· 199 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 1, 2026 at 1:39 PM

The US military says its 70-year-old B-52 bombers are now flying overland missions as air superiority expands over Iran

Posted by St_Gregory_Nazianzus

The US military says its 70-year-old B-52 bombers are now flying overland missions as air superiority expands over Iran
Business Insider
The US military says its 70-year-old B-52 bombers are now flying overland missions as air superiority expands over Iran
B-52 Stratofortress bombers are now flying overland bombing missions in Iran, the top US general said.
🚩 Report this post

199 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
tampapat54 Apr 1, 2026 +2369
B-52s like “well this doesn’t look like Da Nang”
2369
sandpinesrider Apr 1, 2026 +900
Those pilots could be flying planes that their grandfathers flew in the cold war.
900
Zobs_Mom Apr 1, 2026 +619
"Just like Saigon, eh Slick?" "I was in junior high, dickhead!"
619
PDNYFL Apr 1, 2026 +168
"Special Agent Johnson, no the other one."
168
27Yosh Apr 1, 2026 +84
"I give you the F B I"
84
Chumbief Apr 1, 2026 +60
Woah. We're gonna need some more FBI guys, I guess.
60
niz_loc Apr 1, 2026 +22
Sounds like an A-7 scenario. (I always wondered what A-2 through A-6 were.) (A-1 is a steak sauce, obviously)
22
27Yosh Apr 1, 2026 +13
A-6 scenario is when terrorists take over an airport and turn off the landing lights during a blizzard
13
Djaii Apr 1, 2026 +5
That’s MP Sauce on this side of the pond.
5
Smoked_Bear Apr 1, 2026 +30
“No relation.”
30
CyLoboClone Apr 1, 2026 +35
Ho-ho-ho.  Prove to me this is not a Christmas movie. 
35
ShortStoryIntros Apr 1, 2026 +15
If it's not on your top 10 Christmas movie list... I'm not sure I'd want to know what movies are
15
Ok_Significance544 Apr 1, 2026 +14
‘Joey, do you like movies about Gladiators’
14
Djaii Apr 1, 2026 +17
‘I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.’
17
Akbeardman Apr 1, 2026 +152
30ish years ago at Fairchild AFB a B-52 wing commander told 7 year old me on a tour "oh they'll still be flying when you're ready to join, the mother of the last B-52 pilot hasn't been born yet." That statement might still be true.
152
4RealzReddit Apr 1, 2026 +32
Supposed to go to the 2050s, so it’s possible. If it is EOL in the 2050s and a replacement is in duty or close to in duty, I am not sure when they will stop training new pilots. I imagine a few years before. So there is a good chance they will train as congress likes cancelling programs, even after spending billions.
32
Akbeardman Apr 1, 2026 +16
They've retiring it before. She's already been flying 70 years, I say let her make it to the bicentennial on active duty.
16
GruuMasterofMinions Apr 1, 2026 +6
They will make new ones. C**** to use with huge load.
6
nathanwilson26 Apr 1, 2026 +3
Ironically thread reminds me a the ancient philosophical paradox of the ship of Theseus. Are these B-52s really 70 years old given that over that time every part of the air frame has been updated and replaced.
3
GPStephan Apr 1, 2026 +8
If that mother was born a day after that her son could be 10 now without it being too far-fetched. Could be in training in a other ten years?
8
99_percent_read_only Apr 1, 2026 +2
It’s absolutely true 
2
AltDS01 Apr 1, 2026 +67
There's been cases of 3 generations flying the exact same airframe.
67
pepperouchau Apr 1, 2026 +41
Warhammer writers taking notes rn
41
Competitive_Clue5066 Apr 1, 2026 +21
3 generations of dreadnoughts
21
lonewolf210 Apr 1, 2026 +12
Exact same is kinda true. Those planes are true ships of Theseus. They have had almost every part upgraded at this point. Better electronic systems, better engines etc.
12
No_Accountant3232 Apr 1, 2026 +4
Even replaced airframe parts as they've gone out of spec. On the plus side it's very likely the seats didn't change.
4
Dominarion Apr 1, 2026 +32
Yeah... The B-52 H wen through so many refits, upgrades and modifications through the years, there's no original parts left on these "oldies". I'm certain a Vietnam era crew couldn't operate a current B-52, but it could be technically the same plane their grandkids would pilot. I don't feel confident I'm clear
32
GPStephan Apr 1, 2026 +38
B-52 of Theseus
38
VintageTool Apr 1, 2026 +21
The airframe, skin, and low stress mechanical components would very likely be mostly original.
21
ElminstersBedpan Apr 1, 2026 +21
Back in the 90s there was an episode of *Wings* on the History Channel where they interviewed a younger Buff pilot whose father had flown the same airframes. That guy's now old enough he may have a kid who has already flown the same squadron and also retired.
21
4RealzReddit Apr 1, 2026 +14
Big ugly fat f*****? I forget exactly what BUFF stands for.
14
ElminstersBedpan Apr 1, 2026 +3
Basically. I heard it a few different ways.
3
nathanwilson26 Apr 1, 2026 +2
That guy in the early 90s could easily be a grandfather of a pilot by now.
2
Stampede_the_Hippos Apr 1, 2026 +35
I'm an engineer that used to work on the B52 a few years ago. We interacted with the pilots a lot, and there were a few 3rd generation B52 pilots.
35
mhornberger Apr 1, 2026 +29
I think it's so cool that we still have B-52s, U-2s, and C-130s in service, all of which were designed during the slide-rule days.
29
BrofessorLongPhD Apr 1, 2026 +14
A well-designed product can be quite timeless. My favorite example is the paper clip. It’s been the same since like 1880s or something like that. Basically perfect for its function, no additional bells or whistles needed.
14
TheGisbon Apr 1, 2026 +9
There are several cases of this I can't find the interview I was looking for of a grandfather and Grandson who both flew the same airframe but here's another example Three Generations of B-52 Airmen > Minot Air Force Base > Article Display https://share.google/cJzV7YnNoSOpasH0O
9
TheNonSportsAccount Apr 1, 2026 +7
The shit show aside... if there is someone in that situation i feel happy for them thats cool as hell.
7
Justame13 Apr 1, 2026 +3
There are Vietnam Vets with great grandchild in uniform these days.
3
Youbettereatthatshit Apr 1, 2026 +3
Considering that a lot of military officers are multi generational, I’d say there is actually a real chance
3
InformationHorder Apr 1, 2026 +7
If all of the F4 Phantoms hadn't been destroyed on the ground in Iran, then there's a chance that an Iranian F4 that was flown in Vietnam could shoot down a B-52 that it had previously escorted.
7
Ogow Apr 1, 2026 +8
Just flying the planes Dementia Donny remembers as being the best.
8
alexefi Apr 1, 2026 +5
its a model, they are much bigger in person.
5
alwaysleafyintoronto Apr 1, 2026 +2
Theseus' B-52
2
urbanmark Apr 1, 2026 +2
In 1973, if the same thing occurred, they would have been flying the Wright Brothers Flyer 1 into battle.
2
CannonAFB_unofficial Apr 1, 2026 +2
I’m aware of one current B-52 pilot whose dad, and grandfather flew them. I flew the KC-135 and heard of a couple 2+ generation fliers as well.
2
KP_Wrath Apr 1, 2026 +2
I think this has happened at least once.
2
RichieLT Apr 1, 2026 +59
Fortunate son plays
59
Sunnyday1775 Apr 1, 2026 +13
Actually it was Private Idaho
13
badaimarcher Apr 1, 2026 +3
"There's a lott-a ruins, in Meso-pota-mia"
3
Sunnyday1775 Apr 1, 2026 +14
Wait this isn’t the love shack
14
GenericUsername2056 Apr 1, 2026 +32
"What are we supposed to bomb again?" "I told you before, Iran, dang." "You ran Da Nang?" "Just drop the bombs Terry."
32
Slggyqo Apr 1, 2026 +7
It’s probably more like “ah, the desert again. I miss the green.” at this point.
7
Mean_Rule9823 Apr 1, 2026 +992
B-52s are the C-130s of the bomber fleet now. Its crazy how effective this airframe is at multiole roles. Goes to show you when you nailed a good design its damn near timeless.
992
supercyberlurker Apr 1, 2026 +509
It's like the M2 Browning machine gun. Fearsome creation... but made right, in the beginning. It 8 years it'll have had over 100 years in active service.
509
Zydian488 Apr 1, 2026 +180
Serious question, how come when Russia had cold war era gear getting used in 2022 we all laughed and when we use 90 year old machine gun models and planes 80 years old it's "made right"? I know they didn't maintain their old shit and so it showed it was actually old, is that the only difference?
180
Ceorl_Lounge Apr 1, 2026 +307
That B52 is more effective now that it was in the 1960's, the same is not true for Soviet Era tanks.
307
magicwings Apr 1, 2026 +59
Why is this the case (the B52 being _more effective_ 60+ years later)?
59
mvschynd Apr 1, 2026 +114
Airframe stayed the same but everything strapped to it and shoved inside of it has changed.
114
Jealous_Ad_3321 Apr 1, 2026 +43
K****
43
Procrasturbating Apr 1, 2026 +20
You should see all the wires inside..
20
rotomangler Apr 1, 2026 +5
It’s also stuffed full of air-men
5
Ceorl_Lounge Apr 1, 2026 +182
JDAMs and Cruise Missiles. It's a bomb truck and and bombs are better now.
