[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Re-engine the BUFF (again) (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 2/11/2017 10:06:58 AM EDT
|
The USAF is looking at re-engining the BUFF again.
After years of deliberation over whether to buy new engines for the decades-old B-52 bombers, Air Force officials say they are closer than ever to making a decision.
For the past two years, Air Force Global Strike Command has worked with engine manufacturers and financial institutions to put together a business case assessment for replacing the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress’s eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines. Rolls Royce could put forward a system from its BR700 family of engines, which power the Gulfstream 550, Gulfstream 650 and Boeing 717. Pratt & Whitney have promoted a modernization of the TF-33 engines, but could offer the PW 800 or PW1000G. But General Electric’s TF34 could come out ahead of other options because of its history of military use on the A-10 and other aircraft, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Putting eight A-10 engines on a BUFF - MAGA! BUFF new engines |
|
Quoted:
Why does the B-52 need a new engine? Just as a guess, it is probably because the B52 is using an engine that is now (because old) unique to it. Replacing it with a powerplant that is in more common use is probably more cost effective. Plus things like more modern design, better parts availability, increased efficiency and power. If you are a car guy, think of it being similar to doing an LS swap in an old musclecar. Makes more power, more efficient and parts are everywhere for them. |
|
Quoted:
amazing the lifespan on that old girl. No kidding, how old are most of those airframes now? 60 years? It's an amazing testament to the original design, but I've got to admit there's something unnerving about flying around in a plane that came off the line at the same time as a Studebaker. |
|
Quoted:
Just as a guess, it is probably because the B52 is using an engine that is now (because old) unique to it. Replacing it with a powerplant that is in more common use is probably more cost effective. Plus things like more modern design, better parts availability, increased efficiency and power. If you are a car guy, think of it being similar to doing an LS swap in an old musclecar. Makes more power, more efficient and parts are everywhere for them. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the B-52 need a new engine? Just as a guess, it is probably because the B52 is using an engine that is now (because old) unique to it. Replacing it with a powerplant that is in more common use is probably more cost effective. Plus things like more modern design, better parts availability, increased efficiency and power. If you are a car guy, think of it being similar to doing an LS swap in an old musclecar. Makes more power, more efficient and parts are everywhere for them. I think his point was why spend all of this money to re-engine them when the B-21 is supposed to be coming on line |
|
Quoted:
Why does the B-52 need a new engine? The current engines guzzle fuel and have extremely high maintenance costs. The article claims that eight new engines could reduce fuel use by 30% and maintenance costs by 95%. More importantly, unrefueled range increases. 16 years ago they projected that four new engines could reduce fuel consumption by more than that. The result would be billions of dollars in savings on fuel, maintenance and tankers. The cost of fuel delivered by air is about 17 times higher than the cost on the ground. And that's not including things like retirement for the tanker unit Human Resources officers. All of which add up to billions more. |
|
Quoted:
No kidding, how old are most of those airframes now? 60 years? It's an amazing testament to the original design, but I've got to admit there's something unnerving about flying around in a plane that came off the line at the same time as a Studebaker. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430802/David-Welsh-B-52-Air-Force-Capt-Daniel-Swoop-Welch-piloting-plane-father-flew-Cold-War-grandfather-flew-Vietnam.html |
|
Quoted:
I think his point was why spend all of this money to re-engine them when the B-21 is supposed to be coming on line If the Air Force wants to make the B21 happen the best thing they can do is replace their current three bombers with a non-nuclear B21. That would give them the economies of scale that they need to drive costs down, while recapitalizing the fleet, reducing the amount wasted on unnecessary nuclear weapons and reducing the costs of operating through reduced maintenance, fuel and support costs. Bet it won't happen though. |
The sound, start at about 1:00
 B-52 MITO departure, Minot AFB, ND |
|
Quoted:
There are THREE generations of B-52 families out there! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430802/David-Welsh-B-52-Air-Force-Capt-Daniel-Swoop-Welch-piloting-plane-father-flew-Cold-War-grandfather-flew-Vietnam.html Hey, what's that scrawled on the bulkhead? Is that a nude drawing of........ MY Grandmother!!!!!! 
