Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: New advertisement: B-52 re-engine back in the mix?

Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:47 pm

744SPX wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
A couple of bits:


It looks like the sfc on the 725 is roughly 20% better than the tf-33.


I'm pretty sure its quite a bit more than that... more like 40%. At least that's what I've been hearing, and it makes sense as the TF-33 is ~60 years old. TIT alone is probably less than half of what the BR725's is.


I was a bit surprised by the numbers I was finding. Unfortunately, tsfc numbers are all tailored to "at a specific speed, at a specific altitude" and I can't find anything directly comparable at the same specs. Generally, I was seeing between 20-25%. However, I don't think that it considers the better job that the FADEC of the BR725 will do at managing the engine to conserve fuel.
 
744SPX
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: New advertisement: B-52 re-engine back in the mix?

Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:06 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
A couple of bits:


It looks like the sfc on the 725 is roughly 20% better than the tf-33.


I'm pretty sure its quite a bit more than that... more like 40%. At least that's what I've been hearing, and it makes sense as the TF-33 is ~60 years old. TIT alone is probably less than half of what the BR725's is.


I was a bit surprised by the numbers I was finding. Unfortunately, tsfc numbers are all tailored to "at a specific speed, at a specific altitude" and I can't find anything directly comparable at the same specs. Generally, I was seeing between 20-25%. However, I don't think that it considers the better job that the FADEC of the BR725 will do at managing the engine to conserve fuel.


Yeah, I'd like to see some hard numbers at equal settings/flight conditions.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:35 pm

RR and USAF noted significant CO2 savings, and of course the cost of the depot facility @ Tinker.

Rolls-Royce jumped into the re-engining contest before it was even announced, touting its BR725 power plant—military designation F130—as the ideal candidate as early as September 2017. Company officials said their offering would cut carbon emissions by 95 percent while handily meeting USAF’s notional-range and fuel-efficiency requirements.

The F130 powers the RQ-4 Global Hawk, the E-11 BACN, and the new Compass Call aircraft, which is a special-mission version of the Gulfstream 650, so it’s already in the Air Force inventory.

Despite rumors to the contrary, Isabelle said the Air Force is not looking for substantially better physical performance from the new engines—for example, in time to climb or top speed—although that may turn out to be a welcome by-product.

Lt. Gen. Arnold W. Bunch Jr., (then-USAF’s top uniformed acquisition official, nominated to head AFMC at press time), said the competition will look across a wide range of cost considerations.

The question is not just “how often do I have to take it off the wing?” Bunch said. More significantly, it is also “do I still have to have the depot?”

The TF-33 depot is at Tinker AFB, Okla., and costs to maintain the engine have risen sharply in the past 11 years. Operationally, Bunch said—and this will be a factor in the ultimate choice—“How far back from the war can the aircraft be and still be effective in an A2AD [anti-access/area denial] environment? All of those are things that weigh into how we look at this.”


https://www.airforcemag.com/article/Re- ... -the-B-52/

I dunno about SFC @ mission thrust etc. on-wing, but the CERP program was nominally to obtain a 40 percent increase in both fuel economy and range, which per above RR said they would meet “easily.”

The CERP is supposed to deliver up to 40 percent improved range and fuel economy for the B-52, reducing its tanker requirements and increasing its on-station loiter time.


https://www.airforcemag.com/rolls-royce ... 6-billion/
 
Newark727
Posts: 2697
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:05 pm

I didn't realize there was a new G650-based Compass Call. Is it in service yet or still just a project?
 
texl1649
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:44 pm

Newark727 wrote:
I didn't realize there was a new G650-based Compass Call. Is it in service yet or still just a project?


I think it’s actually a G550 based aircraft. There are some other “C-37” variants in navy service but the first EC-37B will begin testing in January I believe. I’m not sure if the first NC-37B has been delivered to the USN.

https://theaviationist.com/2021/04/12/b ... pass-call/

The selection of the G550 was the conclusion of a series of assessments that led the Air Force to choose to rehost the existing Compass Call mission system onto a commercial derivative aircraft, resulting in a sole-source contract to L3 Communications and Gulfstream in 2017. Boeing and Bombardier protested but were later dismissed as the G550 CAEW was the only airframe available that would not need further development or certifications to be adapted to the Compass Call mission and has also been performing these types of special military missions for years with multiple operators.

Ten EC-37Bs, the firsts of which are currently being modified in Savannah (Georgia), are scheduled to replace entire EC-130H fleet. Some of the oldest EC-130H have already been divested, including the first one to be modified into this airborne electronic attack platform, with about ten aircraft still in service out of the original 14 built.

According to a 2020 planning of the 55th Wing available online, EC-37B testing should begin at Davis-Monthan AFB in January 2022 and the first five aircraft will be delivered to the Air Combat Command in 2023. These first five aircraft will host the Baseline 3 variant of Compass Call, while the remaining five aircraft are scheduled to receive the newer Baseline 4 variant currently in development, which will reportedly introduce a new low-band jammer system.

Available info mention that the EC-37B’s weight and operating costs will be cut in half compared to the EC-130H Compass Call, while also being able to perform its mission at higher altitudes and speed and longer ranges and durations. The G550-based aircraft will also be optimized to perform missions in Anti-Access, Area-Denial (A2/AD) environments, while also being able to be easily upgraded to face new threats thanks to its Modular Open Systems Architecture.

It is worth noting that a similar aircraft has been delivered to the U.S. Navy and should become operational this year, with the designation NC-37B, as the replacement for one of the three NP-3D “Billboard” Orions operated by VX-30 “Bloodhounds” at Naval Air Station Point Mugu (California). The aircraft, like the EC-37B, is a derivative of the G550 CAEW airframe and is equipped with telemetry systems and other specialized equipment for the range support role.


https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Fil ... tream-550/
 
giblets
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:01 am

RobertoMugabe wrote:
Thank you for the info, I still wish the PW or GE options had won based on previous use. I meant the recent troubles RR has been in, are they going to have issues meeting production commitments?


I’d be more worried about Boeing at the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:35 am

The USAF apparently still sees a use for long range heavy bombers!

Interestingly it seems it can be used best/only to fight against forces far away that don't have anything to shoot back. Which in these times of powerfull social media & reduced acceptance of highly visible human collateral damage seems is a questionable theatre.

Maybe the USAF have other applications in mind for the B52s.. Launching drones, "projecting power", domestic perceptions, for keeping the now gereatic squadrons in service. They sure have an enormous range, they are basically manned flying fuel tanks! https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... ities.html
 
giblets
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: New advertisement: B-52 re-engine back in the mix?

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:55 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
A couple of bits:


It looks like the sfc on the 725 is roughly 20% better than the tf-33.


I'm pretty sure its quite a bit more than that... more like 40%. At least that's what I've been hearing, and it makes sense as the TF-33 is ~60 years old. TIT alone is probably less than half of what the BR725's is.


I was a bit surprised by the numbers I was finding. Unfortunately, tsfc numbers are all tailored to "at a specific speed, at a specific altitude" and I can't find anything directly comparable at the same specs. Generally, I was seeing between 20-25%. However, I don't think that it considers the better job that the FADEC of the BR725 will do at managing the engine to conserve fuel.


The whole design is interdependent with other changes to the aircraft, other than the remove of the chin Infrared blisters I noted earlier, the new engine will require new pylons and cowl. I'd note the F130 has a full length cowl unlike the TF33 (not sure if the F130 will need intake doors either), this should change the airflow around the pylon and under the wing (the earliest b52s had turbo jets, also no idea if the engien will need to be re-positioned at all (moved forward/ back), which again would effect the airflow and SFC.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:12 am

keesje wrote:
The USAF apparently still sees a use for long range heavy bombers!

Interestingly it seems it can be used best/only to fight against forces far away that don't have anything to shoot back. Which in these times of powerfull social media & reduced acceptance of highly visible human collateral damage seems is a questionable theatre.

Maybe the USAF have other applications in mind for the B52s.. Launching drones, "projecting power", domestic perceptions, for keeping the now gereatic squadrons in service. They sure have an enormous range, they are basically manned flying fuel tanks! https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... ities.html


This is an unsurprisingly ignorant take. The USAF have used the B-52’s in every major conflict since the 60’s, and they certainly have massive capacity/utility moving forward. The tiny fleet of B-2’s cost a fortune to operate, and the B-1’s are worn out, period. Retaining these while bringing on (slowly) a large fleet of much smaller (FB-111 size, really) B-21’s makes a lot of sense, as such. Try not to put your political blinders on to the USAF utility for the type, just because Boeing made them in the early 60’s and EU/Airbus doesn’t offer a similar product.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/Bombers-in-2050/

Former Air Force officials have hinted at such low numbers, explaining the service wasted a lot of money tooling up to produce B-2 bombers at a high rate but then built only 21 airplanes, instead of the planned 132. At less than one B-21 a month, large savings can be reaped in facilitization, manpower, and tooling—although there would likely be offset costs in learning curve and economic quantity materials purchases.

Under the Air Force’s proposal, the 1961/1962-vintage B-52s will receive a number of upgrades and improvements to keep them relevant in a world where they are too radar-reflective to get close to well-defended enemy airspace.

The B-52 extension depends in large part on a plan to re-engine the aircraft with modern power plants. With new engines, the B-52s would never have to stand down for engine overhauls, as the time “on wing” of the new power plants would exceed the planned remaining service for the old bombers.

The B-52s would also be equipped with new standoff weapons allowing them to shoot into enemy territory from well outside the range of enemy air defenses. Among these would be the LRSO, which the Vector identified as the AGM-180/181, a possible reference to the two competing versions being developed by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

Goldfein, at the July event, said the new bomber force would be paired with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk to shoot targets at long range, yet with high accuracy.

The Bomber Vector draft made no mention of hypersonic missiles or any other wonder weapons that could enhance the B-52’s lethality, although it did say the venerable aircraft would be perfectly fine in operations where enemy air defenses either did not exist or had already been beaten down by other systems.

The Air Force said the decision to retire the B-1 and B-2 instead of the much-older B-52 was based largely on the maintenance track records of the three aircraft. The B-1s and B-2s have lower mission capable rates than the B-52s.

The Vector said the B-52’s aircraft availability has averaged nearly 80 percent over the last five years, while the B-1 and B-2 averaged about 50 percent. In mission capable rates—meaning the aircraft is able to exploit its full range of capabilities, without any non-working systems—the B-52 averaged about 60 percent, while the B-1 averaged around 40 percent and the B-2 about 35 percent. The B-2’s intensive stealth-maintenance requirements drive their overall low MC rate.

The bomber’s MC rates are driven in large part by “vanishing vendor syndrome” situations where components—especially electronics—are no longer made. In the case of the B-2, the fleet is so small—only 20 airplanes—that vendors don’t want to tool up to provide parts in such low quantities.

Other pieces of key gear, such as gyroscopes on the B-2, for example, “are obsolete,” the Vector reported, and maintainers are already making do by cannibalizing parts.

The B-1’s maintenance man hours per flying hour are the worst of the lot, at 74, while the B-2’s performance in this metric is 45. (That figure does not count the hours needed to maintain its low-observable features, coatings, and materials, which the Vector did not state.) The B-52’s MMH/FH rating was 62.

Cost per flying hour was another factor weighing against the younger bombers in USAF’s thinking. Both the B-1 and B-52 averaged about $70,000 per flying hour (USAF did not call out specific numbers, and its charts were not fine-grained)—while the B-2 costs between $110,000 and $150,000 per flying hour to operate. Total ownership costs followed similar curves.

As advanced air defenses proliferate, for the time being, only the B-2 can penetrate them to hold targets at risk worldwide, USAF said. However, that aircraft will “see its technological advantages diminish in the not-too-distant future.” By contrast, the B-21 has been “designed to operate in this highly contested combat environment.” The B-52, despite not having the ability to penetrate, offers a lot of capability through “its high weapons carriage capacity and vast munitions diversity” to be of value either as a standoff platform or in “less challenging environments.” The LRSO will provide “a highly survivable, standoff nuclear weapon capability for the B-52 and B-21.” Some money can be saved by not fitting the B-2 with the LRSO, as had been planned.

The Bomber Vector pointed out that USAF’s bomber fleet has never been so small. Today’s fleet of 157 bombers (76 of which are B-52s) is only a tiny fraction of the 1960 bomber fleet of 1,526 aircraft. The Air Force said its bomber fleet is also spoken for many times over, on tap to support many missions all at the same time.

“In the last five years, Air Force Global Strike Command has gone from supporting one enduring COCOM [Combatant Commander] requirement to an average of 12 annually, a 1,100 percent increase. To meet this level of demand, AFGSC’s operations and maintenance personnel and bomber airframes are managed at peak utilization rates,” USAF said. These add-on missions include nonstop bomber action in the Middle East against ISIS targets and an increasing tempo of bomber deployments to the Pacific, both as a messaging device to China and North Korea and to conduct the now-routine forward bomber presence mission, out of Guam.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:23 pm

Maintaining the B-52's also means your adversary must maintain long range interceptors and SAM sites. Works the same for TU-95's. Not so much for Chinese Badgers.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4499
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:23 pm

keesje wrote:
The USAF apparently still sees a use for long range heavy bombers!


Even an arm chair general like me can see the usefulness.

We all hear how the US carriers will now be vulnerable to new Chinese missiles. Well, a fleet of B-52s with long range cruise missiles can make it difficult for the Chinese to re-supply their invasion forces across the Taiwan Straight.

bt
 
estorilm
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:02 pm

I am pleasantly surprised at this outcome! I was almost positive they'd go for the domestic companies (yes, I know this will be the NA-based RR, but still).

I think the F130 was the most advanced engine, as I recall it also "fit" the best, but the cowl information is probably a hundred posts back at this point.

Boeing has some history through various projects with the engine, but specifically the 717 is really close. It's definitely not a "new" or "untested" platform as some seem to imply, however it IS very advanced. I think it's a perfect combination of reliability and technical performance.
 
vnauta
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:33 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:35 pm

Basically the re-engined B52 will become a 4 ship G650's in close formation!

Has anyone red anything about the cockpit updates required for the new engines?
 
GDB
Posts: 14477
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:13 pm

keesje wrote:
The USAF apparently still sees a use for long range heavy bombers!

Interestingly it seems it can be used best/only to fight against forces far away that don't have anything to shoot back. Which in these times of powerfull social media & reduced acceptance of highly visible human collateral damage seems is a questionable theatre.

Maybe the USAF have other applications in mind for the B52s.. Launching drones, "projecting power", domestic perceptions, for keeping the now gereatic squadrons in service. They sure have an enormous range, they are basically manned flying fuel tanks! https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... ities.html


The images of the B-52 over Vietnam, you do know they are over 50 years old?
Given the range of stand off weapons it can carry and has used against targets with plenty of fighters and AD systems, Iraq in 1991 for instance, means there is rather more to the aircraft's mission than fading TV footage which very often, the popular music of that time in all those docs, seems to be the image of the aircraft and mission you relate to the aircraft.

(Speaking of the 1991 conflict, that DID use old style 'dumb' bombs probably the for the last time, though that was against the very non collateral Iraqi armour and equipment in the middle of the desert, though like all the Coalition aircraft flying attack missions on the first few nights, apart from the F-117's, all types went in low until the Iraqi AD and fighter opposition was denuded, including even the B-52's).
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:36 pm

estorilm wrote:
I think the F130 was the most advanced engine, as I recall it also "fit" the best, but the cowl information is probably a hundred posts back at this point.


Huh? That's not an accurate statement. The BR725 which this engine is based on is a small update of the BR710, which is early 90's tech having debuted on the Gulfstream V in 1997. Per RR's own website, the BR725 is only 4% more efficient than the BR710. https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... 725.aspx#/

The two "advanced" or lead-edge options were the Passport and to some degree, PW800. Both are much newer and more advanced. Frankly, fuel efficiency isn't/wasn't the main requirement for this. Risk, durability/maintenance, and initial cost were equally or more important. Bombers just don't fly that many hours compared to commercial operations.

Congratulations to RR! They put their cajones on the table to get this large win. Hopefully it's not a major distraction away from their main commercial programs, especially in order to get this thing stabilized and profitable. Having to spin up a new manufacturing line rather than using an existing line already building the thing is a costly, timely, and risky endeavor. Hopefully it pays off for them and this remains profitable. I wonder what the termination/cancellation clauses are, and whether there are any price escalations clauses they may try to take advantage of.

Hopefully the Airforce releases some additional information as to the merits of their selection. RR appears to have been very aggressive with price. If it's true that their engine is to be the easiest/cheapest to integrate, together that combination would be very hard to overcome by other selection criteria. I also wonder how GE and PW priced themselves. I imagine Pratt wasn't overly aggressive on price although I expected GE to be fairly aggressive. Hopefully this works out long term. This appears to have been a much better approach than going with a 4-engine solution requiring significant wing strengthening and a new v-stab. Hopefully Boeing doesn't screw it's part up.

As to the fuel burn improvement, it does appear that SFC is only about 20-25% better than the TF33's. However, considering drag improvements through better optimization of integration (even if it's done cheaply or less than idea), better engine management, airframe management improvements with the cockpit upgrades, and accounting for the drag reductions of less fuel uplift, it does look like 40% range/trip fuel is pretty easy to achieve.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8945
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:55 pm

The dreaded eight-engine rotor bow start! “Ground, starting number 1, ready to taxi in about 30 minutes”.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4499
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:59 pm

GDB wrote:
The images of the B-52 over Vietnam, you do know they are over 50 years old?


The image of B-1 over Kobani, Syria is more recent. With the B-1 going to the bone yard, what will they use for such situation in the future? Surely not the B-3, a fleet of F-15EX or F-35?

It would be a couple of B-52s witha bunch of JDAMS or SBDII.

bt
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23377
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:38 pm

Engines to be assembled in Indiana. If already mentioned, I skipped too many posts, mea culpa.

This link says 650 engines:

https://www.asktraders.com/analysis/rol ... t-program/

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5654
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:19 pm

Okcflyer wrote:

Hopefully the Airforce releases some additional information as to the merits of their selection. RR appears to have been very aggressive with price. If it's true that their engine is to be the easiest/cheapest to integrate, together that combination would be very hard to overcome by other selection criteria. I also wonder how GE and PW priced themselves. I imagine Pratt wasn't overly aggressive on price although I expected GE to be fairly aggressive. Hopefully this works out long term. This appears to have been a much better approach than going with a 4-engine solution requiring significant wing strengthening and a new v-stab. Hopefully Boeing doesn't screw it's part up.


The price benefits come in not only by the up front cost of the engines, but by having dimensionally similar and weight-similar engines, it takes a crap ton of risks out of actually hanging them on the wing. The stresses of the new engine should be broadly similar so there should be less development money sink, as well as a lower risk of failure at the pylon/wing joint after a few hundred cycles. Hopefully this was the overall approach they were taking.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 11206
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:41 pm

lightsaber wrote:
This link says 650 engines:


Interesting. I thought the RFP was for 608 engines, but the Press Release at the RR web site's "News Centre" says 650 as well.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ogram.aspx
 
texl1649
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:32 am

wjcandee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This link says 650 engines:


Interesting. I thought the RFP was for 608 engines, but the Press Release at the RR web site's "News Centre" says 650 as well.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ogram.aspx


I believe they’ve produced about 3,600 of these engines, with about 11 million hours, so this is a nice plus up for the program, net.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... n-overview

Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/
 
744SPX
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:33 am

texl1649 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This link says 650 engines:


Interesting. I thought the RFP was for 608 engines, but the Press Release at the RR web site's "News Centre" says 650 as well.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ogram.aspx


I believe they’ve produced about 3,600 of these engines, with about 11 million hours, so this is a nice plus up for the program, net.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... n-overview

Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/


An A330-800-based KC-Y would be sweet.
 
GDB
Posts: 14477
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:40 am

texl1649 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This link says 650 engines:


Interesting. I thought the RFP was for 608 engines, but the Press Release at the RR web site's "News Centre" says 650 as well.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ogram.aspx


I believe they’ve produced about 3,600 of these engines, with about 11 million hours, so this is a nice plus up for the program, net.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... n-overview

Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/


The mention in that link about a previous RR proposal from the 90's took me back, late 90's in the hangar in BA Concorde Engineering, our RR rep had a poster on the wall of his office by RR, with all their engine applications, including some proposals, a B-52 with 4 RR RB211-535's (and AN-124 with 4 RB211-524's).
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:59 am

Been following this closely since the initial discussion of re-engining started emerging some years back. I always thought this was the right choice and the safest choice: closest match in thrust rating, closest match in physical size, closest match in weight, suitable improvement in efficiency, and existing supply chain. My guess is that USAF wanted to go the KISS route, and the RR offering was the best match for the KISS route.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:11 pm

How long before we see the first BUFF with the new engines?
 
