GOV/MIL Rolls-Royce Selected for B-52 Re-engining Program

R

Richard

TB Fanatic
www.ainonline.com

Rolls-Royce Selected for B-52 Re-engining Program | AIN

The long-running saga of re-engining the venerable B-52 bomber has now become reality with the award of a major new engine contract to Rolls-Royce.
www.ainonline.com www.ainonline.com

Rolls-Royce Selected for B-52 Re-engining Program
by David Donald
- September 25, 2021, 4:55 AM

B-52 re-engining
Replacing the B-52H’s eight TF33 turbofans with the F130 will give the strategic bomber at least another 30 years of life. (Photo: U.S. Air Force)

On September 24, the Department of the Air Force awarded a $2.6 billion contract to Rolls-Royce Corporation to provide new engines for the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP). The company will build 608 F130 engines to re-engine 76 B-52Hs, as well as 42 spares, in its manufacturing facility in Indianapolis, Indiana. The contract also covers the provision of spares, support equipment, engineering data, and sustainment activities.
The CERP program is aiming to deliver the first two modified bombers by the end of 2025 for testing. By the end of 2028 the first operational batch is due to have been delivered, with the entire fleet to have been re-engined by 2035. Based on the commercial BR725 powerplant, the F130 engine will deliver significant increases in fuel efficiency and range, and major reductions in emissions from unburned hydrocarbons and maintenance costs.
“[CERP] is the most important and comprehensive upgrade to the B-52 in over half a century,” said Maj. Gen. Jason Armagost, director of Strategic Plans, Programs and Requirements at Air Force Global Strike Command. “The B-52 is the workhorse of the nation’s bomber force and this modification will allow it to continue its critical conventional and standoff mission into the 2050s.”
Early proposals to re-engine the B-52H had focused on the use of four large turbofans, but the required structural changes were considered too costly. As a result, the CERP aims to replace each aircraft’s eight 1960s-vintage Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-103 low-bypass ratio turbofans on a one-for-one basis. Installing the new engines is still a complex upgrade, requiring changes to the engine struts and nacelles, as well as on the flight deck. Digital prototyping is being employed to integrate the engines and associated changes in a virtual environment to establish the most cost-efficient and effective solution before making any physical modifications.

The F130 engine is a member of the Rolls-Royce BR700 family, which was developed in the 1990s by Rolls-Royce in a joint venture with BMW. In 2000, Rolls-Royce took over the program in its entirety, including the commercial engine factory at Dahlewitz in Germany. The first version, the BR710, was selected to power the Gulfstream V/G550 and Bombardier Global Express. As such, it is already in U.S. Air Force service with the C-37 and E-11 Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) aircraft. A considerably more powerful derivative, the BR715, powers the Boeing 717 airliner.
Benefitting from a decade of technological advances, the BR725 was certified in 2009 with a larger fan and many internal improvements. With a maximum thrust rating of 16,900 pounds, its initial application was the Gulfstream G650 business jet, now followed—in F130 military form—by the B-52H. Continued development of the BR725 has resulted in the Pearl family that powers the Global 5500/6500 and forthcoming Gulfstream G700 and Dassault Falcon 10X.
 
M

Matt

Veteran Member
Sure wish the military would actually defend this nation's borders instead of blow up mud huts full of easily replaced tribesmen.

This update to an obsolete airframe tells me that the clowns in DC have zero intent of ceasing their military adventures in the land of the troglodytes. The B 52 isn't for actual wars.

The real threats to this country will just rent the whores in office and buy the assets like the shipping ports and the Panama canal.
 
O

OldAndCrazy

Pureblood Forever
Matt said:
Sure wish the military would actually defend this nation's borders instead of blow up mud huts full of easily replaced tribesmen.

This update to an obsolete airframe tells me that the clowns in DC have zero intent of ceasing their military adventures in the land of the troglodytes. The B 52 isn't for actual wars.

The real threats to this country will just rent the whores in office and buy the assets like the shipping ports and the Panama canal.
Click to expand...

Ever been in the AO of a BUFF doing its job? It'll get your attention.
 
Millwright

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
Using a turbine made in the US...I'm shocked.

