100 year flyers B52s KC135s

[dirtysidedown430]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... old-planes
And i thought the hueys hung around way too long. A Grumman bomber new one on me.

WAY too early to predict that the KC-135 (2057) or the B-52H (2061) will actually still be flying after 100 years - but we certainly can't discount the possibility. I think there is a very definite possibility that the KC-135R will be gone before then, superseded by the KC-46 and other follow on tanker aircraft.

And Northrop Grumman built the B-2 and will build the B-21 (should have been "B-3"), so not really a "Grumman" bomber, but a Northrop one whose heritage goes back to the XB-35 and YB-49.

[Jasonrs55]

We certainly don't want our B-52s to continue with their "appalling emissions impact".

[JohnB]

First there was "Fake news" now "Old News".

People have been writing about the "old " B-52s and C-135s for about 40 years. I remember people commenting on our old aircraft when I was a new 2LT...back in 1981.

With future military drawdown...no matter who's in charge in D.C...I don't expect a 52 airframe to last in for 100 years (and remember there is a 9 year age difference between the type and the actual age of the last B-52Hs. If one does make it that long it will be a test or special use ship, like the NASA drop birds.

As a transport with more uses, a 135 might make it that long but in regular service it will be replaced by the KC-46 and something newer by 2065 (the centenary of the last 135 airframe).

[bdk]

B-52s don't fly that may hours a year on average (355 hours?) so they will last a long, long time.

[JohnB]

I'm not questioning the airframe longevity, rather operational requirements and or budgets. In my library I have AFMC report from the mid-90s on the fleet, and you're right, the H's have very low times. However, the AF might always have a need for a flying dump truck, much like the B-1 which found favour from theater commenters in Afghanistan for its ability to carry a mixed ordnance load.

I do wish they had re-engined the H's back in the 90s with the proposed four 757 engines.

[bdk]

That would have given them commonality with the C-17 engines which would be a plus. They could have piggybacked on the existing C-17 overhaul contact. The C-17 program is the largest operator of those engines- 1100 on aircraft plus spares.

I don't know if anything else uses those B-52 engines so the USAF overhaul depot will have to support a bunch of very old engines for years to come.

[phil65]

We have some extra Raptor engine's here at Pratt.
F119, That will get her moving...

Phil

[quemerford]

You'd have to wonder about ground clearance with a big turbofan on those outboard engine pylons. I've often wondered because I have never seen an artist's impression of a re-engined B-52 sitting on the ground.

[Craig59]

As a pilot on the KC-135R, I had the opportunity to tour the conversion assembly line at Boeing Military in Wichita back in 1985. Even then, they were predicting the R model would be flying until at least 2040 - no surprise to me at all. At the time we had mostly 1961 models at McConnell and they averaged around 11000 airframe hours. Rough extrapolation puts that at about 450 hours per year meaning today those same tankers would have about 25000 hours. That's nothing compared to the 75000 hour MD80's I currently fly which are at least 25 years newer.

I think you could very well see R models flying beside the new KC-46 until 2060 simply because the USAF and other users will need the booms. The USAF used to have over 600, KC-135's simply because you can only have one receiver aircraft on the boom at a time and budgetary restraint won't get them anywhere close to that number with the KC-46.