Air Force B-52 bomber crashes shortly after takeoff at Edwards Air Force Base in California

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: ABC News

June 15, 2026, 4:08 PM


An Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bomber crashed shortly after takeoff at Edwards Air Force Base in California on Monday, the base said. "Emergency crews immediately responded to the scene and the situation is ongoing," the base said in a statement. The crash was reported at about 11:20 a.m. local time. The base has closed the airfield and said all inbound planes are being diverted.

The Air Force and NASA conduct test flights of new and developmental aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base.

The B-52 Stratofortress -- which typically carries a crew of five -- is a long-range bomber first introduced in the 1950s that remains a central part of the U.S. military's air power. Built by Boeing, the aircraft is capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear weapons over long distances and has been used in conflicts ranging from Vietnam to operations in the Iran war.


A B-52H Stratofortress departs Edwards Air Force Base, June 25, 2025.
Chase Kohler/USAF, FILES

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.


Read more: https://abcnews.com/US/air-force-52-bomber-crashes-shortly-after-takeoff/story?id=133899844

---

Heard this on the radio as a breaking news.

Article updated.

Original article -

June 15, 2026, 3:16 PM


An Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bomber crashed shortly after takeoff at Edwards Air Force Base in California on Monday, the base said.

"Emergency crews immediately responded to the scene and the situation is ongoing," the base said in a statement. The Air Force and NASA conduct test flights of new and developmental aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base.

The B-52 Stratofortress -- which typically carries a crew of five -- is a long-range bomber first introduced in the 1950s that remains a central part of the U.S. military's air power. Built by Boeing, the aircraft is capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear weapons over long distances and has been used in conflicts ranging from Vietnam to operations in the Iran war.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

[displacedvermoter]

1. Just saw something about new Rolls Royce engines being fitted to the B52s

I wonder if a test related event? Hope crew survived, they go down hard do these big old things.

[2naSalit]

4. CNN has a video...

There is nothing left of that aircraft that isn't charred ashes. Seriously, nothing.

[caraher]

11. Probably a different kind of test

The first plane will receive new engines later this year.

[displacedvermoter]

15. Those planes are all 60+ years old.

I wonder how much more tinkering they can do. Much more complicated aircraft than the venerable A10, which keeps getting returned from scrap heap.

Good luck to those flying these very old remnants of an earlier time. Think Slim Pickens...

[caraher]

16. This flight apparently was a test of an upgraded radar system

Yes, they're much older than their crews. But structurally sound - inspections can assure that.

The new engine plan is a result of the lack of spares or ability to make more of the original engines, as much as it is about performance. And it turns out to be a devilishly challenging retrofit (my son works on the engine project).

Ironically, its obsolescence as a bomber expected to penetrate modern air defenses seems to have assured its longevity as a bomb and missile truck.

But it does defy all common sense...

[Bluetus]

20. Could be. The point of that retrofit is

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2026, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

that we are afraid to use our B1s and B2, which are highly specialized and enormously expensive to lose. And it is not just the expense. I believe major parts of their stealth tech are still classified, and have not been matched by other countries. So the Pentagon is happy to keep using the B-52s. They provide the lowest overall costs and offer the widest assortment of weapons. With the new engines, they are expected to be 30% more efficient, allowing them to stay in the air longer without requiring a tanker. They are trying to stretch them to 2050, which will put every remaining unit very near 100 years since it rolled off the line.

I don't think they are far enough along with this program to be doing flight testing. I may be wrong about that, but I thought that was to happen in the early 2030s.

[displacedvermoter]

25. Very interesting, thank you...

I was at a B-52/Tanker wing my last years in and I was always amazed by them.

[Bluetus]

30. They are impressive, and flying any craft productively for 100 years is mind-boggling

But this is really ancient technology. In another thread, I compared the B-52 with a modern 777 cargo plane. If you are looking for an airframe that can have a heavy payload, but not supersonic or stealthy, the 777 has 4x the payload of the B-52. I know it is a lot more complicated than that. The 777 is obviously not designed with bay doors to release missiles and bombs, so it probably wouldn't be practical to create a bomber variant of the 777.

But the idea of flying the B-52 for 100 years seems nutz to me.

[displacedvermoter]

31. Navy doesn't have any 60 year old warships or subs,

not feasible to operate them. Do not know if keeping these flying is really best way to go, but there you go.

[Bluetus]

32. This would never be allowed with commercial airlines

But when you are in the war business, different rules apply.

[LudwigPastorius]

2. 419th Flight Test Squadron

I am guessing this was a modified B-52, either carrying a new weapons system, or flying with a modified airframe to explore ways to extend the useful lifespan of the BUFFs.

Given the secretive nature of the work there, we may not find out exactly what happened.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. I was looking at a local LA station's video feed of the base and runways

and there was basically nothing left of the plane except some pieces and a huge scorch mark along the perimeter of a runway. It's like it exploded on impact.

