Boeing B-52 Re-engine News and Discussion Thread

ssteve · Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:20 pm

Tugger wrote:
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.

And the contractors like signing up a revenue stream for than many years. And truthfully, they'll find shit they need to pause and react to, and it would drag out if they tried to do it faster. Have more planes sitting in disassembly.

C5-M was ~10 years from first frame withdrawn to last one done I assume it had its ups and downs in that period.

bikerthai · Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:45 pm

ssteve wrote:
the contractors like signing up a revenue stream for than many years. And truthfully, they'll find shit they need to pause and react to, and it would drag out if they tried to do it faster.

Oh we wish. For retrofit, the Arm Force basically drive the show. Even if we got a contract for the kit, it is the user who drives which airplanes gets modified and when. They have to juggle whether the frames are currently being deployed, when are each frame scheduled for maintenance and whether there is sufficient frames available to meet national security needs.

For small retrofits they can do it themselves or have some third party do it at some lower cost.

As for the company doing the retrofit. Sure, getting a bunch of frames at a time is great for short term cash flow, but even for a large company like Boeing they do not want to hire so many right away and have the new hire screw up the early mods and having to fire them quickly when the mod is done.

bt

ssteve · Fri Oct 01, 2021 6:05 pm

I think we said the same thing? 'than' is a typo that shouldn't be there. But otherwise, yes.

bikerthai · Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:03 pm

ssteve wrote:
I think we said the same thing? 'than' is a typo that shouldn't be there. But otherwise, yes.

There is one caviate to dragging things out. If the customer have the option, they can always change the mod outfit.

bt

JayinKitsap · Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:42 am

I would think it is like freighter conversions. Use a two bird fleet for certification and testing, once that is done start with 1 or 2, a few months in add a couple more. Do 3 or 4 cycles of two, get the learning curve down then possibly go to a total of 6 out (3 lots of two) as the efficiency improves. If more speed is needed add a 2nd line at a good geographic spot to continue through them.

MohawkWeekend · Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:39 pm

Couldn't they use commercial MRO's in the States? Delta Tech Ops could crank these out in no time.

JayinKitsap · Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:56 pm

There are concurrent plans to replace the radar, most of the cockpit instrumentation, new coms, etc. The FADEC will require new wiring from each engine to the cockpit or adjacent space. The wings will be open to do this, so probably skin replacements in a lot of places. It makes sense to do all of these together, a full upgrade to one new standard for all of the fleet. Yes, it will be like a commercial MRO, but will be at a DOD aligned site.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:26 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
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?

C-5 Modernization was the same way. Lockheed wanted to do 16 per year, all B models don’t in three, then some of the A models could have been done with savings from high production. Budgets got in the way. The KC-135 took two decades to complete—government at its finest.

texl1649 · Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:16 pm

Period during which a protest would have to be filed has apparently passed. Good news!

https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/stat ... 67968?s=21

744SPX · Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:36 am

texl1649 wrote:
Period during which a protest would have to be filed has apparently passed. Good news!

https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/stat ... 67968?s=21

Very good news. Almost unbelievable, but very good news.

JayinKitsap · Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:03 am

texl1649 wrote:
Period during which a protest would have to be filed has apparently passed. Good news!

https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/stat ... 67968?s=21

The Air Force Magazine article on the same https://www.airforcemag.com/no-protests ... lls-royce/

RR bid 2.6B for 650 engines, or $ 4M per engine. Isn't that around the normal commercial engine price for this size. The lack of protest usually means that after the debrief, the losing bidders wonder how the winner could possibly bid that low. There has to be some serious bidding defects to win a protest against another bidder on price.

Boeing had 3 wins not be protested - the MQ-25, the T-X trainer, and the Grey Wolf helo's, The FFG(X) frigate competition was not protested. All appeared to clearly be with best price.

RR seemed to be lying low during the protest period, now with the award firmly in place, they may be more open. 650 engines will keep a factory going for a few days (LOL).

RickNRoll · Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:28 pm

744SPX wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Period during which a protest would have to be filed has apparently passed. Good news!

https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/stat ... 67968?s=21

Very good news. Almost unbelievable, but very good news.

Maybe a few Generals let it be known they weren't going to be happy with another fiasco.

