Boeing B-52J / B-52 Re-Engining

TomcatViP said:
Re-engining effort faces a slight cost increase as modifications on the airframes get deeper:

www.airforcemag.com

Cost of B-52 Re-Engining Jumps By Half in New Estimate of Refit | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The cost of the B-52 re-engining program has increased 50 percent because of integration issues, according to congressional revelations.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

Not good news at all TomcatViP, I wonder what the integration issues were behind the B-52 Re-Engining were. The fact that the cost increased by 50 percent, let's hope that the cost does not spiral out of control.
 
Ahhhhh, Boeing. "The cost increases have more to do with integrating the engines on the B-52, which is a Boeing effort, and has less to do with the engines themselves"
 
@jstar : let's be realistic, most contractor didn't factor-in until very late the engineering cost that would come with integrating new engines into a 70 years old design that have been kept flying for decades. Everybody got their mouth dry at the sight of an 8 engines airframe to the point that idiots kept billing gigantic fan engines with enough power to blast (at least in pieces) the 21st century SAC onto the moon without the help of the Space Force.
Integration, improvements and fatigues and safety study will be costly, especially when Boeing can argue that the Stratofortress is the last one of its kind with unique capabilities.

Let's be honest, Ferraris don't come for cheap either. Everybody knows that. Probably then that Boeing should paint them in red...
 
The article makes this sound like a program office snafu goobering up estimating methods between different ACAT classes. Couldn't imagine how that might occur :eek:
 
I’m probably ignorant to how the entire contract procurement installation etc. works but why wouldn’t you have complete full builds using boneyard aircraft to prove out the entire re-engining process start to finish?
 
They do:

FJ4VLkRXoAMXxFx


www.airforcetimes.com

Road trip! Vietnam-era B-52 makes 1,400-mile highway journey for final mission

Damage Inc. II's more than 1,400-mile journey out of retirement constitutes the longest overland movement of a B-52 in history.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
 
“Well boys, we've got no wings, we've got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio's gone and we're out of fuel and if we was flying any lower, why we'd need yellow flashin' lights on this thing... But we've got one thing on those Ruskies… At this height, why they might harpoon us, but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar...”
 
Hood said:
“Well boys, we've got no wings, we've got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio's gone and we're out of fuel and if we was flying any lower, why we'd need yellow flashin' lights on this thing... But we've got one thing on those Ruskies… At this height, why they might harpoon us, but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar...”
Click to expand...
"Hey, what about Maj Kong?"
 
The B-52H will be redesignated the B-52J or possibly B-52K when it gets a new radar and new engines, but the Air Force hasn’t yet decided what will constitute the new B-52 variant, according to Col. Louis Ruscetta, senior materiel leader for the program.
[...]

The question is whether there will be two designations, because some of the new APG-79B4 radars will be installed on the bombers before the new Rolls-Royce F130 engines, Ruscetta said. The B-52 pilot operating manual and maintenance manuals will be re-written for the version with the new radar; and will be re-written again when the engines are changed, Ruscetta said.

“What the Air Force, along with Global Strike Command, needs to look at, is how do we define” the new variant, he said. The decision will be made sometime within the next two years, before installations begin, Ruscetta added.

Ruscetta described the new active, electronically scanned array radar as a “game changer” for the B-52, especially as the Air Force migrates toward the two-bomber fleet of B-21s and B-52s. The APG-79 is effectively the same radar as on the export version of the Navy F/A-18 fighter, with the array turned “upside down” so it looks more down at the ground than up at the sky, Ruscetta said.

“We will have fighter-quality radar … to support air-to-ground operations,” he said, and be better able to operate “with other coalition partners” because the bomber will be able to use the same sensor format. It will be able to scan farther, “guide weapons in flight,” and improve the bomber’s situational awareness, he said. The B-52 today is still flying with its 1960s mechanical-scan radar.
Click to expand...

www.airforcemag.com

B-52 Will Get at Least One New Designation With Radar, Engine Upgrades | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The B-52H will be redesignated the B-52J or B-52K when it gets a new radar and engines, said the B-52 senior materiel leader.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
I don't get the why they don't use an antenna repostionner. Installing the SH radar upside down surely will help scanning in the frontal hemisphere but then wouldn't that be better to be capable to do it sideways while flying NoE?!
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
I don't get the why they don't use an antenna repostionner. Installing the SH radar upside down surely will help scanning in the frontal hemisphere but then wouldn't that be better to be capable to do it sideways while flying NoE?!
Click to expand...

They're not taking B-52s NOE these days.
 
You'd never know what you could be forced to do. Also a side looking radar at high altitude could prove handy.
 
TomcatViP said:
You'd never know what you could be forced to do. Also a side looking radar at high altitude could prove handy.
Click to expand...

We know the USAF will not employ B-52s at low level. For one, the opted not to fit LAIRCM, which they would need to be safe down low.

Sure, being able to turn the radar would be nice, but "nice to have" isn't in budget.
 
TomcatViP said:
I don't get the why they don't use an antenna repostionner. Installing the SH radar upside down surely will help scanning in the frontal hemisphere but then wouldn't that be better to be capable to do it sideways while flying NoE?!
Click to expand...
Complexity, not enough volume available under the radome, unless it was redesigned.
 
TomS said:
We know the USAF will not employ B-52s at low level. For one, the opted not to fit LAIRCM, which they would need to be safe down low.
Click to expand...
I've flown and tested LAIRCM (C-17/KC-135), it's mostly an approach/departure/FLOT type of thing. Back in the day we were the last crews to still do low levels with the BUFF in 0050 at the 419th. A couple of the RN's were old SAC guys and liked doing B28 delivery profiles... That said, from what I've heard it's made a bit of a come back at LA & MT. Doubt I could really speculate much publicly about LAIRCM and not avoid any TTP, so I won't.

Edit: I have sat in the Nav seat for low levels around R2508 FWIW
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
TomcatViP said:
I don't get the why they don't use an antenna repostionner. Installing the SH radar upside down surely will help scanning in the frontal hemisphere but then wouldn't that be better to be capable to do it sideways while flying NoE?!
Click to expand...

They're not taking B-52s NOE these days.
Click to expand...
I don't think B-52s have practiced that flight profile in decades. F-15Es either. The B-1s apparently were the last units to practice that profile until relatively recently but the structural issues the aircraft are suffering has stopped that flight regime.
 
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
They're not taking B-52s NOE these days.
Click to expand...
I don't think B-52s have practiced that flight profile in decades. F-15Es either. The B-1s apparently were the last units to practice that profile until relatively recently but the structural issues the aircraft are suffering has stopped that flight regime.
Click to expand...
Specificity is required for "decades". The G models in ODS conducted low level attacks, up until 2008 I flew them in the ED BUFF's where the guys (sorry no female aircrew at the time) pretty much said we were the only ones left who flew that profile. That said, recently there were a couple of articles, one where a journalist crashed the LA sim attempting a low level and another that made an off hand comment to low level as a practiced profile. It's been more than a week so I can't remember where I read that, just that I had that, "Isn't that interesting," thought.
 
If the USAF is serious about having the B-52H's fly NOE profiles then they'll have to spend some serious money and get Boeing to remanufacture their airframes.
 
www.thedefensepost.com

American B-52 Bombers Make Low Sweep Over Stockholm

American B-52 bombers flew low over Stockholm as Sweden ramps up exercises with the US in view of the Scandinavian country's NATO membership.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com

Probably only to check what's favorite Bikinis among Sweden women.

Oh wait...

“We’re going to be better able to meet the new challenges of a changed European security environment with two strong, reliable, highly capable new allies in the High North,” Biden said, noting how the U.S. and Allies have enhanced deterrence on NATO’s eastern flank.
Click to expand...

www.airforcemag.com

World: Europe - Air Force Magazine

Biden signs NATO ratification; B-52 bomber task force missions in the U.K.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
The B-52H will be redesignated the B-52J or possibly B-52K when it gets a new radar and new engines, but the Air Force hasn’t yet decided what will constitute the new B-52 variant, according to Col. Louis Ruscetta, senior materiel leader for the program.
[...]

The question is whether there will be two designations, because some of the new APG-79B4 radars will be installed on the bombers before the new Rolls-Royce F130 engines, Ruscetta said. The B-52 pilot operating manual and maintenance manuals will be re-written for the version with the new radar; and will be re-written again when the engines are changed, Ruscetta said.

“What the Air Force, along with Global Strike Command, needs to look at, is how do we define” the new variant, he said. The decision will be made sometime within the next two years, before installations begin, Ruscetta added.

Ruscetta described the new active, electronically scanned array radar as a “game changer” for the B-52, especially as the Air Force migrates toward the two-bomber fleet of B-21s and B-52s. The APG-79 is effectively the same radar as on the export version of the Navy F/A-18 fighter, with the array turned “upside down” so it looks more down at the ground than up at the sky, Ruscetta said.

“We will have fighter-quality radar … to support air-to-ground operations,” he said, and be better able to operate “with other coalition partners” because the bomber will be able to use the same sensor format. It will be able to scan farther, “guide weapons in flight,” and improve the bomber’s situational awareness, he said. The B-52 today is still flying with its 1960s mechanical-scan radar.
Click to expand...

www.airforcemag.com

B-52 Will Get at Least One New Designation With Radar, Engine Upgrades | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The B-52H will be redesignated the B-52J or B-52K when it gets a new radar and engines, said the B-52 senior materiel leader.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...


Well … the PLAAF’s H-6K and the PLAN NA‘s H-6J!? ;)
 
1635yankee said:
The Tu-95 may be a better choice to compare with the B-52 than the Tu-16.
Click to expand...

This! Although the Tu-95 is the Russian equivalent it doesn't have quite the capability of a B-52, I remember reading somewhere years ago the then new and expanding B-52 fleet (A total of 744 were built) greatly concerned Khrushchev as the Soviets couldn't truly match it but came close with the Tu-95.
 
I know my aviation history, many thanks. I was reacting to @Deino pointing the coincidence in letters.

The Soviets still have their B-47s - Tu-16s - and fewer of their B-52s: Tu-95s.

US Tu-16s are gone since 1966 (when 1500 B-47s, no less, were dumped at Davis Monthan).
 
NMaude said:
The Tu-16 and its' H-6 derivatives are basically medium-bombers.
Click to expand...
1635yankee said:
The Tu-95 may be a better choice to compare with the B-52 than the Tu-16.
Click to expand...
Josh_TN said:
Archibald said:
... and the Tu-16 is as old as the B-52.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the H-6K and after are all new builds even if they keep the same aerodynamic shape and structure of the Tu-16. Presumably the avionics are very modern. But the BUFF still wins on payload and range by like 2-3x.
Click to expand...


I know and it was in no way my intention to compare the H-6 with the B-52 which is simply another league on its own as a bomber, I was merely joking about both having the same letter!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom