Until I read that the B-52H typically cruises at 25% power setting and uses no more than 80% at takeoff, it made me realize most of the time all eight engines are causing more drag than benefit. I’d like to at least see a drop to four engines.

The turbo-fans eliminated the need for the water needed for a water-injection on take off; thereby increasing fuel load.

Aircraft fly at the minimum throttle needed to perform a task so your pointing out the cruise setting is pointless.
Reducing to four engines would serve no purpose period or it would be being looked at which it is not.

The guns were removed after the first Iraq war when a B-52 locked onto a U.S. fighter the fighter thought it was a sam and fired an anti-radiation missle that did not shoot down the bomber but did seriously damaged it.

How can a thread based on the experiences of an actual fighter pilot turn into this lets pretend garbage it is at now?

Do you have more details on Hartmann testing? F-104 affair caused his retreat from the Luftwaffe, as he opposed F-104 acquisition. I am sure this caused a lot of friction with other former Luftwaffe aces, but I have not found anything.

Sadly no I do not.
I found out about it in a book on the Six a long time ago.

You’re a long way off topic. What does the F-106 have to do with a discussion of fighters for the Luftwaffe?

FYI, no, the F-106 was not ‘bigger’ than the Buccaneer. It was 2 metres longer – but slimmer, shorter wingspan, & quite a lot lighter. And range comparisons between them are pretty meaningless. They were designed for completely different purposes & operating environments, & neither could do what the other could. Nor is the developed or undeveloped state of the J-75, or McNamara’s policy on the F-105, at all relevant.

Hartmann, who flew the Six, said if Germany could have afforded it, they would have bought it.
Japan was offered a multi-role Six but chose the F-4.

You are the one who said the engine in the Thud, same as Six was not efficient but the J-75 was a very efficient turbojet which is why the both the Thud and Six had the long range they did.

Well, the Wiki entry does not say “ferry” for the Buccaneer range like it does for the F-105.

In fact, that 2,300 miles for the Buccaneer is listed elsewhere as “typical”.

Note that the normal operational mode of the F-105 in Vietnam was to install the 1,300l ferry tank in the internal weapons bay, and carry all the ordnance externally. This means that in ferry mode it had both this tank and underwing external drop tanks.

The Bucc had a 2,000l internal ferry tank for its weapons bay, but that was never carried on a combat mission, so I believe that is where the similarity of Bucc and F-105 ranges comes from – F-105 entering combat with the internal ferry tank and the Bucc without.

This site gives the combat range of the Buccaneer.

http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/table_ag.htm

The F-106 which was larger than the Bucc. had a combat range of 500+ miles and it was extremely aerodynamic and fuel efficient so there is no way the Bucc. would ever get close to the combat range of Six.
Pilots who flew it said its true ferry range was a good deal more than listed.

The engine in the Thud was near the same as the Six and either way the J-75 was very undeveloped engine as the effort that would have gone into the J-75 was put into turbo-fans when thy decided to build no more F-106 aircraft, same would have been for the F=105 for which production was stopped ONLY due to R. Strange McNamara’s asinine infatuation with the F-111.
Pilots in ‘Nam wanted more Thuds but McNamara made sure no more could, not would, could be built.
They used the Phantom because they had not other choice.

Let’s compare two engines, one military and one commercial:

* F-135 is 46 inches in diameter, produces 28K lbs dry thrust, likely weighs 3800 lbs without afterburner, and would have an installed SFC of about 1.0

* PW6000 is 56 inches in diameter, produces 24K lbs dry thrust, weighs 5000 lbs, but the SFC is only 0.6.

Because the specific fuel consumption of the commercial engine is only 0.6, it can provide a combat radius almost twice that of the military engine. Any Chief Engineer would make that tradeoff in a heartbeat.

Ten inches in diameter and three-quarter tons of weight means far more to those building an aircraft.