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

NMaude said:
With the massive upgrades the B-52s are about to undergo I wonder if these upgrades will include replacing the Hound Dog launch pylons with something modern?
Click to expand...

There is an RFI for giving the AGM-86 pylon type a modern digital interface. I doubt the USAF has anything more ambitious in mind. I think it will adopt 3000# class hypersonics that have a similar weight and volume to AGM-86.
 
F119Doctor said:
Doesn’t NASA still have the B-52H that replaced their early B-52 (A or B) used for the X-15 launches and others? The H model would have just as much payload capability as a J model, and can fly only ~ 8000 miles unrefueled.
Click to expand...
No, Balls 25 was retired to Shepard to live out the rest of her life as a maintenance trainer prior to 2008 while I was still in the 419th. FWIW, that's why we got tagged to do X-51. Yes, I have the patch and worked the program.
 
So has Balls 25 been sent to the Boneyard or has it been refurbished and put back into service?
 
NMaude said:
So has Balls 25 been sent to the Boneyard or has it been refurbished and put back into service?
Click to expand...
It was retired at Sheppard AFB to be the B-52 maintenance trainer (Sheppard is the USAF maintenance schoolhouse). NASA tore out too much of the downstairs to make it worth returning to service. Additionally, they let it sit on the ramp way too long without use, which meant that most of the stuff would have to be refurbished. At the time I was the lead FTE for the B-52 Flight in the 419th, so I was right in the middle of the discussions about how to get the one-time flight from KEDW to KSPS accomplished.
 
mkellytx said:
It was retired at Sheppard AFB to be the B-52 maintenance trainer (Sheppard is the USAF maintenance schoolhouse). NASA tore out too much of the downstairs to make it worth returning to service. Additionally, they let it sit on the ramp way too long without use, which meant that most of the stuff would have to be refurbished. At the time I was the lead FTE for the B-52 Flight in the 419th, so I was right in the middle of the discussions about how to get the one-time flight from KEDW to KSPS accomplished.
Click to expand...

So it wouldn't be worth it refurbishing back to operational condition but I suppose with the B-52 re-engining programme it would be worth it to rebuild it as a B-52J?
 
NMaude said:
So it wouldn't be worth it refurbishing back to operational condition but I suppose with the B-52 re-engining programme it would be worth it to rebuild it as a B-52J?
Click to expand...

The J is not that complete a rebuild in the cockpit area. The "downstairs" that mkellytx refers to is a big chunk of avionics that are not changing from H to J. If they're gone, there really isn't an easy way to replace them.
 
More over there are H bombers at Tucson who could be returned to service if necessary. Only like ten, probably fewer that actually have full parts, but there are existing attrition replacements and no plan (or capability, really) to increase the size of the fleet.
 
NMaude said:
So it wouldn't be worth it refurbishing back to operational condition but I suppose with the B-52 re-engining programme it would be worth it to rebuild it as a B-52J?
Click to expand...
No, It's spent the better part of the last 20 years as a teaching tool for untrained, not yet qualified, not even 3 level trainees. Okay, maybe if the old Boeing Defense types hand re-built the aircraft, then maybe, or maybe if you channel the Collins Foundation guys.

Honestly, it's dead Jim.

If you're willing to go to Collins Foundation levels, then sure, you could make it a J. As others have stated, there are far more reserve airframes that can be converted. Also, you still need something to train all of those new wrench tuners to maintain the old girl. So, why not the bird that's the hardest to restore?
 
TomS said:
The J is not that complete a rebuild in the cockpit area. The "downstairs" that mkellytx refers to is a big chunk of avionics that are not changing from H to J. If they're gone, there really isn't an easy way to replace them.
Click to expand...
@TomS from what I've read the downstairs (offenders' stations) will be changed, it's just that Balls 25 is such a one off that its best service is teaching generation 4/5/6/? how to keep the immortal bird still fighting.
 
NASA may no longer have a B-52H, but there is 60-0036 with an ED tail flash at Oshkosh EAA this week
img_2477-jpeg.735187
IMG_2477.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Well with Balls 25 it could continue as a GB-52H ground instruction airframe, maybe rebuilt to the B-52J standard or given back to NASA as an NB-52H (Once the B-52 re-engining programme has been completed it would have a TON of spare-parts to keep it flying).
 
NMaude said:
Well it's there if NASA changes its collective mind.
Click to expand...
there isn't anything out there that will cause that. NASA now can buy drop services vs owning a seldom used aircraft.
 
