New B-52 Engines JUST Shocked Everyone: "It Will Fly For Over 100 Years!"

The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has patrolled the skies for the U.S Air Force for the better part of seven decades since its February 1955 introduction.
And now, the strategic bomber is currently undergoing some improvements aimed at keeping it in the skies even up until the century mark.
Part of the key improvements includes a major re-engining project so significant that the designation of its most-recent variant, the B-52H, is set to change after almost two generations.
This development has left everyone in the military aviation industry shocked. Here’s why.

[@Mirraluka]

B52, Will get the best ENGINES in the World, Rolls Royce built in America what a bomber that B52J will be.

[@CTCDetroit]

Standoff missiles certainly keeps the B52 bomber relevant.

[@CounterC]

Very good history on the B-52.

[@RickTheClipper]

The days, Boeing knew how to make planes
Long gone qualities

[@Cacowninja]

I don't get why they don't just put new models of the B52 into production if they're going to keep using the aircraft.

[@supertruckertom]

There are hundreds in storage in Arizona that could possibly be refurbished and updated.

[@user-jt3cd4sh5s]

Boeing MUST do the same upgrade on the engines and fuselage of the older passenger aircraft like the 757 and 707 which were more reliable back in the day.

[@chloehood6355]

Surely its all missiles in the future
these expensive planes are easy
targets.

[@tonylam9548]

The main attraction of the B52 is the plane been long ago bought and paid for. It had to be upgraded more often than a newer plane, and you cannot add stealth features to it. It is basically a bomb /missile truck. If the air force have a bit more flexibility in their mentality, they are going to discover quickly a C17 / 747 would be able to be converted to do the same job almost as well, while retaining their basic role as freighter or even to serve as tankers with a fuel tank(s) inside. Bombs and cruise missiles can just be rolled out the cargo ramp at the back, while the 747 will need a couple of added side doors. But you can get used 747 for little money now. I know the air force will not go for it, they are too used to being drunk on the tax payer's money.

[@lancraft]

Why continue with the B52??? These things are sitting ducks.

[@StevenCampbell1955]

Yeah, nah, they are usually escorted by a flight of fighters and they are just sky trucks carrying fuel, missiles, bombs and stuff that nobody at home wants. By the time these get to a target there should only be a whimper and a prayer to deliver their load. After they leave, there is nothing to cry about left. Seein' as how there can fly half way round the world and back with a full load of mischief, they will probably have a role to play for a few more decades yet.

[@nunyabeeswax3936]

Get out of ukraine and support our Nation and people! Oh yes and fund this most worthy Project !

[@deltavee2]

Be gone, red bot!
90% of the money voted for Ukraine is spent on AMERICAN FACTORIES WHICH MANUFACTURE THE ARMS SENT TO UKRAINE, PROVIDING JOBS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS!
That _IS_ supporting the nation and providing jobs for Americans.
NINETY PERCENT OF THE MONEY STAYS IN THE U.S. regardless of whatever excrement MTG is spewing.
Can you wrap your non-researching head around that or would you like some nice drawings to make it simpler?

[@markkukorpivaara9471]

4 engines instead of 8 would have been better and cheaper!

[@steevesdd]

This is stupid. Extending an airframe to this extent is only a subsidy to Boeing. The role of the b52 can now be done by transport aircraft with minor upgrades.