USAF Fund B-52 Engine Replacement
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is a bit more complex than that, but in a nutshell, yes. However in the case of AWACS there is an existing thoroughly tested, in production solution: CFM engines. The B-52 does not have that option and the solution is not only not yet developed, but the engine swap is more complicated. And much much more complicated than the engine swap itself is the possible impact on the B-52's weapons release envelopes caused by an engine swap, which AWACS does not have to contend with. That's why it's being addressed now on the B-52, many years before the actual need. Further, since an engine swap MUST be done on the B-52, the earlier it is done the more money will be saved AFTER the swap, potentially paying for itself in savings.
And FWIW, the most difficult part of an engine swap on AWACS will be deciding to go with the older standard CFM-56 engines, or the LEAP versions which cost more, but are more efficient. Are the savings worth the expense when the airframes may not have that many more years left in them? Or do the AWACS users commit early to a life extension program so that the potential savings can be realized?
And FWIW, the most difficult part of an engine swap on AWACS will be deciding to go with the older standard CFM-56 engines, or the LEAP versions which cost more, but are more efficient. Are the savings worth the expense when the airframes may not have that many more years left in them? Or do the AWACS users commit early to a life extension program so that the potential savings can be realized?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except that the engine used on the E-3 went out of production when the E-3 did, more than 25 years ago. The generation that succeeded it is also going OOP, replaced by the LEAP.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...gining-444327/
“A new US Air Force document released last week outlines the details, timeline and likely competitors for a plan to acquire at least 608 new turbofan engines to replace the eight Pratt & Whitney TF33s on each of 76 Boeing B-52H bombers in the US Air Force fleet........
The new engines must not alter the aircraft’s take-off performance and the weapon release envelope, the document says.“.....
“A new US Air Force document released last week outlines the details, timeline and likely competitors for a plan to acquire at least 608 new turbofan engines to replace the eight Pratt & Whitney TF33s on each of 76 Boeing B-52H bombers in the US Air Force fleet........
The new engines must not alter the aircraft’s take-off performance and the weapon release envelope, the document says.“.....
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had to take a guess, the weapon-release issue would involve the airflow between the new and larger nacelle and the body side and its effects on the pylon and stores.
If all these TF-33's get freed up coming off B-52's and the remaining K/E-135's that still have them + spares, I do wonder if that would be enough to keep the smaller E-3 fleet running?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by KenV; 6th Apr 2018 at 14:47.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk to the hobbyists that try to keep steam locomotives running. Not only are the parts no longer available, no one knows how to build those parts anymore. Heck no one can even figure out how to build the F-1 engines that powered the Saturn V moon rockets and they are of more recent vintage than the TF-33. It's a lost art. The problem is even more acute when we're talking about electronics. A lot of the chips that power 10 or even just 5 year old avionics are no longer being made and there is no equipment around anymore to make them. Obsolescence is a HUGE deal and must be carefully planned for.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, not a photo. Artist's rendering. Both the Rolls RB211 and the P&W2040 were considered as possibilities. Nothing came of the ideas, largely because the USAF was agin it. USAF was convinced that the B-52's days were numbered and they would be replaced by the B-70, then the B-1A, then the B-1B, then the B-2, and so on. They thought any money directed at the B-52 would be money competing with those shiny new bombers. But now that they've decided to retire both the B-1 and B-2 and keep the B-52 for multiple more decades, they're finally taking a serious look at re-engining because they have to. And once again, contrary to the various skeptics and cynics, this is a top down idea from USAF trying to solve a real problem, not a bottom up idea from engine manufacturers wishing to sell more engines.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
given the continued apparent usefulness of the B-52 do you think they'd ever go for a replacement - a striaght sub-sonic, BIG, bomb truck that can carry just about anything you can think of?????
Or is it a bit like the fabled DC-3 replacement - so many built and available you could never get the price low enough to build a replacement??
given the continued apparent usefulness of the B-52 do you think they'd ever go for a replacement - a striaght sub-sonic, BIG, bomb truck that can carry just about anything you can think of?????