Byeman said:
there isn't anything out there that will cause that. NASA now can buy drop services vs owning a seldom used aircraft.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the other drop aircraft are all that much cheaper to operate or keep on retainer.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure that the other drop aircraft are all that much cheaper to operate or keep on retainer.
Click to expand...
There is no paying a "retainer". NASA only pays for a drop. Much like a launch service.
 
In a briefing with reporters Tuesday, Air Force B-52 Division Deputy Senior Materiel Leader Brian Knight said the program’s cost has ballooned from $12.5 billion to roughly $15 billion,
[...]
The Air Force is [...] bringing in new blood in the form of Shay Assad, the Pentagon’s former longtime director of defense pricing notorious for tough negotiations with industry. Assad recently played a critical role in closing a deal with Boeing on the E-7 Wedgetail.

“Well, I don’t want to speak disparagingly against Boeing or anything, but I mean, the government had our own issues too,” Quigley said when asked why Assad was brought on.

“It’s about efficiencies,” he added. “How we do pricing, how we do proposals, how we do contracting […] So we’re just leveraging his experience and expertise on how to become more efficient on both sides.
Click to expand...

breakingdefense.com

'No fail': Air Force officials spotlight cost jumps, delays for B-52 bomber modernization - Breaking Defense

The pricetag to put new engines on the decades-old bomber has jumped from $12.5 billion to $15 billion, while an effort to integrate a new radar has climbed to $3.3 billion from an original forecast of $2.3 billion, service officials revealed.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was assuming that NASA would like to pay for priority access, so they don't get told, "Sure, it'll be 12+ months before we can do your launch. Sorry, lots of people ahead of you."
Click to expand...
Doesn't work that way, and 12 months would be super-fast. The programmatics on most things that they would drop are several years, so that is taken into account as part of the schedule. AF Seek Eagle has to be involved to do their Monte Carlo analysis to make sure whatever is being dropped doesn't hit the airplane (or for AF tests store to store contact). Then since this is a unique object with no TO procedure, the test crews sit down with the NASA/DARPA/other test agency years in advance to study the preliminary results from Seek Eagle, the wind tunnels at Arnold, etc. and write the procedures. Then you validate those procedures in the jet without the object, then captive carry and finally you drop.

That's why I worked X-51 years before it ever launched. After one of our test or prof missions, memory fails, we took the jet as high as we could get it to see if we could make the 50,000 ft NASA/DARPA wanted (hint 49,000 was about all we could give them). All that got fed back into the planning, as did our aircrew response, "You want to light that jury rigged ATACM's motor that close to the jet, no way."

The payments and schedule are done well in advance and meshed with all of the other programs.
 
F119Doctor said:
NASA may no longer have a B-52H, but there is 60-0036 with an ED tail flash at Oshkosh EAA this week
[...]
Click to expand...
Erik Johnston said:
B-52 Testing & Upgrades Oshkosh 2024
This B-52H-150-BW 60-0036 is used for testing new systems. Here we also learn about what upgrades are in store for the B-52.
Click to expand...
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/erRXq9YqoLs?si=PMJre7buv0RFOuz_

Code: 
https://youtu.be/erRXq9YqoLs?si=PMJre7buv0RFOuz_
See also:
theaviationgeekclub.com

Tagboard Flyers: the story of the B-52 bombers that carried the D-21 Mach 3 ramjet-powered reconnaissance drones - The Aviation Geek Club

Tagboard Flyers: the story of the B-52 bombers that carried the D-21 Mach 3 ramjet-powered reconnaissance drones
theaviationgeekclub.com theaviationgeekclub.com
 
mkellytx said:
Doesn't work that way, and 12 months would be super-fast. The programmatics on most things that they would drop are several years, so that is taken into account as part of the schedule. AF Seek Eagle has to be involved to do their Monte Carlo analysis to make sure whatever is being dropped doesn't hit the airplane (or for AF tests store to store contact). Then since this is a unique object with no TO procedure, the test crews sit down with the NASA/DARPA/other test agency years in advance to study the preliminary results from Seek Eagle, the wind tunnels at Arnold, etc. and write the procedures. Then you validate those procedures in the jet without the object, then captive carry and finally you drop.
Click to expand...
Okay, fair enough.


mkellytx said:
That's why I worked X-51 years before it ever launched. After one of our test or prof missions, memory fails, we took the jet as high as we could get it to see if we could make the 50,000 ft NASA/DARPA wanted (hint 49,000 was about all we could give them). All that got fed back into the planning, as did our aircrew response, "You want to light that jury rigged ATACM's motor that close to the jet, no way."
Click to expand...
I somehow doubt that the aircrew response was profanity free. What got passed along was probably scrubbed free of profanity, but I expect what the aircrew actually said had more than a few profanities in it...
 
