[Home]B-52 Stratofortress/Talk

HomePage | B-52 Stratofortress | Recent Changes | Preferences

This page has been copied verbatim from: http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html

Are we sure that this is OK? I don't see any copyright logo thingy. Theoretically, this is information in the public domain written by our government, but there still might be copyright issue. -- ansible

It's not specifically listed in the [public domain resources]? list. It probably wouldn't hurt to make sure. Even if it is, we need to (a) acknowledge that it's USAF material so should be taken with several grains of salt, and (b) add and edit so that it's more balanced and complies with the NPOV. --Robert Merkel

The USAF disclaimer page says it is public information. I will add this to the public domain resources page. What specifically violates NPOV? It could probably be changed easily enough, but I'm not sure what th eproblem is. - Tim

Not so much on this page, but others (notably comments on the F-15's "unprecedented maneuverability", for instance) strike me as PR guff rather than objective comment. The mentions of operational deployments also strike me as a little selectively described. Nor do they attempt compare the capabilities of the fighters with comparable foriegn planes (notably Russian and European). It's not so much what they say, it's what they don't say. --Robert Merkel

All US Government published material is public-domain (unless it's classified ;^)). I haven't done a detailed read of the B-52 page, but a quick pass through it leads me to believe it's a fairly factual writeup. I don't see any glaring violation of the NPOV rule. Sure, military equipment is mean, nasty, rotten and awful by nature: its purpose is to kill people and destroy stuff, which is regrettably sometimes necessary. The facts and the history of some piece of military equipment are nonetheless grist for an encyclopedia, be it the B-52, or the HMS Dreadnought or the Mary Rose or the Roman gladius.

I'm not disputing that military equipment is designed to kill people and destroy stuff, and that an effective piece of military equipment is one that is extra-good at the job. What I am disputing is the neutrality of the Air Force's commentary on its own places. There doesn't seem to be a single negative comment about the performance of any of their aircraft. Surely there must be the odd dog amongst the Air Force's collection. --Robert Merkel

On the F-15: the airplane has maneuverability well beyond the structural limits of the airframe (which are considerable). The USAF found this out the hard way in the early days of deployment (they came home with their skins wrinkled, much to the dismay of the maint. chiefs). That the late-number Soyuz interceptors (SU-29 & SU-31) have comparable capabilities is not germane, certainly not to the descriptive text of the bad ol' Buff (hmmm, that nickname for the B-52 ought to be in the article). -- Stranger

I think you miss my point. I was giving an example of why I thought USAF text should be taken with a grain of salt in general.

As a vet, I agree that USAF materials may need to be taken with a large grain of salt. However, for this particular article on the B52, its seems pretty accurate. It is pushing 50 years of service, which is pretty amazing. I would be much more suspicious of such material on the F117, B1, B2, etc. But not the buf. There probably were performance problems and crashes in its early years, 19502,60s, which would be very interesting to add to this page.

HomePage | B-52 Stratofortress | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited November 15, 2001 12:56 pm by 198.144.199.xxx (diff)