Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
washingtonflyer wrote:Whats the news on this? I heard that there was some consensus that it would be very difficult to re-engine these birds through removing the dual engine pods and replacing a pod with a single engine.
I had head that the leading contenders were the CF/TF-34 (found on the A-10 and larger Embraer series jets) and the Rolls Royce BR-725.
Slug71 wrote:Crazy. The money would be better spent on the B-21 and advanced ICBMs IMO.
Slug71 wrote:Crazy. The money would be better spent on the B-21 and advanced ICBMs IMO.
Rolls-Royce plans to build its F130 turbine at a modernised factory in Indiana if selected by the US Air Force to replace the engines on the service’s fleet of Boeing B-52 bombers.
The USAF programme calls for 650 new engines to help extend the longevity and performance of its aging B-52s. Rolls-Royce says its Indianapolis, Indiana facility is nearing completion of a $600 million modernisation initiative, which would optimise production of an engine in the size class of the F130.
The F130 engine for the B-52 is a variant of the Rolls-Royce BR725 commercial engine and produces 17,000lb-thrust. The F130 series of engines also power USAF aircraft such as the Bombardier E-11A and Gulfstream C-37 aircraft.
“Our ultra-modern, advanced manufacturing facilities in Indianapolis are the perfect location to produce, assemble, and test the Rolls-Royce F130 engine for the US Air Force B-52 programme,” says Tom Bell, Rolls-Royce Defense president. “Rolls-Royce North America continues to invest heavily in advanced manufacturing and technology at our Indianapolis site, making it one of the most efficient and modern facilities anywhere in the aerospace world.”
Indianapolis is the largest Rolls-Royce engineering, design and manufacturing site in the USA, says the company. The manufacturer produces engines for multiple USAF aircraft at the facility, including the C-Lockheed Martin 130J transport, Bell Boeing CV-22 Osprey and Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk.
The Air Force plans to release a request for proposals for its highly anticipated B-52H re-engining program in March, a senior service official said Feb. 28.
The Air Force is embarking on an effort to outfit its aging fleet of B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers with new engines that will keep them flying through the 2050s. Each bomber is currently equipped with eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines. It is anticipated that the Air Force will procure a total of 650 new systems for the aircraft.
“Last time I checked in we were on track to release within the next month,” Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters during the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida.
Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are expected to compete for the program. A contract award decision is anticipated in fiscal year 2020.
The Air Force may use other transaction authority agreements to help build prototypes of the engines, Roper said.
“Our goal is to get industry working quickly," he said. An OTA agreement would work "well for this kind of program,” he added.
OTAs have become popular contracting mechanisms that can help the government cut through bureaucratic red tape as it pursues new technology.
The first step toward picking a new B-52 engine will be to create a “virtual power model,” Roper said. That will allow the Air Force to work with industry on integration issues with the engine and the aircraft.
Next, similar to how commercial airlines choose engines, the Air Force will look at issues such as fuel efficiency at different altitudes, he said.
Roper noted that the B-52 program in general is a “worry” of his because of the multiple modernization and upgrades efforts that are occurring simultaneously. The bomber first entered service in the 1950s.
There are five major upgrade programs associated with the platform including those addressing the engine, radar and communications suite as well as two hypersonic weapons-related efforts, he said.
“We are going to have to manage that like one mega-program," he said.
Ozair wrote:More info on the expected re-engine RFP. trying to do the radar, communications, engine and integrate hypersonic weapons all over the next few years is a very ambitious effort.
The expectation then is that the B-52 will serve into the 2050s, clocking up 100 years!
Air Force About to Release RFP for B-52 Re-Engining ProgramThe Air Force plans to release a request for proposals for its highly anticipated B-52H re-engining program in March, a senior service official said Feb. 28.
The Air Force is embarking on an effort to outfit its aging fleet of B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers with new engines that will keep them flying through the 2050s. Each bomber is currently equipped with eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines. It is anticipated that the Air Force will procure a total of 650 new systems for the aircraft.
“Last time I checked in we were on track to release within the next month,” Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters during the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida.
Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are expected to compete for the program. A contract award decision is anticipated in fiscal year 2020.
The Air Force may use other transaction authority agreements to help build prototypes of the engines, Roper said.
“Our goal is to get industry working quickly," he said. An OTA agreement would work "well for this kind of program,” he added.
OTAs have become popular contracting mechanisms that can help the government cut through bureaucratic red tape as it pursues new technology.
A competition I see? Hmm, it should go to protests, appeals, back and forth for so long the current crop of crews will probably all be retired by the time they eventually decide on choosing an engine that ticks all the right political boxes. I guess I'm only just slightly cynical.
The first step toward picking a new B-52 engine will be to create a “virtual power model,” Roper said. That will allow the Air Force to work with industry on integration issues with the engine and the aircraft.
Next, similar to how commercial airlines choose engines, the Air Force will look at issues such as fuel efficiency at different altitudes, he said.
Roper noted that the B-52 program in general is a “worry” of his because of the multiple modernization and upgrades efforts that are occurring simultaneously. The bomber first entered service in the 1950s.
There are five major upgrade programs associated with the platform including those addressing the engine, radar and communications suite as well as two hypersonic weapons-related efforts, he said.
“We are going to have to manage that like one mega-program," he said.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ng-program
LiegeSilhouette wrote:Personally, after reading about the re-engining requirements set by the USAF regarding the B-52, I have concluded that the best engine replacement options for the B-52 would be a non afterburning, non-variable cycle, higher thrust variant of the GE YF120 (used in the Advanced Tactical Fighter), or a non afterburning variant of the GE F136 (used as a Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine). Here's why,
mmo wrote:LiegeSilhouette wrote:Personally, after reading about the re-engining requirements set by the USAF regarding the B-52, I have concluded that the best engine replacement options for the B-52 would be a non afterburning, non-variable cycle, higher thrust variant of the GE YF120 (used in the Advanced Tactical Fighter), or a non afterburning variant of the GE F136 (used as a Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine). Here's why,
How are you going to handle the rudder issue?
Ozair wrote:mmo wrote:LiegeSilhouette wrote:Personally, after reading about the re-engining requirements set by the USAF regarding the B-52, I have concluded that the best engine replacement options for the B-52 would be a non afterburning, non-variable cycle, higher thrust variant of the GE YF120 (used in the Advanced Tactical Fighter), or a non afterburning variant of the GE F136 (used as a Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine). Here's why,
How are you going to handle the rudder issue?
Why would you use the F136 or YF120 given neither of those engines is in production? If you were going to go down that route then the aircraft, if the engineering issues it would bring as already mentioned above was valid, could use the F135, probably the non-afterburning variant likely being built for the B-21.
LiegeSilhouette wrote:Ozair wrote:mmo wrote:
How are you going to handle the rudder issue?
Why would you use the F136 or YF120 given neither of those engines is in production? If you were going to go down that route then the aircraft, if the engineering issues it would bring as already mentioned above was valid, could use the F135, probably the non-afterburning variant likely being built for the B-21.
During the Advanced Tactical Fighter, test pilots who flew the YF120 powered YF-23 reported that the jet supercruised faster than the YF119 powered version, indicating that the YF120 was a lot more powerful than the F119, not to mention that the YF120 was considerably more technologically advanced than the F119. The F135, on the other hand was plagued with problems, such as overheating, cost overruns, turbine failures, and durability issues. These problems with the F135 is what drove the Pentagon to search for an alternate engine for the F-35, which led to the creation of the F-136. Like the YF120, the F-136 was considerably more advanced than its competitor, the F135.
After several months of delays, the U.S. Air Force is hoping to release a request for proposals for new B-52 bomber engines by the end of 2019, once the service gets the chance to solidify its solicitation and answer congressional concerns.
But at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, B-52 maintainers are hungry for new motors that will hopefully lessen the time it takes to diagnose and fix engine problems.
“If I was to prioritize the systems from a maintainer’s point of view, in my personal opinion — not the Air Force’s obviously — but [replacing] the engines first and foremost” would have the most positive impact on the maintenance community, said Lt. Col. Tiffany Arnold, 2nd Maintenance Squadron commander. Arnold spoke with journalist and Defense News contributor Jeff Bolton during a visit to Barksdale AFB.
Each B-52 uses eight TF33 engines to fly, which means maintainers spend a lot of time ensuring each engine functions properly. And when more than one engine needs repairs, that entails more work for the personnel that are already performing multiple assessments, Arnold said.
...
Rolls-Royce has completed early engine tests with the F130, the engine which will be offered for the US Air Force B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program.
Full-engine tests were completed recently at Rolls-Royce facilities in Indianapolis, US, confirming the engine design and performance are a perfect fit for the B-52 aircraft say Rolls-Royce.
In addition to full-engine tests, Rolls-Royce has already compiled more than 50,000 hours of digital engineering time to further develop and refine the F130 for the B-52.
...
Armadillo1 wrote:from outside point of view its looks ridiculous.
ok, you want to replace jurassic engines. you talks about from 80 or earlie to replace 8-to-4
now its going to replace to 8 really expensive ones while frames itself to old to some rough action like low altitude rush.
Ozair wrote:Armadillo1 wrote:from outside point of view its looks ridiculous.
ok, you want to replace jurassic engines. you talks about from 80 or earlie to replace 8-to-4
now its going to replace to 8 really expensive ones while frames itself to old to some rough action like low altitude rush.
The engine upgrade for the B-52 will likely pay for itself in reduced fuel and maintenance costs while also improving overall capability and availability.
The mission of the B-52 is now medium to high altitude stand off weapon delivery with the occasional JDAM/dump bomb mass drop, it's low altitude days are long behind it.
Armadillo1 wrote:Ozair wrote:Armadillo1 wrote:from outside point of view its looks ridiculous.
ok, you want to replace jurassic engines. you talks about from 80 or earlie to replace 8-to-4
now its going to replace to 8 really expensive ones while frames itself to old to some rough action like low altitude rush.
The engine upgrade for the B-52 will likely pay for itself in reduced fuel and maintenance costs while also improving overall capability and availability.
The mission of the B-52 is now medium to high altitude stand off weapon delivery with the occasional JDAM/dump bomb mass drop, it's low altitude days are long behind it.
thank you cap
pls compare with 4 bigger engines, not with TF-33. and answer why to install twice number of most expensive engines on planet.
texl1649 wrote:The rudder would be a big issue going to a quad configuration.
Armadillo1 wrote:Ozair wrote:Armadillo1 wrote:from outside point of view its looks ridiculous.
ok, you want to replace jurassic engines. you talks about from 80 or earlie to replace 8-to-4
now its going to replace to 8 really expensive ones while frames itself to old to some rough action like low altitude rush.
The engine upgrade for the B-52 will likely pay for itself in reduced fuel and maintenance costs while also improving overall capability and availability.
The mission of the B-52 is now medium to high altitude stand off weapon delivery with the occasional JDAM/dump bomb mass drop, it's low altitude days are long behind it.
thank you cap
pls compare with 4 bigger engines, not with TF-33. and answer why to install twice number of most expensive engines on planet.
Ozair wrote:
The rudder would be a big issue going to a quad configuration.
kc135topboom wrote:The USAF claims the B-52H could fly into the 2050s if it is reengined, at least that is what they are telling Congress. I estimate the cost per bomber with new engines, related hardware, software, avionics, radar upgrades and training for aircrews and ground maintainers will cost in the neighborhood of $100MILLION. Multiply that by 76 airplanes that is $7.6BILLION add in spares and we are talking around $8BILLION.
That is not counting the now required upper wing reskin that mmo reminded us about to fly into the 2050s. This will be another $25MILLION per airplane or $1.9BILLION for the fleet. That is some $9.5BILLION, not counting costs overruns.
Remember the total fly away cost to reengine and upgrade the KC-135A to the KC-135R was $29MILLION per tanker.
The 'new' bomber will most likely be redesignated as the B-52J. That will render all the current B-52Hs and B-52Gs stored at AMARG next to useless as far as parts donors are concerned. Yes, a few structural parts and things like landing gear can still be used, but almost nothing else. Yes, there are about 20 B-52Hs currently stored at AMARG with 2 having been returned to service. But with the "J" model upgrades, no "H" models would be capable to back fill attrition loses. So the fleet of 76 will eventually be reduced to some unknown number.
In my opinion we could better use that money to upgrade the B-2 fleet, fix the KC-46, fix the F-35, or put into the B-21 project..
william wrote:I thought for sure there would be performance advantages to re engine the BUFF.
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11 ... w-engines/
Others claim a new engine would make the B‑52 more reliable. Again, not true. Hard as it may be to believe, the B‑52 is one of the most reliable aircraft in the USAF inventory. Mission capable rates vary by year, but the B‑52 has not fallen below 70% mission capable for decades, while the B‑1B and B‑2A have never been above 70%. 2016 Mission Capable Rates put the B‑52 at 72%, B‑1B at 46%, and the B‑2A at 55%. Understand, the engines have nothing to do with the mission capable rates of any of these aircraft. The low rates for the B‑1B and B‑2A are not engine related, nor is the high rate for the B‑52. The point is, the B‑52 is already the most reliable bomber the USAF has in its inventory. The limiting factor for all the bombers is electrical and avionics related. There is a case to be made for increasing the reliability of all the bombers, but engines will not increase or decrease that reliability. If there is money to be spent on reliability, that money does not need to be spent on B‑52 engines.
Still others make statements concerning the B‑52’s lifespan and how new engines could let it fly far past 2050. These claims are also false. The limiting factor on the B-52 service life has always been, and remains, the upper wing surface. The B‑52 upper wing surface was designed to give the aircraft a 35,000 hour service life. The reason the H-model B‑52 remains in service today is because it sat alert for decades and did not fly nearly as much as its predecessors. In terms of hours flown, the B‑52 is middle-aged. However, that timeline will have an end state. The current projections of B‑52s flying to 2040 are at current usage rates with current hours on its current wings. If the B‑52 flies past 2050 in bulk, it will need to resurface the wings, new engine or not.
Granted, a new engine can and will increase range and endurance but these performance increases are a by-product of engine efficiency. A program dedicated to increasing these capabilities does not make sense. Some engineering studies have stipulated that better engines could increase the unrefueled range of the B-52 by as much as 45%,[19] however B‑52 range is already the most impressive in the USAF fleet. The B-52 has many problems, however range and endurance are not among them. A program designed to fix non-existent problems does not need to exist.
For these reasons, a B‑52 re-engine program should not strive to increase performance in any way. Performance may increase in some areas, but it should not be the objective of the program. Similarly, fuel savings should not be the objective either. The only objective for a B‑52 re-engine that makes any sense is to reduce overall cost for the USAF.
william wrote:Performance may increase in some areas, but it should not be the objective of the program. Similarly, fuel savings should not be the objective either. The only objective for a B‑52 re-engine that makes any sense is to reduce overall cost for the USAF.
william wrote:I The B‑52 upper wing surface was designed to give the aircraft a 35,000 hour service life. The reason the H-model B‑52 remains in service today is because it sat alert for decades and did not fly nearly as much as its predecessors. In terms of hours flown, the B‑52 is middle-aged. However, that timeline will have an end state. The current projections of B‑52s flying to 2040 are at current usage rates with current hours on its current wings. If the B‑52 flies past 2050 in bulk, it will need to resurface the wings, new engine or not.
For these reasons, a B‑52 re-engine program should not strive to increase performance in any way. Performance may increase in some areas, but it should not be the objective of the program. Similarly, fuel savings should not be the objective either. The only objective for a B‑52 re-engine that makes any sense is to reduce overall cost for the USAF.[/i]
JayinKitsap wrote:
We keep limping the B-52 along, which is not good. The decision to pull any existing buffs from the desert can be decided at the tail end of the upgrade. I do like the digital shoot out concept for the engines, it will give us better cost / benefit answers and save years.
kc135topboom wrote:If the upper wing reskin is not done, it makes no sense to do any other upgrades, including new engines.
Everything is just a study now. There is no funding, no design work, no production of long-lead items. Nothing just talk by the USAF.
They are running out of time for a decision of what upgrades they want, then to get the funding, design the upgrades, production of long-lead items (engines, pylons, generators, etc.), build and flight test a prototype, then schedule production of the upgrades onto the airplanes, working this all into the depot level maintenance schedule, then aircrew and maintenance training, and finally IOC.
That process will take at least 10 years, and they have yet to make a decision.
If the 2030 date for the reskin limit is good, they need to start TODAY. We are already nearly complete for FY-20Q1. With the impeachment fiasco going on in the House, they are not going to discuss B-52 funding anytime soon. With Congress beginning an election year in 2020, funding for the B-52 may already be dead.
I don't see Congress wanting to fund one upgrade at a time, reskin, then engines, then electrical, then avionics. Congress will want to fund as much as they can in one shot. They will also want to begin real funding for the B-21.
Throw in an unforeseen structural problem and the B-52 may be retiring earlier than any one of us see today.
The US Air Force (USAF) faces a variety of integration issues ranging from connectivity to weight when it eventually attempts to install new engines on its fleet of Boeing B-52H Stratofortress heavy bombers.
The USAF is proceeding with this effort that is formally known as the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP). CERP promises to be a big procurement opportunity for industry, as the USAF has 76 B-52Hs in service: 58 (four test) in the active service plus 18 in the Air Force Reserves. The USAF would procure at least 608 engines, as there are eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofan engines on each platform.
The current industry offerings for CERP are Pratt & Whitney, with its PW800, and Rolls-Royce, with its VR725 from the company's family of F130 engines. General Electric (GE) is offering its legacy CF34-10 engine and its newer Passport propulsion system.
Replacing engines on an aircraft such as the B-52H, which initially entered service in the 1950s, is not as easy as simply procuring and installing new propulsion systems, even if they are commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) offerings. Christopher Johnson, Pratt & Whitney executive director for mobility and diverse engine programmes, told Jane's on 25 February that integrating new engines was risky as there were weight concerns. The USAF, he said, must ensure that the B-52H wings could handle a heaver engine if the proposed engine was indeed heavier than the TF33.
There could also be potential changes needed to physically and electronically connect the new engines in the aircraft's nacelles. Craig McVay, Rolls-Royce senior vice-president for strategic campaigns, told Jane's on 21 February that it would be very important to ensure that the B-52H, with its new engines, still received the same signals as it would with a TF33.
...
mmo wrote:Not quite sure what is meant by "same signals" but my understanding of the CREP would also include a new digital engine display, so the signal aspect would become a moot point. Also, there would be a move to replace as many "steam gauge" instruments with "glass" instruments. There are also plans to increase the generators from 4 to 6 or even 8 depending on the future power requirements.
If all the changes are implemented supposedly the H will be redesignated the J because of the substantial changes.