bobbymike
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Messages
- 10,406
- Reaction score
- 1,343

BUFF Up - Air Force Magazine
Another decade of enhancements will give the B-52 three more decades of power.

Could 3d printing save the last of the B-1's?
Looks to me like a most cost-effective method to keep them flying for some time...
You strip one to the bone, 3d-scan every part and send it to the printer. ( No doubt big areospace companies have this in-house already)
The B-52 seems to be the most logical choice, everything else seems to be doomed to be stuck in development hell forever...
Well if she will get a new model ident (J), why not opting for a new name: the Superforeverstress(ed)?!
I'm a Machinist for a turbine engine supplier. The problem with 3D printing is that it is difficult to get the tight tolerances that aerospace parts generally demand, 3D metal printing is almost always followed up by traditional material removal processes, be that machining, EDM, or other methods. While the technology has come a long way, it still is not a silver-bullet for parts production.
All valid arguments. I think that functional/structural validation of 3D printed parts is also a consideration. The time and testing involved with any processing changes to validate the requirements for functionality/longevity would be considerable. “Known and slow” is sometimes better than “new and needs testing” in a financial and scheduling sense.I'm a Machinist for a turbine engine supplier. The problem with 3D printing is that it is difficult to get the tight tolerances that aerospace parts generally demand, 3D metal printing is almost always followed up by traditional material removal processes, be that machining, EDM, or other methods. While the technology has come a long way, it still is not a silver-bullet for parts production.
I know that too, also a machinist by education, and a 3d print fan from the first hour ( and I work next to Materialise) But industry 4.0 has made a lot more possible, with the same "blueprints" you can now do your 3d-printing and 3d-milling afterwards. There will always be some postprocessing involved, but the point is that it can be done much cheaper and with better tools then it could be done in the time that the planes were made. So in theory the B-1s could be saved by more modern technology, but the question is how badly wants the Airforce keep them flying?
Could 3d printing save the last of the B-1's?
Looks to me like a most cost-effective method to keep them flying for some time...
You strip one to the bone, 3d-scan every part and send it to the printer. ( No doubt big areospace companies have this in-house already)
The B-52 seems to be the most logical choice, everything else seems to be doomed to be stuck in development hell forever...
What we continue to fail to demonstrate is that it wouldn't be compromised 15 seconds after they start cutting metal, if not before.It ought to be possible to design a large unmanned platform with the same weapons and elctronic load as a B52. We have enough experience of operating UAVs.
I shouldn't have to point this out but the 60 year old bomber is MANNED.so a 60 year old bomber is not compromised? can you enlarge?
Guess you haven't been following their accident ratesIt ought to be possible to design a large unmanned platform with the same weapons and elctronic load as a B52. We have enough experience of operating UAVs.
If only bombers could fly as fast as you move goalposts....so essentially you want to spend huge.amounts of money to put a large bomber and its crew in harm's way rather than expendable UAVs. Good luck selling that one.
It only does standoff; not exactly putting a crew in harm's way especially given its *very* low accident rate.Sorry I thought we were talking about converting/rebuilding or even a new version of a B52.
They are looking at weaponizing the KC-46 but Orbital's experience with Pegasus on the L-1011 isIn a stand off role would not a modern twin engine airframe be a better answer?
I like that idea.Wouldnt a purpose built twin engined airframe be more reasonable than trying to keep the B52s going? It could be more compact and efficient but still carry a massive load. Start with a KC46 or even a 777/787 wing and components?
It would be relatively cheap and fast to build a missile truck but the problem is things like that have been tried and the brass never supports anything but gold plated eagles with bleeding edge tech. The military industrial complex is a business... One that takes 25 years to build a new jet fighter for example. An engineer today is very lucky if they ever in their lives work on a single new airplane. Its like if the f15 didn't enter service until after or around GWIWouldnt a purpose built twin engined airframe be more reasonable than trying to keep the B52s going? It could be more compact and efficient but still carry a massive load. Start with a KC46 or even a 777/787 wing and components?
Arsenal Plane in short...I thought it was discussed here before. Gunzinger says no as advanced VLO long range stand-off weapons are EXPENSIVE and VLO platforms is a must (let me speculate that Mitchell studies are fueled by NG money flow)Wouldnt a purpose built twin engined airframe be more reasonable than trying to keep the B52s going? It could be more compact and efficient but still carry a massive load. Start with a KC46 or even a 777/787 wing and components?
Yeah, all this talk about new versions of the BUFF is crazy talk. Now, when it comes to keeping existing bombers the BUFF wins out over the Bone. Recapitalization of the bomber fleet is squarely on the B-21, lets hope they keep the line open for more than 100, 150 would be good, 175 better.Sorry I thought we were talking about converting/rebuilding or even a new version of a B52.
The B21 is a very different proposition which should reduce the risk to its crew and use them to advantage.
For carrying what? Outsized hypersonic payloads?Wouldnt a purpose built twin engined airframe be more reasonable than trying to keep the B52s going? It could be more compact and efficient but still carry a massive load. Start with a KC46 or even a 777/787 wing and components?
Feel free to show us how you can get a new nuclear certified standoff weapons carrier with the sameBasically you just want to keep B52s flying. Fine by me its not my country's money.
Just to give you a helping hand on IDing "potentially valid target"As a side note, please be ensured that nobody with an airliner industry will buy a single derivative airframe for Nuke strike. That day, every airframe from that national contractor flying around will become a potentially valid target. This is not how you build deterrence.
When did it serve in that capacity?Just to give you a helping hand on IDing "potentially valid target"As a side note, please be ensured that nobody with an airliner industry will buy a single derivative airframe for Nuke strike. That day, every airframe from that national contractor flying around will become a potentially valid target. This is not how you build deterrence.
Never; that configuration in particular was practically a complete redesign of the VC10.When did it serve in that capacity?Just to give you a helping hand on IDing "potentially valid target"
True, but they're designing for a different payload. Note how much narrower the B-52's fuselage is compared to a 777 or even 767. A 777 with a slim fuselage will have less drag than one designed for passengers.Never; that configuration in particular was practically a complete redesign of the VC10.When did it serve in that capacity?Just to give you a helping hand on IDing "potentially valid target"
The more sober SAC analysis of the KC-135 (I don't think its load factor was that different than the VC10)
indicated that the KC-135 might be able to carry two Skybolts.
As much as I criticize the cruise missile carrier aircraft concepts, they do at least preserve the aero-efficient
OMLs that the widebody designers spend so much time and money to achieve.