# Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

This article seems to be displaying incorrectly for me on the Android app, and I've done the usual cache clear and app updates:
Contents list is blank, cannot scroll through entire article, cannot search for text in article.
The problem is *only* with this article (so far), and only on the app - displays fine via web browser. Mr kitehead (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This could be some issue with table(s) or maybe image(s).  Your description does not have enough detail to know where to begin looking. Everything seems to be showing on PC and my IPhone. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I installed the Wikipedia app on android to check. I'm also getting an issue. In the app, infoboxes are turned into a "quick facts" dropdown, which doesn't work for this article, and I can't scroll beyond the lead. the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon article is fine though. I can't see an obvious problem in this article's lead though. (Hohum @) 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I removed the deprecated? unrecognised "unit cost" parameter, and a couple of empty ones from the infobox. It seems to be working in the android app correctly now. (Hohum @) 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Hohum THANK YOU yes it's good now! Mr kitehead (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently the article reads 
"There are 72 aircraft in inventory as of 2022; 58 operated by active forces (2nd Bomb Wing and 5th Bomb Wing), 18 by reserve forces (307th Bomb Wing), and about 12 in long-term storage at the Davis-Monthan AFB Boneyard"
58 + 18 is already more than 72 (it's 76). Add 12 in mothballs and that's 88. None of these numbers play well together to create an "interpretation" that is arithmetically useful.
We either need clarification or correction, I think?
Huw Powell (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There is this article 1  that states, there are 76 B-52s in service, so i think the 72 is false, i've gone ahead and made the change Synonimany (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that edit.  I did read somewhere about a year ago that they have moved several of the 12 in storage to be scrapped.  I will have to see if I can find that again. --Picard's Facepalm •  Made It So Engage! • 14:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

In the "Cold War" section, a paragraph begins:  "In the 1960s, there were concerns over the fleet's capable lifespan." Then a general is quoted from 1965: "The B-52 is going to fall apart on us before we can get a replacement for it". But, as I read on, planes built in 1962 are still operational and may continue until the 2050s.  Perhaps I'm missing summat, but this sounds like an upgrade from wing to prayer. Has nobody voiced concern about nuclear bombs at 40-50,000 feet in an airframe 90 years old? Errantios (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
People are falling for the survivor fallacy. That some are still operational means they must be reliable. There are a lot of reasons some are still operational. They didn't get shot down, got more maintenance, were arbitrarily chosen to receive replacement parts from scrapped planes. Not A Priori a reliable plane. Just the 10% that still survive.
There are B52 articles, and mentions in documentaries about it. But I don't recall the source names.
2600:100D:A121:E404:387E:44AF:25EC:FEA7 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

In the Avionics section, both the LITENING and the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod are mentioned. Does the B-52H currently carry both systems? — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 20:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"As of 2024, the U.S. Air Force has 76 B-52s:[9] 58 operated by active forces (2nd Bomb Wing and 5th Bomb Wing), 18 by reserve forces (307th Bomb Wing), and about 12 in long-term storage at the Davis-Monthan AFB Boneyard."  58 + 18 + 12 = 88, not 76.   Details, details. 76.88.129.224 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)