JayinKitsap · Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:38 am

The B-52 engine replacement had come up a number of times before this recent RR win. It just didn't make sense when parts were still available for the TF-33. Only now, when engine overhauls now exceed $2M each, more than the replacement engine purchase price costs. As the B-52 is involved with nuclear weapons, the amount of testing needed to certify a major change is just incredible. They didn't want to remove that unused blister just below the nose for that reason and it was certified without it before so it should have been easy.

art · Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:13 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
The B-52 engine replacement had come up a number of times before this recent RR win. It just didn't make sense when parts were still available for the TF-33. Only now, when engine overhauls now exceed $2M each, more than the replacement engine purchase price costs. As the B-52 is involved with nuclear weapons, the amount of testing needed to certify a major change is just incredible. They didn't want to remove that unused blister just below the nose for that reason and it was certified without it before so it should have been easy.

If engine overhaul cost rise was foreseen ($2m sounds astonishing to me), why didn't USAF select replacement engines years back?

JayinKitsap · Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:56 pm

art wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The B-52 engine replacement had come up a number of times before this recent RR win. It just didn't make sense when parts were still available for the TF-33. Only now, when engine overhauls now exceed $2M each, more than the replacement engine purchase price costs. As the B-52 is involved with nuclear weapons, the amount of testing needed to certify a major change is just incredible. They didn't want to remove that unused blister just below the nose for that reason and it was certified without it before so it should have been easy.

If engine overhaul cost rise was foreseen ($2m sounds astonishing to me), why didn't USAF select replacement engines years back?

By memory so I could be off, production of the parts needed for the overhauls stopped like 5-6 years ago, the actual engines stopped being produced decades ago. Well the remaining parts has drastically dwindled since. The latest RFP for the engines adding in took over 4 years from the decision that we should to actually doing it. Also, the B-52 was planned to be phased out, but they decided before the RFP started to extend the life. Otherwise it would be curtains by around 2030 where engine support would just die due to lack of parts. This video was a Boeing production to tease the Air Force in doing it back in 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHdIRwKtnig

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 pm

art wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The B-52 engine replacement had come up a number of times before this recent RR win. It just didn't make sense when parts were still available for the TF-33. Only now, when engine overhauls now exceed $2M each, more than the replacement engine purchase price costs. As the B-52 is involved with nuclear weapons, the amount of testing needed to certify a major change is just incredible. They didn't want to remove that unused blister just below the nose for that reason and it was certified without it before so it should have been easy.

If engine overhaul cost rise was foreseen ($2m sounds astonishing to me), why didn't USAF select replacement engines years back?

It’s the US Government which explains it all. Lockheed offered C-5 re-enginning programs for decades. We spent millions upgrading the avionics on the C-5As to fly to boneyard because the program was “funded”. Lockheed disassembled an A-model and showed it was worth it to re-engine the As, too. Politics in the Pentagon believed that would kill the Buddha, so junk ‘em. The KC-135 should have been done 20 years earlier. Boeing showed the AF after Vietnam that re-enginning in the mid- to late-60s would have been paid by the fuel savings during the war. When your government is run on short term budgets on a cash basis this is what you get.

JayinKitsap · Tue Feb 08, 2022 9:37 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
art wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The B-52 engine replacement had come up a number of times before this recent RR win. It just didn't make sense when parts were still available for the TF-33. Only now, when engine overhauls now exceed $2M each, more than the replacement engine purchase price costs. As the B-52 is involved with nuclear weapons, the amount of testing needed to certify a major change is just incredible. They didn't want to remove that unused blister just below the nose for that reason and it was certified without it before so it should have been easy.

If engine overhaul cost rise was foreseen ($2m sounds astonishing to me), why didn't USAF select replacement engines years back?

It’s the US Government which explains it all. Lockheed offered C-5 re-enginning programs for decades. We spent millions upgrading the avionics on the C-5As to fly to boneyard because the program was “funded”. Lockheed disassembled an A-model and showed it was worth it to re-engine the As, too. Politics in the Pentagon believed that would kill the Buddha, so junk ‘em. The KC-135 should have been done 20 years earlier. Boeing showed the AF after Vietnam that re-enginning in the mid- to late-60s would have been paid by the fuel savings during the war. When your government is run on short term budgets on a cash basis this is what you get.

Yes the US government is quite skitzo, its like the A-10's do a job really well, are relatively cheap per hour and the Pentagon has for decades tried to dump the frame instead using F-35's which don't take kindly to bullets. At least with the B-52, I'm good with the selection of the RR's F-130 engines for it and the amount of the Contract award appears they got a pretty good value - $2.6B for 608 engines, an all in price of $ 4.27m each. Yes, that doesn't include nacelle and a lot of integration work by Boeing, the prime. My question, will the new engines have the gas canister quick start, that probably wasn't on the business jet version

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Feb 08, 2022 10:26 pm

No, gas canister starting wasn’t on the BR engines. But, an 8-engine rotor bow start would certainly take the rush out of alert launches. One at a time, we’re talking 18 minutes.

LyleLanley · Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:44 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No, gas canister starting wasn’t on the BR engines. But, an 8-engine rotor bow start would certainly take the rush out of alert launches. One at a time, we’re talking 18 minutes.

I’m curious how the newly-tucked/lifted, fresh implants B-52 would support 8010, if that’s the case. Certainly they’ll have to figure out a way to taxi before the end of an average sitcom, or else pawn their contribution to the B-21.

Buckeyetech · Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:41 pm

[url]JP[/url]

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No, gas canister starting wasn’t on the BR engines. But, an 8-engine rotor bow start would certainly take the rush out of alert launches. One at a time, we’re talking 18 minutes.

That’s something I never considered. Although there’s plenty of room in the 47 section for an APU, the cost would far outweigh the benefits. With crossfeed manifolds allowing starting engines off of one, once it’s online from an air cart, you’re still without an alert start.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:34 pm

Rotor bow only applies IF the engine were shutdown between 20 and 300 minutes prior to the start. It’s still a slow wind up like most new engines and either a train of huffers or L and R APUs

JayinKitsap · Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:33 am

Once say 2 engines are running, couldn't they start 2 at a time, even three, I would think the bleed air would be sufficient from 1 to start 1. How automated could this be made?

aumaverick · Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:07 pm

How often are BUFFs sitting alert today? With the B-1s, B-2s, and soon B-21s, wouldn't the alert role roll to them with the BUFFs going through re-engining anyway?

bikerthai · Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:11 pm

Would a geared generator work? Then you would just need battery or electric cart instead of bleed air.

bt

LyleLanley · Thu Feb 10, 2022 4:33 pm

aumaverick wrote:
How often are BUFFs sitting alert today? With the B-1s, B-2s, and soon B-21s, wouldn't the alert role roll to them with the BUFFs going through re-engining anyway?

They're not, but the point is they must have the ability to, otherwise their role in 8010 is just as a paper tiger. Deterrence is all about capability and the projection of strength. If you don't have the capability, you're not going to project strength.

Bones don't have nuke capes anymore (by treaty) and are no longer part of 8010 in a nuclear delivery role. The B-21 hasn't flown, let alone gone through testing, certification in the nuke role, etc. That leaves 12-14 flyable B-2s, which isn't enough to make it all work; you can't ignore the numbers.

Avatar2go · Sun May 22, 2022 11:10 pm

A new estimate of the B-52 re-engine project increases costs by 50%, over the original study conducted in 2017. Mostly related to integration with the B-52 airframe (new pylons, nacelles, wiring and digital controls). The retrofit is meant to extend the B-52 life for another 30 years.

https://www.airforcemag.com/cost-of-b-5 ... -of-refit/

texl1649 · Mon May 23, 2022 1:28 pm

Disappointing, but unsurprising, as this is a 10+ year program and inflation is…higher than it was in 2017.

At some point, I hope they decide to also just replace the upper wing skin as part of this project, as I imagine that is really the limiting factor for airframe life now, and it has to be removed anyway to do all the wiring. Also, I thought one of the F-130 benefits was it would use the same nacelles, and now it’s interesting that they will be all-new as per that article.

30989 · Mon May 23, 2022 1:54 pm

I wonder when we will see a new production line for TF-33 engines

.

Buckeyetech · Mon May 23, 2022 1:54 pm

[photoid][/photoid]

texl1649 wrote:
Disappointing, but unsurprising, as this is a 10+ year program and inflation is…higher than it was in 2017.

At some point, I hope they decide to also just replace the upper wing skin as part of this project, as I imagine that is really the limiting factor for airframe life now, and it has to be removed anyway to do all the wiring. Also, I thought one of the F-130 benefits was it would use the same nacelles, and now it’s interesting that they will be all-new as per that article.

The cowling latches on the current H model’s cowling were the bane of our existence, on the maintenance side of the BUFFs. Really over-engineered system, we never had ample time to correctly rig the lower cowls when they were canibalized off other aircraft, which in turn made us use force to latch them, via pry bars, causing sheet metal damage.

bikerthai · Mon May 23, 2022 2:22 pm

texl1649 wrote:
At some point, I hope they decide to also just replace the upper wing skin as part of this project, as I imagine that is really the limiting factor for airframe life now, and it has to be removed anyway to do all the wiring.

Not sure on the '52, but on commercial aircrafts, all wiring are on the outside of the fuel tanks on the front and aft spar. The only wiring inside the fuel tank could possibly be for the fuel pump.

Even for the 737, you can access inside the wing without removing the skin. Small person with long arms?

On a commercial aircraft, ECS air is sent through the pre-cooler which is located in the strut/pylon. For the new engines, I suspect they will need something similar if one does not exist. Even if one exists, they probably will need to replace it as the bleed air from a high by-pass vs a low by-pass engines may have different pressure profile.

bt

744SPX · Tue May 24, 2022 4:14 am

The TF-33 cowlings would never work for the F-130, as the F-130's bypass air is mixed and the TF-33's bypass air is exhausted separately from the core flow. Now, the J-57 nacelles might have been doable.

Buckeyetech · Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:23 pm

Hallelujah! Nothing chaps me more than when the USAF makes up MDS designations like the “B-21”, or “C-5Ms”.
The B-52H will be redesignated the B-52J or possibly B-52K when it gets a new radar and new engines.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-b-5 ... &fs=e&s=cl

texl1649 · Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:01 pm

Buckeyetech wrote:
Hallelujah! Nothing chaps me more than when the USAF makes up MDS designations like the “B-21”, or “C-5Ms”.
The B-52H will be redesignated the B-52J or possibly B-52K when it gets a new radar and new engines.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-b-5 ... &fs=e&s=cl

That’s all great to read/learn of, thx for posting. I suspect there will need to be some adjustments made as some of the involved buff’s probably are not all standardized/identical in how their wings internal structures are/were formed/are now shaped. If they are also doing/will do the upper wing skin these things could really go another 50 years. It’s a shame they can’t somehow include a toilet in this massive systems upgrade.

JetBuddy · Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:01 pm

Sometimes I wonder if it's more convenient taking some of the stored pre-H frames and upgrading them in one go. Then you have a full fleet of H in service while the upgrades happen. And then the H fleet can later be put in storage according to the treaties.

texl1649 · Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:42 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it's more convenient taking some of the stored pre-H frames and upgrading them in one go. Then you have a full fleet of H in service while the upgrades happen. And then the H fleet can later be put in storage according to the treaties.

How many B-52G’s do you think are sitting about the desert? :spin:

Phosphorus · Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:33 pm

texl1649 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it's more convenient taking some of the stored pre-H frames and upgrading them in one go. Then you have a full fleet of H in service while the upgrades happen. And then the H fleet can later be put in storage according to the treaties.

How many B-52G’s do you think are sitting about the desert?

Would that number be 0? (I don't know, but tend to remember mass scappings, to comply with treaties).

JayinKitsap · Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:51 am

texl1649 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it's more convenient taking some of the stored pre-H frames and upgrading them in one go. Then you have a full fleet of H in service while the upgrades happen. And then the H fleet can later be put in storage according to the treaties.

How many B-52G’s do you think are sitting about the desert?

I couldn't find a direct answer but this 2013 article in Airforce.mil either implies that 39 B-52G's required to be cut up have been or that all have been cut. However, Wiki indicates "A few examples remain on display for museums." which is not encouraging.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... new-start/

102 B-52H's were built, 76 are getting new engines. Are any of the other 26 B-52H's still in the bone yards?

747classic · Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:24 am

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

JetBuddy · Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:18 pm

Thanks for the spreadsheet!

Plenty of both G and even F models are stored. Likely with far less hours on the frame than the current H.

I think rebuilding and "zero-hour" pre-H frames with the new engines, flight deck, radar and all the bells and whistles would be a better idea than to use the current H. It would probably cost nearly as much as building a new plane from scratch, but upgrading H-frames is not cheap either. And in the end, you'd still have a fleet of H stored if the s*it really hits the fan sometime in the future.

zanl188 · Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:14 pm

Any remaining B-52Gs have been structurally modified as ALCM carriers and are banned by treaty.

JetBuddy · Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:02 pm

zanl188 wrote:
Any remaining B-52Gs have been structurally modified as ALCM carriers and are banned by treaty.

The treaty just says how many active aircraft you can have, it doesn't say you can't upgrade or phase out existing aircraft. If you start with an H, a G or an F is irrelevant.

747classic · Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:07 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Thanks for the spreadsheet!

Plenty of both G and even F models are stored. Likely with far less hours on the frame than the current H.

I think rebuilding and "zero-hour" pre-H frames with the new engines, flight deck, radar and all the bells and whistles would be a better idea than to use the current H. It would probably cost nearly as much as building a new plane from scratch, but upgrading H-frames is not cheap either. And in the end, you'd still have a fleet of H stored if the s*it really hits the fan sometime in the future.

Technically only the -G model can also be used, all other previous series have many structural changes from the -G and -H models .(wet wing with integral fuel tanks, beefed up structure, shortened tail fin by 8 feet, etc.)
Structurally the -G is a -H with older jet engines, but most - G's seem to be spliced (not chopped as the older series !) into pieces to be used for spare parts for the active -H fleet

13 B-52Hs were in storage at AMARG (previous known as AMARC), two have been re-activated to replace hull losses, so 11 remaining.

AFAIK, according the new START ,signed in 2010, extended in 2021 until 2026, The USAF is allowed to have a nuclear bomber force of 113 aircraft (93 B-52H's and 20 B2's).

zanl188 · Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:49 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
zanl188 wrote:
Any remaining B-52Gs have been structurally modified as ALCM carriers and are banned by treaty.

The treaty just says how many active aircraft you can have, it doesn't say you can't upgrade or phase out existing aircraft. If you start with an H, a G or an F is irrelevant.

B-52G was structurally modified in such a way as to be identified as an ALCM carrier by the Soviets. ALCMs and their carriers are banned.

zanl188 · Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:53 pm

747classic wrote:
Structurally the -G is a -H with older jet engines, but most - G's seem to be spliced (not chopped as the older series !) into pieces to be used for spare parts for the active -H fleet

B-52Gs were structurally modified in the 80’s, for treaty verification purposes, and are no longer structurally the same as a B-52H.

zanl188 · Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:58 pm

The B-52G structural mod was done in such a way as to enable treaty verification even if the B-52G was reengined with the Hs TF33s.

zanl188 · Sat Aug 13, 2022 7:44 pm

I just did a google earth tour around Davis Monthan. Maybe I’m blind but I didn’t see any G models, whole or chopped. Did see about a dozen H models.

JetBuddy · Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:05 pm

zanl188 wrote:
747classic wrote:
Structurally the -G is a -H with older jet engines, but most - G's seem to be spliced (not chopped as the older series !) into pieces to be used for spare parts for the active -H fleet

B-52Gs were structurally modified in the 80’s, for treaty verification purposes, and are no longer structurally the same as a B-52H.

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?

That wouldn't violate the treaty.

Buckeyetech · Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:11 pm

zanl188 wrote:
I just did a google earth tour around Davis Monthan. Maybe I’m blind but I didn’t see any G models, whole or chopped. Did see about a dozen H models.

They’ve got the Gs and H models at opposite ends of each other. The H’s are at the extreme north west side of the field, (intact), with the Gs at the south east side, just off the noses of the C-5s. (Quartered up).

zanl188 · Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:13 pm

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.

zanl188 · Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:21 pm

Buckeyetech wrote:
They’ve got the Gs and H models at opposite ends of each other. The H’s are at the extreme north west side of the field, (intact), with the Gs at the south east side, just off the noses of the C-5s. (Quartered up).

I see the C-5s but no G models.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net