182
dparks71 Apr 1, 2026 +1
And tanks have armor which is insanely expensive to upgrade and is in a constant arms race with other tanks weapons and manpads. B52s aren't really used that way and don't have armor.
1
Queasy_Wasabi_5187 Apr 1, 2026 +129
New engines, sensors, networking... I doubt there are many original parts remaining.
129
Adipay Apr 1, 2026 +157
B52 of Theseus
157
Procrasturbating Apr 1, 2026 +27
Just the entire airframe portion.
27
Queasy_Wasabi_5187 Apr 1, 2026 +5
Really? That is one sturdy bugger if it lasts for over a century.
5
OldTimeyWizard Apr 1, 2026 +6
To give a little more context with dates, the B-52 airframe was only manufactured between 1952 to 1962. Currently the B-52 is expected to stay in operation until the 2050s.
6
rypenn27 Apr 1, 2026 +11
Kind of like how NASCAR cars are all production cars, but share nothing much besides the overall design of the exterior.
11
veryangryenglishman Apr 1, 2026 +47
Better weapons and electronic systems A B52 can practicably be used without risk of harm to itself if you can supress any enemy air defences in a fashion that doesn't really translate very well to using an old tank, for example
47
HeavyMetalPootis Apr 1, 2026 +11
I imagine there's more room for additional equipment/electronics when compared to a tank as well.
11
trossi Apr 1, 2026 +44
For one, it’s not really the same plane. The airframe is old but the systems it carries have been continuously upgraded. I worked as an engineer on the A10 modernization in the 2010s. The airframe is old but it carries modern tech. That’s a lot different than Soviet era tanks coming out of long term storage.
44
fragilemachinery Apr 1, 2026 +25
Because you can upgrade the computers/radars/bombs/missiles/etc, to add capability to what is fundamentally a good, large, long-range airframe. With a tank, it's not so easy to add the extra armor or better gun you need to go toe to toe with a newer platform
25
ChibbleChobble Apr 1, 2026 +10
Sorry? Are you saying that tanks fitted with chicken wire as an anti drone measure isn't modern warfare? /s
10
Khamvom Apr 1, 2026 +8
The modern-day B52 is basically a missile carrier. It can carry a lot of missiles and launch them from *hundreds* of miles away. B52 from 60 years ago had to literally fly over a target’s head and drop bombs on them.
8
upnflames Apr 1, 2026 +3
The only thing about that plane that is 70 years old is the airframe. Every else is new technology. The stuff Russia was rolling out had not been updated in decades.
3
YOGINtheFirst Apr 1, 2026 +38
Because there isn't a better machine gun out there, so it isn't outdated. Russia's geriatric tanks (especially the T-54/55, designed in 1945) would have been totally incapable of standing up to western tanks (like the Abrams, Leopard, Challenger) and missiles by the 80s or earlier. And the 80s were 40 years ago. Some technologies advance quickly, some don't. A knife from 1400 will stab a guy as well as a knife made yesterday. But a plane from 1940 has a literal 0% chance of shooting down an F-14 from 1970.
38
UniqueIndividual3579 Apr 1, 2026 +13
> But a plane from 1940 has a literal 0% chance of shooting down an F-14 from 1970. They made a movie about that.
13
YOGINtheFirst Apr 1, 2026 +10
Now playing: *Something hit me from 80 miles away*
10
TrainFan Apr 1, 2026 +60
Because the B52 has been upgraded with modern tech and capabilities over time.
60
El_Polio_Loco Apr 1, 2026 +49
Also the B52's only come out when the new stuff has effectively eliminated all other opposition. It's like sending in the old soccer player for the last 5 minutes of the match when your team is already winning by 10 and the other team has given up. They're mostly there to just take the shit minutes, and there's no danger.
49
John_Q_Deist Apr 1, 2026 +11
Less danger.
11
El_Polio_Loco Apr 1, 2026 +19
Sure, it's flying airplanes filled with explosives. The point is that the danger from enemy fire is effectively eliminated. The BUFF has a radar cross section of a small planet and could be shot down by any major SAM built in the last 70 years. They don't go out until those are completely eliminated.
19
Howzitgoin Apr 1, 2026 +10
They’ve been fine working over safe airspace in other countries in the area for a few weeks at this point. They’re not really used to carpet bomb anymore, they’re shooting off cruise missiles with hundreds of miles of range at targets well within that range. They also have fighter e****** for defense.
10
Easy_Kill Apr 1, 2026 +3
And they dont fly remotely low enough for the little pop-up systems like the Majid that are more easily concealed.
3
Howzitgoin Apr 1, 2026 +4
Or they just sit in friendly airspace like over Iraq or other gulf countries and lob cruise missiles from there.