Scott Kenny said:
I somehow doubt that the aircrew response was profanity free. What got passed along was probably scrubbed free of profanity, but I expect what the aircrew actually said had more than a few profanities in it...
Click to expand...
Surprisingly it was profanity free and very professional. It was a pretty boring meeting, going second by second all of the activities up to drop and ignition of the booster. When we got to that step the test pilots and test navs started talking to themselves and said this other number really would be better. The whole point of the planning sessions is to find stuff like that.
 
I do not understand the problem and choices made for the radar set as explained in the above Aviationweek article.

1st. Why marrying an APG-79 with the processor of an APG-82 and not installing the 82 and upgrade it with what makes it better for ASW? Its not like ´the F-15 would not benefits from the work done.
2nd. What is the details behind switching to honeycomb for the radome? What was the material defect mentioned here?

Any reader´s insight would be appreciated.
 
Kiltonge said:
241 pages summarised: does it have New START fins Y/N.
Click to expand...

New START fin? well they could always reintroduce the original tall tail-fin, I never liked the new fin introduced on the B-52G. It, to me, looked like someone had got a giant pair of hedge-clippers and snipped off the tip of the tail-fin.
 
NMaude said:
New START fin? well they could always reintroduce the original tall tail-fin, I never liked the new fin introduced on the B-52G. It, to me, looked like someone had got a giant pair of hedge-clippers and snipped off the tip of the tail-fin.
Click to expand...
The tall tail actually was less safe than the shorter one (in a reversal of normal experience).
It was easier to damage in sudden maneuvering or rough air, and the extra area didn't contribute anything to yaw prevention, directional stability, etc.
 
That makes sense Forest Green moving to a two bomber force for the USAF, after all the B-1B was only ment to be an interim bomber in the first place hence the main reason why only 100 were ever produced back in the 1980s then to be replaced by the B-2 or at least that was the initial plan.
 
Not normally a Podcast person, but this was a fun listen!

Mike hosts Col. Joseph Little, callsign “Little Joe,” to discuss how the US Air Force is modernizing the legendary B-52 BUFF to keep it flying into the 2050s—100 years after its first flight. Col Little is a B-52 Weapons Systems Officer, a US Air Force weapons school graduate, a former test squadron commander, and currently serving as the Detachment 5 Commander of the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), where he oversees the B-52J program.
The B-52J modernization program is a $48 billion transformation designed to extend the bomber's life into the 2060s. It includes new engines, advanced cockpits, upgraded radar, and more, making it the most significant overhaul in the aircraft's history.
This episode covers not just the tech but also tactics, weapons, historical milestones, and untold war stories. Whether you're a fan of military aviation or interested in strategic operations, this insider’s look at the B-52 is a must-listen!
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
So how’s total thrust and range compared to the old ones?
Click to expand...
TF33-P-3: max power 17,000 lbf (5 min limit), military power 16,500 lbf (30 min limit), max continuous power 14,500 lbf; sfc .78 lb fuel/lb thrust/hour

F130 (modified BR725): max power 17,000 lbf; sfc .657 lb fuel/lb thrust/hour

In addition to burning less fuel, the F130 has fewer parts, is more durable (longer times between planned maintenance and fewer unplanned maintenance actions), and is much easier to work on.
 
BlackBat242 said:
TF33-P-3: max power 17,000 lbf (5 min limit), military power 16,500 lbf (30 min limit), max continuous power 14,500 lbf; sfc .78 lb fuel/lb thrust/hour

F130 (modified BR725): max power 17,000 lbf; sfc .657 lb fuel/lb thrust/hour

In addition to burning less fuel, the F130 has fewer parts, is more durable (longer times between planned maintenance and fewer unplanned maintenance actions), and is much easier to work on.
Click to expand...
My memory is a little fuzzy, but those SFC numbers appear to be at cruise conditions, probably 40K, 0.85M. Takeoff SFC numbers should be closer to 0.55 for TF33, 0.4 for the F130. But the cruise numbers are more applicable for range comparisons.
 
BlackBat242 said:
TF33-P-3: max power 17,000 lbf (5 min limit), military power 16,500 lbf (30 min limit), max continuous power 14,500 lbf; sfc .78 lb fuel/lb thrust/hour

F130 (modified BR725): max power 17,000 lbf; sfc .657 lb fuel/lb thrust/hour

In addition to burning less fuel, the F130 has fewer parts, is more durable (longer times between planned maintenance and fewer unplanned maintenance actions), and is much easier to work on.
Click to expand...
and sadly, no more big clouds of dark smoke :(
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom