zanl188 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Wouldn't it be possible to structurally modify them again? If the frame was zero-houred, updated with new radar, new engines, new avionics to eventually replace the H?

One, I don’t believe there are enough G models left to be worth modifying. Two, demodifying defeats the purpose of the original mod - treaty compliance.

Of course with the way the Russians have been acting lately maybe treaty compliance is no longer a factor. They did violate the INF treaty, maybe we should bring GLCMs and Pershing’s back.

"The B-52H Stratofortress is a long-range, heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions. The bomber is capable of flying at high subsonic speeds at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet (15,166.6 meters). It can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance with worldwide precision navigation capability."
https://www.afnwc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact- ... capability.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall reading on the reengine and radar articles in Airforce magazine that the B-52 to be in servie until 2045. It will be qualified for nuclear weapons. B-21 will be around half of the bomber fleet.

The revolver missiles and rack give a good stand off while the B-21 gets to penetrate.

bikerthai wrote:

To answer one of the question.

"The B-52H Stratofortress is a long-range, heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions. The bomber is capable of flying at high subsonic speeds at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet (15,166.6 meters). It can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance with worldwide precision navigation capability."
https://www.afnwc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact- ... capability.

https://www.afnwc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact- ... capability.

With only a few B-2 and the B-1s are retired. You still need the 52's in that role.

Will they build enough B-21 to retire rhe B-52?

bt

LightningZ71 wrote:

What is it that a modestly upgraded B-52 can't do going forward that an all-new platform can that is going to cover it's planned mission set? It is a stand off cruise missile launcher and a permissive airspace heavy bomber. Anything that large won't be stealthy enough to matter. Anything much smaller is just a B-21. Unless they develop a massive metal fatigue problem that affects something critical in the airframe, it's just going to soldier on. We don't need a faster bomber to do it's mission as prompt strike is better handled by very long range hypersonics. Another plane won't be massively more efficient, and especially not enough to justify it's price tag.

texl1649 wrote:

Where is Boeing to do the work?

texl1649 wrote:

When is RR going to produce/deliver the first engine set? Where is Boeing to do the work?

The first two fully modified B-52s are projected to deliver by the end of 2025 and will undergo ground and flight testing. The first lot of operational B-52s with the new engines is projected to deliver by the end of 2028 with the entire fleet modified by 2035.

The new engines on the B-52s are expected to remain on the B-52H through at least 2050, increase fuel efficiency, increase range, reduce emissions in unburned hydrocarbons, and significantly reduce maintenance costs.

747classic wrote:

The above questions of the remaining AMARC stored -G's and -H's has been asked before, see replies 221 untill/incl 230 in this thread.

See also : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... wbfU#gid=0

bennett123 wrote:

747classic wrote:

The above questions of the remaining AMARC stored -G's and -H's has been asked before, see replies 221 untill/incl 230 in this thread.

See also : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... wbfU#gid=0

What does 'retired' mean.

Are they stored or scrapped?.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I've seen that RR will be doing wind tunnel testing of the F130 engine as modified for the B-52 this fall, there are 2 B-52's in the flight test program. Engine flight testing is being done separately from the new Radar. There are discussions on the naming - there may be a J and a K version, with the J being Radar & old engines, K being both.
Can't find it now but I recall they will be doing lots of 8 bombers after flight testing complete.

744SPX wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I've seen that RR will be doing wind tunnel testing of the F130 engine as modified for the B-52 this fall, there are 2 B-52's in the flight test program. Engine flight testing is being done separately from the new Radar. There are discussions on the naming - there may be a J and a K version, with the J being Radar & old engines, K being both.
Can't find it now but I recall they will be doing lots of 8 bombers after flight testing complete.

That's crazy talk. Why in the world would they want to operate TF-33 powered B-52's AND F130 powered B-52's? 2 engine types would just make the maintenance and parts headaches that much worse (and expensive) then they are now.

Phosphorus wrote:

744SPX wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I've seen that RR will be doing wind tunnel testing of the F130 engine as modified for the B-52 this fall, there are 2 B-52's in the flight test program. Engine flight testing is being done separately from the new Radar. There are discussions on the naming - there may be a J and a K version, with the J being Radar & old engines, K being both.
Can't find it now but I recall they will be doing lots of 8 bombers after flight testing complete.

That's crazy talk. Why in the world would they want to operate TF-33 powered B-52's AND F130 powered B-52's? 2 engine types would just make the maintenance and parts headaches that much worse (and expensive) then they are now.

Maybe radar upgrade could be achieved separately and faster then re-engine work? This way, a radar-modified frame (a J) could be operational before its scheduled visit to re-engine work.

In any case, they WILL have to operate both TF-33 and F130 powered B-52's in parallel, for some time. Unless there's a magic wand that allows all new engines, nacelles and everything else to be available for the whole fleet at once, not to mention shop floor space and people to do it. Which would mean 0 operational B-52's while the work continues. (I personally don't believe it. It would be a staggered process, regardless)

744SPX wrote:

That's crazy talk. Why in the world would they want to operate TF-33 powered B-52's AND F130 powered B-52's? 2 engine types would just make the maintenance and parts headaches that much worse (and expensive) then they are now.

scbriml wrote:

One word - transition.

bikerthai wrote:

scbriml wrote:

One word - transition.

Plus another word: bureaucracy.

I've seen it first hand. These retrofit contracts are often negotiated separately, even if its with the same contractor. Very rare do they try to combine contracts, too much headache.

If you have a good size fleet, it is complex planning to pull frames out to be mod.

I've had to do LRU refresh on equipment that I know they already plan to eliminate a few years later. They do it anyway because during the interim, they want the best equipment operating.

The other aspect is during the negotiation phase, they would not know if one contract would be cancelled. By the time both contract is approved, schedule would already been established and it would require moving a mountain to mesh the two

But sometimes it does happen. Depends on how clever the scheduler gets.

bt

giblets wrote:

So Rolls has started testing the f130! Not sure on the status of the nacelles vs the finished article, it exciting to see it all the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SteelChair wrote:

Operating both engine versions side by side for awhile also allows the USAF to harvest as much engine time as possible on the old engines prior to scrapping. I know, economics isn't even a consideration, but using as much of the remaining engine life as possible makes economic sense.

Has anyone seen any performance specs? I'm guessing it'll be a significant (~30%) improvement in range like the KC135 was. I'm guessing the higher BPR engines may lose some altitude capability.

giblets wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Operating both engine versions side by side for awhile also allows the USAF to harvest as much engine time as possible on the old engines prior to scrapping. I know, economics isn't even a consideration, but using as much of the remaining engine life as possible makes economic sense.

Has anyone seen any performance specs? I'm guessing it'll be a significant (~30%) improvement in range like the KC135 was. I'm guessing the higher BPR engines may lose some altitude capability.

I’ve seen written the engine is 30% more efficient, the nacelle should also reduce drag (more modern design, though it’s larger and closer to the wing), although it’s essentially the same power, it’ll perform better with increased responsiveness etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

• Engines: 30% improvement in consumption, but they are bigger right.... yes, but each of the 8 is 200kg less (about 2% dry weight of aircraft)
• New Engine nacelle and pylons: Can be lighter (as engine is 200kg less, new materials and design techniques), and better aerodyamics ( design tools not available in the 1960s!)
• New Radar. installing the new APG-79 radar, to replace the APQ-166, this should be a bit of a weight saving, will also have a new radome (better design?
• Removal of blisters: Those ugly blisters on the chin are being taken off, should be a nice improvement for aerodynamics and reduction in drag
• Crew Reduction: My understanding is they are taking out one member of the crew (with the new radar), so that's a big old ejector seat taken out!
• Other improvements, looks like the cockpit will be updated to partially multi function displays. Digital to analog controls which should introduce some weight savings and improvements to the the control of the aircraft performance.
• New blisters above the wing have appeared (Or grown), woukd likely increase drag, but probably a better design than the nose blisters., thjey seem to be confidential
• New underwing weapons pylon, potentially improvement, better design, new lighter materials etc.

giblets wrote:

Further on the range question.
the USAF looked at new engines and in 2004 reported a 35% improvement in fuel efficiency would increase range 46%
https://dsb.cto.mil/reports/2000s/ADA428790.pdf

But reading up elsewhere, they are looking for 'up to 40%' increase in range. This should come from a number of places:

• Engines: 30% improvement in consumption, but they are bigger right.... yes, but each of the 8 is 200kg less (about 2% dry weight of aircraft)
• New Engine nacelle and pylons: Can be lighter (as engine is 200kg less, new materials and design techniques), and better aerodyamics ( design tools not available in the 1960s!)
• New Radar. installing the new APG-79 radar, to replace the APQ-166, this should be a bit of a weight saving, will also have a new radome (better design?
• Removal of blisters: Those ugly blisters on the chin are being taken off, should be a nice improvement for aerodynamics and reduction in drag
• Crew Reduction: My understanding is they are taking out one member of the crew (with the new radar), so that's a big old ejector seat taken out!
• Other improvements, looks like the cockpit will be updated to partially multi function displays. Digital to analog controls which should introduce some weight savings and improvements to the the control of the aircraft performance.
• New blisters above the wing have appeared (Or grown), woukd likely increase drag, but probably a better design than the nose blisters., thjey seem to be confidential
• New underwing weapons pylon, potentially improvement, better design, new lighter materials etc.

LTEN11 wrote:

giblets wrote:

Further on the range question.
the USAF looked at new engines and in 2004 reported a 35% improvement in fuel efficiency would increase range 46%
https://dsb.cto.mil/reports/2000s/ADA428790.pdf

But reading up elsewhere, they are looking for 'up to 40%' increase in range. This should come from a number of places:

• Engines: 30% improvement in consumption, but they are bigger right.... yes, but each of the 8 is 200kg less (about 2% dry weight of aircraft)
• New Engine nacelle and pylons: Can be lighter (as engine is 200kg less, new materials and design techniques), and better aerodyamics ( design tools not available in the 1960s!)
• New Radar. installing the new APG-79 radar, to replace the APQ-166, this should be a bit of a weight saving, will also have a new radome (better design?
• Removal of blisters: Those ugly blisters on the chin are being taken off, should be a nice improvement for aerodynamics and reduction in drag
• Crew Reduction: My understanding is they are taking out one member of the crew (with the new radar), so that's a big old ejector seat taken out!
• Other improvements, looks like the cockpit will be updated to partially multi function displays. Digital to analog controls which should introduce some weight savings and improvements to the the control of the aircraft performance.
• New blisters above the wing have appeared (Or grown), woukd likely increase drag, but probably a better design than the nose blisters., thjey seem to be confidential
• New underwing weapons pylon, potentially improvement, better design, new lighter materials etc.

But will it get a toilet ?

Oh and I like the blisters on the nose, adds character.

JayinKitsap wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

giblets wrote:

Further on the range question.
the USAF looked at new engines and in 2004 reported a 35% improvement in fuel efficiency would increase range 46%
https://dsb.cto.mil/reports/2000s/ADA428790.pdf

But reading up elsewhere, they are looking for 'up to 40%' increase in range. This should come from a number of places:

• Engines: 30% improvement in consumption, but they are bigger right.... yes, but each of the 8 is 200kg less (about 2% dry weight of aircraft)
• New Engine nacelle and pylons: Can be lighter (as engine is 200kg less, new materials and design techniques), and better aerodyamics ( design tools not available in the 1960s!)
• New Radar. installing the new APG-79 radar, to replace the APQ-166, this should be a bit of a weight saving, will also have a new radome (better design?
• Removal of blisters: Those ugly blisters on the chin are being taken off, should be a nice improvement for aerodynamics and reduction in drag
• Crew Reduction: My understanding is they are taking out one member of the crew (with the new radar), so that's a big old ejector seat taken out!
• Other improvements, looks like the cockpit will be updated to partially multi function displays. Digital to analog controls which should introduce some weight savings and improvements to the the control of the aircraft performance.
• New blisters above the wing have appeared (Or grown), woukd likely increase drag, but probably a better design than the nose blisters., thjey seem to be confidential
• New underwing weapons pylon, potentially improvement, better design, new lighter materials etc.

But will it get a toilet ?

Oh and I like the blisters on the nose, adds character.

I didn't find the toilet info, I recall it is being considered. There is now a spot where the 4th ejection seat was.

However I did find a nice long article, late 2021, about the BUFF.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... crew-chief

SteelChair wrote:

giblets wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Operating both engine versions side by side for awhile also allows the USAF to harvest as much engine time as possible on the old engines prior to scrapping. I know, economics isn't even a consideration, but using as much of the remaining engine life as possible makes economic sense.

Has anyone seen any performance specs? I'm guessing it'll be a significant (~30%) improvement in range like the KC135 was. I'm guessing the higher BPR engines may lose some altitude capability.

I’ve seen written the engine is 30% more efficient, the nacelle should also reduce drag (more modern design, though it’s larger and closer to the wing), although it’s essentially the same power, it’ll perform better with increased responsiveness etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for that. Should reduce demand on tanker support.

I've wondered about the B52 50,000 foot altitude capability i've seen quoted from time to time. I'm guessing it won't fly that high with any kind of useful load with these new engines, and wonder how useful that capability is and how often it is done now.

744SPX wrote:

My guess is those nacelles are very close if not the final design. Why design a different one just for testing when you have to test the flight article nacelle anyway?

I have heard of no plans to move the current toilet setup. With only one person left in the lower deck, that would be the most logical place.

ssteve wrote:

I have heard of no plans to move the current toilet setup. With only one person left in the lower deck, that would be the most logical place.

World's first ejection toilet

ssteve wrote:

I have heard of no plans to move the current toilet setup. With only one person left in the lower deck, that would be the most logical place.

World's first ejection toilet

ssteve wrote:

It's telling that they're removing the chin bumps which are basically there to make it safer to fly near terrain at night. Don't need that mission any more.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Those chin bumps have probably been inactive since the Sniper pod came into effect..

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

ssteve wrote:

It's telling that they're removing the chin bumps which are basically there to make it safer to fly near terrain at night. Don't need that mission any more.

Uhhhhhh, no. They're being removed as the Sniper pod provide much better imagery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Sniper_XR