Register here

Author Topic: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies  (Read 24505 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« on: October 11, 2014, 02:51:27 pm »
"B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies"
Oct 10, 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/b-52-re-engine-resurfaces-usaf-reviews-studies

Quote
The U.S. Air Force is reviewing industry studies of fitting its 50-year-old Boeing B-52 bombers with new commercial-derivative engines, according to Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, commander of the service’s Global Strike Command.

So far, Wilson said Oct. 9 at a Washington meeting, the Air Force assesses that the change would result in a net cost savings over the remaining life of the B-52s, which are expected to fly until 2040.

Wilson did not identify the contractor that made the proposal or whether more than one company is involved. However, an industry source confirms that Boeing has presented a “concept brief” and that General Electric has looked at fitting the bomber with eight CF34-10 engines. Pratt & Whitney also is exploring options.

Fitting new engines would sharply reduce the bombers’ fuel burn, and in turn reduce the need for tanker support, Wilson said. Moreover, under current commercial standards the new engines would not have to be removed for routine maintenance over the lifetime of the aircraft.

Wilson’s Global Strike Command and Air Force Materiel command are examining the proposal; separately, Wilson said he wants his command to become more agile and innovative in terms of procurement and upgrade programs, and that he has worked on learning lessons from Air Force Special Operations Command in this area. One example is the Dragon’s Eye demonstration this summer, in which a Northrop Grumman ASQ-236 radar targeting pod was fitted to a B-52 and flight tested in four weeks.

The main obstacles to a re-engining program could concern budgets and regulations, Wilson says. Airline operating experience would have to be used to support military airworthiness requirements, and the proposal rests on recovering an early investment through lower operating costs. Wilson notes that commanders have budgetary discretion to spend money against future energy savings when they modernize bases and other facilities, but not to modify aircraft.

This represents at least the third attempt to re-engine the B-52, which is powered by eight TF33 engines similar to those used on the Boeing 707.

Pratt & Whitney studied the idea in 1982, with four PW2000-series engines. In 1996 Boeing and Rolls-Royce jointly proposed to fit B-52s with four RB211-535s, with the government leasing the engines. The first plan was not taken up because all B-52s were to be replaced by B-1s and B-2s by the late 1990s, and the second failed because of resistance to leasing combat assets and a flawed economic assessment by the Air Force.

According to a 2004 Defense Science Board report, the USAF failed to take the cost of air refueling into account. At that time, tanker-delivered fuel cost $17.50 per gallon, 14 times the cost of fuel on the ground. The DSB task force “unanimously recommend[ed] the Air Force proceed with B-52H re-engining without delay,” but no action was taken.

“Had we done it all those years ago, we’d be patting ourselves on the back today and telling everyone how smart we were,” Wilson said.

GE’s eight-CF34-10 option could deliver more thrust than the current engines (variants are rated at 17,640-20,360-lb. thrust) and would avoid engine-out handling issues.

Pratt & Whitney announced in May that it was launching the PW1135G-JM, aimed initially at the A321neo and rated at a 35,000-lb. thrust class, slightly more than two TF33s. The new engines would deliver an even greater performance and efficiency improvement than the engines proposed in 1996.

The RB211-535 has been out of production since the end of the Boeing 757 line in 2004, and the last F117s (military PW2000s) are being delivered with the final C-17s, so neither engine is a strong candidate today.

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2014, 05:00:15 pm »
This says to me that the 'LRS-B' is going to be a medium sized platform that hasn't got the muscle to take a B-52 sized payload into the skies and the USAF are now scrambling for prolonging the life of the BUFF.
To think this type will be pushing 100 years in the air by its retirement is mind boggling.  :o

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2014, 07:03:20 pm »
This says to me that the 'LRS-B' is going to be a medium sized platform that hasn't got the muscle to take a B-52 sized payload into the skies and the USAF are now scrambling for prolonging the life of the BUFF.
To think this type will be pushing 100 years in the air by its retirement is mind boggling.  :o

Yikes, I hope not.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2014, 07:12:23 pm »
The proposed reengine is not supposed to extend the service life of the B-52, just cut its operating costs in its remaining years.  I don't see how that relates to LRS-B's bomb capacity at all.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2014, 07:48:21 pm »
To think this type will be pushing 100 years in the air by its retirement is mind boggling.  :o

This really should be optionally manned - after all the crews should be given the option...

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2014, 01:08:31 pm »
The proposed reengine is not supposed to extend the service life of the B-52, just cut its operating costs in its remaining years.  I don't see how that relates to LRS-B's bomb capacity at all.


I agree. To assume that decisions on the B-52 are being made with full knowledge of what's gonna happen with LRS-B is reasonable in an ideal world, but I wouldn't be surprised if in such a large organization as the AF, and given the different timeframes, separate offices made choices independently.
If the C-5M re-engining is any indication, using existing commercial engines could be done in a reasonable amount of time (by the geological standards of military procurement!).
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2014, 03:51:43 am »
There are some good studies out there by DSB and National Academy that detail the break-even time for an engine change. But the airframes could go beyond 2040 at current flying rates, and given that LRSO is getting more real, there is a valid non-penetrating long-range role out there.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2014, 07:25:23 am »
LRSO = next generation cruise missile?

If there are upcoming stand-off cruise missiles, then there isn't a pressing need for stealth on everything.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2014, 10:29:45 am »
I wonder what Boeing engineers George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen, Vaughn Blumenthal,  Ed Wells, Bob Withington, and Maynard Pennell would say about the longevity of their design.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2014, 03:12:33 pm »
I wonder what Boeing engineers George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen, Vaughn Blumenthal,  Ed Wells, Bob Withington, and Maynard Pennell would say about the longevity of their design.
"What do you mean it's still flying, for Pete's sake get a new airplane already!"

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2014, 04:12:55 pm »
Ransom - yes, Long Range Stand-Off. And if we ever get a hypersonic missile, the B-52 will be a carrier for that too. Indeed, speaking of hypersonic missiles....




Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2014, 04:17:34 pm »


Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt (AGM-48 under the 1962 Tri-service system)?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2014, 04:54:16 pm »
Ransom - yes, Long Range Stand-Off. And if we ever get a hypersonic missile, the B-52 will be a carrier for that too. Indeed, speaking of hypersonic missiles....

One of the more depressing cancellations.  Definitely ahead of it's time.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2014, 06:09:27 pm »
Ransom - yes, Long Range Stand-Off. And if we ever get a hypersonic missile, the B-52 will be a carrier for that too. Indeed, speaking of hypersonic missiles....


That's what I'm talking about: old skool hypersonics.  And note: no air breathing malarkey besides the TF33s. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2014, 06:32:45 pm »
Ransom - yes, Long Range Stand-Off. And if we ever get a hypersonic missile, the B-52 will be a carrier for that too. Indeed, speaking of hypersonic missiles....


That's what I'm talking about: old skool hypersonics.  And note: no air breathing malarkey besides the TF33s.

This one's a pretty good example of that kind of thinking albeit surface/sub launched:

« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 05:27:30 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2014, 09:09:38 pm »
Ransom - yes, Long Range Stand-Off. And if we ever get a hypersonic missile, the B-52 will be a carrier for that too. Indeed, speaking of hypersonic missiles....


That's what I'm talking about: old skool hypersonics.  And note: no air breathing malarkey besides the TF33s. 

That is an awesome picture of the B-52 and Skybolt's. I really have trouble understanding the thinking of the fixation on air breathing, yes I 'get it', but why not have developed and deployable tech like solid rockets or ASALM (ASALM is air breathing but tested to work) type systems while we continue with hypersonic scramjet air breathing research?

In the Prompt Global Strike thread, if I recall, I posted a comment from an USAF General saying we could have very fast missiles now while we develop air breathing hypersonics, well do it!!  :o
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 07:15:53 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2014, 11:04:02 am »
In the Prompt Global Strike thread, if I recall, I posted a comment from an USAF General saying we could have very fast missiles now while we develop air breathing hypersonics, well do it!!  :o


We've had very fast operational missiles before; Pershing II's. Just saying, though I guess those would be considered "regional" and not "global."

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2014, 11:42:32 am »
Some re-engining and Skybolt love from Bill S. in AW&ST:


http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-bumbling-caused-b-52-reengining-delay

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2014, 01:17:37 pm »
Some re-engining and Skybolt love from Bill S. in AW&ST:


http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-bumbling-caused-b-52-reengining-delay
I'd be curious to know what, if any, contribution the engineering and design work for the eight-engine/four twin-nacelle TF34 configuration originally envisioned for the Boeing E-3 Sentry would play in such a re-engining for the remaining B-52s.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2015, 06:00:24 pm »
I remember years ago reading a spoof article in Smithsonian Air and Space, I think, that proposed a novel modification of the B-52.  What you is take several B-52s, cobble them together into a gigantic multi-fuselage monster and the radar reflection will be so ginormously huge, any enemy would be instantly terrified into submission.  Moreover, space for crew amenities would benefit, allowing a bowling alley and an olympic-length swimming pool.
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.

Offline Mr London 24/7

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2015, 04:38:27 am »
The most recent RFI said eight engines. The CF34-10 is about the right size.


It's interesting what Clarke said, since Harencak said a month or so ago that it was dead.


Adding to the confusion on a B-52 Re-engine program, transcript of an AFA Huessy Breakfast Series talk from April 21, 2015 with Lt. Gen Stephen Wilson, Commander, USAF Global Strike Command:


Quote
MR. BRIAN BRADLEY: General, Brian Bradley, Nuclear Security and Deterrence Monitor. Regarding the possible B-52 re-engineing, we’ve heard that Pratt PW2000 engine mentioned as a possible replacement, with the possibility of a cut-down from eight engines to four engines. Can you talk about whether there is any favored engine type or number of engines and whether that program is moving forward?

GEN. WILSON: In the discussions we’ve had, initial indications make it look like an eight engine variant is better than a four engine variant. I have to do less modification to other parts of the B-52 with keeping an eight engine variant. So we are moving forward. We’ve got our team. Our team is working with AFMC. They’re working with the SPO. They’re working with Boeing. They’re working with SAF/IE on how do we do this. And for those that I’ve talked to about this, there’s both to me an operational piece and a money piece to this. As you’re all aware, our engines on the B-52 were designed in the 1950s, and they’ve been flying on that airplane since the early ‘60s. And engine technology has gone leaps and bounds in the last 55 years. Today, almost every industry engine partner has come forward and said they can give us about a 35 percent more fuel efficient engine. What that means is I can get about 35 percent more range out of a B-52, which is already substantial. That also means I can use about a third less tankers, and they can be repurposed to do other things in fill a need that we have for tankers. We also think that maintaining a 1950s era engine takes a lot of people and a lot of money, and we’re going to continue to fly the B-52 for the next 25 years. So I think there’s an operational case and I think there’s a business case, and we’re trying to get with folks on how we would do that in a public-private partnership to move forward on that.

MR. BRADLEY: Is there any expected date for an RFP?

GEN. WILSON: We think we’ll have some data to be able to go forward this summer.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2015, 04:41:29 am by Mr London 24/7 »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2015, 11:25:39 pm »
Bomb bay view on a bombing run pretty neat. Love the blog post title, "That'll BUFF Right Out"  :D

http://weaponsman.com/?p=25156
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2015, 04:40:34 pm »
From Inside Defense

Air Force Developing Funding Options For New B-52 Engine

The Air Force is devising a funding strategy to replace its decades-old B-52 engine with a more energy-efficient alternative, and expects the plan will serve as a case study for future capital improvement projects that are often derailed because they require significant upfront investment
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2015, 04:44:54 pm »
"PARIS: P&W developing upgrade package for B-52 engine"
15 June, 2015 BY: Stephen Trimble Paris

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-pampw-developing-upgrade-package-for-b-52-engine-413485/

Quote
Pratt & Whitney is developing a proposal for a package of performance upgrades for the existing Boeing B-52 engine after the US Air Force again postponed a plan to replace the venerable bomber’s 60-year old TF33 engine.

Several four-engined solutions have been evaluated by the USAF to replace the eight TF33s on board each B-52H.

But the four-engined aircraft may not have enough rudder authority to counter the adverse yaw generated by an outboard engine-out scenario, says P&W military engines president Bennett Croswell.

So P&W proposed a re-engined B-52s with eight new turbofan engines, but the USAF instead decided to postpone the programme, he says.

The TF33 was derived from the original P&W JT3 turbojet engine that drove the first generation of jet-powered Amercian airliners.

P&W is developing an upgrade package to improve the fuel and maintenance performance for the TF33 through the end of its service life. The USAF currently plans to operate the B-52 fleet to at least 2060.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2015, 04:47:42 pm »
From Inside Defense

Air Force Developing Funding Options For New B-52 Engine

The Air Force is devising a funding strategy to replace its decades-old B-52 engine with a more energy-efficient alternative, and expects the plan will serve as a case study for future capital improvement projects that are often derailed because they require significant upfront investment

One wonders how much money they'd have already saved if they'd done this 20 years ago.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2015, 04:57:19 pm »
"USAF Looking at B-52 Engine Options"
By Aaron Mehta 5:31 p.m. EDT September 10, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/02/12/b52-engine-private-public-partnership/23185827/

Quote
WASHINGTON — The US Air Force is keeping an eye on options to re-engine its B-52 bombers, including the creation of a public-private partnership with an industry supplier, a top service official said.

Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, told reporters during a Feb. 6 event that the service is looking to get "creative" on potential power plant replacements for the aging bomber fleet. Each B-52 flies on eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofan engines, an old and inefficient design produced between late 1950s and 1980s.

"To go out and buy new engines for the B-52, you'd have a really hard time fitting that into our program," Holmes acknowledged. "But that's why we're interested in a public-private partnership, which would be a different way to amortize those engines over time and pay for them in the savings that they actually generate, instead of paying for them out of savings that you hope for."

The idea would allow the service to get new engines onboard without breaking the budget. However, as Holmes noted, non-budgetary hurdles must be crossed before such an agreement could be put into place.

"There are contractor proposals to do some public-private partnerships, kind of creative ways, to get new engines on the airplane," Holmes said. "We have to work through policy and legal and legislative hurdles to be able to do that.

"The idea is in a public-private partnership, somebody funds the engine and then we pay them back over time out of the fuel savings, which are generated out of the new engines," he continued. "Our government has a way to do that with [military construction] facilities. We don't have a way to do that with airplanes, and we are exploring whether there are alternative ways that would let us do that."

In October, Global Strike Command chief Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson told reporters he had people "looking at" installing new engines on the bomber fleet, which is expected to operate until 2040.

"Look at what the airline industry is doing — they're all re-engining," Wilson said at the time. "Why? Because it saves you a lot of money. If there is a commercially available engine which can give a 25-30 percent increase in either range or loiter, you have my attention."

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2015, 05:12:37 pm »
Boeing Frontiers magazine April 2004.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2015, 05:22:22 pm »
Boeing Frontiers magazine April 2004.

Has there been any estimates of range/payload with new engines?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2015, 05:52:33 pm »
Ransom - yes, Long Range Stand-Off. And if we ever get a hypersonic missile, the B-52 will be a carrier for that too. Indeed, speaking of hypersonic missiles....


That's what I'm talking about: old skool hypersonics.  And note: no air breathing malarkey besides the TF33s. 

That is an awesome picture of the B-52 and Skybolt's. I really have trouble understanding the thinking of the fixation on air breathing, yes I 'get it', but why not have developed and deployable tech like solid rockets or ASALM (ASALM is air breathing but tested to work) type systems while we continue with hypersonic scramjet air breathing research?

In the Prompt Global Strike thread, if I recall, I posted a comment from an USAF General saying we could have very fast missiles now while we develop air breathing hypersonics, well do it!!  :o

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2015, 06:38:00 pm »
A 'Skybolt' type system (my guess is smaller maybe a modified ATACMS booster) is what they must be talking about for the Tactical Boost Glide Air Launched missile research there was an RFI for posted on the Prompt Strike thread.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2015, 06:59:06 am »
TBG would be similar in some ways, but with a different front end:  Skybolt was purely ballistic. However, it's not as tough as a global-range BGV in thermal or aerodynamic terms.

The engine economics are compelling. If the military was funded as a business it would have been done a decade or more ago - it would not only save fuel, but it would save tanker fuel (which is double-digit-times more expensive) and slash maintenance costs. (Given the B-52's planned lifetime and the performance of modern commercial engines, they'd never come off the wing.) The problem is that there is no legal mechanism for using tomorrow's operating cost savings to pay for today's acquisitions.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 07:02:56 am by LowObservable »

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 683
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2015, 11:30:06 am »
A company could lease the engines to the government...

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2015, 12:31:25 pm »
"Take a look to the three brand-new B-52 upgraded with Volkswagen engines!"
via @CommonsAviation
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2015, 12:49:28 pm »
A company could lease the engines to the government...

As LO notes, there isn't an easy legal method for the government to do this, even though most everyone except John McCain can see the benefit of doing it.  Therein lies the rub.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 06:19:05 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2132
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2017, 02:12:49 am »
Oh the sweet irony... A-10's TF-34s for the B-52s... will they build new engines or will they take TF-34s from the scrapped Warthog fleet ?
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2017, 10:21:01 am »
The last time the USAF tried to get an engine upgrade for the B-52s they tried to get brand new Rolls-Royce engines and they scrapped the program on cost grounds, this time they should go for brand new General Electric engines.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2017, 11:08:04 pm »
B-52 Re-Engining

—John A. Tirpak 3/3/2017

​Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand says he will “continue to advocate” for re-engining the B-52 bomber. “We have some money to look at that,” Rand told reporters at AWS17, though the funding is only enough for “feasibility analysis.” Rand said he wants new engines on the airplane “not for safety reasons” but because new powerplants would need less maintenance—saving on maintainers badly needed elsewhere—as well as reducing fuel consumption, and extending range, meaning Air Mobility Command could put some of its bomber-supporting tankers to use on other missions. New engines would also require fewer spare parts and spend more time on-wing, meaning more availability of the jets for action, Rand said. “There are about four or five good reasons” to do it, Rand said, but it would require the approval of Congress to use “creative” financing schemes to get the engines, he said. Those include a possible lease if USAF opted to do the program, but not buy the equipment outright. Rand later told Air Force Magazine that the ballpark price of a B-52 re-engining would be about $7 billion, assuming eight engines on each of the jets in the fleet. But “all dollars are in competition” with other worthy projects, Rand said. Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Steven Wilson, himself former head of AFGSC, has been a big proponent of B-52 re-engining “and still is,” Rand said.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1104
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2017, 01:16:16 am »
It would have made more sense had they followed through on this a decade or so ago. Now the B-52 fleet only has potentially a decade left in service it will be harder to recoup those capital costs.
If they are looking at fitting eight engines that suggests they are looking for a straight swap to fit the existing nacelles (or modified versions of) to avoid any extra costs of aerodynamic and structural trials etc. with four big turbofans and the time that would take.

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 668
  • Hellcat
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #41 on: March 04, 2017, 05:12:41 pm »
The structural test will be largely irrelevant, all the plane having aged differently. It will be better to stick to what was identified during the EMD phase and swap the engines only with a close match in term of impact on the dynamic structural modes.

That what they are doing now as it seems.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline mkellytx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2017, 02:32:27 pm »
The Rolls-Royce BR725 A1-12 is take-off rated at 16,900 which is close enough to the TF33's 17,000.  That's close enough to be a wash in my book, a 0.6% difference is pretty small. 

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2583
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #45 on: September 16, 2017, 02:51:32 pm »
Speaking of re-engined B-52:  CF-6 power



Source

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #46 on: September 16, 2017, 04:59:29 pm »
The Rolls-Royce BR725 A1-12 is take-off rated at 16,900 which is close enough to the TF33's 17,000.  That's close enough to be a wash in my book, a 0.6% difference is pretty small.
Do you know the fuel consumption of each? How much extra range could be achieved with this re-engining?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 623
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #47 on: September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 pm »
According to http://www.jet-engine.net the TF33 in the B-52H has a TSFC of 0.52lb/lbf/hr. The Rolls Royce BR710 has a TSFC of 0.39lb/lbf/hr; the BR725 is an upgraded version of that engine that according to RR has 4% better fuel efficiency (so theoretically a 0.375lb/lbf/hr TSFC): https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/civil-aerospace/business-aviation/br725.aspx
So overall it should have somewhere in the ballpark of a 25-30% longer range.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #48 on: September 16, 2017, 07:02:06 pm »
According to http://www.jet-engine.net the TF33 in the B-52H has a TSFC of 0.52lb/lbf/hr. The Rolls Royce BR710 has a TSFC of 0.39lb/lbf/hr; the BR725 is an upgraded version of that engine that according to RR has 4% better fuel efficiency (so theoretically a 0.375lb/lbf/hr TSFC): https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/civil-aerospace/business-aviation/br725.aspx
So overall it should have somewhere in the ballpark of a 25-30% longer range.
Thanks much appreciated
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline mkellytx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #49 on: September 16, 2017, 11:30:58 pm »
The Rolls-Royce BR725 A1-12 is take-off rated at 16,900 which is close enough to the TF33's 17,000.  That's close enough to be a wash in my book, a 0.6% difference is pretty small.
Do you know the fuel consumption of each? How much extra range could be achieved with this re-engining?

