5 ms·
US Air Force B-52 bomber crashes after takeoff, Edwards Air Force Base says
- dmvjs 4mo agowhy present tense?
- Jtsummers 4mo agoIt's common in news headlines when an event is very recent or a story is still developing. A report about, say, the US bombing a previously unreported site in Iran several weeks ago would be in the past tense "US bombed <site> in Iran". When the US bombs Iran today, it'll be titled "US bombs <site> in Iran".
- dmvjs 4mo agoright but it had already happened
- qq66 4mo agoThey stopped making the B-52 64 years ago. The US military is depending on planes that are simply too old and need to be refreshed.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4mo agoGeorge Will mentioned in a recent article that some of the B-52s used against Iran were built before the first Beatles album.
- mrhottakes 4mo agoTrue, but the B-52s that are currently in operation are very much a Bomber of Theseus situation.
- Jtsummers 4mo agoAlso true for most aircraft in the US military fleet that aren't of the most recent generation. Depot maintenance strips them down, and pretty much everything but the frame itself could have been replaced by this point for anything over 30-40 years of age. They also do form, fit, function for LRUs so that the a new LRU can be dropped in and connected to the existing aircraft as much as possible, allowing for more gradual changes over time.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> planes that are simply too old Planes don’t really age like that, at least not if they’re serviced. They’re constantly being rebuilt and inspected. The only reason airliner fleets churn as much as they do is fuel efficiency and maintenance standardization.
- dpe82 4mo agoNit: at some point you start getting metal fatigue issues (see Aloha Airlines Flight 243) but in general yes: fuel efficiency and fleet standardization. Also airliners usually just become cargo planes for quite a long time before retirement. Eg. there's a bunch of DC-3s still being commercially operated. Jet engine noise regs killed a bunch of early jets, but older prop aircraft are still going strong.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> Nit: at some point you start getting metal fatigue issues Good point. The B-52 doesn’t pressurize the whole fuselage. Just the crew compartment. > airliners usually just become cargo planes for quite a long time before retirement Out of curiosity, do they not pressurize the cargo hold?
- bri3d 4mo ago> Out of curiosity, do they not pressurize the cargo hold? Well, the DC-3 is a fun example, because it wasn't pressurized to start with. But no, normally converted freight aircraft are fully pressurized; it's more expensive and more intrusive to redesign the plane to have a cockpit pressure bulkhead than it is to just leave the whole thing pressurized. There are some exceptions like the Beluga, usually due to door design constraints (at some point, making a cockpit pressure bulkhead becomes easier than making a giant pressurized door). This trend in retrofits might change; flat aft-pressure-bulkhead retrofits are becoming a thing to increase cubic footage capacity, and at some point someone might decide that the effort required to engineer and certify a cockpit bulkhead would be worth some advantage in door design or cargo capacity in a broader sense. But for now, they're usually fully pressurized. The main reason why planes get a second life in freight is that freight carriers have _way_ more options for utilization; they fly fewer hours overall, hold the plane until it's completely full, and utilize different airports and routes. A loud, inefficient plane is OK to fly twice a day between two fixed airports with no noise restrictions, but useless to a passenger carrier who wants to make four or five turns between whatever airports are necessary and doesn't have guaranteed utilization to cover the overhead - right back to your original point, which I don't think anyone was really disagreeing with.
- blowsand 4mo agoPlease do more research. They are most decidedly not “simply too old”. They have been “refreshed” many times over - from engines, to flight electronics, to targeting and comms systems, to airframe structures, to coffeemaker automation.
- hk1337 4mo agoSounds like a lot like ship of Theseus. The B-52 now is not not the same B-52 64 years ago.
- Der_Einzige 4mo ago[flagged]
- SteveNuts 4mo agoMentour Pilot covered the B-52 history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbCeKNcr6Wk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbCeKNcr6Wk
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- esseph 4mo ago> Similarly, the M4 or direct derivatives continuing to be the main rifle for the majority of infantry is also stupid. Man this is so far off topic, but I would consider myself somewhat well educated and personally and professionally experienced on this topic, and I very much would love to know what problems you see with the M4A1 weapon system in 2026.
- jmalicki 4mo agoThe airframes still date closer in time to the Wright-Patterson Kitty Hawk flight than to today.
- labcomputer 4mo agoHow much physics has changed between Kitty Hawk and today?
- bigfatkitten 4mo agoThe USAF has been neglected for a long time. The service has seen reductions in both headcount and airframes with no gains in efficiency or effectiveness. Too many types of aircraft to operate and maintain, with too few people to do it and too few available airframes to maintain a combat capability.
- elevation 4mo agoA friend who served was assigned to fix broken planes quickly. He and his fellow mechanics could be punished for not being ready to make urgent repairs, so they maintained a stock of commonly used parts in the hangar. One year, a congressional efficiency mandate required that AFBs return any parts that hadn't been issued in the previous (90 days?). Returning their stock just because it hadn't been needed in the last 12 weeks undermined their readiness requirements, so the staff found a way around this limitation: periodically discard qty 1 of any seldom-used part and order another one to show proof of need. The congressional anti-waste attempt only served to fill their dumpster. Along with investigating airframe selections, it would be worthwhile to audit the branches for these kinds of perverse incentives, to hear from people at all levels about which policies are helpful and which cause needless waste.
- bityard 4mo agoI don't know what timeframe your friend served, but when I was in the Air Force, leadership was constantly making a big deal about FWA (fraud, waste, and abuse). Now I wonder if it was in response to them finding out about schemes like these. I also remember our shop being under (unwritten!) pressure from the squadron commander to spend every cent we were budgeted for (without going over!) to make sure we got at least that much last year.
- mrguyorama 4mo agoThe B-52 lives in an awkward niche. Bomb trucks over utterly unprotected airspace might just not be a thing anymore. If that holds for the forseen future, the B-52 will not have a real successor. Currently, it looks like non-precision bulk bombing is just obsolete. We "depend" on the B-52 because it still works, and there's a lot of chance it shouldn't get a replacement. Are there any other planes we "depend" on that are old but not being replaced? Our tanker fleet is old but we are looking to replace it. Maybe some transports are getting old? But they probably don't need a new design. EWACS is old but also seeing new systems being built.
- wbl 4mo agoThe B-52 has hands with the JASSM, ALCM, LRASM. No need to get close to pack a punch. Yeah a successor would likely be a LO blended wing body design, but the idea of cheap to operate big truck is fine.
- ianburrell 4mo agoIf you want cheap missile truck, then Rapid Dragon, dropping missiles from cargo aircraft, is the answer. The B-21 is the B-52 successor, and has to worry less about being shot down.
- wbl 4mo agoThere are systems that are in bombers that Rapid Dragon does not deal with, and you need to expand the transport fleet that the Army and Navy and you also want for other missions. It's great for pounding fixed positions where you can load up and program on ground but not readjust in the air based on how it's going. Also not all munitions work effectively with it. A dedicated bomber enables things like MOAB.
- rawgabbit 4mo agoThe C-130 is ubiquitous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules The US plans to replace both JSTAR and AWACS with Golden Dome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...
- t0mas88 4mo agoPlanes don't age in the same way cars do. There is a maintenance schedule that inspects and replaces almost literally every component at some point. So the engines on these planes can be just a year old for example. And the military has a tendency to also upgrade the avionics and capabilities at several points in the lifetime of a program. So there is a lot of tech in these planes that's much newer than 60 years old.
- __patchbit__ 4mo agoAged out weapons design is a flying target. War profiteers say motherhood statements about the crew but don't care. 60 years of new weapons design opportunities was pocketed in pork by the politicians bought and paid for.
- runjake 4mo agoI worked on B-52s and other aircraft. Their systems (bomb/nav/comm/etc) were refreshed many times and the airframes inspected and improved regularly. The reason B-52s are still around is because they are combat-effective and cost-effective relative to other aircraft, such as the B-1 and B-2 (both of which I also worked on). Whatever replaces the B-52 will have to be something new and something cost-effective. I don't think that currently exists. The B-1 has only been combat/cost effective in more recent years after an extended rough patch spanning decades -- actually, I'm not even sure it's cost-effective. The B-2 has always been combat-effective, but was never cost-effective to operate or maintain.
- giantg2 4mo agoCost-effective might not be the best description. If the B2 is able to target SAMs with very low losses, then it could still be cost-effective compared to significant losses of other airframes and crews.
- throwaway85825 4mo agoIf you have updated satellite imagery and can hit the SAM with a cruise missile you don't need the B2.
- runjake 4mo agoPlot twist: some of the best precision cruise missiles are air-launched.
- throwaway85825 4mo agoCan now be air launched by cargo plane as well.
- jonnybgood 4mo agoOne does not simply take out a SAM system with a cruise missile, especially when that SAM system can also target the cruise missile. So how do you get a cruise missile to launch from the right spot where the SAM system radar can’t see it coming?
- ranger_danger 4mo ago[flagged]
- pc86 4mo agoWhat do you think "broken arrow" is?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4mo ago> Broken Arrow is a code phrase that refers to an accidental event that involves nuclear weapons, warheads or components that does not create a risk of nuclear war. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Arrow_%28military%29 https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Arrow_%28military%2...
- pc86 4mo agoI know what it is, the GP clearly thinks it's something else.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4mo agoWhy? B-52s have been involved in broken arrow accidents in the past. Quite a few are from B-52 crashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear_incident_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear...
- optimalsolver 4mo agoVideo of the 1994 B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OIxo00UeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OIxo00UeM
- applfanboysbgon 4mo agoI don't understand the fascination with watching people die. I'd rather not, thanks.
- iamtheworstdev 4mo agoas a pilot - it's a reminder that if the pros can make a mistake then I absolutely can and I better not take anything for granted when I fly.
- vjvjvjvjghv 4mo agoI remember watching a documentary about this crash. The pilot was known to violate rules and in this case he banked too much if I remember correctly.
- Jtsummers 4mo agohttps://ktla.com/news/california/b52-bomber-crash-edwards-air-force-base/ https://ktla.com/news/california/b52-bomber-crash-edwards-ai... - Another report, includes an image of the crash site and more than just two paragraphs.
- kryogen1c 4mo agoIs this after cleanup? There's almost zero wreckage and if it was at takeoff it shouldn't have enough speed or descent angle to atomize.
- russdill 4mo agoThere was a post crash fire, and that would be a lot of fuel burning.
- Jtsummers 4mo agoAlmost certainly no cleanup before that photo was taken. The accident occurred at 1120, and the article was "last updated" at 1302, 1 hour 42 minutes is not enough time to cleanup a site like that when they still have to do the accident investigation. It would likely have had full fuel tanks so that's probably why we can see little debris.
- irthomasthomas 4mo agoLook at the fairfield airshow crash, there nothing left but a bit of the tail.
- mrandish 4mo agoI hope the crew are okay, but from the look of the aftermath and the fact there's no mention of the crew yet, I assume not all survived. Shortly after takeoff is one of the most challenging times for an incident. Low altitude, low-speed and full fuel means things can go very bad, very fast.
- yieldcrv 4mo agoAs a betting man… this is not survivable
- superjan 4mo ago[flagged]
- pc86 4mo agoKindly request that you keep your requests he keep his guesses to himself to yourself.
- zardo 4mo agoJust after takeoff is the worst time to have a problem. Hopefully they had the minimum crew. Also hopefully it wasn't carrying a nuke and/or it wasn't compromised.
- Haven880 4mo agoThey have maximum crew possible which is 8. All confirmed dead.
- throwaway85825 4mo agoB-52 crew has to bail out, no ejection option.
- Jtsummers 4mo agoIt has an ejection system, but some go up and some go down depending on their position in the aircraft. The two navigator seats eject downwards, they would not have had a chance. Given when the accident occurred (just after takeoff), and that there's not yet been any report on the crew, it's unlikely the other crew managed to eject.
- verzali 4mo agoF-18 went down the other day as well.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4mo agoA Russian bomber was seen nose diving today too.
- m0llusk 4mo agoStrictly speaking that was a Soviet bomber. The Russians ended up with them, but they can't make more of them, at least not right now.
- shawn_w 4mo agoThe Tu-22M is almost as old as the B-52. They don't want to make more.
- TiredOfLife 4mo agoThey want, but can't
- KingMachiavelli 4mo agoIs there something systemic behind these frequent incidents with military aircraft? It is using old, legacy equipment? Is it due to using rushed, streamlined procedures designed for war-time even outside an active battle environment? Are there just many, many military flights daily so statistically one will be in the news every couple weeks? IMO the danger to US service members outside of combat seems way too high. It's a well known fact most fatalities occur during training than during combat. (Sure this due to there being many more training exercises than active combat engagements but from a policy perspective it is very worrying). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2020%E2%80%93present)#2026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
- maximilianburke 4mo agoIt's only notable now because of how safe aircraft are now and how rare these incidents are. Like, of the 116 B-58 Hustlers built, 24 were lost in crashes. Over 200 B-47's were lost during its service life, killing 464 crew members. This is the first B-52 crash in almost 20 years.
- recursivecaveat 4mo agoI would guess that when you are training you are still doing activities that are not as safe as just traveling from point A to B: flying low, pointing the nose at the ground, landing a helicopter in a less than ideal spot (it seems like half of those are helicopters), etc. That hypothesis doesn't really apply well to transport planes or B52s though. Military pilots probably spend a higher overall fraction of their flying career as trainees?
- jandrewrogers 4mo agoThe US military has 10-15,000 airframes. The US military trains hard and flies a lot of hours so accidents and failures are not completely preventable. They explicitly plan to lose an average of 2 airframes per month due to attrition, which is roughly their historical average. The crew is able to escape most of the time. It may seem odd that they plan for these losses but the optimal amount of risk is non-zero. Excessive safety-ism interferes with effective training and operations, which risks lives in other ways. They aren't reckless but over-prioritizing never risking a life in training would defeat the purpose of it and institutionalize behavior that is ill-suited for actual warfare where risk is unavoidable. Statistically the military environment is quite safe, particularly for young males, relative to the median lifestyle in the US. That is true even in some war zones, ironically.
- blitzar 4mo agoyou fly jets long enough something like this happens
- Jtsummers 4mo agoStatement put out by Edwards AFB, press conference scheduled for 4:15pm PDT. https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Display/Article/4517897/b-52-crashes-at-edwards-air-force-base/ https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Display/Article/4517897/b-52...
- hagbard_c 4mo agoIt seems to be a bad day for strategic bombers with a B-52 down in the USA while a Russian Tu-22M3 'Backfire' went down in Irkutsk: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-strategic-bomber-plane-crashes-siberia-training-exercise-2026-06-15/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-s...
- undersuit 4mo agoEdwards Air Base is supposed to be testing new engines for the B-52J upgrade. I wonder if this test flight was part of that program.
- herbst 4mo agoWhy is stuff like this on Hackernews?
- TiredOfLife 4mo agoBecause a HN user posted the link and other HN users upvoted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_news_website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_news_website