re; \"the majority of B-52 fleet will have logged so many flight hours that the wings will no longer be able to sustain the fatigue after 84 years of service and the airframes will have to be retired.\"
All the the H model B-52s were \"built\" by modifying previous models work that included Zero Lifing* the wings so there is plenty of precedent of putting new wings on them.
* Replacing all wearing parts to allow the wear counter to be set back to zero. In this case the design was modified to make the wings stronger. ...................................................................................................................................
The Air Force might have plenty of TF-33s on hand but replacing eight of them with four modern engines of the appropriate thrust would save money in the long run in fuel, and maintenance costs.

An amazing aircraft. It is like maintaining a Sopwith camel up to the year 2000.

good for them! now lets use them in the right places and end these dumb wars!

re; Captain Danger
The problem with that analogy is that ignores the several revolutions in airframe and power plant design between 1917 and 1952. The only thing close to a revolution since 1952 is the emergence of composite materials.

Meanwhile, the black budget aircraft an$wer$ to none.
So, we\'ll have aircraft nearly a hundred years old carrying nukes?
Will they be nearly a hundred years old also?

God bless the BUFF!
Slowburn, I had the same thought on engines.
The one \'stat\' that is most fascinating is that the \"youngest\" BUFF airframe is older than the oldest pilot flying them. Considering the point of the article, the Air Force should research airframe histories because they might find one that is being flown by a grandson of a pilot that flew the same airframe!
In the 80s, I was talking to a friend who worked on the B-2 project. He told me how they thought about \"battle damage\" repairs to that aircraft\'s high-tech radar-absorbtive surface. Their conclusion was that it was a \"throw away airplane\" that if it went to war, it was the \"end of the world\" so repairing it wasn\'t a necessity. I countered his argument by reviewing the B-52\'s history. It was designed as a high-altitude strategic bomber. By the time it was deployed, its mission changed to low-level penetration. Then it became a high-altitude conventional bomber during the Vietnam conflict. Now it has returned to a stratigic role with \'stand-off\' weapons. Talk about versatility!

If everything in the U.S. military was maintained/upgraded like this, the country could save a fortune!

BUFF only stands for Big Ugly Fat Fellow among the politically correct. I realize that you have to maintain a sense of decorum here, but you could have used the name most often given it by pilots (one of my cousins) and mechanics (my father), like this Big Ugly Flying F*cker!

The crews flying the aircraft are uniformly younger than the plane they\'re flying. The actual point here is that a 10 year war and economic depression has left the USAF with totally obsolete aircraft fit only for bombing the bezeezus out of 3rd world countries.

One of the things I read - is that these aircraft have such a LONG life in them because they do so few hours actually flying. Where as a commercial passenger or freighter HAS to more or less remain running all the time to make ends meet, thus their take off landing cycles and flying hours are huge per year....
But the B52\'s I recall, have something like 300 hours or less flying time per year - so the entire air frame - with appropriate care, SHOULD last a very long time anyway.