Example problem 8 in the performance annex of the -1 gives 20,100 lb/hr for a 360,000 lb BUFF, at 37K, .765M with 12 GBU-31, which is a mid-weight aircraft.  Rule of thumb we used back in my flight test days, 20K/hr clean, 25K/hr with HSAB's only and up to 35K/hr with the HSAB's loaded.  Stateside the BUFF is limited to below 30kft or above 41kft since they lack RVSM, so burns will be higher than in the sandbox where you can cruise/loiter at 35kft. 

So, conservatively obtaining a 25% reduced fuel burn would yield numbers of 15K/hr, 18.75K/hr, 26.25K/hr.  Those kind of numbers are almost and F-16's worth of fuel per hour  ;)

The big advantage of doing this is the lower stress on the airframes, since less fuel is needed to fly the same mission.  Lighter aircraft have lower stress on the airframe. 

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2017, 03:51:35 pm »
Also takes pressure off the very overworked tanker fleet.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #51 on: December 29, 2017, 04:30:03 pm »
There was movement at the station, the word had got around...

USAF details scope and schedule for B-52 re-engining

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2017, 05:56:28 pm »
There was movement at the station, the word had got around...

USAF details scope and schedule for B-52 re-engining

"A notional schedule using the two-stage bidding process indicates the full programme will take 17 years to complete."

It took just over half that to produce over 700 aircraft AND their engines.  That's what I call progress.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #53 on: February 23, 2018, 08:39:30 pm »
Stephen Trimble on Twitter:

Quote
And that’s what a B-52 looks like if you take off the TF33s and stick on (sorry about the technical term) eight modern turbofans.

Source:
https://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/966995742597492737

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2018, 06:29:18 am »
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-nuke-chief-not-expecting-easy-b-52-engine-upgrade?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180502_AW-05_455&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=14703&utm_medium=email&elq2=5b1662b629be4f3081dee95458857660

Quote
As the U.S. Air Force embarks on a major re-engining of the Boeing B-52H, its leadership is under no illusions about the difficulty of the task at hand.

Delivered by Boeing in 1960 and ’61, the Stratofortress has been the service’s principal nuclear-armed strategic bomber for almost six decades. So when it comes time to crack open those old engine cowlings and run new wiring through the wings, artisans can expect to find plenty of surprises.

“Every time you renovate an old house, you didn’t realize there was going to be asbestos behind the walls,” says Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the Air Force’s Deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. “Am I going to stand here and say we’re not going to have problems with the re-engining? I’m not going to say that. But there has been an awful lot of work gone into evaluating how to re-engine it, and what’s the best way to do that.”

Over the past few years, the Air Force has engaged with engine manufacturers and potential prime contractors about the possibility of upgrading the B-52H’s eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-103s. In the past, the Air Force has considered a four-engine swap, but that approach isn’t practical.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2018, 06:08:07 pm »
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-nuke-chief-not-expecting-easy-b-52-engine-upgrade?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180502_AW-05_455&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=14703&utm_medium=email&elq2=5b1662b629be4f3081dee95458857660

Quote
As the U.S. Air Force embarks on a major re-engining of the Boeing B-52H, its leadership is under no illusions about the difficulty of the task at hand.

Delivered by Boeing in 1960 and ’61, the Stratofortress has been the service’s principal nuclear-armed strategic bomber for almost six decades. So when it comes time to crack open those old engine cowlings and run new wiring through the wings, artisans can expect to find plenty of surprises.

“Every time you renovate an old house, you didn’t realize there was going to be asbestos behind the walls,” says Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the Air Force’s Deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. “Am I going to stand here and say we’re not going to have problems with the re-engining? I’m not going to say that. But there has been an awful lot of work gone into evaluating how to re-engine it, and what’s the best way to do that.”

Over the past few years, the Air Force has engaged with engine manufacturers and potential prime contractors about the possibility of upgrading the B-52H’s eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-103s. In the past, the Air Force has considered a four-engine swap, but that approach isn’t practical.

Its worrisome that they are still talking about this. If they don't let the buff die a dignified death, we will never procure enough of the 21s. Based on the length of time they say it will take, it sounds more like an effort to flip money to a contractor than it sounds like a much needed defense initiative.

Its a shame they denuked the bones because that's a more surivivable platform than the 52s.  The 52 should have been the conventional bomber platform... Seems like everything is done ass backwards in the DoD. An upgraded bone with agm129s is what we SHOULD have. Not a re-engined buff.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2018, 08:22:07 pm »
De-nuking the B-1B paradoxically hurt its conventional capability since it can't accommodate anything larger than
JASSM internally; the impact of outsized external stores like say X-51a on range is too pronounced.

If possible, I think they should just wait and see what happens in 2021: New START could just expire.

Offline mkellytx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2018, 05:04:15 pm »
Its worrisome that they are still talking about this. If they don't let the buff die a dignified death, we will never procure enough of the 21s. Based on the length of time they say it will take, it sounds more like an effort to flip money to a contractor than it sounds like a much needed defense initiative.

Or an effort to extend the life of a lower cost per flying hour, more available, nuclear certified cruise missile carrier with plenty of flying hours left on the airframe.

Quote from: Airplane
Its a shame they denuked the bones because that's a more surivivable platform than the 52s.  The 52 should have been the conventional bomber platform... Seems like everything is done ass backwards in the DoD. An upgraded bone with agm129s is what we SHOULD have. Not a re-engined buff.

