USAF Fund B-52 Engine Replacement
Looks like it's really going to happen this time:
https://www.defenseone.com/technolog...rthday/182687/
Later this year, the 76 remaining B-52 Stratofortresses will start to get new engines that just might keep the venerable bomber flying through its 100th birthday.
But “the bones of it are still a 60-year-old airplane,” Gebara said. Each of the remaining 76 bombers was built between 1961 and 1962. The engine overhaul won’t change that—the $11.1 billion CERP, or commercial engine replacement program, is expected to replace only about 10 percent of the bomber’s overall components, Air Force officials said.
Looks like it's really going to happen this time:
https://www.defenseone.com/technolog...rthday/182687/
https://www.defenseone.com/technolog...rthday/182687/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
A one off mind you - with the expected flying hours and engine life, once mounted they’re expected to stay on the aircraft wings until they leave service.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,644
Received 301 Likes
on
169 Posts
100th birthday. The equivalent of the Vickers Vimy retiring about now...
The fleet averages about 200 hours/year/aircraft, so assuming a 20,000hr TBO, they should be able to avoid any major overhaul until 2120.
I've heard of the concept of 'blister pack' weapons, but this is really in another league.
So the per engine prices for the B-52 re-engine would be correspondingly higher than the commercial market.
No doubt some congressional critics will see the difference in prices and make a big stink about how the company is ripping off the government...
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 57
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were seriously looking at a B-52 re-engine program over 20 years ago - math said the savings in fuel burn alone would pay for it. But apparently the USAF thought that giving the B-52 new life would limit their B-2 buy, so they fudged the numbers to say it didn't make economic sense by pricing aerial refueling fuel the same as depot fuel (when in reality it's ~3x the cost). Then of course the B-2 buy got limited anyway so their bluff got called...
"says the B52 engineering, operations and engines expert"
Not just me - see td racers post and many many US Govt studies
Not just me - see td racers post and many many US Govt studies
No doubt that will be taken into account in the bid prices. In the commercial world, it's pretty common that the engine companies sell the engines for new aircraft at (or very near) cost - or even at a slight loss. The profit is in the maintenance and parts - engines will fly 3,000 to 4,000 hrs./year and do that for ~ 60,000 to 100,000 hrs. That's a lot of maintenance and spare parts.
So the per engine prices for the B-52 re-engine would be correspondingly higher than the commercial market.
No doubt some congressional critics will see the difference in prices and make a big stink about how the company is ripping off the government...
So the per engine prices for the B-52 re-engine would be correspondingly higher than the commercial market.
No doubt some congressional critics will see the difference in prices and make a big stink about how the company is ripping off the government...
We have a clear cut 3 way competition, all entrants are technically qualified, winner take all, so it comes down to 'best value'.
I'd think RR would dearly love to be the supplier to the USAF strategic bomber force....
In this instance, perhaps the desire for corporate prestige will override the normal profit maximizing impulse.
We have a clear cut 3 way competition, all entrants are technically qualified, winner take all, so it comes down to 'best value'.
I'd think RR would dearly love to be the supplier to the USAF strategic bomber force....
We have a clear cut 3 way competition, all entrants are technically qualified, winner take all, so it comes down to 'best value'.
I'd think RR would dearly love to be the supplier to the USAF strategic bomber force....
That being said, the RB211-535 (from the 757) was the leading contender when we were looking at this in the late 1990's - the plan being to replace each two engine pod with a single RB211. Being basically an analog engine (no FADEC) with throttle cables would have made the integration into an analog aircraft somewhat easier.
The problem will be to stop every other upgrade idea being piggy-backed onto an engine upgrade................
I see this advertisement in The Air Force Times. It runs almost every day:
GE also has an ad running with some frequency. I have not seen any submissions from Rolls-Royce. What is the status of the bidding and/or contract award?
- Ed
GE also has an ad running with some frequency. I have not seen any submissions from Rolls-Royce. What is the status of the bidding and/or contract award?
- Ed
TDRacer could give real insight into the attractive 'mission creep' opportunities this program offers. Certainly lots of wiring will need to be repurposed/modified.
There are already rumors of a 50% cost increase circulating, so perhaps some mission creep is happening.even before the award.
Not too sure how much corporate prestige there is in the re-engine of a 1950's bomber - heck most people don't know who makes the engines in the F-22 or B-2.
That being said, the RB211-535 (from the 757) was the leading contender when we were looking at this in the late 1990's - the plan being to replace each two engine pod with a single RB211. Being basically an analog engine (no FADEC) with throttle cables would have made the integration into an analog aircraft somewhat easier.
That being said, the RB211-535 (from the 757) was the leading contender when we were looking at this in the late 1990's - the plan being to replace each two engine pod with a single RB211. Being basically an analog engine (no FADEC) with throttle cables would have made the integration into an analog aircraft somewhat easier.
From what I read a while back the issue is to do with changing the centres of thrust and mass of the engines, which affects the relief from aero-elastic bending, fatigue life, etc. So a 'like for like' swap keeps things simple, even if they do need new nacelles.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there not problems with engine-out performance? 1 lost out of 4 being very different from 1 lost out of 8? Think it was to do with assymetric thrust and control authority? But that could be my imagination!