SCAT15F
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:16 am

Totally agree- I've thought for years that the 717's BR710 at the 21K rating would be perfect for the B-52.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5242
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:39 am

Two GE90 is all they need. ;)
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:11 pm

LOL, and massively telescoping landing gears. It's the same story as the 737!
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1279
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:50 pm

8 new engines?!? Darn. Here I thought we'd finally see Dale Brown's Megafortress.
 
Buckeyetech
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:11 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:29 pm

Nice, shiny video made by Boeing to highlight this need.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... g-the-b-52
B-52H, C-141C, C-5A, C-17A
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:54 am

Four CFM56-7s would be good if they can squeeze a little more thrust out it.
Plenty of parts and commonality.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2009
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:12 am

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
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:55 pm

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
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6866
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:10 pm

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
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:28 pm

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: 335
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:29 pm

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1660
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:46 pm

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...
 
rlwynn
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:17 pm

Why not just give PW a contract for 400 new TF-33s?
I can drive faster than you
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24544
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:23 pm

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: 323
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:54 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:43 am

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: 2016
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:15 am

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?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6866
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:44 am

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
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:56 am

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1660
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:27 am

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.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:21 pm

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
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: RE: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:05 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:40 pm

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.
 
salttee
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:43 pm

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?
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:48 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:49 pm

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.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:00 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:40 pm

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1660
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: B-52 Re-engine Proposal Botched

Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:45 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tugger and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos