Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

message: Not sure I understand the encyclopedic value of the cost table for individual bits of eaach model, propose it can be removed as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both historic and current costs for all U.S. aircraft in the inventory are highly notable, and used in a large number of routine analyses and academic endeavors.  As a college professor and former military aviator, I very strongly recommend against any such removal. Clepsydrae (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Costs

message: The article says: "The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952.".  Boeing says "The first B-52A flew Aug. 5, 1954."  http://www.boeing.com/history/products/b-52-stratofortress.page.  The previous flights seem to have been of the YB-52.  Anyone see any reason why this correction should not be made?
Jim Whitaker (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The in service data is when a military aircraft is declared operational, such as Initial operating capability.  This is not tied to a first flight. --Finlayson (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The B-52A model began with the third B-52 aircraft, which did indeed conduct its first flight on August 5, 1954.  The YB-52's maiden flight counts as "The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952." Clepsydrae (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In service date 

message: The article implies that all B-52 models prior to the B-52H were armed with .50 caliber machine guns and expressly states this was the armament for the B-52A.  Through the first half-dozen B-52Bs, the planes were armed with two 20mm guns, which used an entirely different fire control system than was installed for the quad 50s.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it with reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now there's no mention of the guns under the armament section at all … 93.145.221.210 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable, as the currently-flying models no longer possess them. Maabonnet (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armament 

message: Strategic Air Command was, in fact, disestablished.  This was accomplished by inactivating Headquarters, Strategic Air Command.  However, the command is an establishment, not a unit (unlike its headquarters) and is established and disestablished, not activated and inactivated.  The cited source for changing "disestablished" to "inactivated" is a Public Affairs caption to the command's emblem.  A minor technicality, and not worth making the change. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAC "inactivation" 

message: The current CERP program is going to include alot more than just engines, as laid out in my recent addition to the upgrades section. I think that the portion on the various historical programs that aimed to upgrade the engines should remain where it is but the information about the current program (that has led to the selection of the rolse royce engine) should moved into the upgrades section of the article. Obviously I want to seek some consensus here before I do this but it makes more sense to have the information about the CERP program located in one place in the article rather than either duplicated or having information about the sensor/radar/communications ect upgrades in the engine retrofit section or having the information split as it currently is. Tamoraboys (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: CERP (the Commercial Engine Replacement Program) is, as its name implies, just about the engines, and is in itself the largest modification in the aircraft's history. The aerodynamic effect of the larger nacelles has to be assessed and the digital controls of the new engines have to be integrated with legacy systems. The radar upgrade is a separate programme under separate contract. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine update and upgrades section 

message: The ARRW program was recently canceled. Maabonnet (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove ARRW references from the Armament section 

message: The number in inventory says 72, but the contingent numbers after add up to 98.  My request is for clarification. 2600:1700:3130:AE10:542C:B6B2:B104:D923 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: As far as I understand, those are separate categories. Inventory, active service, long term storage are all separate from one another. However, this isn't my topic of expertise. If you have specific research questions, you can always ask at the reference desk (WP:RD). Actualcpscm (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023