Or is it a bit like the fabled DC-3 replacement - so many built and available you could never get the price low enough to build a replacement??
This seems like excess money chasing spending opportunities to me.
The US's large engagement in Afghanistan is supported via a 1000 mile truck based logistics chain maintained over less than spectacular Pakistani highways. The true cost per gallon of fuel there is surely several times the norm, yet no one complains. So I don't buy the idea that economics are a factor here either.
The minimal usage of the B-52s, even lower than that of corporate jets, make any economic return on a multi billion re-engining deeply implausible.
Meanwhile, to claim that parts for a 70 year old design cannot be efficiently made any more is just silly. Maybe they would not be made as badly as before, because metallurgy has progressed, but there is no conceivable reason that TF-33s could not be replicated today, at much lower cost than re-certifying the B-52 for a whole new propulsion system.
The US's large engagement in Afghanistan is supported via a 1000 mile truck based logistics chain maintained over less than spectacular Pakistani highways. The true cost per gallon of fuel there is surely several times the norm, yet no one complains. So I don't buy the idea that economics are a factor here either.
The minimal usage of the B-52s, even lower than that of corporate jets, make any economic return on a multi billion re-engining deeply implausible.
Meanwhile, to claim that parts for a 70 year old design cannot be efficiently made any more is just silly. Maybe they would not be made as badly as before, because metallurgy has progressed, but there is no conceivable reason that TF-33s could not be replicated today, at much lower cost than re-certifying the B-52 for a whole new propulsion system.
Etudiant, it's not that simple.
Some of the manufacturing processes and alloys used 70 years ago have been effectively banned due to EPA and OSHA regulations. Newer processes and alloys result in parts that have different mass characteristics - which affects other parts in the engine - which in turn affect other parts, and pretty soon you need to remake the entire engine. So what you end up with is an very expensive re-development of a 70 year old engine design. All the costs of a new, modern engine with the crappy performance of the original.
When we looked at the RB211-535 re-engine ~20 years ago, they were looking at a lease arrangement. The savings in fuel and engine maintenance alone would have paid the lease costs (and that was without factoring in the fact that aerial refueling fuel costs several times more than stuff uploaded on the ground. Plus, a ~30% reduction in fuel burn means a corresponding improvement in range and/or greater payload capabilities.
HH - I doubt the USAF would ever go for a replacement 'bomb truck' - the Air Force brass want their new stuff to be fancy - they just can't help themselves. If they started out with a RFP for a new bomb truck, they'd add so much crap to it before they were done that it would end up costing more than a B-2 (I'm not even remotely optimistic that the new B-21 will come in at anything less than a $Billion per copy and will be less than 10 years late).
George, you are correct that the CMF56-2 that was used to re-engine the KC-135 (and DC-8) is long OOP, but the CFM56-7 on the 737NG isn't going OOP anytime soon (and even when it does, figure it'll be in commercial service at least another 30 years). While I can see some major obstacles to using the LEAP on the P-3 (among other things, it's significantly heavier than the CFM), I don't think a re-engine with the CFM56-7 would be too much worse than the -2. Plus the -7 is already in the US inventory on the P-8. That being said, I suspect the USAF will spring for new AWACs aircraft rather than re-engine.
Some of the manufacturing processes and alloys used 70 years ago have been effectively banned due to EPA and OSHA regulations. Newer processes and alloys result in parts that have different mass characteristics - which affects other parts in the engine - which in turn affect other parts, and pretty soon you need to remake the entire engine. So what you end up with is an very expensive re-development of a 70 year old engine design. All the costs of a new, modern engine with the crappy performance of the original.
When we looked at the RB211-535 re-engine ~20 years ago, they were looking at a lease arrangement. The savings in fuel and engine maintenance alone would have paid the lease costs (and that was without factoring in the fact that aerial refueling fuel costs several times more than stuff uploaded on the ground. Plus, a ~30% reduction in fuel burn means a corresponding improvement in range and/or greater payload capabilities.
