1976 mention of a proposal to upgrade B-52 to a B-52X standard (not the twin fuselage thing)

[apparition13]

I ran across this in google books while looking for info on the FB-111H* program. From Department of Defense appropriations for 1977: Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session by . United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Dept. of Defense | Jan 1, 1976, pages 178 and 179.

It is a mention of a rejected proposal to upgrade 270 B-52s to a B-52X standard, which would include a larger weapons bay and new engines. And that's it for that source. Does anyone know anything else? How much bigger would the bomb bay be? And why bigger, how many of what were they planning on carrying? There's room for a rotary launcher and 8 ALCM, but I don't think there is room in the fuselage to extend the bomb bay enough to carry two rotary launchers. What engines did they have in mind? What effect would that have had on range?

I've never seen or heard a mention of this proposal anywhere before. It's got me a mite curious.

*The proposal was for 165, 100 new build and 65 FB-111A conversions, as a replacement for the B-1. Introduction circa 1984-85.

 

[_Del_]

Was that the odd canard equipped designs? Presumably, like those on the Bone, it was for ride control down low.

 

[Archibald]

Google has recently made available as free Pdf a lot of NASA and Defense hearings from the 60's and 70's. Prepares to burst your HD storage capability: those documents are huge.

EDIT: https://www.google.com/search?q="B-...ULqxoKHWZjDX4Q_AUoAXoECAsQCQ&biw=1024&bih=635

 

[flateric]

...

 

[apparition13]

Was that the odd canard equipped designs? Presumably, like those on the Bone, it was for ride control down low.

No, that's the NB-52E. It worked, and worked really well. It was able to fly low level much faster than other B-52s. Unrelated though. I think it would have been a terrific upgrade, but it was never really considered.

The new stuff from the hearings is interesting, but again lacking in details as to what the changes would result in. I do find it interesting that, although the FB-111H has half the SRAM capacity of the B-1, it appears to have similar performance. And the idea of cruise missile carriers teamed with a lot of smaller penetrating bombers (presumably FB-111Hs) as the deterrence force is also interesting.

 

[_Del_]

No, that's the NB-52E

What I was thinking of was obviously related to the LAMS work, but a four engine design.

 

[TsrJoe]

Boeing NB.52E CCV.

 

[Archibald]

Never heard of that bird before ! So it had some automated damping system for fast low level flight - without breaking the airframe ?

 

[jsport]

Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the the low level penetration, and enhanced bomb bay B-52X

 

[apparition13]

Never heard of that bird before ! So it had some automated damping system for fast low level flight - without breaking the airframe ?

Yup. The quote is 10mph faster than the speed at which a normal B-52 would disintegrate due to structural stresses. I think it was around 100mph faster than normal low level flight, but I can't find that number to confirm it. Odd looking bird, but the mod wasn't that expensive and would increase fatigue life. Although at the time I don't think they were thinking about them being in service in the '80s, let alone now.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

There's room for a rotary launcher and 8 ALCM, but I don't think there is room in the fuselage to extend the bomb bay enough to carry two rotary launchers.

Keep in mind the original AGM-86 was supposed to fit within the footprint of the AGM-69 SRAM (Evolution of the Cruise Missile, K. Werrell, pg 156).

While it would take a bit of work extending the weapons bay to hold two SRAM type rotary launchers was probably quite feasible. Keep in mind the forward area of the bomb bay was used to carry a four-bomb "clip-in" rack (as seen below). Each of the B28 gravity bombs is about 12 feet long, compared to the roughly 14 feet of the AGM-86A and AGM-69. This is ignoring the extra clearance needed for the rotary launcher but it stands to reason that space could be made.

 

[Apophenia]

Keep in mind the original AGM-86 was supposed to fit within the footprint of the AGM-69 SRAM...

As you say, the 4.3 m-long AGM-86A would fit on AGM-69 launchers. But TERCOM opened up the possibility of retained accuracy over much longer-ranges. The result was the 6.3 m-long AGM-86B ... with the trade-off of no longer fitting the rotary SRAM racks.