User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 8:51:13 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the 2nd yearly thread about the b52 getting new engines. Someone at USAF must be bored again |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 9:16:03 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s a stupid and shitty reason not to go with 4 vs 8 engines. Accessory drive gearboxes can run two generators, two hydraulic pumps, etc. They do it every day on many aircraft. They're still wired for shit like the hound dog missile. Evidently it would be cheaper to build a new airplane than remove all the obsolete stuff...at least that's the argument I've heard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 9:38:09 AM EDT
[#3]
What can the 52 do that no other plane can do?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 9:46:37 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
About the closest thing I can think of would be a P-8 with Air Force mission equipment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Man...can't we find some way to replace the old B-52s with something more modern but not 'holy Mother of God' expensive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 9:51:50 AM EDT
[#5]
We should just put our collective heads together and come up with the next bomber. It will be called the ARFCOM B-87 Nunn-McCurdy Breacher.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 10:05:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's miles of wiring and plumbing in those birds that would need to be removed / changed - a lot of which, I've been told, nobody is sure where it goes. They're still wired for shit like the hound dog missile. Evidently it would be cheaper to build a new airplane than remove all the obsolete stuff...at least that's the argument I've heard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 10:26:31 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The inboard engines on the -135 with the F108 (CFM56) is way lower to the ground than the outboard engine pods on a fully loaded B-52. I can easily lean my entire upper body in a F108. I’d be lucky to get my chin in the TF33 on the B-52 on the outboard pods. As for weight it the biggest CFM56 I see weighs 8,796 lbs, thats for the airbus A340 based off a quick wiki search. Even TF33 weighs around 4,266 pounds and odds weighs around 4,568 pounds. The cowlings add another 400 pounds or so to each engine. I don’t see weight as the real issue as they are pretty close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 10:39:13 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What can the 52 do that no other plane can do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:02:59 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could this be because the wing in the 135 is a low mounted wing where the 52 is a high mounted wing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:04:45 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What can the 52 do that no other plane can do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:05:49 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or the 747 that carries cruise missiles, if it's not supposed to penetrate enemy airspace |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:09:04 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Land with a main gear that will not extend and not have any damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:13:51 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What can the 52 do that no other plane can do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:15:02 AM EDT
[#14]
Why not just a shit ton of small drones that carry 1 or 6 or however many bombs and can interface with the pilots of smaller aircraft like F35s or B21s, or a high altitude C&C aircraft?
Build the smallest thing possible that can still carry at least one of the heaviest ordnance required. The less ordnance on each bird, the less value the enemy's anti-air assets provide. You could even have cheap, unarmed, high-signature "screening" drones to soak up missile fire, distract, etc. The concept of a single aircraft needing to carry a shit ton of bombs is obsolete. The air war of the future will be swarms of drones controlled by a handful of pilots. They'll pick the ordnance and the target, the swarm will do the rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:17:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Build the smallest thing possible that can still carry at least one of the heaviest ordnance required. The less ordnance on each bird, the less value the enemy's anti-air assets provide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:19:48 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's miles of wiring and plumbing in those birds that would need to be removed / changed - a lot of which, I've been told, nobody is sure where it goes. They're still wired for shit like the hound dog missile. Evidently it would be cheaper to build a new airplane than remove all the obsolete stuff...at least that's the argument I've heard. A team consisting of 2 of each crewchief, engine, hydro, and electric personnel rewired/replumbed everything that runs from the fuselage to the pylon. It took about 10 months till the jet was airborne again, but that included time for the investigation, ordering parts, and procuring tools, changing pylons, waiting for engines (that in itself is a different story...) Yea there are other components that are installed but now defunct. But that stuff is in the tail section and not related to propulsion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:22:15 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does that work? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Land with a main gear that will not extend and not have any damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:23:39 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Transfer fuel caddy corner to whichever gear wont extend. It looks funny watching a -52 land and taxi with a gear retracted because it’s leaning so much. I’ve seen it happen 3 times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:26:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just a shit ton of small drones that carry 1 or 6 or however many bombs and can interface with the pilots of smaller aircraft like F35s or B21s, or a high altitude C&C aircraft? Build the smallest thing possible that can still carry at least one of the heaviest ordnance required. The less ordnance on each bird, the less value the enemy's anti-air assets provide. You could even have cheap, unarmed, high-signature "screening" drones to soak up missile fire, distract, etc. The concept of a single aircraft needing to carry a shit ton of bombs is obsolete. The air war of the future will be swarms of drones controlled by a handful of pilots. They'll pick the ordnance and the target, the swarm will do the rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:26:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean like a cruise missile? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Build the smallest thing possible that can still carry at least one of the heaviest ordnance required. The less ordnance on each bird, the less value the enemy's anti-air assets provide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:27:56 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah, I thought you meant a situation where none of the mains extended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:28:47 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Military planes used to be obsolete by the time they actually were in full production, this thing is heading to be in service for most of a century. Not sure if I'm impressed or appalled. An actual war with a modern enemy? It will be replaced within the first week of WWIII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:34:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s not entirely true. I’m just speaking solely for things that run from the engine pylon to fuselage: A team consisting of 2 of each crewchief, engine, hydro, and electric personnel rewired/replumbed everything that runs from the fuselage to the pylon. It took about 10 months till the jet was airborne again, but that included time for the investigation, ordering parts, and procuring tools, changing pylons, waiting for engines (that in itself is a different story...) Yea there are other components that are installed but now defunct. But that stuff is in the tail section and not related to propulsion. installing new wires around existing wiring is a big reason that those upgrades are a pain; it's a hassle to rout digitally, and adds complexity to the install. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:43:27 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just a shit ton of small drones that carry 1 or 6 or however many bombs and can interface with the pilots of smaller aircraft like F35s or B21s, or a high altitude C&C aircraft? Build the smallest thing possible that can still carry at least one of the heaviest ordnance required. The less ordnance on each bird, the less value the enemy's anti-air assets provide. You could even have cheap, unarmed, high-signature "screening" drones to soak up missile fire, distract, etc. The concept of a single aircraft needing to carry a shit ton of bombs is obsolete. The air war of the future will be swarms of drones controlled by a handful of pilots. They'll pick the ordnance and the target, the swarm will do the rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:47:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Loiter time. Small planes can’t carry the fuel to loiter in an area for 8 hrs not including 6 hrs of transient flight times. True the -52 cant either, but they can take on extra fuel during the planned IFR if they are requested to stay on station longer than scheduled Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not just a shit ton of small drones that carry 1 or 6 or however many bombs and can interface with the pilots of smaller aircraft like F35s or B21s, or a high altitude C&C aircraft? Build the smallest thing possible that can still carry at least one of the heaviest ordnance required. The less ordnance on each bird, the less value the enemy's anti-air assets provide. You could even have cheap, unarmed, high-signature "screening" drones to soak up missile fire, distract, etc. The concept of a single aircraft needing to carry a shit ton of bombs is obsolete. The air war of the future will be swarms of drones controlled by a handful of pilots. They'll pick the ordnance and the target, the swarm will do the rest. The advantage, assuming the same overall number of bombs, is that they can be dropped in many places simultaneously if needed, where a single bomb truck has to prioritize. It's also no great loss if a drone with a bomb gets shot down, it could be a net gain depending on the cost of the missile needed to destroy it. The B52 has been and remains an American legend, but it is a relic at this point. They were designed to break large installations, carpet bomb, and carry nuclear weapons in a time before modern bombs/missiles made that role obsolete. The best modern use of them so far in this thread has been destroying poppy fields. Poppy fields could be destroyed with an armored tractor and some mechanized infantry escorts. Or Artillery/MLRS if the area is really hostile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:50:51 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It works for cave goat fuckers. An actual war with a modern enemy? It will be replaced within the first week of WWIII. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Military planes used to be obsolete by the time they actually were in full production, this thing is heading to be in service for most of a century. Not sure if I'm impressed or appalled. An actual war with a modern enemy? It will be replaced within the first week of WWIII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:55:16 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Hydraulics, ac systems, nitrogen gen (if applicable) fuel systems. Then there is the pesky structures (wing box) and landing gear issue. I guess you could use the area for and aft of the wing box but there would still be significant structural and system modifications. Then there is the issue of analyzing the fatigue and service life. I only deal with static strength and the thought of this and the systems issues with converting a commercial airline to a bomber scares me. I hate to think what the fatigue and damage tolerance guys ( @AeroE ?) think about this. Edit: if I recall the military planes have different G limits. Maybe aeroE can explain.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All joking aside, couldn't something like a 737 be converted to a bomber? Think sheer quantity over bombload and range. Plus, there are so many 737's in the world that literally *nobody* would give two fucks if a few were shot down and/or the pilots killed. A completely disposable weapons system! I only deal with static strength and the thought of this and the systems issues with converting a commercial airline to a bomber scares me. I hate to think what the fatigue and damage tolerance guys ( @AeroE ?) think about this. Edit: if I recall the military planes have different G limits. Maybe aeroE can explain.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:55:22 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because those drones would end up costing 20 million a copy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not just a shit ton of small drones that carry 1 or 6 or however many bombs and can interface with the pilots of smaller aircraft like F35s or B21s, or a high altitude C&C aircraft? Build the smallest thing possible that can still carry at least one of the heaviest ordnance required. The less ordnance on each bird, the less value the enemy's anti-air assets provide. You could even have cheap, unarmed, high-signature "screening" drones to soak up missile fire, distract, etc. The concept of a single aircraft needing to carry a shit ton of bombs is obsolete. The air war of the future will be swarms of drones controlled by a handful of pilots. They'll pick the ordnance and the target, the swarm will do the rest. The B52 will be the last big bomber, its "replacement" will not be designed to replace it in payload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 12:00:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Renton is already building a B737 derivative with a bomb bay and hardpoints on the wing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All joking aside, couldn't something like a 737 be converted to a bomber? Think sheer quantity over bombload and range. Plus, there are so many 737's in the world that literally *nobody* would give two fucks if a few were shot down and/or the pilots killed. A completely disposable weapons system! I only deal with static strength and the thought of this and the systems issues with converting a commercial airline to a bomber scares me. I hate to think what the fatigue and damage tolerance guys ( @AeroE ?) think about this. Edit: if I recall the military planes have different G limits. Maybe aeroE can explain....  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 12:02:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They’ll use some off the shelf bizjet/regional jet engine. Stupid low hanging outer nacelles won’t allow use of four actual modern engines instead of eight ridiculously small ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 12:42:23 PM EDT
[#31]
With the number of engines that would be required, why can't the AF just tell an engine manufacturer to design a drop-in replacement for the current engines that meets their requirements? Granted, I don't design airplanes, but what makes these engines so special that it's so hard to replace them? Somehow "don't want to" and "can't" have become interchangeable phrases when it comes to replacing old military equipment that works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 12:55:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ask the poor bastards that maintain them what a jewel they are. It was a great plane in its youth, but there are many good reasons we don’t fly 707s in passenger service anymore. The 707 died because of 4 engines. A 707 with 2 fans is a 737. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 12:56:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does that work? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Land with a main gear that will not extend and not have any damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:03:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
B-52 and Piece of shit shouldn't be in the same sentence!  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: No that piece of shit already got "new" engines once. This would be the third engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:03:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With the number of engines that would be required, why can't the AF just tell an engine manufacturer to design a drop-in replacement for the current engines that meets their requirements? Granted, I don't design airplanes, but what makes these engines so special that it's so hard to replace them? Somehow "don't want to" and "can't" have become interchangeable phrases when it comes to replacing old military equipment that works. Engine manufacturers do not want or need to build boutique engines that are not profitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:07:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought the B-21 was effectively the replacement for the B-52? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:11:32 PM EDT
[#37]
If it's being purpose-build, say to fly a little north of the 38th parallel, they only have to fly once more...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:12:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most passengers jets have many times the cycles and hours of any aircraft in the USAF or USN inventory. The 707 died because of 4 engines. A 707 with 2 fans is a 737. 737 tanker FTW! The 737 in its current mil form (P-8) couldn't do the job of a bomber unfortunately. The P-8 weapons bay is extremely constricted WRT munitions. A bomber doesn't need to carry around the aircrew that a P-8 does. Finally, the external carriage is too small. A drop in engine is DOA. No reputable engine designer would want to make such a small quantity of single use engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:19:25 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its nonsense. Gun counter grade. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Land with a main gear that will not extend and not have any damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:20:35 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:23:54 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It will be MORE expensive to maintain than the B52.... Apparently the case with the B-1.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought the B-21 was effectively the replacement for the B-52? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:24:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A couple of months past I checked on B-52 re-engining proposals. Basically there is a continuum, never ending commentary, but no will to do more than talk about the issue and occasionally hang an engine on an airplane for a demonstration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:26:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How so? The jets got jacked, components replaced, swung the gear, ops checked good, returned to service. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Land with a main gear that will not extend and not have any damage. It's a ridiculous claim. Dragging any part of the airframe down a runway tears up sheet metal at minimum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:27:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What can the 52 do that no other plane can do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:29:11 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have an idea... Why don't we send a couple of Boneyard BUFFs over to Boeing and let them bring some of the decommissioned ones back to life with new engines! I'm not a fucking engineer, so please don't flame me on this one... I'm just a Patriot and a BUFF Fanboy.... It would be cool to have just ONE more BUFF on deck.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:31:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Deliver Death, Doom, and Destruction for pennies on the dollar compared to B1's and B2's... Even some canned sunshine for good measure.... Also, any canned sunshine the Buff can carry is far reduced, again thanks to the state department. We've had to get rid of the ACMs and Clinton shot off most of the Conventional converted ALCMs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:32:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right there you refute your claim. It's a ridiculous claim. Dragging any part of the airframe down a runway tears up sheet metal at minimum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:33:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have an idea... Why don't we send a couple of Boneyard BUFFs over to Boeing and let them bring some of the decommissioned ones back to life with new engines! I'm not a fucking engineer, so please don't flame me on this one... I'm just a Patriot and a BUFF Fanboy.... It would be cool to have just ONE more BUFF on deck.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: A couple of months past I checked on B-52 re-engining proposals. Basically there is a continuum, never ending commentary, but no will to do more than talk about the issue and occasionally hang an engine on an airplane for a demonstration. Its an overweight junk, and the heat will need to be beefed up. I made a really simple minded layout with the wings raised slightly under a blended fairing in order to get four modern engines under the wing with great clearance. Right away that proves that "the prop bone is connected to rudder bone"; longer outfitters are required. No free lunches, not even cheap lunches when it comes to modifying old airplanes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:34:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man...can't we find some way to replace the old B-52s with something more modern but not 'holy Mother of God' expensive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 1:35:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have an idea... Why don't we send a couple of Boneyard BUFFs over to Boeing and let them bring some of the decommissioned ones back to life with new engines! I'm not a fucking engineer, so please don't flame me on this one... I'm just a Patriot and a BUFF Fanboy.... It would be cool to have just ONE more BUFF on deck.... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
