Tango01 | 28 Oct 2014 9:50 p.m. PST |
… Get a New Engine. "For decades, the Pentagon has been toying with the idea of upgrading the B-52 bomber, first built in the mid-1950s. Will they finally get around to it, this time?The U.S. Air Force is taking a serious look at overhauling the nearly 60 year-old B-52 bomber—including a new engine for the ancient plane. The question is not whether it makes sense, but why it hasn't been done before. The answers include poor planning, budgetary procedures that defied economic logic, and at least one bone-headed accounting error. The B-52 first entered service in the mid-1950s. Putting new engines on the "Buff," or Big Ugly Fat (cough) Fella, became a possibility after 1978, when the commercial airplane business launched two modern engines, the Rolls-Royce RB.211-535 and the PW2000. Unlike the first generation of high-bypass engines made for the 747, they were the right size for the Buff, with four new engines replacing the original eight. Pratt & Whitney published a study in early 1982 that showed that the re-engined airplane would fly farther and need less tanker support. But in 1982, gas was cheap. And the Air Force expected to replace all its bombers well before 2000, with 100 B-1Bs and 132 Advanced Technology Bombers—the airplane that became the Northrop Grumman B-2. The idea went nowhere…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Mako11 | 28 Oct 2014 11:19 p.m. PST |
Another way to look at it is that the originals were so good, they've soldiered on for a very long time. |
skippy0001 | 29 Oct 2014 6:09 a.m. PST |
Shades of 'Flight of the Old Dog'. |
Legion 4 | 29 Oct 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
The B-1s and B-2s can carry a considerably larger ordinance load then the old BUFF …
|
Ron W DuBray | 29 Oct 2014 10:25 a.m. PST |
Hers is the best reason to keep using B52 and building more and rebuilding the old ones. B1 Unit cost $283.1 USD million in 1998 B2 Unit cost $737 USD million B52B-52H: Unit cost US$53.4 million (1998) |
SgtPain | 29 Oct 2014 10:37 a.m. PST |
Tango thanks for sharing, found the link very interesting |
Brian Bronson | 29 Oct 2014 10:38 a.m. PST |
But if they do that, the BUFF will no longer be capable of losing 2 engines during a routine flight and making an uneventful 6 engine landing… |
Tango01 | 29 Oct 2014 11:01 a.m. PST |
My pleasure my friend!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Oct 2014 12:55 p.m. PST |
@Brian, if they re-engine the BUFF, losing two engines will no longer BE a routine flight! New turbofans are so much more reliable that even the USN is willing to go to single-engined jets over water. |
Ron W DuBray | 29 Oct 2014 2:55 p.m. PST |
but one of the new engines is as powerful as 2 of the old ones so still on big deal to loose 2 out of 4 |
boy wundyr x | 29 Oct 2014 4:01 p.m. PST |
I would have thought another reason they didn't make the engine change in 1982 was no one expected the B-52 to still be in use 32 years later! |
Legion 4 | 30 Oct 2014 8:31 a.m. PST |
But Ron, what are the ungrade and maintenance costs, etc., for an airframe that old ? Not that I don't like BUFFs, mind you, just saying. And I've heard/seen the B-1 is doing some of the strikes in and around Kobani. Even saw a video of one over the town … |