Rolls-Royce offers engine for B-52 Bombers propulsion modernization

Rolls-Royce offers engine for B-52 Bombers propulsion modernization
WASHINGTON - Rolls-Royce has a pitch for the U.S. Air Force: Pick the BR725 - a variant of the F130 that powers the E-11 and C-37 aircraft - to replace the B-52’s aging engines, and the company will set up a new F130 final assembly and testing to the United States.
“The F130 family of engines that we’re proposing for the propulsion modernization is already a mostly U.S.-made product, and we’re going to take the final step in bringing the assembly and test of that to the U.S., should this program go forward,” Tom Hartmann, Rolls-Royce’s senior vice president of customer business, said during a Sept. 14 briefing with reporters.
Read more: goo.gl/VcievZ

[@Laxpowertoo]

A flight of BUFFs on a carpet laying mission is pure poetry in motion.

[@Chuck59ish]

Just what everyone needs reminding of winter in Minot.

[@bruceradke922]

why not Minot

[@windpower4jp]

--and Glasgow AFB Mt

[@caitgems1]

Anybody know if they're going with the Rolls Royce engines?

[@drbendover7467]

whoever can supply the engine to keep the B52 flying is a good idea.

[@mikesettlemyer5052]

all 3 can we just need pick one

[@ur8up2jabberwocky79]

LOVE ROLLS ROYCE ENGINES, SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. THAT WILL GIVE THEM THE EXTRA POWER THEY NEED.

[@RedArrow73]

We need to bring more of these "Glorious Bastards" out of the Boneyard and back into service.

[@rkflorida4355]

I don't believe the new bombers carry as much as the B-52. The B-2 carries 40,000 lbs and the B-52 carries 70,000 lbs. Range is another plus with the B-52 if not fully loaded. It can ferry itself 10,000 miles. It lacks speed and stealth.

[@dam1041960]

New ones AE: B-1L's, B-2's, B-21's have less pay load than b-52's. And i believe 6-to-12 h's are in the boneyard. for back up. A's thru g's are gone.

[@RedArrow73]

You sound like Rain Man.

[@rca7591a]

They have destroyed a bunch of them already. There once was some 350 or so operational B-52s. Look up Davis Monthan aircraft boneyard on Earth Google. You will see the airframes in open air storage in the desert. Some airframes have been chopped into large pieces. Others appear largely intact, but have been cannibalized for engines, electronics, and airframe components. They are laid out, visible to overhead satellites, for disarmament treaty verification. I'm sure Boeing has the engineering plans somewhere archived. Given enough money, production could be revived. Given the required logistics for vendors and subcontractors, reviving production would be a monumental task. That is likely why the held on to the remaining ones. And upgraded them.

[@rca7591a]

32° 8'50.95"N, 110°49'39.80"W Google Earth coordinates for Davis Monthan boneyard B-52 storage area. Seems to be a lot of useable airframe available. Maybe even enough parts to build a quantity of airworthy units. New wiring, avionics, engines. Maybe some potential for remanufacture of B-52s if there were an urgent enough need.

[@michaelwthalman]

Why mess with perfection IMO. Growing up and watching and hearing those TF33 engines is a sound and smell that one never forgets. That alone would get the enemy looking for a very deep hole. Im for efficiency, but this bird doesn't need it's time tested externals modified. It's a legend...

[@davidhoffman5789]

The B-52 is basically a stand off launch platform. The weapons are launched miles away from the targets. The targets hear very little to nothing.

[@cmscms123456]

The last B-52 crew, hasn't even been born yet. Im proud to say I was part of the B-52's history, at Barksdale AFB LA, 1975-77

[@KB4QAA]

Great footage, thanks!

[@brendaproffitt1011]

Totally incredible and I do greatly appreciate it..

[@ColdSmokes]

The ridiculous fake voice here absolutely ruined what would ha e been a good and informative video. Did somebody really think it was actually comprehensible?

[@willowsloughdx]

Or even comprehensible?