4
Polytruce Apr 1, 2026 +20
It's more a matter of feature set than anything else. An M2 does all the things it's needed to, is still highly effective, and is a trusted design with no flaws glaring enough to seek replacement. A T-54 on the other hand is woefully obsolete in terms of optics, firepower, crew survivability, and mobility. It will do all the things an MBT needs to do, just not well, and any form of confrontation vs a more feature complete vehicle or anti tank system is almost guaranteed to go badly for the T-54. Which is why the Russians rolled it out as a stopgap and for indirect fire roles rather than as an actual MBT. Nobody really cares that the AK and AR platforms are pretty old by this point, because you can slap on some doodads to bring it up to modern standards and make it good enough for the job. The gear that gets clowned on is stuff that just can't be retrofitted to modern standards and is severely lacking in performance vs what their peers are fielding.
20
awfulconcoction Apr 1, 2026 +61
Russia is literally taking 80 year old equipment from storage. They aren't building new versions of ww1 rifles and ww2 tanks.
61
TheZombieFish Apr 1, 2026 +27
I think theres a difference between using 80 year old firearms and 80 year old tanks. Nobody is really laughing at their AKs (except for the really rusted and rotten stored quality ones) its mainly their heavier equipment youll be hearing about. They have lost almost all their cold war era tanks in Ukraine- that statistic tells me their gear holds up like garbage
27
abellapa Apr 1, 2026 +9
Ak are widely used in Many parts of The World They still do there job Meanwhile a 80 year Old tank is complete shit against a modern One , you only use One of you are either desperate and with no more options or the Enemy doesnt have any tanks at all
9
GentleCapybara Apr 1, 2026 +20
I think there are more than one component to this. Maintenance play a role, but I bet new M2s are still being made today, we cannot say the same to some Soviet designs.
20
SeaworthinessSome454 Apr 1, 2026 +9
Because the B52 is on like it’s 10th iteration of major upgrades at this point. The airframe is the same but virtually everything else has been swapped out. Russia is using machines that are basically identical to what’s was used in the 70s. And they don’t maintain their equipment whereas we are spending outrageous amounts of recourses maintaining our stuff. In general, about half of our big equipment is out of commission for maintenance at any given time. Our vast quantity of equipment allows us to do that, no other nation could come close to doing that and still project power across the world.
9
azhillbilly Apr 1, 2026 +5
Simpler answer. We choose to use the equipment that proved to be useful 100 years later. They are forced to use museum equipment out of desperation.
5
quaste Apr 1, 2026 +10
An upgraded and maintained B52 is fulfilling its role (dropping lots of shit long range in air superiority) perfectly, an ancient tank out of storage makes you a sitting duck in the battlefield.
10
GTACOD Apr 1, 2026 +5
AFAIK it's because Russia was using, if not *literal* and mostly undermaintained cold war era gear, more or less the exact same designs that were made then, while the Browning and B52 are periodically maintained and *upgraded*.
5
Dominarion Apr 1, 2026 +30
Yeah, about that. I'm pretty sure that after the upgrades they went through in the 2000s there's nothing left of the old planes.
30
LilTeats4u Apr 1, 2026 +50
B-52 of Theseus
50
BigBirdLaw69420 Apr 1, 2026 +2
Yes, that is my father’s axe
2
TheBeastlyCheese Apr 1, 2026 +24
No way man. They may have upgraded avionics and targeting systems but these things most certainly still have their original airframes, skin and engines. Rolls Royce is currently developing new engines for the remaining B-52s in service.
24
PartyLikeAByzantine Apr 1, 2026 +17
The structural airframe is original 1960's hardware and always will be. Metal fatigue is what will eventually retire the B-52, but it won't hit the flight hour limit on the structure until 2040+. I believe the upper wing skin will hit the limit first, at something like 40,000 flight hours. They could replace that fairly easily, but they'll run into hard-to-replace structures at the 45,000 and 50,000 hour limit. So it quickly becomes a feasibility issue. The current B-52H fleet currently still have their original TF33 engines too. Those will (unless cancelled due to cost overruns) be replaced in the next decade as part of the B-52J upgrade program. The electronics have been swapped out repeatedly. The cockpit is now a mix of HD screens and original steam guages. Pumps, actuators, and plumbing gets swapped as needed. Still, by weight, >80% of the B-52 will be original 1960's hardware when it finally retires. Higher than that if they never get those new engines.
17
VintageTool Apr 1, 2026 +4
They could also recertify the hour limit after they get a chance to inspect airframes approaching their hours.
4
PigglyWigglyDeluxe Apr 1, 2026 +5
The last b52 pilot hasn’t been born yet
5
Slggyqo Apr 1, 2026 +38
Eh…it’s just dropping bombs over Iran. Bombing enemies where American forces have established air superiority (at least at high altitude) is kind of its main role. Hardly an example of multirole capability. I’d also dispute the “timelessness” of the design. America has been fighting the same type of war for multiple generations. We built a bunch of other bombers to do riskier things against more dangerous peers, but they were hardly needed. The longevity of the design is definitely impressive—but its longevity doing the same thing or some variations on a theme.
