Boeing B-52J / B-52 Re-Engining

navel_guy21 said:
Will the new engines make the weight capacity for the B52 increase or will it be the same
Click to expand...
The main advantage of the new engines is better efficiency and engines that are currently in production and supported. Apparently, all of the spares from the -141's are gone and the TF-33's aren't easily supportable these days. The more efficient engines definitely reduce the need for tankers. Stand-off is still the game for peer adversaries, but permissive environments will still allow for direct weapons such as GBU-12's, 38's and the like.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Contract for New B-52 Engines 'Imminent' | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force expects to award a contract on the B-52 re-engining program within the next nine days, service acquisition officials said Sep. 21.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com



So that's not an actual range, but you can probably deduce it from published figures for the B-52H. And of course, that was a target from before the final selection, so it could change specific to the F130. But any way you slice it, if they get even close to a 40% range increase, that's a huge relief to the tanker force.
Click to expand...

mkellytx said:
The main advantage of the new engines is better efficiency and engines that are currently in production and supported. Apparently, all of the spares from the -141's are gone and the TF-33's aren't easily supportable these days. The more efficient engines definitely reduce the need for tankers. Stand-off is still the game for peer advocacies, but permissive environments will still allow for direct weapons such as GBU-12's, 38's and the like.
Click to expand...
Looking at the B-52H standard aircraft characteristics, with a bomb load of around 35 thousand pounds (internal I presume, which is enough to cover eight 4000 pound class weapons), the plane has a combat radius of around 3500 nautical miles, which looks to be without inflight refueling. A 40% range improvement would add 1400nm to that, for pretty close to 5000 miles. Add a 1500-2000nm cruise missile, and targets potentially up to 7000nm away could be attacked without refueling while returning to the base of origin.

External carriage would reduce that. Potentially by quite a bit, as the G with 8 SRAMs and 12 ALCMs had a radius of just over 1000nm, but that was for a low altitude mission, not high. Low with external stores looks to have around 60% of the radius of low with only internal carriage. Assuming that relationship holds for high altitudes, for the new engines that would translate to a 3000nm radius for a 20 cruise missile loadout. Add in the range of the missile to get the distance from the target without refueling while returning to land where the bomber took off.
 
apparition13 said:
Looking at the B-52H standard aircraft characteristics, with a bomb load of around 35 thousand pounds (internal I presume, which is enough to cover eight 4000 pound class weapons), the plane has a combat radius of around 3500 nautical miles, which looks to be without inflight refueling. A 40% range improvement would add 1400nm to that, for pretty close to 5000 miles. Add a 1500-2000nm cruise missile, and targets potentially up to 7000nm away could be attacked without refueling while returning to the base of origin.

External carriage would reduce that. Potentially by quite a bit, as the G with 8 SRAMs and 12 ALCMs had a radius of just over 1000nm, but that was for a low altitude mission, not high. Low with external stores looks to have around 60% of the radius of low with only internal carriage. Assuming that relationship holds for high altitudes, for the new engines that would translate to a 3000nm radius for a 20 cruise missile loadout. Add in the range of the missile to get the distance from the target without refueling while returning to land where the bomber took off.
Click to expand...
Range is highly dependent on the payload and drag index of the payload. The fuel burn greatly depends on what and how much is on the HSAB's. We used some rules of thumb in test but would mission plan from the performance annex to determine exactly how much gas to use for the mission and/or how much gas to get from the tanker.
 
Forest Green said:
www.defensenews.com

Congress wants to restore nukes on conventional B-52 bombers

With Russia suspending participation in New START and the arms control treaty's future in doubt, Congress wants to restore nuclear weapons to some B-52s.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

I have to agree that from a practical standpoint there are better things to spend money on right now. This is a non issue until there are enough LRSO in inventory to make more delivery platforms necessary, though I think the US will get to that point in the early 2030s.

EDIT: although on second thought, it also seems likely a percentage of the B-52 force will always need to be available for conventional weapons delivery and that not all crews will be trained for nuclear delivery anyway. It is probably best to let the USAF do this when and if they want to rather than have Congress force the issue just to send political messages to little effect.
 
