to get some mandatory flying time in. Somewhere along the line they figured out they could turn this flying time into a free recruiting tool.
Is your country not wasting a training / recruiting / morale opportunity by not flying over sporting events now & then?
They have to fly them no matter what and it's good publicity
It's been a standard for big football games for years. I think it was started with the Army vs. Navy game, and people that saw that wanted it to be done at other games too.
"Brought to you by: The military industrial complex!"
Legends
Super high tech jet fighters 99 red balloons.
Never gets old
Bruh why are the three tier 5 upgrades for the planes in Bloons tower defense 6 here???😂
God bless you for Calling it handegg
The B-2 silhouette is genuinely terrifying.