USAF outlines plans for upgraded B-52

[Rhino power]

Upgraded B-52 (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23171/air-force-offers-first-details-of-future-plans-for-an-upgraded-b-52j-bomber)

-RP

[MPN11]

To provide context to the link ... As the U.S. Air Force moves closer to starting a major re-engining program (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17121/now-the-air-force-wants-new-engines-for-its-b-52s-that-burn-40-percent-less-fuel) for its B-52H Stratofortresses, it is reportedly considering adding in additional upgrades to ensure the bombers will remain combat capable through at least 2050. These updates could include improvements to the iconic plane’s avionics, defensive suite, sensors, ejection systems, and flight data recorder, with the resulting aircraft receiving the new designation B-52J.

[pr00ne]

Just how long could the Vulcan have been eaked out for?

[Harley Quinn]

Just how long could the Vulcan have been eaked out for?
How much money have you got?

[Buster15]

Just how long could the Vulcan have been eaked out for?

Why would we need to have 'eaked out' the Vulcan??? and for what purpose I wonder.

[MPN11]

21 x 1000 lb?

[EricsLad]

Might even be the first aircraft to run out of alphabet.

[TBM-Legend]

Try the Huey/Cobra...

UH-1A to AH-1Z

[Rhino power]

Might even be the first aircraft to run out of alphabet.

Nope, not by a long shot, the USMC's AH-1 and UH-1s are way ahead on that score, AH-1Z and UH-1Y already in service!

-RP

[Treble one]

Why would we need to have 'eaked out' the Vulcan??? and for what purpose I wonder.

There were plans for a Vulcan B3 designed to be a Patrol Missile Carrier (up to 6 Skybolts IIRC, at least 4).... a 'Poffler'

It had upgraded engines with reheat, increased crew and crewspace, an extended fuselage, and ejection seats for everyone!

With the demise of the Skybolt program, it never saw the light of day.

[ORAC]

One reason for the longevity of the B-52 was its ubiquity as a bomb truck during the Vietnam war and, much later, during GW I, at whilst stage the addition of PGMs has continued to show its value to the USAF in operations where a long range/endurance is of benefit.

Additionally it’s design makes upgrades and refurbishment economic - unlike the B-1, whose centrebody and wing is, apparently, a nightmare to work on and impossible to replace.

The Vulcan structure, especially the wing, I am led to believe, would also have been a nightmare to refurbish - and the Vulcan fleet in total only ever dropped a single 1000lb bomb on a target in anger*.

(* Yes, I know, the string was dropped diagonally so only 1 or 2 were supposed to hit the runway - and one if the Dhrikes hit the TPS-43 generator. But a bit of hyperbole for effect...)

[Surplus]

If it ends up looking like this, Dale Brown could make a mint in copyright.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/640x480/im003878_d684c8f2638d7bfa4f4da72d62d1d5142b58cf88.jpg

[Flap62]

ORAC

and the Vulcan fleet in total only ever dropped a single 1000lb bomb on a target in anger*.

Really? How pathetic. I somehow expected slightly better of you

[ORAC]

Sad, but true. once the RN took over the deterrent it was a fleet looking for a role. They were totally OTT doing oil field/rig surveillance, never more than a stop gap as a tanker. It was a magnificent aircraft - but there was never any possibility of it staying in service in the way the B-52 did.

[BEagle]

Sad, but true. once the RN took over the deterrent it was a fleet looking for a role.

Utter bolleaux! Post-1969 the 5 UK-based Vulcan squadrons were assigned to SACEUR as tactical assets, with 2 further squadrons on Cyprus to back up NATO's southern flank and to be available to redeploy to CENTO if needed.

Some people have no idea that the Vulcan remained in the low-level nuclear role with assigned targets into the 1980s.

Funding priority was elsewhere, however. Most ECM equipment was uselessly obsolete, fatigue mitigating policies hampered training (as was also the case with the F-4). By the time of the South Atlantic war, most aircrew capable of being retrained for other roles had long since left the Vulcan force. The AAR systems hadn't been used for years, neither had crews trained to drop weapons except at low level. As the RAF didn't have any non-nuclear anti-runway weapons which could be carried by the Vulcan, the only option was medium level dumb bombing with the only self protection afforded being provided by borrowed ECM pods and smart operators.