38
PartyLikeAByzantine Apr 1, 2026 +23
>America has been fighting the same type of war for multiple generations. TBF, that's partially because America shapes wars into ones they like fighting. Desert Storm started off as a fight with the premiere fighting force of the Arab world. Iraq had spent a decade in a grinding war with Iran. It was battle tested. It just wasn't prepared for the kind of fight Washington had been preparing for since the failure of Vietnam.
23
Slggyqo Apr 1, 2026 +18
> premiere fighting force in the Arab world I’m not going to say you’re wrong. This is just a hilarious statement and I think I’m fully justified in feeling that way. The past 80 years has clearly shown that for whatever reason, the Arab world cannot string together a half decent modern conventional army. I’m sure there’s a complex combination of social and economic factors, but that seems to be a fact. Only time will tell, but even Iran seems like a very low dimensionality threat—they can basically do terror attacks (which include drone bombings) and they can threaten coastal shipping. But they can’t stop a 1960’s bomber.
18
PartyLikeAByzantine Apr 1, 2026 +18
Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from and that played into the precise wording I chose. However, Iraq is not the only force that's unperformed itself in recent decades. Russia has *wildly* underperformed expectations in Ukraine. Armenia was completely outclassed by Azerbaijan. Iran is at the point where mere survival is considered victory and their main strategic accomplishment is threatening civilians. Which begs the question: are these countries exceptionally bad, or are they the average and it's a handful of states that are exceptionally good at shaping wars to suit their strengths?
18
knotallmen Apr 1, 2026 +6
Corruption is the biggest thing. The second is there is propaganda from both ends. These nations create propaganda making their military seems resilient and strong both to their neighbors and to their people. Then there is the value of the Western nations having a powerful enemy to rally against and get funds for their militarizes. Cold war and hte The corruption weakens up and down the military structure from discipline, maintenance, knowing what weapons are where or their capabilities. Russia has gained ground at quite an expense of lives and equipment, but they are still producing equipment and sending more troops. Russia claims the conscripts are not sent in combat roles so who knows, but they still have volunteers even if some are coerced. I would be surprised if Iran collapses like Iraq. If Iran can still build more weapons and iterate on design the strategic bombers wouldn't necessarily outside of attack range. It could be while on the ground like that AWACS or they may even get their loitering weapons to intercept stratospheric bombers. If anything this war will teach Russia and China how to best counter USA military operations. Russia will directly aid Iran while China might keep to the shadows.
6
LeptonField Apr 1, 2026 +10
Could you expand on “We built a bunch of other bombers . . . but they were hardly needed”?
10
thatguy425 Apr 1, 2026 +30
B1 Lancer….
30
TheBeastlyCheese Apr 1, 2026 +21
B-58 Hustler, F-111 Aardvark…
21
Slggyqo Apr 1, 2026 +15
B2’s. They were used because we have them, but we didn’t actually need a strategic stealth bomber for deep penetration missions against terrorists and warlords who were lucky to have MANPADS.
15
your_grandmas_FUPA Apr 1, 2026 +11
B2s were absolutely crucial to last years strikes on Iran. The massive penetrator bomb is not a standoff weapon. Need to be otop of the target. At that time Iran had tons of SAM sites. Also the B2 is a deterrence weapon. Our nuclear deterrence is the most important weapon we have.
11
Easy_Kill Apr 1, 2026 +4
The F111 put in a ton of work in every conflict from Vietnam well into the 90s. Everyone thinks the A10 was the bane of ground forces in Desert Storm. That was only true if you were British. The Vark destroyed an absolute shitton of enemy armor and fighting vehicles, more than any other platform.
4
Slggyqo Apr 1, 2026 +13
Other people have commented already. But look at this absolute beauty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie Of course, the Valkyrie wasn’t a production plane. But there’s plenty of examples of those too.
13
Tibbaryllis2 Apr 1, 2026 +6
The argument could be made that that’s kind of the definition of timelessness. As long as the role doesn’t change, the design is still one of the best for it. Compare it to an analog watch face. It’s been doing the exact same job forever. We’re unlikely to radically change the way we measure time anytime soon and, although there have been some upgrades over the years, someone capable of using a watch in the ~1500s would be able to use a watch from the 21st century with minimum learning curve.
6
idespizeu Apr 1, 2026 +375
Surely its not 70 years old. The shell maybe? Its like rebuilding a mustang with a modern engine and running gear. I could be wrong
375
buttchugreferee Apr 1, 2026 +395
Plane of Theseus
395
takesthebiscuit Apr 1, 2026 +43
Triggers plane
43
Y0RKC1TY Apr 1, 2026 +27
Look after your B52. And it'll look after you? No, just look after your B52.
27
dwehlen Apr 1, 2026 +8
The Boof and the Ma Deuce go on *forever*.
8
BuddahSack Apr 1, 2026 +89
The systems and internals are definitely updated, along with many other parts. Imagine flying with only the communication equipment that was in the original haha
89
Tanto63 Apr 1, 2026 +34
Like a classic car restored in the 90's, even their "upgraded" comms are old (and terrible) at this point. - Former ATC at Ellsworth AFB who had B-52's visit about once a month
34
DillDeer Apr 1, 2026 +19
Correct. The design itself is 74 years old, but the latest B-52H delivered was in 1962. Making the youngest B-52H at least 64 years old. They are upgraded overtime though. Not everything on them are that old.
19
Spectre197 Apr 1, 2026 +47
Born to early to fly the b52 Born to late to fly the b52 Born just in time to fly the b52.
47
sittingmongoose Apr 1, 2026 +82
They are that old. I worked with the people flying and maintaining these exact planes. They are heavily maintained and have been modified over the years. However they are still largely the same, same hydraulic controls too. They are like driving a nascar car at 200mph+ on the bumper of another car the entire time you are flying. Nerve wrecking is an understatement.
82
alexwasashrimp Apr 1, 2026 +89
> They are like driving a nascar car at 200mph+ on the bumper of another car the entire time you are flying. I like it when a metaphor meant to clarify something makes it more confusing. It's like slapping the table with your d***.
89
sittingmongoose Apr 1, 2026 +25
The metaphor means, when you are a nascar driver, you’re white knuckle the entire time. You’re driving 200+mph inches behind another car doing the same speed and you’re doing it for hours straight. It’s unbelievably stressful and taxing on the body. These planes are the same but worse. They shake violently, wander through the air, don’t respond well to controls, and you’re doing that for hours, sometimes days straight. You need to have nerves of steel and incredible skill.
25
alexwasashrimp Apr 1, 2026 +22
Thanks, now I get it. I can't explain my own metaphor though. 
22
Tonnemaker Apr 1, 2026 +18
Your metaphor is also unbelievable stressful and taxing on the body when done for hours straight. 
18
first_time_internet Apr 1, 2026 +14
The frame will last forever. Those planes are very modular and basically every component can be replaced. Same goes for commercial aircraft. 
14
avatoin Apr 1, 2026 +5
It's primarily the airframe. The engines, radar, and a bunch of other stuff have gone through various upgrades over the years. I think another engine upgrade is currently in the works.
5
Coconutrugby Apr 1, 2026 +6
Theseus’ B52
6
DownWithTheSyndrme Apr 1, 2026 +56
Grandpa BUFF is forever
56
sephirothFFVII Apr 1, 2026 +137
Habitual line crosser about to get a bunch of content to work with
137
old_righty Apr 1, 2026 +35
Has the kid gotten ANY action out of this whole thing?
35
Starlord_75 Apr 1, 2026 +31
No, and he's very upset about it. Even the nerd got an air to air kill, yet he has to be content with cover missions and the occasional weather balloon
31
BlueKnight8907 Apr 1, 2026 +15
Who and what are y'all talking about?
15
Starlord_75 Apr 1, 2026 +25
The kid aka the f22 from Habitual line crosser on YT. He puts faces on planes and countries and does skits based on real world events. One of those is an f22 (who wants an intercept but always gets denied) and who also has a racoon that is a CIA plant, but we don't hold that against Franklin
25
BMW_wulfi Apr 1, 2026 +7
Sorry say that again but slower..
7
old_righty Apr 1, 2026 +3
Go on YouTube and look for the habitual line crosser channel. It’s been around for a while so some inside jokes are based on years old videos but it’s entertaining.
3
old_righty Apr 1, 2026 +3
That sneaky SOB always trying to let the kid out of the hangar!
3
Fellatination Apr 1, 2026 +7
I'm shocked he's not getting pushed more on the new TikTok algorithm. I've barely seen anything from him.
7
Kleoes Apr 1, 2026 +2
I’ve stopped watching as often since he switched to the longer form videos. He also doesn’t pop up as often as he used to on my feed.
2
texasram Apr 1, 2026 +167
are they going over Kid Rock's house too?
167
lolimdivine Apr 1, 2026 +13
he’s actually piloting one
13
coredenale Apr 1, 2026 +35
Oh man, a quarter century ago, I actually worked on a flight sim call B-17 Flying Fortress. Landing that thing without crashing with all the realism variables turned on was crazy challenging. As with any landing you had to achieve the right airspeed, line up the runway, and get the nose up a little, but as you decelerated, the aerodynamics of the plane were no longer enough to fly straight, I guess because of the torque from the props, which would shunt you off the the side (right side if I remember correctly) such that as you slowed and got closer to the ground you had to steer more and more left to compensate, while still holding fast with everything else. I think I only successfully landed it once.
