B-52 re-engining

[Dawes]

Looks like it's going forward. From today's DoD contract announcements:

 

Rolls-Royce Corp., Indianapolis, Indiana, has been awarded an estimated $500,870,458 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a six-year base period for B-52 Replacement Engines, with a potential total of $2,604,329,361 if all options are exercised. This contract provides for 608 commercial engines plus spare engines, associated support equipment and commercial engineering data, to include sustainment activities, to be used on the B-52H bomber fleet. The location of performance is Indianapolis, Indiana, and work is expected to be completed by Sept. 23, 2038. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition in which one solicitation was posted and four offers were received. Fiscal 2021 research and development funds in the amount of $5,464,452 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, is the contracting activity (FA8107-21-D-0001).

[DB]

So this is for the F130 engine, one of the BR700 series.

There will be a local production facility in Indianapolis and the initial contact is for about 1/5th of the total mentioned above.

[BansheeOne]

I thought the B-52 was finally getting warp engines.

[Doug]

I get this wistful feeling when I think about the V-bombers. I wish we'd kept them! 

[Stuart Galbraith]

They had problems with the rivets, any Vulcan left outside for long without attention has a problem with the rivets, I think they were magnesium, rusting out.

Im not sure Victors had the same problem, but they lived full, active lives as Tankers, and they couldnt do a lot more iwth them.

Would have been nice to have seen a Vulcan B3 of course. They might have lasted longer.

[Dawes]

In the competition for "longest lived military aircraft", it may come down to B-52 vs C-130.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Depends how you frame it. SOme of the Basler conversion C47's still seem to have a lot of life in them. One of them, an ex RAF one, was even converted into a gunship.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Dawes said:

In the competition for "longest lived military aircraft", it may come down to B-52 vs C-130.

+ Tu-95. It is just something like 6 months younger than a B-52.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

+ Tu-95. It is just something like 6 months younger than a B-52.

One might keep in mind that the Tu-95 was in production until the mid 1990 whereas the last B-52 produced was in 1962.

[shep854]

"+ Tu-95. It is just something like 6 months younger than a B-52."--Bojan

"One might keep in mind that the Tu-95 was in production until the mid 1990 whereas the last B-52 produced was in 1962."--DK Tanker

A rivalry that will outlive us all.

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by shep854

[beans4]

20 hours ago, Doug said:

I get this wistful feeling when I think about the V-bombers. I wish we'd kept them! 

The SAC Museum outside of Omaha, Nebraska has a Vulcan.  It's spent some time outside, but will be taking its turn in the restoration hangar.

 

[Doug]

Imagine a Vulcan with modern engines, weapons and avionics! Would still be very useful in most conflict scenarios. 

[bfng3569]

i wonder what the cost of F-15EX'ing the thing would be.

different story obviously since there is no production line, but why not look into the cost of new builds based off of the 52 with new engines anf 21st tech baked in.

[DB]

MEGAFORTRESS!

[TrustMe]

Why in the age of ballistic missiles do people need bombers?

[sunday]

Proportionality/flexibility of response?
Reliability through redundancy?
Ability to call a strike back?

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by sunday

[urbanoid]

We don't need any other weapons. Mini nukes to deal with e.g. domestic terror threat, medium nukes for COIN and big nukes conventional warfare. If we're worried about enemy nukes destroying our cities and bases, we can always nuke them preemptively.

[RETAC21]

38 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Why in the age of ballistic missiles do people need bombers?

Now or in the 60s? nowadays they are mostly conventionally armed and bring about the ability to loiter, strike from half a  world away, and they are already paid for. In the 60s they were the only platform capable of precise targetting, and were more flexible in terms of targetting, plus more reliable.

[RETAC21]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

We don't need any other weapons. Mini nukes to deal with e.g. domestic terror threat, medium nukes for COIN and big nukes conventional warfare. If we're worried about enemy nukes destroying our cities and bases, we can always nuke them preemptively.

E5M would appreciate your approach, but for points, all of this needs to be done from orbit, to be sure and all that.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The hilarious thing is that Dale Brown predicted this in a megafortress novel 23 years ago. Give it another 20 and it might have Tacit Rainbow and Amraams.

As far as nuclear war, no we do not need bombers anymore. Otoh, many of the arguments against B2 made in the 1990s, ie, a OTH radar can see them coming, I'm not really sure it's true of Russia anymore. China, possibly they would. But is it really realistic to nuclear weapons from them, when precision weapons mean you don't really need nuclear weapons to achieve strategic effects.

 

[Dawes]

There were plenty of videos of Russian Backfires salvoing loads of free-fall bombs in Syria. Much cheaper than guided munitions and you may occasionally hit what you're aiming at. 

[lucklucky]

 

[urbanoid]

Taking U out of the BUFF, it's BFF time.

[DB]

googly eyes.

[BansheeOne]

It was foretold.