If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I would love to see a schematic or drawing of a B-52 with four engines. Do any
exist? Dean |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Car engine FAA certified for airplane use | Cy Galley | Home Built | 10 | February 6th 04 03:03 PM |
Objective Engine Discussion | Rick Maddy | Home Built | 26 | October 14th 03 04:46 AM |
1710 allison v-12 engine WWII p 38 engine | Holger Stephan | Home Built | 9 | August 21st 03 08:53 AM |
Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |
Gasflow of VW engine | Veeduber | Home Built | 4 | July 14th 03 08:06 AM |