Re-Engine B-52 proposal. (I love this debate)

Latest from AW&ST

Air Force Widens Review Of B-52 Re-Engining Options
By Stephen Trimble
July 7, 2003


The U.S. Air Force is in the early stages of reviewing a proposal that
could roughly double the B-52H's engine power, Boeing officials told
The DAILY.

The Air Force has asked Boeing to greatly expand an ongoing study on
the feasibility of re-engining the B-52H fleet.

A six-month study contract had called for Boeing to deliver an
analysis in July of a proposal to replace the B-52's eight 1950s-era
Pratt & Whitney TF-33 engines with four modern and more efficient
propulsion systems.

But the Air Force now has extended the study to September and asked
the company to research the possibility of replacing the eight TF-33
engines with eight modern engines, Boeing spokesman Paul Guse said.

"Surprisingly, there are some merits to looking at that," Guse said.

Boeing's analysis of the original request for a four-engine upgrade,
which includes a review of alternative financing options, is nearly
complete, Guse said.

The Air Force's new request greatly expands the scope of the study.
Rather than perform the B-52's current mission more efficiently, as a
four-engine upgrade would do, an eight-engine upgrade could
dramatically boost the B-52's overall capability and perhaps expand
its mission envelope - even as the fleet's oldest aircraft approach
the half-century age mark later this decade.

There have been many proposals to install more fuel-efficient and
reliable engines on the B-52 fleet, but none ranked ahead of offensive
and defensive system upgrades on the Air Force's priority list.

Boeing launched the most recent attempt in 1996. The company offered
the Air Force an unsolicited proposal to re-engine the B-52 fleet with
the RB211-535 turbofans built by Rolls-Royce subsidiary Allison Engine
Co. (DAILY, March 14, 1997).

A year later, however, a Pentagon and Air Force analysis found that
"neither a buy nor a lease option to re-engine B-52 is cost
effective." (DAILY, May 14, 1997).

Interest picked up again earlier this year based on a fresh review by
the Defense Science Board, which strongly endorsed the
cost-effectiveness of replacing the B-52's legacy engines (DAILY,
April 8).

"This task force concludes that the economic and operational benefits
far outweigh the program cost," the board's report, dated March 20,
says.

The Pentagon's analysis in 1997 had miscalculated the true cost of
operating the TF-33 engines, the report says. Board members factored
in cost savings from needing fewer mid-air refuelings, priced at
$17.50 per gallon, by using more efficient engines. The Air Force also
had severely underestimated the TF-33's future maintenance costs in
its mid-1990s budget projections, the report says.

In any event, any re-engining proposal would face growing opposition
to using non-appropriated funding, such as operating leases and a
proposed financing mechanism known as Energy Savings Performance
Contracts (ESPC).

Jim Albaugh, chief executive officer of Boeing's Integrated Defense
Systems sector, said he has ruled out a leasing option for re-engining
B-52s (DAILY, June 17).

Also this spring, Congress moved to block a proposal to use an ESPC to
finance a B-52 re-engining program by placing a $100 million cap on a
proposed new pilot program. ESPCs allow the government to finance
certain projects, usually facility upgrades, that promise to reduce an
agency's annual energy bills using the projected fuel savings as
collateral.


..................

C3
http://groomlakeaudubonsociety.netfirms.com

Why double the power? That would probably shorten the life! Why not put
just (2) 70,000lb thrust engines on the inboard pylons (1 engine per wing)
and remove the outer pylons completely. That's still more thrust than it
has now and probably a lot less weight. The wings have the shortest life of
the entire structure. One engine on each might help them somewhat, I think.


"CFA3" wrote in message
om...
Latest from AW&ST

Air Force Widens Review Of B-52 Re-Engining Options
By Stephen Trimble
July 7, 2003


The U.S. Air Force is in the early stages of reviewing a proposal that
could roughly double the B-52H's engine power, Boeing officials told
The DAILY.

The Air Force has asked Boeing to greatly expand an ongoing study on
the feasibility of re-engining the B-52H fleet.

A six-month study contract had called for Boeing to deliver an
analysis in July of a proposal to replace the B-52's eight 1950s-era
Pratt & Whitney TF-33 engines with four modern and more efficient
propulsion systems.

But the Air Force now has extended the study to September and asked
the company to research the possibility of replacing the eight TF-33
engines with eight modern engines, Boeing spokesman Paul Guse said.

"Surprisingly, there are some merits to looking at that," Guse said.

Boeing's analysis of the original request for a four-engine upgrade,
which includes a review of alternative financing options, is nearly
complete, Guse said.

The Air Force's new request greatly expands the scope of the study.
Rather than perform the B-52's current mission more efficiently, as a
four-engine upgrade would do, an eight-engine upgrade could
dramatically boost the B-52's overall capability and perhaps expand
its mission envelope - even as the fleet's oldest aircraft approach
the half-century age mark later this decade.

There have been many proposals to install more fuel-efficient and
reliable engines on the B-52 fleet, but none ranked ahead of offensive
and defensive system upgrades on the Air Force's priority list.

Boeing launched the most recent attempt in 1996. The company offered
the Air Force an unsolicited proposal to re-engine the B-52 fleet with
the RB211-535 turbofans built by Rolls-Royce subsidiary Allison Engine
Co. (DAILY, March 14, 1997).

A year later, however, a Pentagon and Air Force analysis found that
"neither a buy nor a lease option to re-engine B-52 is cost
effective." (DAILY, May 14, 1997).

Interest picked up again earlier this year based on a fresh review by
the Defense Science Board, which strongly endorsed the
cost-effectiveness of replacing the B-52's legacy engines (DAILY,
April 8).

"This task force concludes that the economic and operational benefits
far outweigh the program cost," the board's report, dated March 20,
says.

The Pentagon's analysis in 1997 had miscalculated the true cost of
operating the TF-33 engines, the report says. Board members factored
in cost savings from needing fewer mid-air refuelings, priced at
$17.50 per gallon, by using more efficient engines. The Air Force also
had severely underestimated the TF-33's future maintenance costs in
its mid-1990s budget projections, the report says.

In any event, any re-engining proposal would face growing opposition
to using non-appropriated funding, such as operating leases and a
proposed financing mechanism known as Energy Savings Performance
Contracts (ESPC).

Jim Albaugh, chief executive officer of Boeing's Integrated Defense
Systems sector, said he has ruled out a leasing option for re-engining
B-52s (DAILY, June 17).

Also this spring, Congress moved to block a proposal to use an ESPC to
finance a B-52 re-engining program by placing a $100 million cap on a
proposed new pilot program. ESPCs allow the government to finance
certain projects, usually facility upgrades, that promise to reduce an
agency's annual energy bills using the projected fuel savings as
collateral.


.................

C3
http://groomlakeaudubonsociety.netfirms.com

Boeing launched the most recent attempt in 1996. The company offered
the Air Force an unsolicited proposal to re-engine the B-52 fleet with
the RB211-535 turbofans built by Rolls-Royce subsidiary Allison Engine
Co.

The proposal surfaced again in 1999 after Operation ALLIED FORCE, then again in
early 2002 after Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and now after Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM.

Bottom line, after *every* conflict that B-52s have been involved in since the
initial proposal (which coincidently came a few months after Operation DESERT
STRIKE) the subject has re-surfaced, only to be killed, again and again...


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I would love to see a schematic or drawing of a B-52 with four engines. Do any
exist?

Dean

I would love to see a schematic or drawing of a B-52 with four engines. Do
any
exist?

Dean

Yes, but a quick search under "B-52 RE" (as in re-engine) or "B-52J" didn't
turn it up. I also checked Boeing's homepage as well as Allisons and Rolls
Royce, no soap. A drawing does exist, in fact someone who visited KBAD around
97-98 time frame (we had several visits from guys at HQ USAF, Boeing and
Allison-Rolls Royce)must have handed some out. We had one hanging in Life
Support and others scattered around our squadron. It shows a nice artist
drawing of a re-engined B-52 launching cruise missiles. The title on the top
says; "B-52RE".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

If you do a search for Dale Brown or Megafortress, there are several
drawings & photos (retouched, of course) of Dale Brown's "Old Dog" with
4 engines. It has the other Old Dog mods, but it has the 4 engines.
There's a book by Walter J Boyne about the B-52 that has some drawings
of 4 engine B-52s. One with 1 on each pylon, & another with 2 huge 'fans
paired on the inboard pylons. These are probably '70s, maybe '80s
"proposals".

Has anyone done a study about the usability of such a beast? Could be useful
against hardened targets if you could overcome problems like:

1: Size- you'd need a lotta motor to get a projectile to Mach 5 or higher
in the lower atmosphere.

2: Heating-keeping it from melting.

3: Guidance

4: Range

Maybe some of the technology from the old Sprint ABM missle could be
used. ISTR a proposal for AXE - a plan to use a MX/Peacekeeper
first stage as a booster for an area denial weapon (large quantity of
submunitions instead of upper stage(s)/warhead bus/RVs on top).

I would think that the ability to _accurately_ hit a hardened target
with a LARGE DU/tungsten/titanium penetrator would be very
handy indeed, even if you had to launch it by first dropping it
from a large transport craft, a la the C-141/Minuteman tests
of 25+ years ago!

Comments?

Bert

"Bert Fiore" wrote in message
...
Has anyone done a study about the usability of such a beast? Could be
useful
against hardened targets if you could overcome problems like:

1: Size- you'd need a lotta motor to get a projectile to Mach 5 or higher
in the lower atmosphere.

2: Heating-keeping it from melting.

3: Guidance

4: Range

Maybe some of the technology from the old Sprint ABM missle could be
used. ISTR a proposal for AXE - a plan to use a MX/Peacekeeper
first stage as a booster for an area denial weapon (large quantity of
submunitions instead of upper stage(s)/warhead bus/RVs on top).

I would think that the ability to _accurately_ hit a hardened target
with a LARGE DU/tungsten/titanium penetrator would be very
handy indeed, even if you had to launch it by first dropping it
from a large transport craft, a la the C-141/Minuteman tests
of 25+ years ago!

Comments?


Bring back the Grand Slam, 22,000 lb of hardened steel at Mach 2
should do the job nicely with a guidance package attached. It should
be possible for a B-52 to carry one under each wing where the
Hounddog's used to go

Keith

"Bert Fiore" wrote in message ...
Has anyone done a study about the usability of such a beast? Could be useful
against hardened targets if you could overcome problems like:

1: Size- you'd need a lotta motor to get a projectile to Mach 5 or higher
in the lower atmosphere.

2: Heating-keeping it from melting.

3: Guidance

4: Range

Maybe some of the technology from the old Sprint ABM missle could be
used. ISTR a proposal for AXE - a plan to use a MX/Peacekeeper
first stage as a booster for an area denial weapon (large quantity of
submunitions instead of upper stage(s)/warhead bus/RVs on top).

I would think that the ability to _accurately_ hit a hardened target
with a LARGE DU/tungsten/titanium penetrator would be very
handy indeed, even if you had to launch it by first dropping it
from a large transport craft, a la the C-141/Minuteman tests
of 25+ years ago!

Comments?

Bert

Various studies and experaments have already been conducted, or are
underway, of the viability of using long range ballistic missiles,
ranging from the Army's short range ATACMS all the way up to and
including use of conventionaly armed Minuteman ICBM's as deep
penetration weapons. In addition, there is a current R&D effort afoot
to develop a hypersonic strike system to strike time critical targets;
one owuld imagine that it could also serve as a means of striking very
deep/very hard targets.

I'd suspect that unless range is a non-issue, the ballistic missile
approach might be better than an air launched hypersonic vehicle as a
near-term deep penetrator. The technology is already there and proven,
meaning lower development risk.

Brooks

SSNBuff wrote:

I would love to see a schematic or drawing of a B-52 with four engines. Do any
exist?

There are re-touched photos showing this in Boyne's book on the BUFF.

Guy