It is a bit disconcerting the first time you look out the side window to land, but after the third or forth time you get used to it
Boeing B-52J / B-52 Re-Engining
It looks strange from the outside. It feels downright unnatural the first time from inside. My first flight in the jump seat looking across the pilots body at the runway went against every piloting instinct I had from flying "normal" airplanes. It is pretty impressive though to watch the pilots look out the side and still scan the panel.
@TomcatViP @Trident, Love it! I was going to make some joke about normal pilots nodding their craniums vertically and BUFF pilots diagonally. The chameleon is brilliant, hats off gentlemen.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,256
- Reaction score
- 13,976
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,061
- Reaction score
- 3,131
Are there 88 operational airframes still?
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reaction score
- 13,278
The USAF fact sheet says 76 operational plus 4 test airframes.
The re-engine order provides 76 plane sets of 8 engines.
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,061
- Reaction score
- 3,131
Thanks mate.
Plus some spare engines (something like 48)
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,061
- Reaction score
- 3,131
Thanks mate. I am pretty sure there are no more airframes in the boneyard fit for retrieval so I suppose that is that.
There are I think exactly eleven, at least one of which I think is beyond repair. But to maintain the current strength they have and will refurbish an airframe. I believe this happened as recently as 2-3 years ago.
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,061
- Reaction score
- 3,131
Ta, I heard 12 in the 'yard recently but we know the interweb is not the most reliable or up to date source at any one time.
The regeneration center in Tucson actually has a list of available airframes; I think you can actually directly read from the Air Force itself how many are available rather than trusting the interwebs and I think it is something in the 10-12 range. I remember finding the site and seeing elven were in storage but one had been parted out or otherwise taken apart such that it could not be restored to flight, but I'm going from memory.
The March 2022 list is up on the website, 11 airframes in inventory:
| 60-0010 | B052H | 28-Aug-08 | CELEBRITY |
| 60-0014 | B052H | 11-Dec-08 | 3 |
| 60-0019 | B052H | 7-Aug-08 | 26 |
| 60-0020 | B052H | 4-Sep-08 | 26 |
| 60-0030 | B052H | 21-Aug-08 | 26 |
| 60-0043 | B052H | 2-Oct-08 | 26 |
| 60-0046 | B052H | 23-Oct-08 | 26 |
| 60-0049 | B052H | 28-Jul-17 | 24 |
| 61-0023 | B052H | 24-Jul-08 | 26 |
| 61-0024 | B052H | 6-Jan-09 | 26 |
| 61-0027 | B052H | 21-Jan-09 | 26 |
icyplanetnhc (Steve)
Trekking into the cosmic ocean
It appears that USAF will be re-designating the reengined B-52s as the B-52J.
aviationweek.com
Honestly, as a long term B-52 replacement, I wonder how viable an airliner derivative would be. The P-8 does set a precedence in terms of an airliner derivative that can launch weapons.
Bomber Force Shift To B-21s, B-52Js Requires Training Revolution: USAF | Aviation Week Network
The coming overhaul of the U.S. Air Force’s bomber fleet to two aircraft will require a large-scale change in the service’s thinking and training after decades of conducting the same missions with a fleet of three bombers.
aviationweek.com
Honestly, as a long term B-52 replacement, I wonder how viable an airliner derivative would be. The P-8 does set a precedence in terms of an airliner derivative that can launch weapons.
- Joined
- 19 February 2007
- Messages
- 1,336
- Reaction score
- 2,323
Because the old wings will get the Air Force and the B-52 to the currently planned "out-of-service" date whereas the old engines will not (at a cost less than that of replacing the old engines).
There is no publicly known reason to replace the wings (like the B-52D Pacer Plank effort of the '70s). And new wings are not "a little more". Have you looked at the cost of A-10 rewinging?
There is no publicly known reason to replace the wings (like the B-52D Pacer Plank effort of the '70s). And new wings are not "a little more". Have you looked at the cost of A-10 rewinging?
Interesting, not like that designation doesn't have a history with reengining the BUFF... Wonder if anything else from the last J comes back?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reaction score
- 13,278
The monster Stand-Off Jammer (SOJ) EW suite? I'd guess not, since they will need the Js as standoff missile shooters instead.
Who says the two roles are mutually exclusive? Back in the day SOJ needed new engines, new generators, CONNECT, MALD-J and the SOJ suite, all the enablers except SOJ are now on the way. The new EW proposed station really didn't do much to the offenders downstairs. Now, nothing about this has been said publicly, but it makes me wonder if that might make a come back quietly some time in the future.
I get the impression the USAF has decided that it will use UAVs for jamming going forward, either small disposable types like MALD-J/X or whatever the "attritable" coponent of NGAD ends up being. In any case I can't see them employing B-52s for the role; it's a non-replaceable, limited fleet that they would want to keep out of HARM's way...
Generally I agree with your take and for shorter wavelengths all of the above makes a whole lot of sense. Where I would disagree is that the BUFF will still stand off to launch MALD's of all flavors, JASSM's and hypersonic cruise missiles (with multi-SMO all three on the same mission). All will be back far enough from any AAD systems. The SO of SOJ is also stand off, the old thought was to have something that would target the longer wavelengths/EW radars that would need large, heavy pods that a Super Bug or UAV couldn't carry. Again the idea was to stand off like for shooting MALD/JASSM/CALCM back in my day.
Granted there's no program of record and it's been a long time since I last saw the wish list, but I wouldn't be shocked if some EW refresh gets floated after the reengine is fully funded.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,256
- Reaction score
- 13,976
Did you sneak in a reference to a certain mishap there?
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reaction score
- 13,278
No. And why?
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,137
- Reaction score
- 8,867
New Power for the B-52 | Air & Space Forces Magazine
A new engine is the centerpiece of a package of upgrades that will keep the B-52 relevant into the 2050s.
www.airforcemag.com
Attachments
I've seen the model hung from the ceiling at the Boeing Wichita plant, turns out there wasn't enough rudder authority for the 757 engines to work, outboard pod clearance was a problem as well. There was a proposal to go 757 engines inboard and CFM56's outboard, but that was a non-starter.
- Joined
- 19 February 2007
- Messages
- 1,336
- Reaction score
- 2,323
It got worse with knock-on problems and their solutions. If you installed a tail/rudder with sufficient authority to control the outboard-engine-out issue (loss of thrust + windmilling drag), you ran out of structural margin in the aft fuselage to sustain the reacted loads. That is to say that that the maximum loads (side load + torsion) would more than likely twist the aft fuselage off the airplane.
(That sort of thing happened with the B-58 in flight test; an outboard engine throttle slam from AB to Idle at Mach 2. The aft fuselage forward of the vertical stabilizer failed as the aircraft yawed beyond limits and the aircraft disintegrated. There was no structural cure, just a note in the Flight Handbook to the effect of "WARNING - Don't do that".)
Of course you could strengthen or replace the B-52 aft fuselage, which would then up the cost [much] further (NRE + new structures validation + flight test program - what could possibly go wrong?). And then, the added weight would shift the C.G. aft, impacting weapons carriage and fuel loading and probably impacting payload...
(That sort of thing happened with the B-58 in flight test; an outboard engine throttle slam from AB to Idle at Mach 2. The aft fuselage forward of the vertical stabilizer failed as the aircraft yawed beyond limits and the aircraft disintegrated. There was no structural cure, just a note in the Flight Handbook to the effect of "WARNING - Don't do that".)
Of course you could strengthen or replace the B-52 aft fuselage, which would then up the cost [much] further (NRE + new structures validation + flight test program - what could possibly go wrong?). And then, the added weight would shift the C.G. aft, impacting weapons carriage and fuel loading and probably impacting payload...
As if the CG isn't already going back with the newer engines, unless of course there's a bunch of ballast...
That’s why I mentioned a splint. Make the wings stronger…wrap around to the landing heat maybe…something like a truss/striker frame us geriatrics all wear, you know…for our lumbago. B-52 isn’t the only thing getting up in years.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,939
- Reaction score
- 11,129
Such as? Less drag? Heat exchangers? Something else?
Wow, eight birds for the CTF, damn. When we were there we just got balls 36 for CONNECT and SOJ. Life was good with two.New Power for the B-52 | Air & Space Forces Magazine
A new engine is the centerpiece of a package of upgrades that will keep the B-52 relevant into the 2050s.
Nice bit of Deja vu, the new pod looks a lot like the old J57 pod.
The BR725 has a mixer at the back of the duct, helps with noise and a bit with drag
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
USAF to Retire B-1, B-2 in Early 2030s as B-21 Comes On-Line- Started by flateric
- Replies: 322
-
-
-
-