Boeing B-52 Re-engine: The Right Choice for the Air Force

Boeing B-52s will remain the backbone of the U.S. bomber force for decades to come. The final and crucial element to the aircraft’s modernization is to replace the engines. New engines will provide economic, operational and environmental benefits. New engines are the right choice to carry the B-52 into the future. Learn more about the B-52 at www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bo...

[@PolluxPavonis]

In service until 2050, and the first flight was in 1952, almost 100 years in active duty... just wow.

[@saintdarthcoder]

It is quite possible to think that the last B52 will be flying longer than any human will have been alive at the time.

[@Seanthefox]

saintdarthcoder It's amazing

[@RainbowManification]

The current inventory is all H models, produced from 1961 to 1963

[@KiwisCassie]

Pollux Pavonis I know! It’s just amazing to think about.

[@SteinErikDahle]

saintdarthcoder, in 2050, a pilot on the B52 could fly the same exact aircraft as his grandfather did, a hundred years earlier! Wow...

[@phugwad]

This idea, of re-engining the B-52s goes all the way back to the 1970s, and has been rejected several times in the past. Back in the 1980s, when I was a B-52 pilot, we were told the big issue was the fact that not only would the engines need to be replaced but many other systems as well, making the project much more than a simple engine replacement. To understand the issue one needs to look at the hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical systems on the B-52. The B-52 has 8 engines but only 4 of them have alternators, 6 have hydraulic systems, and then there is a very complex bleed air system that allows certain engines to supply certain portions of the bleed air system. Since all the proposed re-engining programs involve replacing the 8 ancient engines (turbofan versions of the J-57 developed in the 40s and 50s) presently on the B-52 with 4 modern turbofans, as used on modern airliners. But having only 4 engines would require some of those engines to power two hydraulic systems, meaning a single engine failure could effect both the primary and backup system for a particular control surface or other hydraulic powered system. So the re-engining program would probably also require 1 or more APUs, operable at all altitudes, to provide a backup in case of certain engine failure scenarios. These APUs would have to be mounted somewhere there is presently empty space, then hydraulic, fuel and bleed air system would have to be rerouted to connect to the APUs. All this is possible but would likely make the initial redesign and actual re-engining a much bigger project than it would seem at first blush. Another issue that is not obvious is that your typical B-52 flies far far fewer hours than an airliner. Back in 1986 the typical B-52 I flew was over 25 years old but had less than 10,000 hours of flying time. An airliner in service for 25 years might have from 5-10 times that number of flight hours. So fuel and engine maintenance costs per flight hour on a B-52 relative to the total cost per hour (or per year) are much lower on a B-52 than an airliner. Also, since they waited so long to actually do this re-engining program, instead of the 500 or so B-52s that would have been re-engined back in the 80s, now we are down to well below 100, so the engineering costs are spread over a very small number of airframes. I would have loved to have seen this program done in 1975 but today I think it would make more sense to simply replace the B-52 with an airliner with a bomb bay and B-52 ECM and radar/bomb/nav systems, than it would to sink even more money into an antique airframe.

[@richardgoebel226]

With the current engines the BUFF does not take off, it simply scares the earth away.

[@tohaklim]

Wow, defence lobbying takes to KZbin. What a time to be alive

[@alanhowitzer]

B-52, C-130, A-10, all just about perfect aircraft for their roles.

[@thewaywardwind548]

Please don't forget the KC-135 which made the B-52 program viable. With these four airplanes -- B-52, KC-135, A-10 and C-130 -- the taxpayer has really gotten his money's worth.

[@BoarVessel-BCEtruscanCer-xy7et]

They were back in the 60s & 70s. Less so now.

[@colonelstriker2519]

Alan Fox A-10, B-52, C-130 You see something?

[@MrPaglissi]

Childlike elementary illustrations and narration. Perfect for congress.

[@jetengnexd4348]

Only Boeing can make a plane in 1952 and still use it today.

[@BobCloninger]

The video makes excellent points, but what really jumped out at me is that these airframes will, in some cases, be a century old before they're retired. That's awesome and terrifying at the time.

[@MacOSeX10]

Nice! environment friendly plane with nuclear bombs

[@deltamike33]

The P&W T33 in use today are capable of 75.6kN of thrust, a total of 604.8 kN for 8 engines. It means that the B-52 is capable of flying with only TWO GEnx 70 series from the 787-9 for a total of 620+ kN of thrust!! Just imagine the the ammount of less spare parts that is required for only 2 engines than 8!!

[@ExopMan]

The video repeats itself halfway through...

[@DMSDrummer]

Amazing that the B-52 is already 65 years old! I hope to see the aircraft live to see 100!

[@lindebr]

It's amazing how after 5+ minutes of useless information, nothing about which engine would replace the current ones, would they go with 4 new engines, instead of 8 smaller engines?

[@devreed5931]

Noise reduction for those that live near the base Lol I live in bossier city right next to Barksdale. They have been there so long we don't even notice it.

[@MrDemonicDan]

Awwww, but the sound the B-52 engines make is one of the best things about it

[@danielgreen5803]

It's the sound of money being burned

[@janebook294]

They sang me to sleep every night of the cold war in my childhood years

[@QiuyuanChenRyan916]

8XBR700?

[@WootTootZoot]

MrDemonicDan D and G models had a far better sound than the fan jets the H model does now

[@captainclone1367]

I used to work for Boeing and this has been in the works for more than 25 years. The last I heard was to use the 757 engines, 4 instead of 8.

[@stupidburp]

B-52 should have been retired 25 years ago.

[@needledrop421]

That would be awesome! 4 RB211 or PW2000 engines, though most likely PW2000 (F117).

[@michaelmeyer6306]

They did this with the KC-135 and it worked wonderfully. While there was one unseen problem with the fuel tanks, the tanks had never been filled to full capacity before and new found cracks leaked. It was probably the best buy the Air Force made. This has been talked about for years but the thing that keeps killing it is the age of the airframe.

[@rickydoolous5356]

That;s a real testament to the original design that enables the B52 to remain in service for 90+ years. One question would it be possible to replace the current 8 engines with 4 modern high bypass turbofans or would ground clearance be an issue?

[@Propnut48]

My father was responsible for every b-52 flying today. He was in the Air Force and then Boeing and he re-skinned and re-engined every B-52 over a period of 15 years. He also re-engined and re-boomed the KC-135 tankers too. It save the DOD and the government 100's of millions of dollars.

[@erixtcrc2873]

This is like telemarketing. They're repeating the same stuff twice.

[@pg8483]

Surely with today's engine technology, 4 High Bypass Fans and outperform the 8 relics that are hanging from those pylons. Why not?

[@ZeroTwo-gd5nq]

I like how they don't draw the massive smoke trails the plane leaves behind.

[@yann9378]

EpicClone5082 the smoke trails from takeoff is mostly steam because the engines use water injection so the aircraft can have a heavier load on takeoff.

[@johnleake708]

I was a newborn when the '52 was being designed while my father worked at Boeing in Seattle....

[@rotorheadv8]

Updated engines is a no-brainer.

[@KB4QAA]

It's a no-brain error filled solution. Incredibly expensive for very little gain and not net savings. Very little. Economically it just isn't worth it. Other presentations on YT explain this well.

[@stupidburp]

Brainless is more like it. For not much more we could have an all new high efficiency bomber that is far more advanced and more valuable.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

Stu Bur or keep the B52s and get the new bombers and have double the blowy uppy ability

[@guitarheaven1747]

Regarding the footprint and the regulations it is a wonder that this aircraft is still allowed to fly, even in the military

[@psikogeek]

New B-52 engines have been proposed for a long time: decades. This proposal seemingly differs from some others by retaining eight specialized military engines.

[@markdavis2475]

No offence, but, who was this intended for? My six year old would quite enjoy the graphics! Is this the level that "dumbing down" presentations has descended too?

[@MsMsmak]

It was done to convince trump.

[@AvGeekLucky]

Underrated.

[@deldia]

Mark Davis the military needs to win hearts and minds. That's why the military are happy to help make Hollywood movies.

[@johnfjeldberg7717]

It mentions things like 'carbon footprint', so it's obviously fake news...

[@cmcbunch]

A lot of big corp media looks like this when trying to get a military contract.

[@Longlivedixie7]

I would had suggested showing a drawing of the bomber with the new engines. I would assume it would utilize only 4 high-bypass turbofans?? Keep up the great work Boeing!! The USA loves ya and is very proud of you!!

[@thestigsamericancousin4588]

We just need to strap falcon 9 rockets to the wings and call it a day

[@vanaggson1787]

So what is the additional life expectancy of the airframe? No mention of any analysis of stress and metal fatigue in the airframe and wings in the video. Also the proposed replacement cost needs to be factored into the projections and it seems notably absent.

[@sl600rt]

Use the engines used for the Super Galaxy. Only need 4 engines instead 8. One less engine type in the usaf inventory. Simpler and cheaper logistics.

[@alexp3752]

As a former airline VP in charge of fleet, I am dubious about spending vast sums of money on an already aging airframe. We should have built more B-1's and B-2's when the talent and tooling were available resulting in an overall less cost per airplane. If the B-52 is deemed to be such an important backbone of USAF operations, it should be replaced by entirely new aircraft based on the same specs and design. The fact remains that many 52 pilots are flying aircraft their grandfathers flew! Structural components and electrical wiring age, as do fasteners, etc. A time comes when aircraft need to be put out to pasture, especially with questionable wiring remains. I continue to be worried about the safety of such aircraft with service members aboard. Don't get me wrong, as I don't like to waste money that we do not have a great deal of excess. It just makes sense to scale back the never-ending quagmire of the Middle East and employ our limited resources to take care of our own, here at home. In due course, Europe will be lost to Islam, and over time most EU countries will be governed by Muslims. It will require only a generation before Europe is lost to Islam, so the very need for the continuance of NATO remains increasingly in question. We should be forging more alliances with Poland and other Eastern Block countries and Russia, despite our current conflicts. The world is changing, and we need to consider the long view.

[@hostilepancakes]

This type of plane is the best air support option in a fight against a Rock Lobster.

[@nicholaskeggan]

HostilePancakes, The Milennial Warrior on Planet Claire

[@lioraselby5328]

HostilePancakes, The Milennial Warrior A great plane for a direct flight to the Love Shack

[@CallsignVega]

Re-engine of the B52 is a no-brainer.

[@neilfraser3939]

Notably absent from the video is the price. DefenseNews reports that it would be between $5 and $7 billion. So this should be subtracted from the projected "billions in future savings". I wish there was more information here or on the Boeing website. Can't really form an opinion based on what's presented.

[@pipercub123456]

What does knowledge of cost have to do with keeping this most valuable A/C ready for war..no cost is too high...this is a force multiplier.without parallel..

[@JAKB2002]

They can't keep using the current 1950s era J57, parts are becoming harder to find. Almost every other plane that used this engine has been out of service for decades. The J57 isn't up to standards anymore.

[@rotorheadv8]

Upgrading its engines is a no-brainer. Turbo fan engines that virtually every commercial airliner uses would be the most obvious choice. They are quieter, more fuel efficient and produce as much if not more thrust.

[@SillyPuddy2012]

Hans Krebs - Except no operational B52 runs on the J57 and hasn't for over twenty years man. These are TF33's which are derived from the P&W JT3D, a perfectly good engine. No less relevant than the entire KC135 fleet which are "just" a bunch of old 707's.

[@bc1969214]

Video states $10 Billion in savings over say $7 Billion in costs, not sure if that also includes other improvements like more range so less tanker supports needed.

[@MrDenden94]

Boeing your choice in music while talking about nuclear capabilities is questionable

[@jimpengelly4569]

Makes complete sense to me and I'm surprised that it's taken this long to happen. Are they still running on the original design engines after all these years?!?!?

[@wsharp2005]

Before the 757/767 were built - their engines were tested on a B-52 -- So some of the savings has already been had.

[@myhometechguy]

I am surprised the modernization proposed remains an eight engine configuration. Why not use four larger engines?

[@loslosbaby]

"Not overhauled, ever." I am sold.

[@DBPCINC]

All I wanna know is why the B17 is Americas special unit in Civ V instead of the B52?

[@dimitristsekeris1821]

Some peace wouldn't do harm.

[@jameshenry3530]

Boeing carefully omits identifying which engine(s) are actually suitable for this program.

[@theJoeshomshow]

The Military-industrial complex hard at work.

[@amax1229]

But, what will be the total cost to complete the re-engine program? And, how long will it take?

[@MrEricmopar]

Good luck with that. They've tried to convince the numbnuts in the Pentagon for decades to do this and they refuse. If I remember correctly, they used engines from the 747s quite successfully on a test B-52 some time ago. I do believe more modern engines also put out less of a heat signature, making them less susceptible to heat seeking missiles as well. They really need to build an all new conventional bomber. It costs almost as much as a new plane to rebuild any large aircraft, when they get so old they need new spars and other main airframe parts. The BUFF was a great plane, but it's really time to replace it with another standard heavy design.

[@doctorwigglespank8933]

This is the sort of presentation design you use when you need to convince grade school students that equipping B-52s with new engines is the right choice.

[@markfryer9880]

Well they will be the ones working to pay the taxes to keep the B-52 flying to 2050.

[@MsMsmak]

Or just if you want to convince trump.

[@eastender74]

As a former B52 mechanic and A&P holder. I couldn't be happier if this happens.

[@lightbox617]

Waiting to hear about the function and functionality of new engines

[@hd74xlhs]

kudos Boeing for your B52 engine replacement info-mercial. If it's accurate that USAC has decided to keep the B52 arsenal to 2050, then engine replacement vs refurbishment costs is a good argument to have!

[@WideWorldofTrains]

Nice video

[@mikeklaene4359]

Not sure as to when the last new B-52 was made - will these current airframes last another 30 years? Will the newer high-bypass fan jets have enough ground clearance? I know that there is nothing equivalent to a B-52 for carrying a massive amount of iron bombs. I remember seeing them operating from Utapao in Thailand during the summer of 1968. Very impressive.

[@harveyh3696]

KC135's been re-engined. I've wondered why the B-52 hasn't. Is it a ground clearance issue strapping turbofans under the BUFFs wings? Would the new configuration still be eight engines or four?

[@nosaltadded2530]

Seventy six B-52's in service today. I remember a time when there were more than one hundred.

[@ThomasD1962]

So what type of engine are you thinking of? You must consider the maximum outside diameter because of the ground clearance. There's not much room between engine and the ground.

[@cbrown17982010]

Great video but not once did you mention how much it would cost to refit all 76 bombers with new engines. . .

[@arnoldmayii3563]

This is a great idea!!

[@mstaff657]

How come no mention on thrust reversers?

[@MuffDiver71]

Four CFM56-7s would be good if a little more thrust can be squeezed out. Plenty of parts and commonality.

[@dangutridge3783]

I think Boeing should look back into the 747-CMCA concept, the B-52 needs a supplemental airframe to help the BUFF make her 100th birthday. Given that the B-52 fleet was originally 700 airframes...we 'somehow' lost 624, and it is a stretch to think 76 aircraft can survive another 30 years with that 90% attrition rate So, 747-CMCA...look towards parts commonality (at least the engines.) Try and bundle an E-4B replacement and YAL-1 if possible. Maximize commonality with the B-52 refurbishment & re-engine, push the cost spread savings.

[@tombaldwin9803]

This commercial is geared toward your senators and representatives. It is written to their level of intelligence.

[@Rocdog]

Let's build some new of these War Birds!!!! B-52I or J models! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@stupidburp]

No, stick them all in the bone yard. Time to let them go.

[@richardhead8264]

Please make it happen! Thumbs up!

[@danstraka]

Respect! Absolutely perfect marketing.

[@jimwatts7489]

Time to get a different engine from Germany or France. They are not sold at ripoff prices and we can use there techs to pull maintenance and rebuild them also; for a fraction of what Boeing wants.

[@edwardarruda7215]

What about airframe issues?

[@needledrop421]

Are they still wanting two engines per nacelle? Why not put a single high-bypass turbofan in its place? I bet one of the new CFM Leap or P&W PW1000G would be a great replacement if can fit under the wing.

[@cloroxbleach6335]

Boeing if y'all do not refresh these and save them from the graveyard I'll be a diehard Airbus fan from then on! Make us proud like you did with the 777-9X and YES! a 777-10X is a fantastic idea! Extremely beautiful plane the redesigned 777X family is currently my favorite planes!

[@regmason2329]

I saw nothing about increased speed or ceiling- since this was not covered I assume it is not a factor?

[@darwinthetalkingdolphin8673]

A socially responsible version of the B52. I need a drink.

[@mtnbiker310]

So it would still have 8 engines? I've heard that a 4-jumbo engine scenario wouldn't work because in an engine-out contingency, there would not be enough rudder authority with that relatively small rudder. Would 8 newer but still small diameter engines really give useful cost savings?

[@maxmp150]

Can 3D printing solve the problem of replacing spare parts for old engines?

[@fredferd965]

Great! But what about the WING SPARS? What about the SKIN? You know, the airiplanes with all the visible wrinkles in them!! Then there are the engineering concerns - the engines were designed to work with the wing - put different, heavier engines on the wing, and you change everything! It would be a massive redesign undertaking - flutter, aerodynamics, flexing, etc. And can the airframe take the forces of an incredibly more powerful engine???? Sure, it can be done, but it's going to make Boeing work hard!

[@gwenfulton6140]

I though it was determined that the B-52 could not be re-engined due to VMCA issues. In other words the B-52 does not have enough rudder authority to counteract the loss of an outboard engine on takeoff if the aircraft was re-engined from 8 to 4 engines. Please explain if or how this issue has been solved.

[@uss_04]

Is the majority of the fuselage pressurized during flights? Probably the reason the airframe has lasted so long is due to it not going to so many pressure cycles as commercial airliners.

[@semco72057]

That is a nice idea of putting new engines on all the aircraft, and the maintenance personnel will love that idea.

[@LandNfan]

The BUFF is a great old bird. Let's keep them flying. I used to love seeing them fly in and out of McConnell AFB in Wichita which shared the runways with the Boeing plant that did overhauls on them.

[@Tom_Hadler]

Norman Morgan You're getting misty eyed. Truth be told they're well past retirement age now. Antiques with wrinkly skin - Literally. I fail to see how the airframes can last much longer due to fatigue. Better to design a simple, cheap new heavy bomber I reckon.

[@stupidburp]

We should not keep them flying out of nostalgia. We have better bombers. We can still visit them as static displays in museums.

[@troysimmons9025]

So what kind of engines are under consideration? Would it be a completely new engine or an "off the shelf" product.

[@ryanharveywhite]

Nice to see that the B52 is expected to serve for a long time yet! I didnt really understand from the video, are the engines proposed going to be 4 more powerful engines or 8 more powerful engines? Thanks in advance.

[@garyodle5663]

Four engines would replace eight.

[@fredferd965]

The original engines, I think they were J-57's, or something, were rather low thrust engines - very low compared to modern engines. They would be replaced by 4 new engines, each engine replacing TWO old ones, and producing MUCH more thrust as well. In many ways, it makes sense, but it's going to be difficult! -- Old Man Bob

[@whoareyou1034]

Ryan White they are replacing the current old 8 engiens with 4 new engiens that are more powerful, cheaper and more reliable and easy to keep.

[@firstcynic92]

4. There isn't enough space for modern turbo fans unless you reduce the number of engines.

[@ElonMuckX]

They will throw a few on the tail, make her look like a MD-11........

[@andrewau1993]

how much is The cost for reengine program for all HIS in the us army?

[@deyanlee]

I heard that one engine on the 747-8 has more thrust than all 8 engines on the b-52, so if they used GE Engines wouldn't they get rid of the 8 engines and replace them with 2 or, would they just make 8 more fuel efficient engines? Or would they use 1 GE Engine?

[@stickman3214]

What type of engine will be used? Obviously hi-bypass engines are out of the question, so which low-bypass, non-afterburning engines can be used?

[@andyrodriguez2893]

Love Boeing! Hope I can fly one some day

[@Leon-Hardt]

Good by TF139!

[@weeb6861]

can we put jet engines on the b-17?

[@jaredhuang2225]

Wow they made a video, this is kind of a big deal. I thought the previous study concluded that the vertical stabilizer wasn't big enough to compensate for a 1 of 4 engine out and that was the reason why a re-engine was declined? Are they thinking of 8 smaller engines?

[@ppipowerclass]

How much is it going to cost to re-engine each aircraft?

[@donadams8345]

What is interesting is that the last B-52 came off the production line in 1963. If they keep upgrading and flying these aircraft until the 2050's, they will be approaching 90 years old. Right now they are over 50 years old, which is very old for an active duty aircraft. Perhaps it's time to replace the whole fleet.

[@mr6johnclark]

What engine will be used? It would be nice if it was based around the new 777 engine..

[@Subgunman]

What engine is Boeing proposing for this airframe? Bravo for re engineering the venerable airframe of the 747 into the Dash 8! I would prefer flying on this platform for my transatlantic flights since it would reduce my flight time by at least an hour since it is faster than your competitors current airframes.

[@williedells]

Very cool. What is current thinking? 4 engines or 8 engines? What engines are under consideration?

[@sentosa7]

What is the investment to re-Engine?

[@risingsun9595]

Will it still have the classic 8-engine design though?

[@bobelaviador]

In case of a re-engine, whitch machine should be used?

[@Martimus98]

While I'm no aeronautical engineer, I tend to like the idea of trying to keep these old war horses flying. That said, what about air frame? Many of these bombers have been in active service for over 60 years now. Can the existing superstructure handle the stress of a new powerplant? Considering the amount of time these planes are in the air, I'd be surprised if the major stress points on the airplane haven't taken a beating over the last 60+ years.

[@FrankZ06]

I think it's great to keep the B-52 in service by modernizing it. But what about the air frame? Isn't there a limit to the number of times the plane can pressurize and depressurize? In the past I remember a commercial plane failing because the airframe had gone past the number of pressurization and depressurization cycles.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

FrankZ06 I'm not sure, but it may be that they aren't pressurising the whole plane, just the crew compartments.

[@kinnybingman8666]

Price and performance were not mentioned. I would think that would be more important than milage

[@alexnscn]

8 Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan Each engine up to 17,000 lbs total 136,000 lbs of thrust 4 General Electric GEnx-1B7 (787 Engine) Each engine up to 76,000 lbs, total 304,000 lbs of thrust......... time for an upgrade!

[@AussieWirraway]

I love the B-52 and all, but I can't help thinking that Boeing spends a lot of money on lobbying. just saying

[@GaneshPramod]

Replace the smoky 8 with 4 clean high bypass turbofans