[Indy_Shark]

I read the Air Force is spending $750 million to upgrade the B52H and she will get new engines. Does anyone have any details? I'd love to see a picture with the new engines. What else is going to be upgraded? Will this become the B52J?

[beans4]

New engines have been proposed several times, but AFAIK have always lost out to other USAF priorities. Thought I saw that an avionics upgrade was coming, but that's all I know of.

[johnr]

Have and B52's been fitted with new engines, I recall seeing a picture of one with at least one engine "set" replaced with a single engine. It's a while ago since I saw the picture and I can't remember where, and I don't know if it was a photoshop job.

Regards.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The most recent B-52 avionics upgrade is the CONECT program.

The engine replacement has been considered many times but never approved. If you have seen a picture, it is an illustration and not a photograph.

There is a recent book that covers the avionics and weapons upgrades of the B-52 in considerable detail. I wrote it.

[shep854]

B-52s have been used as airborne test-beds for engines under development; johnr might have seen a photo of one of these.

[Arthur Hubers]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Fri 3 Jul 2009 1920, said:

If you have seen a picture, it is an illustration and not a photograph.

There was the NB-52E engine testbed for the C-5, which had one set of engines replaced by a GE TF-39 for the Galaxy.

http://aerofiles.com/boe-nb52e.jpg

Some more info on this Buff (57-0119) and it's sad fate at http://www.check-six..._the_desert.htm

[Lampshade111]

I can't help but think we will have a B-52X flying in 2080.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

2040 is the currently planned retirement date.

Lampshade111, on Fri 3 Jul 2009 2038, said:

I can't help but think we will have a B-52X flying in 2080.

[Indy_Shark]

You are right. I thought it said it would replace the engines, but it said it was not going to do so.


Boeing Awarded $750M B-52 Engineering Sustainment Contract
WICHITA, Kan., June 30, 2009 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that it has received a $750 million, 10-year contract from the U.S. Air Force to provide engineering support for the B-52 bomber. Under the Engineering Sustainment Program (ESP) contract, Boeing employees in Wichita, Oklahoma City, and Shreveport, La., will perform engineering assignments that maintain the B-52 as a ready, reliable and viable asset to the Air Force.
“The ESP contract will allow Boeing to continue supporting our customer by sustaining, modernizing and upgrading the B-52 to meet the warfighter’s needs both today and in the future,” said Mike Houk, B-52 Fleet Support Program manager for Boeing. “Boeing employees understand the B-52 as well as anyone in the world, and we look forward to continuing to modernize this fleet of vital aircraft.”
The ESP contract replaces Boeing's current B-52 fleet support contract and sustains approximately 150 jobs at Boeing facilities in Wichita and Oklahoma City, and at Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport. Boeing engineers will support software, communications, avionics and electrical upgrades; structural analysis; rewiring; and other tasks as directed by the Air Force.
“This contract also allows us to provide 24/7 in-flight emergency support to aircrews around the world -- the pilots can contact Boeing engineers from the cockpit to troubleshoot and solve problems real-time,” said Houk.
All B-52s in the U.S. inventory were built at and delivered from the Boeing facility in Wichita.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32 billion business with 70,000 employees worldwide.

[Kensuke]

The last plan was to install 4x RB211 engines as used by the 757, but Boeing wanted WAY too much money to do it. Enough so that staying with the TF33s was actually cheaper in the long run. It would have meant a marked increased the range and payload of the BUFF though.

There's also a cheaper alternative that uses JT8D engines, but that hasn't gone anywhere either.

- John

[JN1]

Best I could find picture wise was an artist's impression of a BUFF with generic large turbofans.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c350/JNiemczyk1/Aircraft/B-52J.jpg

[George Newbill]

An increase in Range and Payload?

Mind boggling!

[Doug Kibbey]

"Tower, we've lost four engines!"

JN1, on Wed 8 Jul 2009 0248, said:

Best I could find picture wise was an artist's impression of a BUFF with generic large turbofans.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c350/JNiemczyk1/Aircraft/B-52J.jpg

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Probably not payload.

George Newbill, on Wed 8 Jul 2009 0252, said:

An increase in Range and Payload?

Mind boggling!

[seahawk]

Makes you really wonder why the re-engine program failed. If they want to fly it till 2040 the fuel saved in those 30+years should pay for it alone.

[George Newbill]

You might get some extra payload, you are chucking 4 engines and the associated junk one bolts onto a 1950s jet engine.

[Special-K]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Fri 3 Jul 2009 1706, said:

2040 is the currently planned retirement date.

I wonder if Obama will get rid of some or all of them in coming arms agreements with Medvedev/Putin.




-K

[Kensuke]

Special-K, on Wed 8 Jul 2009 2059, said:

I wonder if Obama will get rid of some or all of them in coming arms agreements with Medvedev/Putin.
-K

Probably not. After all, the Russians would have to give up some Bears in return, and Putin is getting a kick out of his long range recon flights.

- John

[5150]

New engines may not mean that a greater payload can be carried or that maximum range will be extended, but I would be very surprised if the maximum range for a heavy payload was not greater.

This post has been edited by 5150: 09 July 2009 - 0015 AM

[TomasCTT]

JN1, on Wed 8 Jul 2009 1048, said:

Best I could find picture wise was an artist's impression of a BUFF with generic large turbofans.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c350/JNiemczyk1/Aircraft/B-52J.jpg

Is it me or does that make the BUFF look, well, uglier? Nothing technical, them turbofans just don't do the B-52 justice. (I know it's just an artist impression, still...)