More survivable how?  Low level?  Gravity bomb only (SIOP)?  The BUFF does carry and use more conventional bombs than the Bone, I've personally seen one drop 3 different types of conventional bombs on one bomb run (5 x GBU-31, 2 x CBU-103, 3 x Mk82), I conducted that test flight.  With 1760 in the bay 3 different types of smart bombs on the same run is possible.

AGM-129 was retired for a reason...but for the sake of argument the Bone would be external carry and a complete pig.  All of the engine thrust in the world won't make up for the small wings and fuel burn will be terrible considering how low it will cruise with that kind of load.  The draw on tankers would be terrible.  The old girl does quite nicely with externals under the wings and can cruise at efficient altitudes.

I have first hand knowledge of both airframes and would make the exact same decision to replace B-1's with B-21's and re-engine BUFF's and give them a new strategic cruise missile.  The old girl still has plenty of life left in her.

Offline mkellytx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2018, 06:04:54 pm »
De-nuking the B-1B paradoxically hurt its conventional capability since it can't accommodate anything larger than
JASSM internally; the impact of outsized external stores like say X-51a on range is too pronounced.

Huh?  The nuke Bone was AGM-69, B-61 and B-83 with 84 x Mk82 for the conventional mission.  De-nuking the Bone brought the 10 by CEM and eventually 1760 on the rotaries and the 10 by's.  The abrupt retirement of the AGM-69 left it gravity bomb only, ALCM never happened, even then it was 8 internal in the movable bulkhead bay with a short tank forward and 12-14 external.  Good thing it went conventional only when it did and JDAM came along, otherwise without OEF/OIF the Bone would have retired by 2005.

X-51 was a one off experimental program.  They flew it on Balls 50 b/c NASA retired Balls 8 and let Balls 25 fall into disrepair forcing us to fly it out to Shepard to end its life at the maintenance tech school as a trainer.  They had to come to the 419th b/c all the NASA birds were no longer at Edwards.  Any operational hypersonic weapon will fit in a B-52 or B-21 bomb bay.

Quote from: marauder2048
If possible, I think they should just wait and see what happens in 2021: New START could just expire.

The biggest benefit to letting START expire would be more B-21's

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2018, 06:18:49 pm »
Its worrisome that they are still talking about this. If they don't let the buff die a dignified death, we will never procure enough of the 21s. Based on the length of time they say it will take, it sounds more like an effort to flip money to a contractor than it sounds like a much needed defense initiative.

Or an effort to extend the life of a lower cost per flying hour, more available, nuclear certified cruise missile carrier with plenty of flying hours left on the airframe.

Quote from: Airplane
Its a shame they denuked the bones because that's a more surivivable platform than the 52s.  The 52 should have been the conventional bomber platform... Seems like everything is done ass backwards in the DoD. An upgraded bone with agm129s is what we SHOULD have. Not a re-engined buff.

More survivable how?  Low level?  Gravity bomb only (SIOP)?  The BUFF does carry and use more conventional bombs than the Bone, I've personally seen one drop 3 different types of conventional bombs on one bomb run (5 x GBU-31, 2 x CBU-103, 3 x Mk82), I conducted that test flight.  With 1760 in the bay 3 different types of smart bombs on the same run is possible.

AGM-129 was retired for a reason...but for the sake of argument the Bone would be external carry and a complete pig.  All of the engine thrust in the world won't make up for the small wings and fuel burn will be terrible considering how low it will cruise with that kind of load.  The draw on tankers would be terrible.  The old girl does quite nicely with externals under the wings and can cruise at efficient altitudes.

I have first hand knowledge of both airframes and would make the exact same decision to replace B-1's with B-21's and re-engine BUFF's and give them a new strategic cruise missile.  The old girl still has plenty of life left in her.

Well, we all have experience then don't we? The 129 was designed to be carried externally and handle the aerodynamic loads. The bone has always been a bit of a compromise. It certainly never broke any altitude records. What it did do was have a superior offensive/defensive suite and very high speed at very low altitude in all atmospheric conditions with near fighter maneuverability and a smaller RCS.

If you want to have a discussion on what is better... A big slow lumbering med/high altitude aircraft which is easily tracked or a high speed low in the weeds penetrator, the. I suggest starting a new thread.

The 129s so called issues were easily fixable and if you want to talk about what's the better ALCM, I would suggest its quite obvious which we should have in service today and its not the one that was developed when Led Zeppelin was still touring.

"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2018, 06:41:08 pm »
More survivable how? 

Pre-launch survivability mainly; the B-1 is twice as hard and can cover about 50% more distance during flyout.

Of course, that's only for bombers on alert...

The B-1 will be missed in the maritime strike role...

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2018, 05:58:37 am »
Would it not be wise to have the Buff retained for the missions the B-1B/B2/B21 are overkill for?  The depth of ability is surely more valuable than the savings made by new engines and kit NOT being supplied and junking the airframes.  Losing the Buff would appear to be very short sighted.

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 668
  • Hellcat
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2018, 08:50:11 am »
What the bone do best will have no value tomorrow. It's then a cost- effect equation where the Buff excel (even today with her derelict engine technology).

Then add the proven external carriage of  heavy load and you've got the winner.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2018, 10:11:09 am »
What the bone do best will have no value tomorrow. It's then a cost- effect equation where the Buff excel (even today with her derelict engine technology).

Then add the proven external carriage of  heavy load and you've got the winner.

Well, that's one opinion.  The B-52 sure as hell isn't going to carry 24 LRASM/JASSM internally (or in ANY way).  It's also got a smaller bomb load than the B-1B. It's less survivable, slower, inferior sensors, etc. etc.   The ONLY thing the B-52 has going for it is unrefueled range and two big hardpoints on the wings. Oh, and it's cheap.  If that's all that mattered we'd still be flying F-4s.  We're not.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 10:29:44 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline mkellytx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2018, 11:18:10 am »
Well, we all have experience then don't we? The 129 was designed to be carried externally and handle the aerodynamic loads. The bone has always been a bit of a compromise. It certainly never broke any altitude records. What it did do was have a superior offensive/defensive suite and very high speed at very low altitude in all atmospheric conditions with near fighter maneuverability and a smaller RCS.

Great then you've also conducted weapons integration tests on both air frames?  "Bit of a compromise...near fighter maneuverability,"  the Bone struggles to make more than a 30 degree banked turn with any gas and internal bomb load above 20kft.  It can pull 3.5 G with no bombs and little fuel with the wings all the way back.  Other than the different radar technology do you know the differences between the two offensive suites? The defensive suite on the Bone has a great reputation and history.  I won't comment on the BUFF, I used to sit next to the EWO and watch him work.

The radar blockers in the inlets will be of little use for long wave EW and OTH radars, cruise missile shooters shouldn't be getting anywhere close to an X-band radar.

Quote from: Airplane
If you want to have a discussion on what is better... A big slow lumbering med/high altitude aircraft which is easily tracked or a high speed low in the weeds penetrator, the. I suggest starting a new thread.

The BUFF will do .92 M above 20kft quite nicely (been there done that) and even do a banked turn at 35kft without losing altitude, try either in a Bone with an external load.  Heck, the Bone's weapon's bays are limited to .94 M, so it's not that much faster when on a bomb run.

Back on topic, there are few places that the Bone is more survivable than a BUFF that won't require a B-21.  A re-engined BUFF with a new strat radar is sufficient for the stand off cruise missile role and useless dirt missions in the ME, at a lower cost per flying hour and greater availability than the Bone.  Retiring the Bone first frees up more money for B-21's.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 11:20:47 am by mkellytx »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2018, 12:53:09 pm »
The X-band story is a little more nuanced since the counter-cruise missile radars
out there like Sentinel are projected to attain fairly massive increases in range;
the same is true for those radars in the maritime environment.

Hard to see how subsonic bombers can match the supersonic dash, good loiter and
plentiful payload of cheap PGMs that have been the B-1's calling card.
For the medium and low threat environment, it's just about the ideal platform.

The B-52 does have a larger aperture for its radar and other sensors
so maybe a combination of that with an air-launched, supersonic missile that can deliver loitering munitions
is close enough. Or as was pointed out an increase in the number of bombers on station.

Online NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #66 on: May 11, 2018, 10:44:24 pm »
There seems to be a lot of back and forth over which is better to keep, B-52 or B-1. 

It certainly doesn't make sense to maintain 4 different bombers.  Too many different maintainers, too many different parts. It's a logistics nightmare.  And they're already having trouble ensuring they have enough maintainers.

You're spinning up a new production line for B-21.  So that one definitely stays.

The new one is basically a newer, smaller, more advanced B2.  Probably going to be easier to maintain.  Easier to upgrade.  It's likely the AETP engine will work for B-21.  More runway availability around the world.  There's only 20 B-2's.  Dropping the B-2 is a no brainier.

There's probably 40 or so combat coded B-1's with a MCR of ~50%

There's probably 45 or so combat coded B-52's with a MCR of ~70%

It's seems obvious that neither of the two can penetrate near-peer air defense systems.  B-52, however, is relatively easy to re-engine.  If you've got to keep one of them it seems to me a no brainer to drop the B-1.

The question remains why keep the B-52? Why not replace all them with B-21s?  It's versatile.  It can be a bomb truck.  But cost is the primary reason.  It's not the operational cost.  It's the replacement cost.  You can fly the buff until the wings fall off.  You're going to replace it with a B-21 or perhaps some new unmanned bomb truck. 

That being said.  I'd be asking NG what it would cost to get the production rate up to 20 per year.  They're going to want 200 B-21's. 

« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 10:46:26 pm by NeilChapman »

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #68 on: June 18, 2018, 12:13:01 pm »
Hmm.  Went with a less powerful engine than the existing one.  I wonder why.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #69 on: June 18, 2018, 12:21:54 pm »
Why do you think it's less?  The wiki says the PW800 Family is 10-20lbs and the TF33 is 17k.  The PW815GA is 16k, but the version for the B-52 has not been spec'd.  Seems like an easy 1:1 swap.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2018, 12:27:13 pm by SpudmanWP »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #70 on: June 18, 2018, 12:30:12 pm »
Hmm.  Went with a less powerful engine than the existing one.  I wonder why.  ???

The current PW815GA is rated around 16,000 lbf, but it wouldn't take much tweaking to increase that to 17,000 lbf if needed.  Technically, I guess that would be a PW817.  The PW800 family is supposed to scale to 20,000 lbf as needed, so the design work probably exists already. 

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #71 on: June 18, 2018, 05:53:58 pm »
Hmm.  Went with a less powerful engine than the existing one.  I wonder why.  ???

The current PW815GA is rated around 16,000 lbf, but it wouldn't take much tweaking to increase that to 17,000 lbf if needed.  Technically, I guess that would be a PW817.  The PW800 family is supposed to scale to 20,000 lbf as needed, so the design work probably exists already.