HH - I doubt the USAF would ever go for a replacement 'bomb truck' - the Air Force brass want their new stuff to be fancy - they just can't help themselves. If they started out with a RFP for a new bomb truck, they'd add so much crap to it before they were done that it would end up costing more than a B-2 (I'm not even remotely optimistic that the new B-21 will come in at anything less than a $Billion per copy and will be less than 10 years late).
George, you are correct that the CMF56-2 that was used to re-engine the KC-135 (and DC-8) is long OOP, but the CFM56-7 on the 737NG isn't going OOP anytime soon (and even when it does, figure it'll be in commercial service at least another 30 years). While I can see some major obstacles to using the LEAP on the P-3 (among other things, it's significantly heavier than the CFM), I don't think a re-engine with the CFM56-7 would be too much worse than the -2. Plus the -7 is already in the US inventory on the P-8. That being said, I suspect the USAF will spring for new AWACs aircraft rather than re-engine.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Doonfoot, Ayr
Age: 70
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bobby, there have been several proposals to put 4 engines on the B-52 over the decades, but that has now been shelved. Two B-52F's were used to test a single large fan (in place of an inner engine pair) for the C-5 and 747 program, but I do not believe one ever flew with 4 large fans other than in artists renderings.
If all these TF-33's get freed up coming off B-52's and the remaining K/E-135's that still have them + spares, I do wonder if that would be enough to keep the smaller E-3 fleet running?
If all these TF-33's get freed up coming off B-52's and the remaining K/E-135's that still have them + spares, I do wonder if that would be enough to keep the smaller E-3 fleet running?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
That being said, I suspect the USAF will spring for new AWACs aircraft rather than re-engine.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The current trend is to replace such platforms with large business jets with satellite comms and do the vast majority of both the processing and control from the ground. Or even data fusion from all the other airborne sensors - and perhaps reflections from ground emitters to build a multi-polar passive picture.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...t-plan-445844/
https://rusi.org/sites/default/files...proof_3_jm.pdf
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...t-plan-445844/
https://rusi.org/sites/default/files...proof_3_jm.pdf
Etudiant, it's not that simple.
Some of the manufacturing processes and alloys used 70 years ago have been effectively banned due to EPA and OSHA regulations. Newer processes and alloys result in parts that have different mass characteristics - which affects other parts in the engine - which in turn affect other parts, and pretty soon you need to remake the entire engine. So what you end up with is an very expensive re-development of a 70 year old engine design. All the costs of a new, modern engine with the crappy performance of the original.
.
Some of the manufacturing processes and alloys used 70 years ago have been effectively banned due to EPA and OSHA regulations. Newer processes and alloys result in parts that have different mass characteristics - which affects other parts in the engine - which in turn affect other parts, and pretty soon you need to remake the entire engine. So what you end up with is an very expensive re-development of a 70 year old engine design. All the costs of a new, modern engine with the crappy performance of the original.
.
I don't know of an engine parts process that has been outlawed and I'm unaware of an relevant alloy that has become unavailable due to EPA and/or OSHA regs. We're not talking beryllium here, just simple nickel alloys, at least afaik.
Happy to be corrected, but thus far I remain convinced it is just a case of too much money chasing limited spending opportunities.
That seems just implausible to me.
I don't know of an engine parts process that has been outlawed and I'm unaware of an relevant alloy that has become unavailable due to EPA and/or OSHA regs. We're not talking beryllium here, just simple nickel alloys, at least afaik.
Happy to be corrected, but thus far I remain convinced it is just a case of too much money chasing limited spending opportunities.
I don't know of an engine parts process that has been outlawed and I'm unaware of an relevant alloy that has become unavailable due to EPA and/or OSHA regs. We're not talking beryllium here, just simple nickel alloys, at least afaik.
Happy to be corrected, but thus far I remain convinced it is just a case of too much money chasing limited spending opportunities.
You're talking components spinning very rapidly, the failure of which can be catastrophic to the aircraft and crew. There is no such thing as a 'simple' change...