Apart from the so-called I-band jammer (or missile magnet as I termed it when I found out how useless it was against Home-on-Jam attacks a few years later), there had been no thoughts given to Vulcan upgrades for well over 12 years after the RN took over the detergent...

Had the Vulcan been refurbished and upgraded after 1982, to cope with the sort of threat again but from elsewhere, I'm sure that it would have given a good account of itself. Just as the Buff did!

[PDR1]

It wasn't that the AAR system "hadn't been used for years" - it had never been cleared for use because the original trials suggested AAR with a Vulcan was just to challenging for the pilot. So while the provisions were there in the airframes the capability had never been used for anything but trials.

PDR

[ORAC]

It wasn't that the AAR system "hadn't been used for years" - it had never been cleared for use because the original trials suggested AAR with a Vulcan was just to challenging for the pilot. So while the provisions were there in the airframes the capability had never been used for anything but trials. I think he was talking about as a receiver, not tanker - hence the running around looking for probe bits when the Falklands war started.

I do remember one Vulcan tanker trial when, IIRC, the receiver called a mayday with a multiple engine flameout after something went wrong and there was a large fuel spill into the intakes. Managed a relight though.

p.s. Surplus,

I don't think Dale Brown should sit my the mailbox waiting for any checks - the engine upgrade will replace 8 engines with 8 modern biz-jet type engines to limit the changes required.

[pr00ne]

Buster15,

Did the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again completely pass you by?

Seriously though, I guess for exactly the same reason that the USAF decided to 'eak out' an even older airframe when they also had in service B-1's, B-2's and a large force of other Tornado like strike attack assets.
As some above have said, the ability to carry 21 x 1,000lb's or equivalents a long way, a bomb bay and pylons stuffed with LGB would have been extremely useful in various Gulf escapades, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, the list goes on and on. Add to that it's ability to act as an AAR asset as it dod for a few years, I remember a conversation with a 1 Grp AAR planner about the Vulcan tanker, expecting him to diss it. His remark? "if the VC10 or Victor fleet could give me the same availability I would be delighted!"

[downsizer]

I would presume the number of B52s built vice the number of Vulcans also has something to do with its longevity as opposed to the Vulcans.

[ORAC]

If the money was there to refurbish/replace either the Vulcan or the Victor - which do you think the MOD would have spent the money on?

[BEagle]

The Victor wasn't suitable for low level work due to fatigue considerations. As a tanker it carried about 59 tonne of fuel, but was hampered by the offload rate of the old Mk20 wing pods. But a useful tanker.

Vulcan B2K only carried 36 tonnes of fuel (98%+24) and was a single point tanker. Much nicer to prod with an F-4 than the Victor though.

VC10K tankers carried 70-81 tonne depending on the mark and were acquired at fire sale rate from Gulf Air, EAAC and ba. So quite a good deal overall. All were 3-point except for the later VC10C1K conversions.

What would have been the point of wasting any money on the Victor? No use as a low level bomber, massive reworking needed to return the K2 to B2 standard and such time could not be afforded until the VC10K was in service, with only the Vulcan B2K available as back-up. TriStar was never developed into its full potential as a tanker; even the 'glass cockpit' upgrade for ZD949 took years to complete - and after 7 years at Arfur Daley Aerospace in Cambridge it was eventually scrapped having never returned to RAF service. An utter fiasco.

Whereas a modernised multi-role Vulcan would certainly have been worth serious consideration. Self-designating with a large LGB payload (not sure how many - but considerably more than the Tornado) would have made Iraqi bridge-plinking a lot simpler... Able to bomb from 100ft to 50000ft, good range, large payload - it just needed proper upgrading.

But really the RAF should have pressed for the B-1B!

[Ivan Rogov]

Long range strike was there for the asking with.. Nimrod MRA4 :{

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8285004/Nimrod-MRA4-would-have-been-formidable.html

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1024x585/mra4_storm_shadow_50feca2526d42915d4f2c06c75f881e2762917f5.j pg

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1024x683/nimrod_mra4_01_1fc6c6766d3bf18fc586503e54b93b23027a09a6.jpg

And a bit of fun Nimrod bomber (http://uamf.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11483)

The idea of a large, flexible and efficient combat platform has bounced around for years Wide body bomber (https://www.quora.com/Can-a-modern-wide-body-civilian-aircraft-be-modified-into-a-bomber-like-B-52-aircraft), but the B-52 seems to go through more regenerations than Dr Who, 100 years of the BUFF? How much would they have saved by fitting more efficient engines the first time round?

As for B-1Bs, ISTR the RAF being offered 12 a couple of decades ago when the USAF were downsizing, it would have given great reach but at very high operating costs and it was not the multi mission platform that it has become over the last 20 years, still if money was no object!

[KenV]

If it ends up looking like this, Dale Brown could make a mint in copyright.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/640x480/im003878_d684c8f2638d7bfa4f4da72d62d1d5142b58cf88.jpgIt won't look anything like that. The 8 TF33s will be replaced with 8 similar sized biz-jet engines.

[KenV]

How much would they have saved by fitting more efficient engines the first time round?Three comments:
1. The "first time round" was in 1952. The J57s installed then were pretty much state of the art.
2. When the TF33s were installed starting in 1961, they were pretty much state of the art.
3. The TF33s are not being replaced to improve efficiency. They are being replaced because they become unsupportable in 8 to 10 years. To put this in perspective, overhaul costs have tripled in the past 5 years and are continuing on the same upward trend. Improved efficiency, along with much greater time between overhaul is what will make the re-engine project pay for itself. The new engines will also enable much greater power generation capability, which will enable the further upgrade of the Buff over the next 3 to 4 decades. In the new design all eight engines will have generators (currently only four engines have generators) and each generator will have much high power generation capability than the old ones. Who knows, maybe lasers are in the Buff's future?

[r2_unit]

I think the RC-135 is well ahead there, although they may have skipped a few in the middle of the alphabet.

BGG


Incredibly incitful BGT... 🤣

[ORAC]

Alert 5 » Rolls-Royce to offer F130 turbofan for B-52 re-engine program, build them in Indiana - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2019/02/26/rolls-royce-to-offer-f130-turbofan-for-b-52-re-engine-program-build-them-in-indiana/)

Rolls-Royce to offer F130 turbofan for B-52 re-engine program, build them in Indiana

Rolls-Royce will offer the F130 engine for the US Air Force B-52 re-engine program and has chosen its facility in Indianapolis to build the engine if selected....... The engine is currently being used on the E-11 BACN and C-37.

Air Force Magazine (http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/February%202019/Rolls-Royce-Will-Build-F130-in-Indianapolis-if-it-wins-B-52-Re-Engining.aspx)

[Davef68]

Whereas a modernised multi-role Vulcan would certainly have been worth serious consideration. Self-designating with a large LGB payload (not sure how many - but considerably more than the Tornado) would have made Iraqi bridge-plinking a lot simpler... Able to bomb from 100ft to 50000ft, good range, large payload - it just needed proper upgrading.


Was the LGB capability of the Vulcan not something like 3, due to the length of the bombs?

[Archimedes]

Was the LGB capability of the Vulcan not something like 3, due to the length of the bombs?

Cleared for 3 during May 1982. The files show that the concerns were (a.) finding a means of designating the weapons and (b.) the value of the targets which might be attacked versus the cost of a Paveway when the efficacy of putting 21x1000lb free fall weapons in the vicinity of the target was likely to achieve the same effect in most instances.

[SASless]

More discussion on the BUFF re-engine program.


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/12/22/air-force-solidifies-options-for-b-52-engine-replacement/

[Pontius Navigator]

It wasn't that the AAR system "hadn't been used for years" - it had never been cleared for use because the original trials suggested AAR with a Vulcan was just to challenging for the pilot. So while the provisions were there in the airframes the capability had never been used for anything but trials.

PDR
To use BEagle's phrase, bolleaux. The Vulcan did non-stop refuelled flights to Africa and the Far East. I did the IFR course at Marham in 1964. The premature grounding of the Valiant killed the plans and the Vulcan could flow down the route faster than the Victor 1 could activate it. But it certainly was used.