[@DarkSim77]

Don't screw around with Skynet..

[@user-dj3td3ke3q]

@@DarkSim77 .

[@gingerelvira6587]

Ant to top ot oof there showing adds for programing they didn't produce. (closing page now) !!

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

The B52H Stratofortress is a beautiful bomber, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the b21 raider.

[@flamboone9727]

Would the “Goliath” engine of GE not be able to replace the double engine? There looks to be enough ground clearance for those GE engines.

[@dennisweifenbach2647]

I am sure there might be technical reasons and financial ones of course. But why couldn't each pod of two smaller engines, be replaced by a single much newer and efficient larger engine. Any one?

[@rickydoolous5356]

My thoughts too, i suppose ground clearance could possibly be an issue on the outer engines?

[@davidanthony8290]

The pylon would need modification plus the flight deck modifications would increase costs substantially. For instance, the throttle quadrant, the fire control and fuel instruments would be replaced. I hope they do the modifications though as I imagine it would eventually save them the costs of modifying over the life of the aircraft.

[@ptappola]

It's at least partially thrust balance issue. If one engine fails during takeoff, in 8-engine configuration thrust difference is 25% and in 4-engine configuration 50%. And if I have understood correctly, new tail would be needed to handle that 50% difference.

[@FMChimera]

*derp*. Nothing but derp. You may have spun a wrench or two, and probably dropped it in the works... You have no idea at all what you are talking about. I and the entire planet are deeply embarrassed for you.

[@passionquests9214]

You just can't change 8 engines in b52 to 4 commercial large engines. The wing is designed for those engine, and it is designed to do things a DC10 is not. A b52 at this point is a truck to drop cheap bombs from. It can carry alot of them cheaply, The flight per hour is cheaper than B1, b2 and just about any other plane per pound of bomb dropped. Not fancy but good for conventional carpet bombing against non harden targets after everything is gone of air defenses. US does not need alot of them Think about it, 20 units is a heck of a lot of bombing. Btw at a recent air show i boarded every plane including B1, but I could not take pictures of inside of b52 or bomb bay. So there was something there new.

[@lightbox617]

How fast and far could this air frame go with the right engines? Sub sonic, of course but at 675mph instead of 530?

[@nathd1748]

Putting larger diameter more efficient turbofans on this aircraft will increase the range and fuel efficiency but probably not the top end speed. I'd be worried flying one of these things that close to sound!

[@w.herschelljamisonii9127]

They rock, I would love to get a ride in one.

[@onetruekeeper418]

Instead of the eight turbojet engines in use will they be replaced with 4 turbofans like in the C-17 Globemaster?

[@rmo4222]

B52s hadn’t had turbojet engine since late 70’s. J57-19 aNd 29wa uesed in D models and earlier G models had J57-43wa. All H models have Pratt and Whitney TF33-P3, later called P103s.

[@Shelama]

Do these replacement proposals, or any others considered, involved replacing a dual with a single engine, for only 4 engines total?

[@AlphaGametauri]

No, the replacement program will keep the 8 engine configuration. a 4 engine proposal years ago was rejected.

[@fastone942]

it long over due

[@davep5227]

Can we use four engines and have more power and better gas mileage? A commercial engine like what Powers the Boeing 747or the 777?

[@be6322]

Why not use the same engines as the C17 and 757, ditch the 8 for 4.

[@listeed6532]

hell to the no, it wouldn't look like a b52

[@Mikael.formermilitary]

Did the Buff get new engines?

[@LetsFigureThisOut]

In order to re-engine an aircraft, you need to completely re-engineer the aircraft. Go read about the time they wanted to change the tail of the B-52.

[@novoeduardoac1248]

How about replacing the 8 grandpas with 4 Genx 2? Or the mammoth GE 90-115?

[@rmo4222]

Too heavy aND INTAKES too big.

[@DSAK55]

the UK liaison officer for this is Capt. Lionel Mandrake

[@ne1cup]

whynot Minot?

[@SixbyFire]

I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest computer voice I ever heard come over a set of earphones. ~ Major Kong (modernized quote)

[@Fazerman220]

Really interesting topic, but dear god the computer speech is awful, I can't even watch the whole feed due to it

[@strf90105]

I'm not sure when this video was made, but Boeing already uploaded a video on their channel offering a B-52 engine modernization. They listed economic, tactical, logistical and environmental benefits of their new and improved engine. Personally I think Boeing would know better about how to build engines for their own designs, but in the end, military procurement is usually about which option is cheaper.

[@fw1421]

KitsuneHouse Boeing doesn’t build engines. The outsource the pylon,nacell,and engines to other suppliers.

[@strf90105]

fw1421 I guess you're right. My mistake. Then that probably means boeing and rolls royce are working together to try and get the airforce to modernize the engines.

[@lhauxwell4145]

Nice to see that Stephen Hawking's son got a job in media.

[@willowsloughdx]

Makes you wait 59 seconds before you hear the silly robot voice of doom.

[@univibe23]

This old bird! Spent some time on the old G-model...seems like a lifetime ago. It has its faults, but all in all, it's an amazing piece of aeronautical engineering. Little known fact but to this day it's one of the most reliable aircraft in the AF inventory. Hard to believe I know but has far more mission-ready days than either the B1 or the B2.

[@rmo4222]

B1 has the most unreliable engine of them all

[@Rob-vv5yn]

Engine replacement is well over due for these planes, the fuel savings, and range extension alone makes it worthwhile. I bet they go with some cheap local option rather than pay up for the quality Rolls Royce engines which of course will just be more expensive in the long run.

[@nathd1748]

And you're a Jet engine engineer are you?? There are many millions of people around the world who will tell you bluntly that you talk a load of shit. By the way Donald Trump has specified that he made sure his personal 757 was RR powered. And just in case you didn't know....your President has dual US/UK nationality. He has a passport for both countries and has said he is rather proud of his Brit heritage.

[@wetlandstom]

Agree with Gardner S. Let's have a real person as a narrator.

[@semco72057]

Those engines have been needed to be upgraded for years and it is about time that they have been changed since the aircraft is needed for another decade or two.

[@rmo4222]

Nothing wrong with TF33’s, they last 6 thousand hours or more. As in most military spending decisions it’s all politics

[@lobotimized7596]

They shouldn't have stopped producing the vindicator or the hustler not sure about which name was used..That's a supersonic nuclear delivering bomber.

[@jmorton3462]

us defense new i would like to offer my services to narrate your videos

[@larrymangus2934]

The other problem we had in general was a family of spies letting the Vietnamese know when the planes were coming.

[@delta3sigma]

You know something is amiss when the word "propulsion" has to be used when talking about engines for a jet. Think "HYPE".

[@aabaaaabaaa2534]

Imagine the BUFF has been operational since 1956. And it's still one of the most devastating airplanes flying today.

[@rmo4222]

Not really, B52 has several model upgrades . D’s Fs Gs and latest version H’s came in service in early 1970’s.

[@raynus1160]

Long live the '52. Awesome bird.

[@kevinwiltshire2217]

It looks cool but no need for 8 engines.

[@carba8606]

OUR BOYS AT PENTAGON.....doing a good job

[@SteveHolsten]

It's a damn shame our government doesn't have Boeing build 2 to 5 new B-52's each year!

[@granskare]

and I suspect that will be done in the south.

[@garthks]

My personal opinion is that the Air Force should replace the 8 current Engines with 4 Engines like what are used on the C 5's, C 17's, or the Presidential 747-200. These Engines are much more Fuel Efficient, and would also provide more than enough thrust to launch a fully loaded Buff, and allow them to fly greater distances without having to refuel in the air as often.

[@davidhoffman5789]

The B-52 has various rudder control problems during an engine out at critical speed situation, and that is with only one of eight engines failing. A one of four failure would be too much to handle. Also the bigger engines create clearance problems at the outermost pylons

[@larrymangus2934]

What about the airframes, how long are they supposed to last ? What is the role for this plane, conventional war or Nuclear war? Flying these planes into Russia or China would be disasterous.Why did we build the B2 ? How many B52s got shot down in Vietnam ? If I'm not mistaken ,this plane has been around since the early 60s. Maybe the F35 has shown that a new design is beyond our financial reach.

[@G4Disco]

The B-52 can fly both conventional and nuclear missions. They also have the most diverse payload among the bombers. The B-2 is a bit sensitive to fly in all conditions. The reason why so many B-52s were shot down in Vietnam was due to mission planning or lack thereof. They flew the same track and flight level everyday. Once the VC got the SAMs set right it was easy. You're correct, the current aircraft are 60 and 61 models.

[@af757]

4 x RR Trents should do it...

[@WildBillCox13]

Strange that the BUFF is considered upgradable, whereas the Battleships aren't and were left to wither on the funding vine.

[@davidhoffman5789]

The B-52 can be used as a stand-off launch platform for a wide variety of weapons and missiles. The big battleships were getting less useful as ship to ship missiles have come to dominate naval warfare and littoral warfare.

[@MyTaurus35]

Pratt & Whitney F117 being used on C-17 is a better option. No need to have 8 engines per plane. This isn't 1950's. USAF already has the engine in inventory and maintenance training wouldn't be required.

[@badrobot2765]

They wouldnt fit under the wings i doubt

[@ronhaworth5808]

There's a lot more involved than just slapping 4 bigger engines on it. The B-52H was designed with a smaller tail than the earlier models so it wouldn't rip off during high speed low altitude flight. But this created a command authority problem at low speeds to which a crabbing system had to be added for cross-wind landings and special procedures to follow in a engine failure at low speed. The problem is the B-52H can only suffer one engine failure on one wing at a time and still be controllable. With the 8-enigne set the loss of one results in a 25% loss of power on one side. But with 4 larger engines a engine loss would result in 50% loss of power on one side which would be uncontrollable. So to go with 4 engines they would have to retrofit the B-52H's with the larger tail of the earlier models. Next, the B-52 has a inboard weapons rail on the wing between the fuselage and the inboard engines. Changing to a larger engine may change the airflow in that area and effect weapons drop behavior. This would have to be tested thoroughly. Then last but not least there would be a lot of internal changes, rewiring, re-plumbing, and new pylons. To do all of this wouldn't be cheap. If the Air Force could find a replacement engine that fits into the existing engine pods without too much modification to the rest of the aircraft it might make sense. Otherwise I doubt they'll bother with it and spend the money on the new B-21.

[@nathd1748]

Testing is one thing. Useful life service is another. They would have to test one to find out how the aircraft behaves. Doesn't mean the results show compatibility or feasibility.

[@windpower4jp]

I believe all B-52s had cross wind crab landing. The D's did.

[@mickgatz214]

@US Defense News > great informative video/s, but that computer generated voice spoils it. :( (thumbs up anyway) :)

[@fredferd965]

How about building some new aircraft! How many times can you bend a paper clip?

[@williammccoy7127]

Fred Ferd how many flight hours do you think they have?I think a general passenger plane has flights every single day in 2 years more flight hours then a B 52 in 30 years some passenger planes in service have 35 years service for ex Fokker 70 and 100 they stopped production in the 70 als DC 3 from WWII there are still in service.

[@fredferd965]

In the early 1970's I was doing data processing work for a subcontractor at Red Flag, at Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nevada. One day they had an air show and invited all of us out there because they needed a crowd. It was an impromptu dog and pony show for Anwar Sadat, the President of Egypt, and his advisors, who were visiting the United States at the time. Mr. Sadat wanted new fighter planes, and the US Government was trying to push F-5 fighters down his throat, but he was not foolish. HE wanted F-16's, and he knew the difference! The US Government was horrified at that idea - Giving the Egyptians F-16s would give the Egyptians something closer to equality with the Israelis. And they had nightmares of F-16s fighting F-16's. Another hideous "triumph" for the idiots at "Foggy Bottom," aka the State Department - God help us all! Anyway, while there, I got to walk around a B-52. The thing had numerous visible deep wrinkles in the skin on the sides of the fuselage. I saw them. Yes, I've heard that "they don't matter, etc." but you do NOT see wrinkles on the sides of airliners! The B-52 IS OLD!!!!!!

[@KiloByte69]

+Fred Ferd Why are the American taxpayers "giving" the Egyptians and Israelis anything? Let them pay for it just like everyone else.

[@doktorbimmer]

*Not surprising really... since Rolls Royce is now mostly American/French owned.*

[@gunnerlangy]

RUBBISH !

[@larrymonske8086]

The last B52 was built in 1959. Ive seen them all over Vietnam and when a kid the 50s had a a model of it

[@jrftworth]

The last production aircraft, B-52H AF Serial No. 61-0040, left the factory on 26 October 1962

[@niiteshade]

I would be HAPPY to do the voice-over for these. :) I have a deep and sexy voice. I've done voice commercials for some local radio stations, also. This robo-voice is horrible.

[@lobotimized7596]

The Brits have always made great engines..the P-51 was a lsmt until they replaced the original engine with the rolls-royce or Merlin engines. (not sure which) .then she became the magnificent killer of the sky.

[@lobotimized7596]

Nath D. With people that seem to enjoy insulting other's less in the know then you, being in the know doesn't mean anything if you like throwing other's ignorance in their faces. I usually learn from people like you, but in this case I'll do more reading to find out the facts as you say. You must glow with all your self-righteousness.

[@nathd1748]

Hey Lob Otimized....my apologies if somehow my comment appeared to be aimed at you. It was not. I clicked "reply" under the comment for "soaringtractor" who just endlessly spews immature bullshit towards any company that isn't American. He is probably just a schoolkid troll. Again my apologies. Somehow the comment didn't appear under his comment but yours instead. Sorry dude!

[@lobotimized7596]

Nath D Thank you and I did over respond to the remarks. Never have I had a problem being called ignorant. what I do appreciate is a man correcting my errors. Again thank you for the corrections.

[@leucetius8351]

Seek medical attention!

[@lobotimized7596]

Lecetius I did now I'm better..they did say their going to lock you in a cell with hungry pigs..I wanna watch that

[@russelllowry1061]

I assume the new engines would have much more power than the old ones. And be much more fuel efficient, thus giving the old girl more range and payload.

[@tobyw9573]

Old engines use a manual choke ;)

[@desparry]

With a bit of luck they are pointing at North Korea.

[@carba8606]

LONG LIVE USA

[@jamesanagnos6123]

No thanks we want American made only

[@josecarlosalvarezalonso3020]

And do you want to sell things to others?

[@neighbor18]

8 engines or nothing, looks terrible with commercial turbofans

[@TheSlugstoppa]

This mighty 'Bomb truck' is approaching 70 years old. and upgrades or not must surely now be a sitting duck for any competent Air defence. ( Unless totally wiped out). Would the money would be better spent on B1 / B2 modernization.

[@G4Disco]

Current aircraft are 56 and 57 years old. But, still it's been around a long time. The last B-52 hasn't been born yet.

[@mikesmith8278]

B_52 flight team techs, does the Auminium skin stress and fatigue due to the constant slight flexing over the years of operation as not really structural but still very nescessary for creating airflow lift. Cheers Brilliant team never hear of your work failure and keepng the birds in the sky. Voice as painful as red hot steel bar inserted where you not want it.

[@rmo4222]

B52 has been re-skinned several times along with wing and pylon refurbish. Ever so many hours the plane deplaned and inspected. Every 1000 hours or so< I can’t remember it goes to depot level for major inspection.

[@seventhson27]

The BUFF is STILL one bada$$ airplane. -- (by fred)

[@mikesettlemyer5052]

sure and the hell is

[@JohnSmith-pd1fz]

Looks like KZbin's biggest aviation expert is also a world authority on cars. No surprise there then.