Figgered it would be outsourced to the chicoms. :rolleyes:
 
N

Night Breeze

Veteran Member
Arc light, Arc light, Arc light. Been there and done that. If you have ever seen 50,000 pounds of high explosives go off and then multiply that by 25 Buffaloes on one bomb run you could never forget it. Saw sand turned into glass and tanks destroyed in Iraq way back when. Awesome elegant killing, those guys are 5 miles high for a low drop and about 8 miles high for a high drop. Diego Garcia is a great place.
 
Wildweasel

Wildweasel

F-4 Phantoms Phorever
Had a buddy who was at a site in northern Saudi Arabia when the BUFFs were working over the Iraqis near Basra. He said you'd see the contrails heading north and soon it would sound like a tremendous thunderstorm was blowing in. "Continuous thunder" was how he described it, saying he felt pity for the poor Iraqi grunts going through that hell on Earth.
 
Doughboy42

Doughboy42

Veteran Member
In 1968, flying to an insertion on 3 UH-1Ds, we had to divert our flight path. Seems we had been routed under an ARC Light strike just north of Saigon. Got to watch impact of 3 lines of bombs from relatively close. That view has stayed with me until today. Awesome doesn't come close to describing what we saw.
 
N

Night Breeze

Veteran Member
Maybe Russia, Israel, or Saudi Arabia could shoot those guys down but not many can reach them and they have bunches of antiaircraft systems for defense.
 
AlfaMan

AlfaMan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Doughboy42 said:
In 1968, flying to an insertion on 3 UH-1Ds, we had to divert our flight path. Seems we had been routed under an ARC Light strike just north of Saigon. Got to watch impact of 3 lines of bombs from relatively close. That view has stayed with me until today. Awesome doesn't come close to describing what we saw.
Click to expand...

WOW. I can imagine it was like watching part of the earth being swallowed up into Hell.

I wonder why the AF is going with such a relatively low thrust engine. I would have thought a higher thrust engine and fewer of them (4 rather than 8) would have been the way to go.
 
Creedmoor

Creedmoor

Tempus Fugit
AlfaMan said:
WOW. I can imagine it was like watching part of the earth being swallowed up into Hell.

I wonder why the AF is going with such a relatively low thrust engine. I would have thought a higher thrust engine and fewer of them (4 rather than 8) would have been the way to go.
Click to expand...
Article mentioned too many changes necessary to wing mounting points among other reasons.
 
E

ellsworth848

Contributing Member
I flew 1200+ hours in the B-52H from '64 to '67. Had 2 outboard engines catch fire at V1 (too late down the runway and going too fast to stop) in an ORI takeoff with a mass gross weight of 488,000 lbs - we got off (barely) and went on to fly a full combat simulated mission. Almost died that day but for the power of the 6 remaining H model fan jets, the two firewalled cruise missles (AGM-28s) and the skill of our pilots and the help of angels.
 
C

CaBuckeye

Contributing Member
I think its cool that the USAF wants to replace 60 year old engines with modern efficient engines but I wonder about the wisdom of spending three billion dollars that might be better off on buying spare parts for other aircraft to improve their readiness rates. USAF (and USN) mission capabity rates are horrendous. Everyone made fun of the fact that although Russia has almost 10,000 tanks, most are inoperative. In fact, the U.S. is not far behind. If a war started today, the readiness of of U.S. military equipment capable of fighting on Day One, would be limited.

1678302770136.png

Yes, U.S. aircraft is aging with pilots younger than some their aircraft, but spare parts is and has always been hind tit for the USAF and US Navy aviation. It's hard to keep planes flying when you are unable to replace a broken part and need to cannibalize another aircraft (Hangar Queens).

If this aircraft was a recently acquired, then this might make since but I wonder if the Generals are fighting last decades war instead projecting for the next war with a peer-to-peer avidsary like China. The B-52 is an awesome beast. Its combat load and range is unmatched BUT only when flying in an uncontested environment. During the Cold War, SAC never disclosed how many B-52's would actually make it to their targets, but projected that none would make it back. This was shown again in Vietnam as the NVA SAM's blew many a BUFF out of the skies during the Linebacker operations.

How do they think they are going to use the up-graded B-52's in the future. Yes, the will be more fuel efficient but will not be able to penetrate a high value target protected by a modern air defense network without massive losses. They will still be just a bomb or long range missile truck. Even the projected cost savings from fuel efficiency goes past the revised aircraft retirement date. The basic fact is that they are still 60 years old. Metal fitague is still around degrading the aircraft on a daily basis and spare parts lines are long gone, Spare parts are usually procured from retired B-52's sitting in the sun at Davis-Mothan AFB in Tucson, Az. If they use is as stand-off Hyper missile launcher 3000 miles away from the target and aid defenses, why not stick them instead on C-5, C-17 or high effiency, low cost commerial derived cargo aircraft. Driving a weapons system down to its lowest common demonator has to be driver for the future. Long gone is the U.S. ability to build 90,000 low cost aircraft a year where a 50% combat loss rate is sustainable. Our adversaries seem to be using the Reagan era tactic of creating revolutionary weapons to force the U.S. in spending hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D and production of new weapons to counter the new weapons. Like WMD's in Irag, most of the Russian and China's new weapons are imagary, don't work as well as advertised or very few in number. Examples are railguns, hyper missiles and SU-57's etc. Like the USS Ford, F-35's, KC-46's, Littorial Combat Ships, Sgt.York AD gun, etc, etc, etc., we seem to have lost the capability to design, build and operate combat equipment anymore.
 
Doughboy42

Doughboy42

Veteran Member
OldAndCrazy said:
Ever been in the AO of a BUFF doing its job? It'll get your attention.
Click to expand...
In 1968, we flew in a UH-1 near several Arc Light Strikes. Unbelievable how violent. The shock waves emanating from the ground were very pronounced and visible. One time we had to do an emergency divert as we were flying into the the path of a strike. Another mission we were tasked with a ground recon damage assessment after a B-52 strike. All we did was climb up and down craters. We did find 2 Ho Chi Minh sandals, both left footed.
 
33dInd

33dInd

Veteran Member
So
Some you air guys and plane guys answer me this
If the B52 airframe is so successful
Why don’t they just build some more all new ones?
 
Roger Thornhill

Roger Thornhill

Some irascible old curmudgeon
33dInd said:
So
Some you air guys and plane guys answer me this
If the B52 airframe is so successful
Why don’t they just build some more all new ones?
Click to expand...

Because almost all of the original tooling and engineering data has been scrapped. All three services, and their incestuous defense contractors, hate to keep a proven design. They'd rather have a cutting-edge (and unproven) design which costs billions, than spend mere millions to maintain a platform which is "only" 97% as effective.

Billions (or even trillions) in new funding is far more profitable for the defense industry, and the senators they play golf with. That's one of the main reasons why they MANDATED the destruction of everything needed to manufacture new A-10s. It was simply too cheap and robust to keep the fat cats' pockets lined.
 
33dInd

33dInd

Veteran Member
Roger Thornhill said:
Because almost all of the original tooling and engineering data has been scrapped. All three services, and their incestuous defense contractors, hate to keep a proven design. They'd rather have a cutting-edge (and unproven) design which costs billions, than spend mere millions to maintain a platform which is "only" 97% as effective.

Billions (or even trillions) in new funding is far more profitable for the defense industry, and the senators they play golf with. That's one of the main reasons why they MANDATED the destruction of everything needed to manufacture new A-10s. It was simply too cheap and robust to keep the fat cats' pockets lined.
Click to expand...
Okay
Thanks
Me being a ground pounder. I was not sure
 
Elza

Elza

Veteran Member
Roger Thornhill said:
Because almost all of the original tooling and engineering data has been scrapped. All three services, and their incestuous defense contractors, hate to keep a proven design. They'd rather have a cutting-edge (and unproven) design which costs billions, than spend mere millions to maintain a platform which is "only" 97% as effective.

Billions (or even trillions) in new funding is far more profitable for the defense industry, and the senators they play golf with. That's one of the main reasons why they MANDATED the destruction of everything needed to manufacture new A-10s. It was simply too cheap and robust to keep the fat cats' pockets lined.
Click to expand...
This is the same reason they scrapped the battleships after bringing them back into service back in the '90's.

The battleships as reconfigured (basically a massive missile platform with 16-inch/50-caliber guns) was a viable war ship. Keeping them running was virtually impossible. Having closed all of the Navy shipyards the parts had to be made from scratch starting with the drawings. Not only were the parts custom made they were custom engineered from the ground up as well.

When I worked at Mare Island Naval Shipyard we could supply a part for a submarine with a 24 hour turn around (depending on the part of course). Can't happen now as all of the jigs and patterns are long gone. Just like those for our airplanes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top