Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Totally agree- I've thought for years that the 717's BR710 at the 21K rating would be perfect for the B-52.
-
- LightningZ71
- Posts: 688
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
LOL, and massively telescoping landing gears. It's the same story as the 737!
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
8 new engines?!? Darn. Here I thought we'd finally see Dale Brown's Megafortress.
-
- Buckeyetech
- Posts: 229
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Nice, shiny video made by Boeing to highlight this need.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... g-the-b-52
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... g-the-b-52
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Four CFM56-7s would be good if they can squeeze a little more thrust out it.
Plenty of parts and commonality.
Plenty of parts and commonality.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
I question the wisdom of any re-engining at this time. With so many potential conflicts around the globe, can we afford to have the overwhelming majority of our bomber force grounded indefinitely? I'm not saying that new engines aren't necessary, but come up with something we can use if war breaks out while a chunk of our B-52's are in maintenance, like say reactivating some BONE's from the Boneyard.
Marc
Marc
-
- INFINITI329
- Posts: 3013
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Cadet985 wrote:I question the wisdom of any re-engining at this time. With so many potential conflicts around the globe, can we afford to have the overwhelming majority of our bomber force grounded indefinitely? I'm not saying that new engines aren't necessary, but come up with something we can use if war breaks out while a chunk of our B-52's are in maintenance, like say reactivating some BONE's from the Boneyard.
Marc
As long as we are not involved two major war conflicts at the same time such during WWII the fleet will be ok
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Buckeyetech wrote:Nice, shiny video made by Boeing to highlight this need.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... g-the-b-52
I think this is aimed squarely at someone who thinks that “going to goddamned steam" is the best solution.... There is a strong case for the re-engining the B52 and making a nice simple friendly video that someone might watch and push to shave a few dozen millions off the billion dollar "digital" LSRB program to bring these puppies up to snuff to bridge the gap.
Tugg
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Cadet985 wrote:I question the wisdom of any re-engining at this time. With so many potential conflicts around the globe, can we afford to have the overwhelming majority of our bomber force grounded indefinitely? I'm not saying that new engines aren't necessary, but come up with something we can use if war breaks out while a chunk of our B-52's are in maintenance, like say reactivating some BONE's from the Boneyard.
Marc
They won't pull all the B-52s at once. Will probably be done in batches. Then there's still the B-1Bs and B-2s.
I doubt all the remaining frames will be re-engined too. It will probably just be a number of the newest ones since the USAF will want most of its funds going to the new B-21 Raider which is supposed to replace the B-52 and B-1.
-
- ZaphodHarkonnen
- Posts: 1479
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
On another forum I'm on someone posted a link to this view on the whole re-engine idea.
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11 ... w-engines/
Really interesting read. Even pointed out the issue with just using 8 modern engines as a one to one replace.
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11 ... w-engines/
Really interesting read. Even pointed out the issue with just using 8 modern engines as a one to one replace.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:On another forum I'm on someone posted a link to this view on the whole re-engine idea.
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11 ... w-engines/
Really interesting read. Even pointed out the issue with just using 8 modern engines as a one to one replace.
Thank you, that should be required reading for anyone contemplating posting in this thread...
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Why not just give PW a contract for 400 new TF-33s?
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
rlwynn wrote:Why not just give PW a contract for 400 new TF-33s?
I guess the big reason is the design is almost three decades old and significantly fuel inefficient. Also not sure PW can actually produce that engine anymore because it is so old.
As of last year, P&W were working on a plan to improve on-wing time to reduce the maintenance costs.
-
- LightningZ71
- Posts: 688
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
After reading the above linked article, I am even more convinced that the only real solution to the B-52 re-engining program is the BR-700 series. It is a currently in service engine family in commercial aircraft. It is similar in weight and fan diameter (some versions) to the TF-33. It is similar in weight to the TF-33. It is a well understood engine that has many, many, MANY flight hours with which to study its characteristics from. In my very humble opinion, it is as close to a drop in replacement as is ever going to exist for not only the B-52, but also for any other platform that is still using the TF-33.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:On another forum I'm on someone posted a link to this view on the whole re-engine idea.
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11 ... w-engines/
Really interesting read. Even pointed out the issue with just using 8 modern engines as a one to one replace.
Very interesting read and touches on a lot of good point. Makes me wonder how the consideration for a re-engine has even got this far. Especially with the B-21 coming in around the middle to end of next decade. A re-engine of the E-3, E-8, and WC/OC-135s is probably not an option since they are likely to be replaced soon. Better off putting the money and resources toward the B-21. Maybe try and bring the program forward if possible.
-
- INFINITI329
- Posts: 3013
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Slug71 wrote:ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:On another forum I'm on someone posted a link to this view on the whole re-engine idea.
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11 ... w-engines/
Really interesting read. Even pointed out the issue with just using 8 modern engines as a one to one replace.
Very interesting read and touches on a lot of good point. Makes me wonder how the consideration for a re-engine has even got this far. Especially with the B-21 coming in around the middle to end of next decade. A re-engine of the E-3, E-8, and WC/OC-135s is probably not an option since they are likely to be replaced soon. Better off putting the money and resources toward the B-21. Maybe try and bring the program forward if possible.
Why are those airplanes still flying around with JT3D anyways? I feel they should DOD should have piggy-backed off the KC-135 re-engine program for these airplanes.
What percentage of JT3D parts does the USAF produce in house?
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Slug71 wrote:Makes me wonder how the consideration for a re-engine has even got this far. Especially with the B-21 coming in around the middle to end of next decade. A re-engine of the E-3, E-8, and WC/OC-135s is probably not an option since they are likely to be replaced soon. Better off putting the money and resources toward the B-21. Maybe try and bring the program forward if possible.
But that is not what Boeing is interested in. Boeing lost to Northrop and so want (need) to get any dollars they can. And they have a decent argument. The LRSB is a decade out at least, and quite frankly will so expensive and "important" that the AF will be unwilling to send it out unless there is a need to. So a cheap, safe, and proven option would be an extended life B-52 (OK, super, ultra, mega, zombie reanimation extended). Boeing has nothing to lose and it does provide a good benefit to the AF.
It's an easy sell except that it will only impact two or three states really unlike a new military program which contractors make sure to spread development and testing and production across as many states as possible to secure votes.
INFINITI329 wrote:they should DOD should have piggy-backed off the KC-135 re-engine program for these airplanes.
That requires a new wing/pylon interface, a totally new pylon, and a new nacelle. Much more costly than just reworrking the existing nacelle as is being suggested.
Tugg
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Tugger wrote:But that is not what Boeing is interested in. Boeing lost to Northrop and so want (need) to get any dollars they can. And they have a decent argument. The LRSB is a decade out at least, and quite frankly will so expensive and "important" that the AF will be unwilling to send it out unless there is a need to. So a cheap, safe, and proven option would be an extended life B-52 (OK, super, ultra, mega, zombie reanimation extended). Boeing has nothing to lose and it does provide a good benefit to the AF.
It's an easy sell except that it will only impact two or three states really unlike a new military program which contractors make sure to spread development and testing and production across as many states as possible to secure votes.
Assuming it's (B-21) on schedule, it's supposed to enter service in 2025 with FOC by 2030. Preliminary design work is done and it's meant to replace the B-52 and B-1. While the the B-52 is an iconic piece of machinery, it's also very old. Like the 747, it's time is done. The money would be better spent on the Raider or ICBMs. Hypersonic ICBMs will probably be the next big thing IMO.
Boeing will more than likely get the replacement contracts for the E-3, E-8, RC/OC/WC-135s, C-32, E-6, and E-4. There's a good chance the Navy will buy more Super Hornets too. There's a lot of $$ for Boeing to be had yet.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Tugger wrote:So a cheap, safe, and proven option would be an extended life B-52 (OK, super, ultra, mega, zombie reanimation extended). Boeing has nothing to lose and it does provide a good benefit to the AF.
The only role remaining for the B-52 is as a cruise missile carrier as it cannot survive in anything other than a permissive air environment.
Slug71 wrote:The money would be better spent on the Raider or ICBMs. Hypersonic ICBMs will probably be the next big thing IMO.
Perhaps you mean hypersonic cruise missiles? Modern ICBMs already see hypersonic speeds during their terminal phase.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Ozair wrote:The only role remaining for the B-52 is as a cruise missile carrier as it cannot survive in anything other than a permissive air environment.
Wasn´t the B52 fairly cost efficient in terms of pounds dropped per USD?
best regards
Thomas
-
- flyingclrs727
- Posts: 3277
- Joined:
Re: RE: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
mmo wrote:Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 3):Still, would re-engining of the B-52 still make sense today? Those planes are almost 60 years old by now.
Given the plan is to keep the BUFF in active service until the 2040s, it makes a lot of sense! The biggest issue is the increasing maintenance on the engines and the cost of fuel delivered via a tanker. There is a very quick payback on the investment if you use the correct cost assumptions.
If there is a re-engining of the B-52, I'm sure the retirement would be delayed another decade or two. Only the H model is in use. There are lots of spare parts in he desert.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Ozair wrote:Slug71 wrote:The money would be better spent on the Raider or ICBMs. Hypersonic ICBMs will probably be the next big thing IMO.
Perhaps you mean hypersonic cruise missiles? Modern ICBMs already see hypersonic speeds during their terminal phase.
My bad and thanks for the correction. Yes I meant Hypersonic Cruise Missiles.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Ozair wrote:The only role remaining for the B-52 is as a cruise missile carrier...
And that would also be the only role for the B-21. It doesn't make sense to me to spend a half a trillion dollars just to make a delivery vehicle that can get a few hundred miles closer to the target before weapons release. The money would better be spent on the actual weapon.
The ultimate mission of a manned bomber is just one leg of the triad anyway. The B-21 project strikes me as being a giant waste; we survived without the B-58 and B-70, why do we need a fourth leg for the triad now?
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
salttee wrote:Ozair wrote:The only role remaining for the B-52 is as a cruise missile carrier...
And that would also be the only role for the B-21. It doesn't make sense to me to spend a half a trillion dollars just to make a delivery vehicle that can get a few hundred miles closer to the target before weapons release. The money would better be spent on the actual weapon.
The ultimate mission of a manned bomber is just one leg of the triad anyway. The B-21 project strikes me as being a giant waste; we survived without the B-58 and B-70, why do we need a fourth leg for the triad now?
The B-21 (like the B-2) would also be able to deliver guided and unguided bombs deep into enemy territory without being detected.
But thats exactly why I think long range hypersonic cruise missiles are the way forward IMO. It would eliminate the need for expensive aircraft carriers too.
Or at least cut the number in half.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:On another forum I'm on someone posted a link to this view on the whole re-engine idea.
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11 ... w-engines/
Really interesting read. Even pointed out the issue with just using 8 modern engines as a one to one replace.
It is a good analysis, thanks for sharing.
-
- LightningZ71
- Posts: 688
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
The B-21 is essentially a replacement for every manned bomber that the USAF has. The B-2s and B-1s are proving to be very maintenance intensive as they age and will only get more expensive over time. The B-52 isn't getting any younger. The F-117 is long gone. What other bomber platforms do they have? This is supposed to consolidate the support structure while retaining needed capabilities. While they would love to fly the B-52 forever, there will come a time where they will start to succumb to their age, even with the best of care.
-
- Channex757
- Posts: 2423
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
This reminds me of the Carter years and the original B-1 program, which was hellishly expensive to operate at Mach 2+ as a nuclear bomber.
It then got retooled and a serious downgrade in top speed, to the low level monster it became (and for a lot less money). The parallels with the B-21 are that the Air Force brass will always cut their proposals to what they can get away with when it comes to spending. They will pad the spec out until it becomes the best plane ever built with the latest technology, even though the requirements are actually much less.
They want the newest, shiniest toy on the block. Congress will normally nod it through in fear of being labelled unpatriotic. Only John McCain has stood up in recent times over a procurement issue (the tankers) and look at the flak he caught for that.
What the Air Force needs is a pair of B-52 wings with a Hercules fuselage. Not some bleeding-edge piece of lunacy.
And before anyone asks, yes I am talking about the arsenal plane. Doesn't even need to be manned, a cut-price piece of genius.
It then got retooled and a serious downgrade in top speed, to the low level monster it became (and for a lot less money). The parallels with the B-21 are that the Air Force brass will always cut their proposals to what they can get away with when it comes to spending. They will pad the spec out until it becomes the best plane ever built with the latest technology, even though the requirements are actually much less.
They want the newest, shiniest toy on the block. Congress will normally nod it through in fear of being labelled unpatriotic. Only John McCain has stood up in recent times over a procurement issue (the tankers) and look at the flak he caught for that.
What the Air Force needs is a pair of B-52 wings with a Hercules fuselage. Not some bleeding-edge piece of lunacy.
And before anyone asks, yes I am talking about the arsenal plane. Doesn't even need to be manned, a cut-price piece of genius.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
tommy1808 wrote:Ozair wrote:The only role remaining for the B-52 is as a cruise missile carrier as it cannot survive in anything other than a permissive air environment.
Wasn´t the B52 fairly cost efficient in terms of pounds dropped per USD?
best regards
Thomas
Might be but the requirement to drop a large volume of ordnance over a small area is rarely needed and essentially disappeared with precision guided munitions. In AFG the B-1B was the preferred CAS aircraft because of the combination of payload, loiter time and dash capability.
salttee wrote:And that would also be the only role for the B-21. It doesn't make sense to me to spend a half a trillion dollars just to make a delivery vehicle that can get a few hundred miles closer to the target before weapons release. The money would better be spent on the actual weapon.
That number is extreme. While the total dev cost of the B-21 program is classified the intent has been to re-use a number of already developed and technically mature technologies including F-35 stealth, sensors, avionics and possibly engine. If we consider the F-35 had a total dev cost of approx US$59 billion then the B-21 program is probably going to be at that value or less. A total production run of 145 aircraft (only 80-100 are currently planned) at US$800 million each makes the total program somewhere around US$160-180 billion including dev.
salttee wrote:The ultimate mission of a manned bomber is just one leg of the triad anyway. The B-21 project strikes me as being a giant waste; we survived without the B-58 and B-70, why do we need a fourth leg for the triad now?
The B-21 is not just about nuclear delivery but even if it were the current bomber element of that triad is getting old. The B-21 will be a key ISR, recon and comms node for the current and future operating concept, a long range platform for pacific operations and almost certainly a control and probably launch and recovery platform for UCAVs.
The B-52 may have a continued future as a cruise missile delivery and it remains one of the talked about options for the arsenal plane concept but that would involve significant modification of a few airframes and not the wholesale upgrade of the remaining fleet. Even then, as with the A-10 and KC-10 fleets, the USAF would see the B-52 fleet as a means to eliminate a significant cost base at once as the new airframe comes into service.
Slug71 wrote:The B-21 (like the B-2) would also be able to deliver guided and unguided bombs deep into enemy territory without being detected.
But thats exactly why I think long range hypersonic cruise missiles are the way forward IMO. It would eliminate the need for expensive aircraft carriers too.
Or at least cut the number in half.
That is highly unlikely to happen. A RAND study from a few years ago https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1230.pdf pointed out the significant cost advantage of continued delivery of low cost munitions by reuseable aircraft. Current and any future advanced cruise missiles are not designed or procured in sufficient numbers to wholesale replace manned or unmanned delivery.
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
superbizzy73 wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-details-scope-and-schedule-for-b-52-re-engining-444327/
Interesting:
P&W has urged air force officials to simply refurbish the TF33, but the document makes clear that approach is not one of the options the air force is considering. Also rejected are previous proposals that offered to cut the B-52H’s engine count from eight to four.
[...]
, all three acquisition strategies under review replace all eight TF33s to cut fuel consumption by 20-40%. The new engines must not alter the aircraft’s take-off performance and the weapon release envelope, the document says. The engine replacement also would include revamping the B-52H’s electrical power system, installing new generators and wiring to support new electronics.
[...]
A notional schedule using the two-stage bidding process indicates the full programme will take 17 years to complete.
Tugg
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
LightningZ71 wrote:The B-21 is essentially a replacement for every manned bomber that the USAF has. The B-2s and B-1s are proving to be very maintenance intensive as they age and will only get more expensive over time. The B-52 isn't getting any younger. The F-117 is long gone. What other bomber platforms do they have? This is supposed to consolidate the support structure while retaining needed capabilities. While they would love to fly the B-52 forever, there will come a time where they will start to succumb to their age, even with the best of care.
That time when it succumbed came long ago...The B-52 should have been upgraded to 4 CFM engines decades ago, but it wasn't. So after 2030 we will still be flying B-52's along with B1, B2, B21...and who will be making big $$ producing new or rebuilt JT3D (TF33) engines and parts...an engine that first flew in a B45 (anyone remember?) right after WWII.
I think a lot of nostalgia keeps the B52 in service. We are now in an age of cruise missiles, drones, stealth and satellite sensors. The B-52's time is long past. Keep a few out the boneyard for old time's sake...but they shouldn't be flying anymore.
-
- ZaphodHarkonnen
- Posts: 1479
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
QuarkFly wrote:LightningZ71 wrote:The B-21 is essentially a replacement for every manned bomber that the USAF has. The B-2s and B-1s are proving to be very maintenance intensive as they age and will only get more expensive over time. The B-52 isn't getting any younger. The F-117 is long gone. What other bomber platforms do they have? This is supposed to consolidate the support structure while retaining needed capabilities. While they would love to fly the B-52 forever, there will come a time where they will start to succumb to their age, even with the best of care.
That time when it succumbed came long ago...The B-52 should have been upgraded to 4 CFM engines decades ago, but it wasn't. So after 2030 we will still be flying B-52's along with B1, B2, B21...and who will be making big $$ producing new or rebuilt JT3D (TF33) engines and parts...an engine that first flew in a B45 (anyone remember?) right after WWII.
I think a lot of nostalgia keeps the B52 in service. We are now in an age of cruise missiles, drones, stealth and satellite sensors. The B-52's time is long past. Keep a few out the boneyard for old time's sake...but they shouldn't be flying anymore.
From memory the reason it's still flying is precisely because of modern smart munitions. Even with its old, now bad, engines, it's still cheaper to operate per flight hour compared to a B-2. And not that much more than a B-1 while available in much greater numbers.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/air-force ... art-2016-3
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Some more information on the project. Interesting to note the expected retirement date is now 2050....
https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pa ... gines.aspx
https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pa ... gines.aspx
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
mmo wrote:Some more information on the project. Interesting to note the expected retirement date is now 2050....
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... gines.aspx
-
- LightningZ71
- Posts: 688
- Joined:
Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched
Another article on the issue...
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... -less-fuel
It still looks like a toss-up between the GE Passport and the BR-725. They've accepted the fact that they will have to do a lot of work to the Nacelles and Struts for this project to work. They've also added explicit wording about needing extra generating capacity as well. While both the Passport and BR-725 should be able to fit into the existing footprint of the current nacelles, the interior would have to be extensively modified. Adding the requirement for larger generators (though, I don't know a lot about the generator size and capacity on the current BR-725 applications) could mean that the engines will both exceed the current external footprint of the nacelles, thus requiring an extensive remodeling and lots of aerodynamic design work.
Given the timeframe, I have changed my position on which engine I'm in favor of for this project. While the BR-725 remains a logical selection and not a wrong one, The GE Passport should be the leading candidate in the next few years, assuming that it has reasonable acquisition costs, can achieve its advertised fuel burn numbers, and can prove that it can tolerate the duty cycle of the B-52. I do not consider any of those things to be too high of a hurdle for it to overcome. I support the BR-725 largely for its proven platform and heritage from the original 715 which serves well in the high tempo commercial aviation world, including tolerating the rapid cycling of a hot, tropical environment in Hawaii with Hawaiian Airlines. The 725 can also tolerate the sporadic usage that general aviation private jets get, which is a decent analog to the changing tempo of USAF operations where they may not fly for long periods, then will see a week or more of frequent use.
Going outside of those two choices, or backtracking and getting P&W to redevelop the TF33, just seems like asking for trouble.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... -less-fuel
It still looks like a toss-up between the GE Passport and the BR-725. They've accepted the fact that they will have to do a lot of work to the Nacelles and Struts for this project to work. They've also added explicit wording about needing extra generating capacity as well. While both the Passport and BR-725 should be able to fit into the existing footprint of the current nacelles, the interior would have to be extensively modified. Adding the requirement for larger generators (though, I don't know a lot about the generator size and capacity on the current BR-725 applications) could mean that the engines will both exceed the current external footprint of the nacelles, thus requiring an extensive remodeling and lots of aerodynamic design work.
Given the timeframe, I have changed my position on which engine I'm in favor of for this project. While the BR-725 remains a logical selection and not a wrong one, The GE Passport should be the leading candidate in the next few years, assuming that it has reasonable acquisition costs, can achieve its advertised fuel burn numbers, and can prove that it can tolerate the duty cycle of the B-52. I do not consider any of those things to be too high of a hurdle for it to overcome. I support the BR-725 largely for its proven platform and heritage from the original 715 which serves well in the high tempo commercial aviation world, including tolerating the rapid cycling of a hot, tropical environment in Hawaii with Hawaiian Airlines. The 725 can also tolerate the sporadic usage that general aviation private jets get, which is a decent analog to the changing tempo of USAF operations where they may not fly for long periods, then will see a week or more of frequent use.
Going outside of those two choices, or backtracking and getting P&W to redevelop the TF33, just seems like asking for trouble.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: JayinKitsap and 21 guests