[@jetli8703]

BR 725 Is made in Germany, designed by BMW, and RR did what?

[@jamesanagnos6123]

Fuck Rolls Royce we have GE AND PRANT & WITNEY ,let rolls royce sell their engines to air bus lol

[@FMChimera]

For those below wondering about replacing the dual pods with a larger single engine; this is what it looks like on the real deal... kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZ-ranqYe9qgY80

[@carba8606]

we're and remind the most powerfull.... by far

[@stanbilinski7538]

Could a 747-800 not take the place of the B-52? If yes, that would an option.

[@markhepworth4804]

Stan Bilinski No,is the short answer

[@markhepworth4804]

soaringtractor Building the new 747adapted to drop stores would be too expensive,and maybe not possible! The position of the 747s wing is not conducive to a central bomb bay and if it's not central then after dropping stores the centre of balance would be massively off,not practical for a stable flight envelop.

[@dam1041960]

No. But they make great firefighting water bombers Global super tanker 911.

[@TuffBurnOutTeam]

No matter what plane it is they all work on hours on the engines and fuselage not how Old it is age means Nothing

[@lobotimized7596]

tuff ute. Did you ever see a spad carry 2 tons of bombs..LOL just kidding sir.

[@proudpirate1236]

The original plan was to modernize the B-52 with a new wing and four Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B engines.

[@nathd1748]

You cannot be serious? Four 757 engines? Where did you read that??

[@proudpirate1236]

aviationweek.com/defense/b-52-re-engine-resurfaces-usaf-reviews-studies

[@nathd1748]

That's an extremely interesting article. One of the comments within that article sounds very logical indeed & is not something you'd expect anybody to just grab from imagination. This is the wording......"Back in the 1980s, a good friend of mine, now a retired USAF LTC, was part of a team looking into the re-engining the B-52H with the same engine that powers the Boeing C-17A. It seems that when Boeing designed the 757 they made the engine nacelles for the 757 100% mechanically compatible with the B-52Hs wing pylon attachment. After careful study the cost benefits, mind you this was back 35 years ago when Jet-A was a lot cheaper. As it turned out, installing the C-17s Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 rated at 40,440 lbf of thrust on the 757 nacelle was estimated to reduce fuel consumption by 40%, increased the maximum takeoff weight from 488,000 to 588,000 lbs, an reduced maintenance time by more that 40%. He also said that the cost to the Air Force for the mechanical part was minimal as the 757 pylon was direct bolt on and the electronics part was about $2 million in then dollars. But at the time the powers that be didn't want any competition to the still secret Northrop B-2 Spirit."

[@peterschmidt7543]

Even with their dubious history it's nice to see these iconic "old school" warriors still in business. Why not replace those smoking engines with something better. They've probably lung cancerd more people to death than ever bombed and/or left some ppl without a proper throats ? Is that the reason for the "battery voice". Otherwise nice shoots of daily do.

[@AdvancedUSA]

Ditto. I won’t listen to a computer voice.

[@petermrosas4849]

Your informing the government the government and the people you're doing a great job if I go on

[@stanbilinski7538]

Can they not just use 4 very powerful 747 or A380 type Jet engines? 8 engines????? Ridiculous!

[@kat5336]

No because those engines would not fit under the low wing design. Engines barely clear the ground as it is.

[@conantdog]

the American industrial military complex cannot design aircraft at work any more such as the F-35 design failure. truly a beautiful aircraft to B-52 was and an amazing design and such a long a service , life

[@jackthompson1382]

conantdog so, the f35 is designed by civilian engineers. At Lockheed. Who are much smarter than both you and I. ;)

[@aspiringwackjob7089]

And the F-35's design is much sleeker than the F-22, requires less crew to maintain (2 man team versus the F-22's dozen man team), requires less hours to maintain, has better stealth capabilities than the F-22 (can avoid broader range of radio bandwidths).... How is the F-35 a failure again? The F-35 was designed to replace the aging F-16 with something that can hit the ground harder, at longer ranges, without being detected, or at least so easily. We all know the F-15E Strike Eagle can't do that because it's easily detected. B-52 is too big and too slow, especially for missions for single moving targets or small groups of moving targets. The point here is that you need to understand what you're talking about before you actually say it.

[@KiloByte69]

LOL Anti-American eurocucks still buying into Pierre Sprey's nonsense. The UK imports over $200 million worth of military hardware from America each year and America is the world's largest arms dealer by far.

[@suburbia2050]

Errr the UK is the only Tier 1 partner in the F35 programme. And $200 million doesn't exactly buy you much in military terms.

[@KiloByte69]

+suburbia1950 That's only one year, stupid. The UK is committed to spend well over $12 billion on the F-35 program. Once again, America is far and away the most successful arms dealer in the world.

[@russg1801]

Will there still be eight engines in twin pods, or four larger engines? The B-52 has now been flying more than half as long as mankind has, in total! It'll probably STILL be in the air when that Pizza Chit called the F-35 is retired!

[@MidnightVisions]

Why the BR725, its underrated to the TF33 already installed? That's going backwards. The BR700-715 has 100 more horsepower than the TF33. It's not enough of an advancement to consider installing unless fuel economy is the only consideration. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_BR700 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT3D

[@davidhoffman5789]

Apparently the present B-52H has more than enough engine thrust and routinely uses less than full power even for takeoff. www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11/22/old-dog-new-engines/#comment-10

[@MidnightVisions]

This issue has nothing to do with takeoff power, its all about money. The cost to service and overhaul these engines is getting too expensive. New engines will save considerable fuel resupply resources in combat areas too. A new engined B52 would save 30 percent on average in fuel costs. A tanker with 30 percent saved fuel can resupply another 10 fighter jets. If a new engine was put on the wing, engine overhaul would go down to almost zero because new engines will last to the end of the aircrafts flying time. Boeing puts the B52's flying time at 55,000 hours which is based on the life of the wingspar. beyond that it has too many cracks and can't be repaired, and there are no replacement parts. The airforce has deliberately put B52's in the Davis Montham storage area so the B52 fleet does not time out.

[@americannotamericant1773]

Pratt & Whitney and Boeing are in charge of building the Engines, sorry to say but that's something Rolls Royce cant do.

[@nathd1748]

Exactly where do you get your 'accurate' information from??

[@englundus]

Scrap the F-35 program, keep the B-52's, and the A-10's, and build the Canadian CF-105 Arrow! It is cheaper than the F-35 even when modernized and and outperform the F-35.

[@RedArrow73]

Or was that "Magnificent Bastards"?

[@lobotimized7596]

RedArrow73. When did they stop calling them the BUFFs..

India should buy some

[@VictorMiranda-yt6xe]

I wasted my time, watching old reruns of the same shit. Where is the new Rolls Royce engine, its detailed specifications, pictures of internal parts, etc. 09/22/17.

[@milwaukeegregg]

Get any US MFG to do it....What do we need Rolls for? I'll take pratt and whitney or GE all day over a rolls...

[@angloengland559]

We all know Rolls Royce make far superior engines, after all they provided the engine for your Mustang fighter so it was up to European standards ;)

[@milwaukeegregg]

Maybe rolls should have built those carriers? lol......I mean carrier.. You can only afford 1....

[@angloengland559]

Well you'd only be able to afford one if you fought two world wars start to finish voluntarily and on principle lol, and you were right the first time, it is carriers....i.e two ;) You are welcome by the way because had we surrendered you wouldn't have any carriers or much else for that matter at all XD PS they did manufacture the Gas Turbines for both of them and many would argue it is you who cannot afford your carriers, with your national debt working out at $60k per individual, probably explains the condition most of them are in I suppose. Now less petty silly messing around arguing over nothing and get your version of the VTOL, that damned F35 working properly before all our carriers are dickless, it's not NAZI rocket science is it ;)

[@milwaukeegregg]

Sure ace that's why we have 11 and 12 is halfway there and the Kiel for 13 is done... Build your own shit we don't need you... Stay right where you are also and watch your culture dissolve. Happy trails.....

[@milwaukeegregg]

Spoken like a captain going down with the ship!! lol.. I'll take the Asians, Mexicans, and Africans if they are LEGAL.... That leaves all the muslims for you...How does it feel to be colonized from within? Speaking of ships. That hood lasted a long time, Rite?

[@garyzimmerman8785]

Fuel savings is not good enough more power also

[@jimdailey1018]

Gary Zimmerman the rest of the structure may not be up to more power but more efficiency means more air time and distance.

[@sewolmik]

Rubbish computer voice....lasted about 10 sec before turning off something I was really interested in.......Please provide an explanation

[@1chish]

8 smaller engines is really inefficient but maybe multiple redundancy in a combat situation is more important? 4 larger engines would give more power and burn less fuel giving better loiter time. And RR can offer both options given they take the larger share of the A380 builds and that is a bit heavier than even a B-52. But we all know that the Senators will make sure the contract goes to Pratt & Whitney don't we?

[@douglasdobson8110]

I vote for Lockheed Martin, I used to fix their copiers in Cocoa Beach LOL

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

There isn't enough ground clearance for the outer engine pods to use larger diameter engines. Hopefully they use the GE TF34, it was supposedly modernized for the RQ-170 Sentinel.

[@TeamDoc312]

You made a good point...But it's not only clearance issues. The airframe and control surfaces are optimized for 8 engines, not 4. the original control surfaces when the BUFF was a high altitude bomber would have faired better. But when they reduced the height of the rudder and changed the other control surfaces when it was rebooted as a lower altitude platform it made it BUFF only 8 engine friendly. Losing 1 of 4 engines wouldn't be a good option for the old girl. While other 4 engine aircraft in the Air Force inventory have 4 engines, they were designed for it from the start...same for civilian aircraft. I'll be interested to see where this goes in the future.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

"4 larger engines would give more power and burn less fuel". Yes, like how 2 engines are better than 4 in passenger jets.

[@guillermovillalonabryan2533]

1chish for a suck big airplane like for engines won’t be enough power

[@mothman411]

Interesting that Trump will only accept Rolls-Royce engines for his private Jet.

[@mothman411]

Again on his PRIVATE JET he will only have rolls royce engines. From a man who said American business 1st.

[@andreafiss6864]

Traduzione in italiano

[@riotagus]

Non e possibile !

[@pedromartinelli9148]

andrea fiss , learn the English language.

[@boeingtrijet]

Are people afraid to talk on KZbin or what?

[@stevedixon5481]

FFS WHY PERSIST WITH THE COMPUTER VOICE WHEN IT CLEARLY CHEESES PEOPLE OFF? 3 word phrases - "The United States --------------------------------------------- Air Force said" etc etc ad nauseum!

[@wayneyd2]

CORRECTION! Rolls Royce would like to sell engines for the B-52 re-engines.

[@michaelshaw4199]

Be glad you can hear the robot voice.Being deaf is no fun!Why don't you turn your volume&turn the caption on,that would be to hard to do.

[@josephwashington2837]

Oh how I hate these computer generated narratives! Don't know when they started or why, but they Suck, really, really Suck.

[@SMSJoeSchmid]

Fuck Rolls Royce - Install (4) F-117 PW 100 engines with Thrust Reversers. You Get Longer Global Range and short runway capable. Want More Power? Remove De-rating Thrust Blocks from the Fuel Controls.. ITS OVER - Like Fixing up an old Power Wagon.

[@erickrcisneros]

LETS HANG 4 GE90’S On THAT PUPPY!!!

[@trevorhart545]

Lets see if Donald Trump chooses the right option?

[@brucewelty7684]

out of here after 30 seconds of the stupid narration