[2naSalit]

5. Truly disintegrated.

The crew did not survive since there was no way out of the aircraft.

[C Moon]

17. I saw that all 12 aboard died---correction, 8.

[2naSalit]

18. I posted a news piece about it...

A little while ago, it had only been out for less than an hour. The military finally made it official, probably after contacting next of kin.

[C Moon]

19. Yes, very sad.

[Bengus81]

22. Yep...and it said a normal crew of five. This one had eight aboard.

[displacedvermoter]

26. Engineers testing the new equipment, trainers

perhaps even civilian contractors. Testing is as important as actual combat, training as well. It would do the current Administration to try and learn that...

[irisblue]

6. Damn

[electric_blue68]

7. Holy crap! Strength to all affected!

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2026, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I knew someone who's relative flew these back in the 70's.

[OnlinePoker]

8. Odd that the U.S. would lose a long range strategic bomber the same day as Russia

I know it's a coincidence, but kind of weird.

[sdfernando]

9. These airframes are so old I'm suprised

there aren't more crashes. Metal fatigue??

[Bluetus]

21. Right. And now they are trying to extend them to 2050 (that's right at 100 years of service)

I guess the Pentagon doesn't have to meet the same standards that the FAA requires of commercial aircraft. It does make one wonder about the decision-making process at the Pentagon. The B1 has a payload of 37 tons and 6000 mile range. The B2 has a payload of 20 tons 7000 mi range. The B52 has a payload of 35 tons and 8800 mile range (about 10,000 miles after the upgrade).

In comparison, a stock Boeing 777 cargo plane caries 110 tons with a range of 5-6000 miles, depending on load. The B1 is supersonic and the B2 is extremely stealthy, so they are specialized aircraft, not comparable to a 777. But one would think it ought to be possible to have a 777 variant that would be better than a 70-year-old B52.

[chowder66]

10. 8 crew members believed dead after B-52 bomber crashes at California's Edwards Air Force Base

Eight crew members are believed to be dead in a B-52 bomber crash shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base, northeast of Los Angeles, on Monday morning, the base said.

The B-52 Stratofortress was on a routine test mission that took off at 11:20 a.m. local time at the remote air base, officials said, and “initial indications are that the crash was not survivable.”

Emergency crews responded immediately to the crash involving the bomber — which left a towering black plume in its wake — and are still working as officials try “to account for all personnel,” the base said.

A press conference is scheduled for 4:15 p.m. local time, according to the base.



https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/us/b-52-crash-edwards-california

[riversedge]

12. ‪@meidastouch.com‬ · 24m TRAGIC NEWS: Eight crew members are believed to have been killed after a U.S. Air Force B-52

RIP I feel for the friends and families also.


‪MeidasTouch‬
‪@meidastouch.com‬
· 24m
TRAGIC NEWS: Eight crew members are believed to have been killed after a U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress crashed shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base in California during a routine test mission on Monday, according to officials.

TRAGIC NEWS: Eight crew members are believed to have been killed after a U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress crashed shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base in California during a routine test mission on Monday, according to officials.

— MeidasTouch (@meidastouch.com) 2026-06-15T22:52:50.412Z

[ultralite001]

13. 💔💔💔

Holding the crew + their families in our ❤️💙💛...

[riversedge]

14. ""Initial indications are that the crash was not survivable," the base said."

8 onboard Air Force B-52 bomber that crashed shortly after takeoff in California
"Initial indications are that the crash was not survivable," the base said.🙏🙏🙏
abcnews.com/US/air-force...

— (@oceancalm.bsky.social) 2026-06-15T23:23:09.364Z

[Bengus81]

23. B52-s were stationed in Wichita at McConnell for decades when it was a SAC base.

They'd vibrate your body if you were in the vicinity when they were taking off.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. They would often fly in to what became Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

and sometimes flying over where I live in Philly headed that way... and my reaction was always - "OMFG that's one of those bomber things with a million engines on the wings!!!!" They were LOUD and definitely vibrated the house.

[JohnnyRingo]

27. They don't make 'em like that anymore.....

...at least not since 1962 when the last one rolled down the line in Seattle.
Out of 750+ built this leaves 75.

I have to say, with all the money wasted by The Pentagon, the Stratofortress has been a good investment.

[ColoradoHoosier]

28. I have to ask this question...

... and I'm not being conspiracy goofy here, but where did those eight engines go? Did they melt into molten metal? I have no info on this, but that stuff (titanium?) takes a massive amount of [controlled] heat to melt down to nothing. Just seems odd.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. Since they are designed for long haul trips

and if it was full of fuel, the fireball was probably immense but no footage of that has been released. I.e. there may have been in-air explosions prior to it hitting the ground. They were supposedly doing a flight for testing and 2 Boeing employees had been onboard.