The main advantage of the new engines is better efficiency and engines that are currently in production and supported. Apparently, all of the spares from the -141's are gone and the TF-33's aren't easily supportable these days. The more efficient engines definitely reduce the need for tankers. Stand-off is still the game for peer adversaries, but permissive environments will still allow for direct weapons such as GBU-12's, 38's and the like.
Contract for New B-52 Engines 'Imminent' | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The Air Force expects to award a contract on the B-52 re-engining program within the next nine days, service acquisition officials said Sep. 21.www.airandspaceforces.com
So that's not an actual range, but you can probably deduce it from published figures for the B-52H. And of course, that was a target from before the final selection, so it could change specific to the F130. But any way you slice it, if they get even close to a 40% range increase, that's a huge relief to the tanker force.
Looking at the B-52H standard aircraft characteristics, with a bomb load of around 35 thousand pounds (internal I presume, which is enough to cover eight 4000 pound class weapons), the plane has a combat radius of around 3500 nautical miles, which looks to be without inflight refueling. A 40% range improvement would add 1400nm to that, for pretty close to 5000 miles. Add a 1500-2000nm cruise missile, and targets potentially up to 7000nm away could be attacked without refueling while returning to the base of origin.
Range is highly dependent on the payload and drag index of the payload. The fuel burn greatly depends on what and how much is on the HSAB's. We used some rules of thumb in test but would mission plan from the performance annex to determine exactly how much gas to use for the mission and/or how much gas to get from the tanker.
www.twz.com
www.airandspaceforces.com
www.defensenews.com
Congress wants to restore nukes on conventional B-52 bombers
With Russia suspending participation in New START and the arms control treaty's future in doubt, Congress wants to restore nuclear weapons to some B-52s.
2,000 nuclear-armed ALCMs?
There were 1,700 AGM-86Bs made out of 4,000 planned! Page 106:
JASSM-XR is more relevant, that's the CALCM replacement.
Oh, we were still talking nuclear stuff. I was talking about just as a CALCM for the B-52J.
www.airforcetimes.com
I mean, we are talking about 1960s ergonomics and modern pilots are ~4" taller on average...Upgrade living quarters and crew comfort for long duration missions:
Airmen flying B-52 bombers should be more comfortable, lawmakers say
There are plenty of upgrades coming for the B-52. Now lawmakers want to make sure airmen's comfort is on that list.
@Scott Kenny that may be more in reference to the ECS than the seats, although Lord knows all those steam gauges, knobs and switches really challenged the glass cockpit babies
.
Isn´t there any confusions? Unless I have missed something, gravity launched nuclear bombs usage is phased out, not the nuclear missiles.
The B-52 Will No Longer Carry Certain Nuclear Weapons. Here's Why
The B-52 Stratofortress will no longer carry the B61-7 and B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs as it prepares to carry the new long-range standoff weapon, known as LRSO.www.military.com
Its not stupid it was literally part of an international treaty. With the treaty ending in 2 years, they can be rewired.
Nope, they're still equipped on B-2s as part of the strategic arsenal - 288 in total. Many more on tactical aircraft.
thebulletin.org
Chance of New START getting renewed or renegotiated is somewhere between "slim" and "none".
NASA doesn't have any B-52s anymore. Don't see any reason why this would change that.
It's always risky to predict the future, but NASA doesn't seem to have any programs where they would need something like a B-52; its usable internal volume is minuscule, its payload weight isn't that great, and its performance envelope isn't significantly better than dozens of commercial aircraft.
Doesn’t NASA still have the B-52H that replaced their early B-52 (A or B) used for the X-15 launches and others? The H model would have just as much payload capability as a J model, and can fly only ~ 8000 miles unrefueled.