2eng2efficient
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:30 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:50 pm

Cynical question, but is there any chance Congress (namely certain senators and representatives from districts in places like Ohio, Connecticut) try to derail this a la the tanker program.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4499
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:14 pm

2eng2efficient wrote:
Cynical question, but is there any chance Congress (namely certain senators and representatives from districts in places like Ohio, Connecticut) try to derail this a la the tanker program.


A valid question. I think the pro B-52 mod support, including the Washington (Boeing) delegation who have senior congressional commitee assgiments may want to keep this program on track. Also GE do not want to fight Boeing considering they need to get together to bring the MAX crisis to an end.

bt
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:06 pm

2eng2efficient wrote:
Cynical question, but is there any chance Congress (namely certain senators and representatives from districts in places like Ohio, Connecticut) try to derail this a la the tanker program.


There are proponents as well, the Indiana delegation will be in strong support.

There are also bid protests that can come about. Those depend on how well the RFP process was handled and how solid the RR bid is. If the BR-725 meets the technical requirements and RR bid say 10% low, it would be quite hard to win a protest. But if RR was more than another, with RR being selected on other aspects of the proposal, the protest has a far higher chance of success.

PW right now is trying to get back onto the F-15EX program (both GE and PW offer F-15 engines, but GE provided engines for the Qatari contract), and protecting the F-35 engine program, which they are late on. GE has the T-901 engine contract starting. Protests tend to leave a sour taste in DOD's mouth so there might not be here, unless deserved.
 
cpd
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:41 pm

aumaverick wrote:
How long before we see the first BUFF with the new engines?


Depends on how many protests are made about it.

Just because RR was selected first time doesn’t mean anything with these kinds of programs.

I’d like to think this one will just happen without theatrics though. It’s needed.

GDB wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

Interesting. I thought the RFP was for 608 jengines, but the Press Release at the RR web site's "News Centre" says 650 as well.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ogram.aspx


I believe they’ve produced about 3,600 of these engines, with about 11 million hours, so this is a nice plus up for the program, net.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... n-overview

Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/


The mention in that link about a previous RR proposal from the 90's took me back, late 90's in the hangar in BA Concorde Engineering, our RR rep had a poster on the wall of his office by RR, with all their engine applications, including some proposals, a B-52 with 4 RR RB211-535's (and AN-124 with 4 RB211-524's).


If I’m not mistaken the bigger engines (but four of them) are a problem for the B52 if one should go out? It would be interesting to see that proposal however.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:50 pm

I'm sure the USAF will show off the range improvements with a public demonstration. I wonder how many top ups it'd need to do a circumnavigation. Probably only 1 or maybe none. O_O
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:56 pm

2eng2efficient wrote:
Cynical question, but is there any chance Congress (namely certain senators and representatives from districts in places like Ohio, Connecticut) try to derail this a la the tanker program.



I believe the CF-34-10's are made in North Carolina. They are tested in Ohio but this shouldn't have a large impact on GE's Ohio employment.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:15 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
I'm sure the USAF will show off the range improvements with a public demonstration. I wonder how many top ups it'd need to do a circumnavigation. Probably only 1 or maybe none. O_O


I doubt the crew would be too excited though. Nothing in the program includes an actual…toilet on board. LOL.
 
2eng2efficient
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:30 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:31 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
2eng2efficient wrote:
Cynical question, but is there any chance Congress (namely certain senators and representatives from districts in places like Ohio, Connecticut) try to derail this a la the tanker program.



I believe the CF-34-10's are made in North Carolina. They are tested in Ohio but this shouldn't have a large impact on GE's Ohio employment.


Actually I think that is correct. There is also a factory in Michigan that supplies many components of the CF34. Obviously the supply chain is quite distributed.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 4:55 am

texl1649 wrote:
Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/


RR = UK = inner circle of US interests (AUKUS)
Airbus = continental Europe = US: “we don’t care”
 
art
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:25 am

2eng2efficient wrote:
Cynical question, but is there any chance Congress (namely certain senators and representatives from districts in places like Ohio, Connecticut) try to derail this a la the tanker program.


I don't see the point of derailing the engine choice. Overturning the choice of a foreign tanker in preference to a Boeing tanker did not exactly enhance the capability of US fighting forces, did it?
 
GDB
Posts: 14477
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:59 am

marcelh wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/


RR = UK = inner circle of US interests (AUKUS)
Airbus = continental Europe = US: “we don’t care”


You are so wrapped up in your Anglophobia, rather like the Brexit types here are with Europe, you don't even know that the engine type originated with a joint commercial project with RR and BMW, who last time I looked was German which is, perhaps you can prove otherwise, also within Europe.
Going back and currently, M45 (RR and France), Adour (RR and France), MTU332 (RR and France), IAE V2500 (RR, MTU, with also Italian involvement and horror of horrors, PW), RB199 (RR, MTU, Italy), EJ2000 (RR, MTU, Italy and Spain), TP400 (RR, Germany, MTR390 (RR, France), Pearl (Civil for biz jets from RR's German division).

https://www.rolls-royce.com/about/where ... urope.aspx

10,000 in Germany, 3000 in Spain employed by RR.

CFM-56, a US-French project which had it's origins in the engine planned for the B-1 Bomber, first application as the CFM-56 the KC-135 tanker re-engining and DC-8 in the civil area.
The EADS plants for helicopters, including for the US military, so I think we can say that those responsible for these non UK projects are pure in sharing your Anglophobia? Or course not, the idea is absurd.

Or is it that RR are the only European powerplant entity that can go toe to toe with the US giants, is it jealousy then, certainly isn't any knowledge, rather 'logic' that reminds me of our worst Brexit types, which for me includes the current wretched government, or the 'logic' of the MAGA types.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:08 am

GDB wrote:
marcelh wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/


RR = UK = inner circle of US interests (AUKUS)
Airbus = continental Europe = US: “we don’t care”


You are so wrapped up in your Anglophobia, rather like the Brexit types here are with Europe, you don't even know that the engine type originated with a joint commercial project with RR and BMW, who last time I looked was German which is, perhaps you can prove otherwise, also within Europe.
Going back and currently, M45 (RR and France), Adour (RR and France), MTU332 (RR and France), IAE V2500 (RR, MTU, with also Italian involvement and horror of horrors, PW), RB199 (RR, MTU, Italy), EJ2000 (RR, MTU, Italy and Spain), TP400 (RR, Germany, MTR390 (RR, France), Pearl (Civil for biz jets from RR's German division).

https://www.rolls-royce.com/about/where ... urope.aspx

10,000 in Germany, 3000 in Spain employed by RR.

CFM-56, a US-French project which had it's origins in the engine planned for the B-1 Bomber, first application as the CFM-56 the KC-135 tanker re-engining and DC-8 in the civil area.
The EADS plants for helicopters, including for the US military, so I think we can say that those responsible for these non UK projects are pure in sharing your Anglophobia? Or course not, the idea is absurd.

Or is it that RR are the only European powerplant entity that can go toe to toe with the US giants, is it jealousy then, certainly isn't any knowledge, rather 'logic' that reminds me of our worst Brexit types, which for me includes the current wretched government, or the 'logic' of the MAGA types.


Accusing me of Anglophobia doesn’t add a lot of credibility to your statement and it’s clear you don’t have a clue. IMHO it isn’t a coincidence the US is choosing for RR, taking the recent geo political developements into account. Biden is well known for his “pivot to Asia” which he already started during his vice-presidency and the establishment of the Anglo AUKUS pact suits very well. If there was another Trump administration I don’t think the US would have chosen a “foreign” make engine.

I also do know where the engine originated from, but in today’s world it doesn’t really matter, just like your statement about the CFM56. Just as RR is being considered as “British”, Airbus is being considered as “European/French/German”. Facts do matter less than political perception. And with that in mind I made my previous statement. Nothing to do with “Anglophobia”, it’s “interesting” to see you’re jumping the bandwagon.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:09 am

Ugh, the US engine mfg’s both have a pattern of appealing when they lose, yet those appeals (such as GE’s many with the F-35, and Pratt’s with the F-15EX) have a long history of losing, relatively quickly, at this point. It is unlikely the foreign content in this case will…be anywhere near enough to matter in an appeal.

It’s also unlikely Boeing’s board/directors want to lose anywhere near the amount they have on the KC-46 moving forward so that tanker program probably won’t be as viciously a to the bottom pricing battle as was the last one.
 
GDB
Posts: 14477
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:18 pm

marcelh wrote:
GDB wrote:
marcelh wrote:

RR = UK = inner circle of US interests (AUKUS)
Airbus = continental Europe = US: “we don’t care”


You are so wrapped up in your Anglophobia, rather like the Brexit types here are with Europe, you don't even know that the engine type originated with a joint commercial project with RR and BMW, who last time I looked was German which is, perhaps you can prove otherwise, also within Europe.
Going back and currently, M45 (RR and France), Adour (RR and France), MTU332 (RR and France), IAE V2500 (RR, MTU, with also Italian involvement and horror of horrors, PW), RB199 (RR, MTU, Italy), EJ2000 (RR, MTU, Italy and Spain), TP400 (RR, Germany, MTR390 (RR, France), Pearl (Civil for biz jets from RR's German division).

https://www.rolls-royce.com/about/where ... urope.aspx

10,000 in Germany, 3000 in Spain employed by RR.

CFM-56, a US-French project which had it's origins in the engine planned for the B-1 Bomber, first application as the CFM-56 the KC-135 tanker re-engining and DC-8 in the civil area.
The EADS plants for helicopters, including for the US military, so I think we can say that those responsible for these non UK projects are pure in sharing your Anglophobia? Or course not, the idea is absurd.

Or is it that RR are the only European powerplant entity that can go toe to toe with the US giants, is it jealousy then, certainly isn't any knowledge, rather 'logic' that reminds me of our worst Brexit types, which for me includes the current wretched government, or the 'logic' of the MAGA types.


Accusing me of Anglophobia doesn’t add a lot of credibility to your statement and it’s clear you don’t have a clue. IMHO it isn’t a coincidence the US is choosing for RR, taking the recent geo political developements into account. Biden is well known for his “pivot to Asia” which he already started during his vice-presidency and the establishment of the Anglo AUKUS pact suits very well. If there was another Trump administration I don’t think the US would have chosen a “foreign” make engine.

I also do know where the engine originated from, but in today’s world it doesn’t really matter, just like your statement about the CFM56. Just as RR is being considered as “British”, Airbus is being considered as “European/French/German”. Facts do matter less than political perception. And with that in mind I made my previous statement. Nothing to do with “Anglophobia”, it’s “interesting” to see you’re jumping the bandwagon.


Considering the general consensus on here, including from those with some experience with the B-52 and USAF practice, that the choice made is the lowest risk, in terms of integration in particular, the sort of thing that has gone awry on other projects, the attempt to link this with some move by Biden, whose 'pivot to Asia' is actually an Obama era policy?
No, it's simple, the best, lowest risk, therefore likely in service soonest and lowest cost choice won.

37 years in the aviation biz, you pick things up along the way, the best of those years being with the first major Anglo French project, I have never needed convincing that the future mostly, though not always exclusively is with pan European projects.

It might have been due to the all UK, often over ambitious projects cancelled in the 60’s, that led to the UK being the lead nation in these, Jaguar, Tornado, Typhoon, sadly in and out formally with Airbus but UK money, be it private from the wing contractor between 1968-78, then the failure to make BAE stay a formal member in 2006, easy to do, remind them of all those defence contracts the UK government hands out, not surprisingly BAE have since regretted that.

So this stereotype you keep attributing to all of the 67 million who are in the UK really doesn’t fly, what does look set to fly once the legal sore loser nonsense the US DoD (and NASA with that Bezos), has to go through is a logical choice, originally a joint RR BMW development for small airliners/large biz jets, to be developed further in the US for their use, a UK/German/US project. And versions already in the US inventory.
Last edited by GDB on Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4499
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:25 pm

texl1649 wrote:
r program probably won’t be as viciously a to the bottom pricing battle as was the last one.


Well, if you consider the old saying the engines are a quarter of a new airplane cost, and this is but a re engine program. With the bulk of the cost out of the way, there is not much left over to bid down.

bt
 
marcelh
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:02 pm

GDB wrote:
marcelh wrote:
GDB wrote:

You are so wrapped up in your Anglophobia, rather like the Brexit types here are with Europe, you don't even know that the engine type originated with a joint commercial project with RR and BMW, who last time I looked was German which is, perhaps you can prove otherwise, also within Europe.
Going back and currently, M45 (RR and France), Adour (RR and France), MTU332 (RR and France), IAE V2500 (RR, MTU, with also Italian involvement and horror of horrors, PW), RB199 (RR, MTU, Italy), EJ2000 (RR, MTU, Italy and Spain), TP400 (RR, Germany, MTR390 (RR, France), Pearl (Civil for biz jets from RR's German division).

https://www.rolls-royce.com/about/where ... urope.aspx

10,000 in Germany, 3000 in Spain employed by RR.

CFM-56, a US-French project which had it's origins in the engine planned for the B-1 Bomber, first application as the CFM-56 the KC-135 tanker re-engining and DC-8 in the civil area.
The EADS plants for helicopters, including for the US military, so I think we can say that those responsible for these non UK projects are pure in sharing your Anglophobia? Or course not, the idea is absurd.

Or is it that RR are the only European powerplant entity that can go toe to toe with the US giants, is it jealousy then, certainly isn't any knowledge, rather 'logic' that reminds me of our worst Brexit types, which for me includes the current wretched government, or the 'logic' of the MAGA types.


Accusing me of Anglophobia doesn’t add a lot of credibility to your statement and it’s clear you don’t have a clue. IMHO it isn’t a coincidence the US is choosing for RR, taking the recent geo political developements into account. Biden is well known for his “pivot to Asia” which he already started during his vice-presidency and the establishment of the Anglo AUKUS pact suits very well. If there was another Trump administration I don’t think the US would have chosen a “foreign” make engine.

I also do know where the engine originated from, but in today’s world it doesn’t really matter, just like your statement about the CFM56. Just as RR is being considered as “British”, Airbus is being considered as “European/French/German”. Facts do matter less than political perception. And with that in mind I made my previous statement. Nothing to do with “Anglophobia”, it’s “interesting” to see you’re jumping the bandwagon.


Considering the general consensus on here, including from those with some experience with the B-52 and USAF practice, that the choice made is the lowest risk, in terms of integration in particular, the sort of thing that has gone awry on other projects, the attempt to link this with some move by Biden, whose 'pivot to Asia' is actually an Obama era policy?
No, it's simple, the best, lowest risk, therefore likely in service soonest and lowest cost choice won.


Agree to disagree.


So this stereotype you keep attributing to all of the 67 million who are in the UK really doesn’t fly, what does look set to fly once the legal sore loser nonsense the US DoD (and NASA with that Bezos), has to go through is a logical choice, originally a joint RR BMW development for small airliners/large biz jets, to be developed further in the US for their use, a UK/German/US project. And versions already in the US inventory.

What “stereotyping”? Really, you might have some issues when it comes to dealing with posts which don’t match your personal views.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:07 pm

marcelh wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Good to see I am not the only one who sees a potential impact in the bids for the KC-Y in this pragmatic decision.

https://mentourpilot.com/usaf-b-52-bomb ... t-engines/


RR = UK = inner circle of US interests (AUKUS)
Airbus = continental Europe = US: “we don’t care”


So I guess that means those billions dumped into European Reassurance Initiatives, US funded NATO operations, support to out-of-area EU operations and bilateral support to French operations can end? Perhaps, can we count on France and Germany making up the 50% of defense expenditures that are US sourced?

As a net US taxpayer, I thank you in advance.

I mean, I think we can remember when I think Trump, maybe it was someone else said these words in 2011. Trump got blamed for it, I'm pretty sure...

"I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon...The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress and in the American body politic writ large to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.

Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost."
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:16 pm

keesje wrote:
The USAF apparently still sees a use for long range heavy bombers!

Interestingly it seems it can be used best/only to fight against forces far away that don't have anything to shoot back. Which in these times of powerfull social media & reduced acceptance of highly visible human collateral damage seems is a questionable theatre.

Maybe the USAF have other applications in mind for the B52s.. Launching drones, "projecting power", domestic perceptions, for keeping the now gereatic squadrons in service. They sure have an enormous range, they are basically manned flying fuel tanks! https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... ities.html


Well, I guess firstly...the Russians are pursuing a Tu-160 modernization campaign, and the Chinese are continuously upgrading their air-breather strategic platforms and appear to be pursuing a LO heavy bomber program as well (the H-20.) Of course, based upon recent history, civilian casualties don't seem to be a controlling factor for the Russians or Chinese, especially if its Muslims, so perhaps you are onto something for its utility.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4499
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:12 pm

Kind of a fiasco that we still have to rely on the '52s.

But other than the F-15EX, and maybe the new B-3, which who knows if they will have enough frames, the '52 will be the only frame to be able to field the first generation of hypersonic missiles en masse.

bt
 
2eng2efficient
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:30 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:56 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Kind of a fiasco that we still have to rely on the '52s.

But other than the F-15EX, and maybe the new B-3, which who knows if they will have enough frames, the '52 will be the only frame to be able to field the first generation of hypersonic missiles en masse.

bt


Totally agree, the B-21’s mission profile is going to be very different from the B-52. No other aircraft in the USAF arsenal will have the capability to launch potentially dozens of hypersonic missiles at stand-off range.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4756
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:39 pm

Please keep the thread on topic. There's no need for personal attacks, and political comments lacking an aviation context may be removed. Political comments are generally limited to Non Av.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
texl1649
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:03 pm

I am curious what RR will do with the Indianapolis site.

“Our ultra-modern, advanced manufacturing facilities in Indianapolis are the perfect location to produce, assemble, and test the Rolls-Royce F130 engine for the U.S. Air Force B-52 program,” said Tom Bell, president of Rolls-Royce.

“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,” he said.

The company is nearing completion of a $600 million investment in Indiana, including state-of-the-start advanced manufacturing capabilities at its Indianapolis facilities. The investment paved the way for Monday’s announcement.

Indianapolis boasts the largest Rolls-Royce engineering, design and manufacturing site in the U.S. Several engines for U.S. Air Force aircraft are manufactured in Indy, including those for the C-130J transport, CV-22 Osprey and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle.


https://cbs4indy.com/news/rolls-royce-s ... 2-engines/

There are actually two plants there, I believe (5 and 8). Could RR for a couple years be the largest quantity engine supplier to the USAF (or even DoD net)? With 4 engines x 2 frames per month for the C-130J, additional C37 (G550) deliveries, and 8x per B-52 once things get going (2 frames per month?), I would hazard a guess this is possible. They just spent $600 million 'revitalizing' it (they had some EPA concerns driving some of this). They employ about 6,000 in the US, and I'd guess at least half in Indianapolis today.

https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/rol ... stment.php
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27396
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:50 pm

art wrote:
Overturning the choice of a foreign tanker in preference to a Boeing tanker did not exactly enhance the capability of US fighting forces, did it?

A400M also hasn't worked out like planned for the countries involved, but I think they're still happy they did it. Same logic applies to KC-46.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:17 pm

If I understand the reward correctly, it will take roughly 3.5 years to do the integration design (Boeing's responsibility) and for RR to spin up production in Indianapolis. Then, beginning in 2025, they will start retrofitting and that process will carry on for 13 years, into 2038. That's about 6 frames a year. If it's 1 frame out of service a time, then it's a 2 month long depot visit for the upgrade. That's probably too short considering the cockpit changes at the same time. So I assume it's 2 frames in for conversion at a given time, taking 4 months each.

Why not go faster? Why not go 4 frames at at time and be done in 5-6 years, or even more. Is the loss of 4 frames too material for readiness of the fleet?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11589
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: RR Will Provide Jet Engines For The B-52 Re-engine

Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:21 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Why not go faster? Why not go 4 frames at at time and be done in 5-6 years, or even more. Is the loss of 4 frames too material for readiness of the fleet?

Probably an annual budget availability thing.

Tugg
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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