|
|
Quoted:
If the Air Force wants to make the B21 happen the best thing they can do is replace their current three bombers with a non-nuclear B21. That would give them the economies of scale that they need to drive costs down, while recapitalizing the fleet, reducing the amount wasted on unnecessary nuclear weapons and reducing the costs of operating through reduced maintenance, fuel and support costs. Bet it won't happen though. I know the B-1B can carry more ordnance than the B-52, and I've heard it costs less to operate (which seems difficult to believe), so whats the argument to keeping the B-52 in service? |
|
Quoted:
They could put a Gatling gun or 6 on the nose of the B-52 A semi-serious question: With the advent of accurate, modern CIWS that actually hits what it shoots at... should we put the 20mm tail gun back on those bad birds for anti-missile work?  MAGA Fortress!
|
| What a taxpayer "Best Buy". Years ago when they had them at Dyess I was deer hunting and one came over so low(I could see every bottom detail) that I actually ducked from the trees shaking around me. Other thing was I did not hear it until it was right over me. Regards |
|
Quoted:
Except the A-10 desperately needs a new engine, the TF34 is 50 years old. Kharn This spending money on thousands of new engines will create new efficient ways to operate the engine. The R&D used could easily be adapted to the A-10. The BUFF is more than 50 years old, yet, it's still a viable weapon platform. |
|
Quoted:
They could put a Gatling gun or 6 on the nose of the B-52 They could put gatling guns in the bomb bays and drop them. Â Use your precision targeting to aim them as they fall, and then you'd have a kinetic missle at the end. (I know. Â I'm ignore recoil, but that spoils the concept.) |
|
Quoted:
I think his point was why spend all of this money to re-engine them when the B-21 is supposed to be coming on line Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the B-52 need a new engine? Just as a guess, it is probably because the B52 is using an engine that is now (because old) unique to it. Replacing it with a powerplant that is in more common use is probably more cost effective. Plus things like more modern design, better parts availability, increased efficiency and power. If you are a car guy, think of it being similar to doing an LS swap in an old musclecar. Makes more power, more efficient and parts are everywhere for them. I think his point was why spend all of this money to re-engine them when the B-21 is supposed to be coming on line Look how fast the F-35 became operational and below cost.
The B-52 and B-1 is a proven platform that works. Until the B-21 is fully operational we wouldn't want to forget the aircraft we have that work. Kinda like the F-18 and the F-35. A lot of energy and money was pushed into the f-35, but it's still not operational and the f-18 was ignored as estimates expected it to be retiring by now. Then the f-35 is not working properly and now we're scrambling to keep the f-18 for a little longer. |
|
Quoted:
I doubt they will use the A-10 TF34-GE-100A engine if they go with the TF34. https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3743/13311616144_47e73d22d0_b.jpg There's 168 of the TF34-GE-2's just sitting in the boneyard...That's enough to do 21 aircraft, that's a start. Lockheed had an idea to refurbish the Vikings with a new, wider fuselage to make it a new COD aircraft, but the COD contract went to the V-22, even though the V-22 can't transport an F-35 engine. The revamped Viking, the C-3, could have delivered an engine to a carrier. |
|
Quoted:
Lockheed had an idea to refurbish the Vikings with a new, wider fuselage to make it a new COD aircraft, but the COD contract went to the V-22, even though the V-22 can't transport an F-35 engine. The revamped Viking, the C-3, could have delivered an engine to a carrier. That was someone's assfucked shitstained idea that people with common sense shot down that shitty idea fairy before it landed.
|
|
Quoted:
They could put gatling guns in the bomb bays and drop them. Â Use your precision targeting to aim them as they fall, and then you'd have a kinetic missle at the end. (I know. Â I'm ignore recoil, but that spoils the concept.) Quoted:
Quoted:
They could put a Gatling gun or 6 on the nose of the B-52 They could put gatling guns in the bomb bays and drop them. Â Use your precision targeting to aim them as they fall, and then you'd have a kinetic missle at the end. (I know. Â I'm ignore recoil, but that spoils the concept.) 
|
|
Quoted:
I think there's like $300M in the pipeline now to upgrade the existing 76 operating B-52s. If you figure they do the same kind of engine swap they did on the KC-135R, probably cost like $3-4B for the upgrade, with lower maintenance costs moving forward and greater capability. Just one B-21 is $500M. I know the B-1B can carry more ordnance than the B-52, and I've heard it costs less to operate (which seems difficult to believe), so whats the argument to keeping the B-52 in service? The B1B is extremely expensive to operate. But your operational costs are low and costs escalate logarithmically at end of life. |
|
Just food for thought. Â For some this may have never been given attention but the B52 is now equal to us using a B17 Â fleet design to bomb Iraq during the invasion.Â
B52 1955-2017 63 years on entering service B17E 1941-2003 62 years.  I used the because it was first wide use. Probably one of the best designs in aviation history when you factor in time of service. The C130 also is right there with it |
|
Quoted:
A semi-serious question: With the advent of accurate, modern CIWS that actually hits what it shoots at... should we put the 20mm tail gun back on those bad birds for anti-missile work? MAGA Fortress!Quoted:
Quoted:
They could put a Gatling gun or 6 on the nose of the B-52 A semi-serious question: With the advent of accurate, modern CIWS that actually hits what it shoots at... should we put the 20mm tail gun back on those bad birds for anti-missile work? MAGA Fortress!Flight of the Old Dog |
|
Quoted:
Go big or go home. Give it 4 of the 115,000 lb thrust GE90-115B1 engines from the Boeing 777 series. I know, I know, major redesign, ground clearance and durability issues, etc.  Those gotta be as big as the B-52's fuselageÂ
Frikkin awesome engines though.  ETA: I looked it up. The G9X is actually bigger than the fuselage 
|
|
Quoted:
I doubt they will use the A-10 TF34-GE-100A engine if they go with the TF34. https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3743/13311616144_47e73d22d0_b.jpg There's 168 of the TF34-GE-2's just sitting in the boneyard...That's enough to do 21 aircraft, that's a start. Well need to pull those out of the boneyard and put them back on the carriers |
|
Quoted:
Will they still be able to inject water on takeoff? The H-models currently in service never have been water burners. B-52Hs use the TF-33, not the J-57s used on the A through G-models that needed water injection to get off the ground. Just like how the KC-135B with the TF-33 didn't use water injection while the KC-135A with the J-57s earned their "Water Wagon" nickname for their smoky, shrieking, roaring takeoffs when the water was tuned on. I spent several years working next to the KC-135 parking ramp at Seymour Johnson AFB when SAC's 68th Bomb Wing was a tenant unit. They would do ground test runs that would leave your ears ringing for hours after the engines shut down, even if you were indoors with the building doors and windows shut and you being inside an office with the door closed. |
|
Quoted:
It would probably need a crazy amount of re-working of the avionics and other systems for that to be worth it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why have eight engines? Why not have four to cut maintenance costs? |
|
Quoted:
The USAF is looking at re-engining the BUFF again. After years of deliberation over whether to buy new engines for the decades-old B-52 bombers, Air Force officials say they are closer than ever to making a decision.
For the past two years, Air Force Global Strike Command has worked with engine manufacturers and financial institutions to put together a business case assessment for replacing the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress’s eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines. Rolls Royce could put forward a system from its BR700 family of engines, which power the Gulfstream 550, Gulfstream 650 and Boeing 717. Pratt & Whitney have promoted a modernization of the TF-33 engines, but could offer the PW 800 or PW1000G. But General Electric’s TF34 could come out ahead of other options because of its history of military use on the A-10 and other aircraft, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Putting eight A-10 engines on a BUFF - MAGA! BUFF new engines Lets strap an A-10 under each wing. |
|
Quoted:
I doubt they will use the A-10 TF34-GE-100A engine if they go with the TF34. https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3743/13311616144_47e73d22d0_b.jpg There's 168 of the TF34-GE-2's just sitting in the boneyard...That's enough to do 21 aircraft, that's a start. Has that plan to refurb some for Korea gone anywhere? |
|
Quoted:
Better just to retire them. Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably because of the massive yaw moment that a failed outboard engine would cause. Just throw eight brand new JT8Ds like the JSTARS got on it and get on with life. Better just to retire them. 
Oh wait, you're serious.
|