Such a waste of resources. If we begin this year, the job will be done in 2034. Save the money for more raiders. God forbid something unforeseen develop like the longeron issue on the eagles that forces the buff to be put away early. Northrop was going to build, as I recall, close to 20 spirits annually.... I am sure they still could build that many raiders annually if congress allows it. The J20 is being built to nullify the buff at long range as one of its missions. The buff is totally irrelevant unless you're bombing Iran or NOKO. I would rather have more raiders and more ICBMs than keep the buff around any longer. Everything we said was going to happen with the termination of the spirit has come to pass. Even a B-1C would have been better than the literal irrelevant  production run of spirits.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #72 on: June 18, 2018, 11:03:49 pm »
1. money grabbing scam
2. Stealth is obsolete from China, Russian technical developments and at $500B each
No B-2 Spirit (or Raider)bomber can be risked.
3. Whoever gets the re-engine contract needs work and $$$ for "favors."
4. Putting new engines on old B-52s because we need to take money away from
    The Raider program for some dumb reason.
5. Something isn't going right in the Raider program.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2018, 04:59:46 am »
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/July%202018/GE-Aviation-to-Offer-Two-Engines-in-USAFs-B-52-Re-Engining-Program.aspx?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

Quote
GE Aviation plans to offer two engines in the Air Force’s B-52 re-engining program, which is finally gaining steam after decades of debate.

Speaking to reporters at the Farnborough International Air Show in England last week, company CEO David Joyce said GE is confident that both the CF34-M and the more advanced Passport engine are “good candidates” for the program.

Joyce said the Dash-M, which flies on the Embraer 190, is proven technology, with 7,000 departures every day. It’s not only “incredibly reliable,” but also the “perfect thrust size” for the B-52, he added. However, if the service prioritizes fuel efficiency, Joyce said GE can offer the Passport, which will allow for about 14,000 hours time on wing.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #74 on: February 27, 2019, 04:56:02 am »
Air Force Magazine - March 2019 - Rolls-Royce Will Build F130 in Indianapolis If It Wins B-52 Re-Engining

Quote
Rolls-Royce has officially selected the F130, a variant of the commercial BR700, as its entrant in the B-52 re-engining competition, and will build the powerplant at its freshly renovated Indianapolis, Ind., facility if it wins the contract, company Vice President for Military Strategic Systems John Kusnierek told reporters during a telecon on Monday. [...]
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Phos

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #75 on: February 27, 2019, 12:24:06 pm »
For laughs: a single GE9X has almost half again as much (4/3) thrust as the B-52's current engines, though I've leave picturing how such a thing would be fitted up to you. 

The B-1 is cool and all but there was a time and place for it and those seem gone.  I figure anyone who can shoot down a B-52 can probably shoot down a B-1 nowadays. 

1. money grabbing scam
2. Stealth is obsolete from China, Russian technical developments and at $500B each
No B-2 Spirit (or Raider)bomber can be risked.
3. Whoever gets the re-engine contract needs work and $$$ for "favors."
4. Putting new engines on old B-52s because we need to take money away from
    The Raider program for some dumb reason.
5. Something isn't going right in the Raider program.
None of these are mutually exclusive.  2, though, I find to be unlikely as any advancement that renders stealth ineffective is only going to widen the gap in terms of how much easier a non LO aircraft is to detect.  Look down radar also greatly diminished the utility of flying low as a means of radar penetration.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #76 on: February 27, 2019, 12:52:45 pm »
From Hyten's testimony, New START looks likely to fall apart so the outsized loads that the B-1B can't carry internally
because of the treaty-compliant bulkhead would no longer be an issue. 

And then the advantages of better hardening, great loiter and supersonic dash are compelling.
I'm assuming here that B-21 does not have supersonic dash....it was a possibility for NGB but
I doubt it got out of the Gates for the LRS-B scrub.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 01:44:49 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #77 on: February 27, 2019, 01:33:26 pm »
Not to mention external hard points.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2019, 01:48:52 pm »
Not to mention external hard points.

Good point. Did they get as far as a weapons release test on that front?

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 339
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2019, 02:57:45 pm »
The biggest thing working against the Bone is the fact it has been out of production for over 30 years, and there is not a giant pool of parts sitting out in the desert ready to draw from at essentially no cost and zero leadtime. It affects the already low mission availability rates, and the only fixes involve even larger scale purchases of "new" thirty year old equipment which is largely antiquated and/or fund upgrades to newer available systems.
On a BUFF if most anything breaks, they don't need to ask a contractor to scratch build a new one to spec. They just scavange a part. Faster and cheaper.

On the flipside, when it's flying, the Bone is absolutely more survivable and brings some unique abilities to the table.  I love it. Wish they'd keep it, but I understand the reasons it's on the block.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2019, 04:50:54 pm »
The replacement part timeline for the B-52 is still pretty dire since AMARG parts often have to be
reworked extensively to be usable. In some cases it's years.

The major difference is that the Air Force kept the production tooling for the B-1B and it has been restored
as needed to produce parts since a good number of the material suppliers at least are still around. 
And there are some AM parts starting to make there way on the B-1B. 

The B-52 does have a larger physical aperture for a new radar though and potentially more
electrical power generation from 8 x new engine.  Though I suppose for a truly fair comparison
there you'd have to look at the various B-1B re-engining schemes that Boeing et al have described.



Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF Reviews Studies
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2019, 06:07:39 pm »
Rolls-Royce McVay on Program to Re-Engine USAF's B-52 Bomber Fleet

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot