USAF outlines plans for upgraded B-52
The Victor wasn't suitable for low level work due to fatigue considerations. As a tanker it carried about 59 tonne of fuel, but was hampered by the offload rate of the old Mk20 wing pods. But a useful tanker.
Vulcan B2K only carried 36 tonnes of fuel (98%+24) and was a single point tanker. Much nicer to prod with an F-4 than the Victor though.
VC10K tankers carried 70-81 tonne depending on the mark and were acquired at fire sale rate from Gulf Air, EAAC and ba. So quite a good deal overall. All were 3-point except for the later VC10C1K conversions.
What would have been the point of wasting any money on the Victor? No use as a low level bomber, massive reworking needed to return the K2 to B2 standard and such time could not be afforded until the VC10K was in service, with only the Vulcan B2K available as back-up. TriStar was never developed into its full potential as a tanker; even the 'glass cockpit' upgrade for ZD949 took years to complete - and after 7 years at Arfur Daley Aerospace in Cambridge it was eventually scrapped having never returned to RAF service. An utter fiasco.
Whereas a modernised multi-role Vulcan would certainly have been worth serious consideration. Self-designating with a large LGB payload (not sure how many - but considerably more than the Tornado) would have made Iraqi bridge-plinking a lot simpler... Able to bomb from 100ft to 50000ft, good range, large payload - it just needed proper upgrading.
But really the RAF should have pressed for the B-1B!
Vulcan B2K only carried 36 tonnes of fuel (98%+24) and was a single point tanker. Much nicer to prod with an F-4 than the Victor though.
VC10K tankers carried 70-81 tonne depending on the mark and were acquired at fire sale rate from Gulf Air, EAAC and ba. So quite a good deal overall. All were 3-point except for the later VC10C1K conversions.
What would have been the point of wasting any money on the Victor? No use as a low level bomber, massive reworking needed to return the K2 to B2 standard and such time could not be afforded until the VC10K was in service, with only the Vulcan B2K available as back-up. TriStar was never developed into its full potential as a tanker; even the 'glass cockpit' upgrade for ZD949 took years to complete - and after 7 years at Arfur Daley Aerospace in Cambridge it was eventually scrapped having never returned to RAF service. An utter fiasco.
Whereas a modernised multi-role Vulcan would certainly have been worth serious consideration. Self-designating with a large LGB payload (not sure how many - but considerably more than the Tornado) would have made Iraqi bridge-plinking a lot simpler... Able to bomb from 100ft to 50000ft, good range, large payload - it just needed proper upgrading.
But really the RAF should have pressed for the B-1B!
Last edited by BEagle; 30th Aug 2018 at 16:14.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long range strike was there for the asking with.. Nimrod MRA4 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ormidable.html
And a bit of fun Nimrod bomber
The idea of a large, flexible and efficient combat platform has bounced around for years Wide body bomber, but the B-52 seems to go through more regenerations than Dr Who, 100 years of the BUFF? How much would they have saved by fitting more efficient engines the first time round?
As for B-1Bs, ISTR the RAF being offered 12 a couple of decades ago when the USAF were downsizing, it would have given great reach but at very high operating costs and it was not the multi mission platform that it has become over the last 20 years, still if money was no object!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ormidable.html
And a bit of fun Nimrod bomber
The idea of a large, flexible and efficient combat platform has bounced around for years Wide body bomber, but the B-52 seems to go through more regenerations than Dr Who, 100 years of the BUFF? How much would they have saved by fitting more efficient engines the first time round?
As for B-1Bs, ISTR the RAF being offered 12 a couple of decades ago when the USAF were downsizing, it would have given great reach but at very high operating costs and it was not the multi mission platform that it has become over the last 20 years, still if money was no object!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The "first time round" was in 1952. The J57s installed then were pretty much state of the art.
2. When the TF33s were installed starting in 1961, they were pretty much state of the art.
3. The TF33s are not being replaced to improve efficiency. They are being replaced because they become unsupportable in 8 to 10 years. To put this in perspective, overhaul costs have tripled in the past 5 years and are continuing on the same upward trend. Improved efficiency, along with much greater time between overhaul is what will make the re-engine project pay for itself. The new engines will also enable much greater power generation capability, which will enable the further upgrade of the Buff over the next 3 to 4 decades. In the new design all eight engines will have generators (currently only four engines have generators) and each generator will have much high power generation capability than the old ones. Who knows, maybe lasers are in the Buff's future?
Last edited by KenV; 30th Aug 2018 at 18:28.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Location Location
Age: 48
Posts: 62
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Alert 5 » Rolls-Royce to offer F130 turbofan for B-52 re-engine program, build them in Indiana - Military Aviation News
Rolls-Royce to offer F130 turbofan for B-52 re-engine program, build them in Indiana
Rolls-Royce will offer the F130 engine for the US Air Force B-52 re-engine program and has chosen its facility in Indianapolis to build the engine if selected....... The engine is currently being used on the E-11 BACN and C-37.
Air Force Magazine
Rolls-Royce to offer F130 turbofan for B-52 re-engine program, build them in Indiana
Rolls-Royce will offer the F130 engine for the US Air Force B-52 re-engine program and has chosen its facility in Indianapolis to build the engine if selected....... The engine is currently being used on the E-11 BACN and C-37.
Air Force Magazine
Whereas a modernised multi-role Vulcan would certainly have been worth serious consideration. Self-designating with a large LGB payload (not sure how many - but considerably more than the Tornado) would have made Iraqi bridge-plinking a lot simpler... Able to bomb from 100ft to 50000ft, good range, large payload - it just needed proper upgrading.
Cleared for 3 during May 1982. The files show that the concerns were (a.) finding a means of designating the weapons and (b.) the value of the targets which might be attacked versus the cost of a Paveway when the efficacy of putting 21x1000lb free fall weapons in the vicinity of the target was likely to achieve the same effect in most instances.
More discussion on the BUFF re-engine program.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017...e-replacement/
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017...e-replacement/
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It wasn't that the AAR system "hadn't been used for years" - it had never been cleared for use because the original trials suggested AAR with a Vulcan was just to challenging for the pilot. So while the provisions were there in the airframes the capability had never been used for anything but trials.
PDR
PDR