35
Locksandshit Apr 1, 2026 +12
As a child, I remember that game. My dad loved it and had a whole setup to play it He loved that game, the air warrior games, and there was another one with a stealth fighter I can’t recall the name of He’s boring and doesn’t play games now lol 😂
12
TemujinRi Apr 1, 2026 +6
Buy him a flight simulator set up for his birthday. Maybe he just feels he's too adult to spend that kind of money on a hobby for himself.
6
Locksandshit Apr 1, 2026 +3
Well he’s in his 70s now but yeah maybe
3
TemujinRi Apr 1, 2026 +3
I was thinking at one point he loved to chill and fly. With the newest one he could even do a flyby over the city he lives in. Might be a helluva way for the two of you to connect with something from your childhood.
3
acityonthemoon Apr 1, 2026 +2
this one?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117A_Nighthawk_Stealth_Fighter_2.0
2
Dofolo Apr 1, 2026 +165
In theory S400 cannot go to their max ceiling ... but someone is gambling big here I'd say.
165
DragonfruitIsOP Apr 1, 2026 +90
The Iranians don’t have S400
90
Nevarien Apr 1, 2026 +49
Yeah, there haven't been a single sight of it. If they do have it, it's buried deep in their tunnel cities.
49
Aromatic_Balls Apr 1, 2026 +57
If they ever truly had one, I'd bet money Russia has already asked for it back at some point and it's probably now a smoking heap of scrap metal somewhere in Crimea.
57
FuckHarambe2016 Apr 1, 2026 +112
In theory the S400 isn't total dogshit, but it turns out it is.
112
HopiumInhaler Apr 1, 2026 +48
Russian and Chinese ADS got clowned in Venezuela. And now again in Iran.
48
itsFelbourne Apr 1, 2026 +67
Now that’s not fair Russia systems have proven themselves deadly time and time again, against civilian airliners
67
Letterkenny-Wayne Apr 1, 2026 +8
Oof
8
Letterkenny-Wayne Apr 1, 2026 +15
Huh? The 400 is very capable of almost double the 52’s ceiling, but the 52’s don’t just carpet bomb wide tracks anymore. They’d be kept at standoff range of known SAM locations with EW e****** just in case.
15
avatoin Apr 1, 2026 +6
They wouldn't let the B-52s in if they thought there were anything like an S400 still online. Before this, they'd rely on B2s and B1s.
6
Dofolo Apr 1, 2026 +3
Iran has been operating S300 since 2016, and supposedly 1 S400 since 2025. I have to stand corrected, dang ft and km :D S300 can go 2x the operational ceiling of a B-52, depending on the interceptors loaded. A S300 system that waits, turns on radar on a B-52 and shoots would be a bad day for that crew. So someone gambled on all S300 and that one S400 being radar blind 100%.
3
LX_Luna Apr 1, 2026 +5
If B52s are overflying Iran, you can safely assume that a lot of people are pretty sure all the serious AD is dead.
5
Noodleholz Apr 1, 2026 +25
That's not true, the S400 is made to intercept high flying strategic bombers and can hit twice as high as the B52 is flying. If the Soviets could hit U2s in the 60s, an S400 can hit a B52. 
25
TheJewPear Apr 1, 2026 +22
How many American and Israeli planes has Iran intercepted so far?
22
HopiumInhaler Apr 1, 2026 +40
Most of them are MQ9 Reaper drones. So far Iran has only been able to scratch one F35.
40
ThorvaldtheTank Apr 1, 2026 +26
Reaper drones are a given. They are slow, single engine turboprops loaded with AGMs. Ridiculous how expensive yet vulnerable they are
26
Umadbro7600 Apr 1, 2026 +23
they’re a gwot relic, designed to fight against insurgents in a desert…they were never intended to be flying near peer or peer to peer missions.
23
Seanspeed Apr 1, 2026 +11
There's no reason to not use them if you're confident you've cleared the airspace near a target.
11
WealthyMarmot Apr 1, 2026 +12
> Ridiculous how expensive yet vulnerable they are Which is why we stopped making them. They were great in the GWOT, much less so against more capable enemies.
12
pyrotechnicmonkey Apr 1, 2026 +3
Not really gambling when you know, they haven’t had any deliveries because Russia can’t afford to export anything with their own war going on
3
stedun Apr 1, 2026 +6
Tin roof… Rusted !!!
6
Sunnyday1775 Apr 1, 2026 +3
Why did I have to go this far down for a B-52s reference
3
CircumspectCapybara Apr 1, 2026 +44
Sounds very dangerous. It's extremely risky to fly *overland* missions. At stand-off distance to launch some cruise missiles, sure, but flying overland is pretty dangerous for the slow, lumbering, and highly observable B-52. The US is the king of SEAD+DEAD, and all of Iran's integrated air defense apparatus has been dismantled. But they still have plenty of dangerous non-integrated, ad-hoc, point defense systems.
44
Roar-Lions-Roar Apr 1, 2026 +47
> Sounds very dangerous Tells me that Iran’s air defenses are nonexistent at this point.
47
AllForProgress1 Apr 1, 2026 +15
Normally I'd agree but this admin has been very particular about its generals. Considering they didn't consider the Hormuz I'm thinking we don't have our first string playing
15
Khamvom Apr 1, 2026 +9
The B52 operates at an altitude of 30-50k feet and is basically a missile-carrier that launches stand-off weapons from *hundreds* of miles away. Iran’s surviving air-defenses (MANPADs, short-range, point-defense systems, etc) can reach 10-15k feet max and have a range of *dozens* of miles.
9
letscallitanight Apr 1, 2026 +13
Probably tied to the fact we’ve burned thru a big % of our cruise missiles.
13
StayWhile_Listen Apr 1, 2026 +2
Anything with a radar would get destroyed by wild weasels opening the flight paths for the bombers. Ideally they'd have other e***** right away. The b52 is quite safe
2
CompletelyPresent Apr 1, 2026 +40
Anything to distract from the evidence that the president raped children.
40
Chiinoe Apr 1, 2026 +16
Thats like teabagging somebody.
16
FlameOfWrath Apr 1, 2026 +3
So, like an air show?
3
l0st1nP4r4d1ce Apr 1, 2026 +22
Lol. 70 years old. They are basically the flying version of the ship of Theseus. Their purpose sucks, but they are rock solid at the job they do.
22
Mightysmurf1 Apr 1, 2026 +21
It's really weird way to frame the headline. Out of all the attibutes and characteristics of the B-52's, bringing up that they've been in service 70 years seems a moot point considering they are still very good at what they do hence being in service. It's not like the USA has pulled them out of retirement because they've ran out of Bombers.
21
Seanspeed Apr 1, 2026 +6
>It's really weird way to frame the headline.  I think it's meant to just be an interesting note, not a criticism.
6
526mb Apr 1, 2026 +3
My dad was a B-52 pilot. He retired in 1996 and many of those planes are still in the air. Really remarkable machines.
3
grodyjody Apr 1, 2026 +3
They have achieved that level of air superiority and weapon suppression that those planes should be there? Oh and no one celebrated that moment with graphs and banners? I’m not buying it
3
ayymadd Apr 1, 2026 +10
Is it really such an old piece of hardware that reliable?
10
Sal1160 Apr 1, 2026 +52
They’ve been extensively rebuilt over the years. New wings, tails, engines, avionics, but all the fuselages are original. A good maintenance regimen can work wonders
52
Dominarion Apr 1, 2026 +16
The title is misleading. The first B-52s were deployed 75 years ago, but those who are deployed are a version that was thoroughly modernized. That's like saying that the US use 100 years old machine guns and autocannons because the .50 and the 20mm have first been developed 100 years ago.
16
_9a_ Apr 1, 2026 +25
They're all Ships of Theseus by now.
25
Arcanus124 Apr 1, 2026 +8
Ever heard of the ship of theseus?
8
FreshestCremeFraiche Apr 1, 2026 +8
Anyone who’s been on Listnook for 10 minutes or more has heard of the ship of Theseus
8
pyrhus626 Apr 1, 2026 +2
Strategic bombers are some of the best maintained equipment in the military, and the B-52 is a very easy platform to perform retrofits on. By definition their role as nuclear deterrent strategic bombers need to very reliable and have high readiness rates. One of the main reasons B-52 is still around is because the thing is so damn reliable. They are incredibly well designed and built, but relatively simple and easy to maintain, and with upgrades continue to meet all the criteria a non stealth strategic bomber needs. Hell, the B-1B is a much newer design and built more recently and have aged out already before B-52. Most everything except the actual frame and engines been replaced since they were first built. Anything not outright replaced has had significant life extension retrofits done so it’s arguable whether those components even count as the “original” anymore with how many sub components have been replaced over the years.
2
DaySecure7642 Apr 1, 2026 +5
If the US can bomb with B-52 then the air defense of the opponent is basically over. The cost of striking will be much lower compared to using long range missiles or striking with stealth planes. I guess the US can go on attacking for months with just B52, A10 and helicopters if needed to.
5
Tel_Janen Apr 1, 2026 +2
Wait till the rolls royce engines are retrofitted
2
SandysBurner Apr 1, 2026 +2
They came from Planet Claire.
2
hartford-j Apr 1, 2026 +2
Kieth Strickland is about the same age as the first B-52, Cindy Wilson is a bit younger, but still older than retirement age.
2
← Back to Board