Does this not dpnd on the delivery method and the payload? I doubt they are talking freefall weapons in all fairness.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Does this not dpnd on the delivery method and the payload? I doubt they are talking freefall weapons in all fairness.
Click to expand...

B-52 is not even cleared for free fall any more. AGM-86 is the only game in town, with around 250 estimated active at Minot and a similar number in storage at Kirtland. It is to be replaced by AGM-181 which is planned to have a production run of ~1000.
 
1000 AGM-181s? I thought that they would have a much larger production run than that Josh_TN? Nearer 2000.
 
FighterJock said:
1000 AGM-181s? I thought that they would have a much larger production run than that Josh_TN? Nearer 2000.
Click to expand...

A thousand is the number I saw in a couple articles. Of course such programs might grow with the threat. I suspect the limiting factor is how many W-80 warheads are available for refurbishment to W-80 mod 4. There were something like 1500 made for AGM-86, and more for Tomahawk. I presume the components were saved since it is one of only a half dozen types of warhead still in active service.
 
Hmm what about JASSM-ER? They should be upgraded for it in mid 2010s
 
Josh_TN said:
A thousand is the number I saw in a couple articles. Of course such programs might grow with the threat. I suspect the limiting factor is how many W-80 warheads are available for refurbishment to W-80 mod 4. There were something like 1500 made for AGM-86, and more for Tomahawk. I presume the components were saved since it is one of only a half dozen types of warhead still in active service.
Click to expand...
There were 1,700 AGM-86Bs made out of 4,000 planned! Page 106:

SK2 said:
Hmm what about JASSM-ER? They should be upgraded for it in mid 2010s
Click to expand...
JASSM-XR is more relevant, that's the CALCM replacement.
 
Forest Green said:
JASSM-XR is more relevant, that's the CALCM replacement.
Click to expand...

Conventional cruise missiles have completely different requirements and guidance compared to strategic nuclear weapons. You could use the JASSM aero shell and engine as the basis for a weapon (and presumably that was what was submitted for the LRSO competition), but everything else would be designed from scratch.
 
Josh_TN said:
Conventional cruise missiles have completely different requirements and guidance compared to strategic nuclear weapons. You could use the JASSM aero shell and engine as the basis for a weapon (and presumably that was what was submitted for the LRSO competition), but everything else would be designed from scratch.
Click to expand...
Oh, we were still talking nuclear stuff. I was talking about just as a CALCM for the B-52J.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I mean, we are talking about 1960s ergonomics and modern pilots are ~4" taller on average...
Click to expand...
@Scott Kenny that may be more in reference to the ECS than the seats, although Lord knows all those steam gauges, knobs and switches really challenged the glass cockpit babies ;).

All joking aside, an upgraded ECS that keeps both decks happy would be a major improvement. Let's not forget the original ECS primarily is there to keep the avionics from melting, crew was secondary.
 
I wonder if the re-engine upgrade along with new avionics and glass-cockpit for the upcoming B-52J will include the ability to also carry nuclear-weapons again? From Defense Updates:


Congress is setting the stage to restore nuclear capabilities to approximately 30 B-52H Stratofortress bombers. These bombers had previously been modified to carry only conventional munitions under the New START arms control treaty restrictions with Russia.
Click to expand...
Both the Senate and House defense policy bills for fiscal 2025 mandate that the US Air Force reintegrate these bombers into the nuclear triad, nearly a decade after their nuclear capabilities were removed to comply with the treaty's limits. The current New START treaty is scheduled to expire in February 2026.
Click to expand...
According to the House bill, the Air Force must begin reconverting the bombers within a month after the treaty expires and complete the restoration of their nuclear capabilities by 2029.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why US Congress is working to rearm 30 B-52H Stratofortress bombers with nukes?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #b52bomber #unitedstatesairforce
Click to expand...
Chapters:
Click to expand...
00:11 INTRODUCTION
Click to expand...
01:57 B-52H BOMBER
Click to expand...
05:04 NEED
Click to expand...
06:39 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom