Modern Heavy Bomber News, Pictures Thread (Non-Chinese)

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
GE, Rolls, Pratt Vie For B-52 Engine Upgrade
Mar 13, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
| Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
  • b52.jpg

    Candidates to upgrade the B-52's 1961-vintage TF33 low-bypass turbofan include the GE Aviation CF34-10, Pratt & Whitney TF33 Engine Enhancement Package and Rolls-Royce BR700: U.S. Air Force

    Engine manufacturers are lining up to upgrade or replace the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    B-52H’s outdated and inefficient Pratt & Whitney TF33 low-bypass turbofan engines to keep the mighty Cold War bomber flying beyond 2050.

    U.S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson told Congress on March 8 that the service must explore options for replacing the TF33, which powered the first H-model B-52 flight on March 6, 1961, almost six decades ago.

    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    , Pratt & Whitney and
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    tell Aviation Week they are actively engaged with the Air Force about the re-emerging requirement, offering ready-made commercial derivative engines or, in Pratt’s case, a TF33 upgrade package.

    Their proposals come after the Air Force and Boeing proposed swapping the TF33 for eight modern, 17,000-19,000-lb.-thrust-class regional/business jet engines instead of earlier four-engine alternatives, which were deemed too risky because of the necessary structural modifications and airflow changes around the bomber’s nuclear-armed weapons.

    The service once proposed a quartet of
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    high-bypass turbofans, which are derived from the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy’s TF39 (pictured being tested by a B-52). It also considered the 757-class PW2040 and RB211 series. But recent analysis points to an eight-engine solution to limit airframe modification.

    That would require at least 608 powerplants for today’s operational feet of 76 B-52Hs, plus several sets of spares.

    The Air Force has not commissioned or conducted any wind tunnel or flight tests of candidate engines in the past several years. But market research suggests there are enough engine options on the commercial market to warrant a competition.

    A request for information issued in 2014 sought alternative solutions that achieve 10-25% better fuel consumption and 15-25 years of use between schedule depot overhauls. On Feb. 3, the government issued another RFI, this time seeking TF33 replacements, specifying “regional/business-size jet engines.”

    “Acquisition strategies are in the process of being formed for both the purchase of the engine and the integration on the aircraft,” a service spokesman said on March 13. “If the Air Force decides to fund a re-engine program in the future, it will assess all procurement options to create the best value for the government.”

    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    Aviation
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    -10


    GE Aviation is a longtime propulsion system supplier for the Air Force’s bomber force, including the four-engine Boeing B-1B (F101-102) and
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    B-2A (F118-100). The company says it supports the Air Force’s B-52 re-engining plan and would offer the 18,000-lb.-thrust-class CF34-10, developed from the TF34/CF34 family.

    The smaller 9,000-lb.-thrust TF34-100 powers the service’s Fairchild Republic A-10 “Warthog” attack aircraft. The latest commercial CF34-10 series powers the Brazilian
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    , 195 and Lineage 1000 and Chinese
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    regional jets.

    “While no GE engines have been demonstrated on the B-52, the CF34-10 is an economical eight-engine replacement,” says Karl Sheldon, GE vice president and general manager of large military turbofan engines. “We are excited to compete for the opportunity to fly the CF34 on this strategic asset.”

    Pratt & Whitney Engine Enhancement Package

    Nobody has more experience with the 56-year-old TF33 than the original designer and manufacturer, P&W.

    The company says it could offer a new commercial engine, but believes an upgrade makes the most sense.

    “Commercial engines offer advantages of higher fuel savings, extended mission range, reduced aerial refueling and minimized overhaul maintenance,” a company spokesman says. “However, all commercial engines in this class require increased ability to support the B-52H electric and hydraulic load requirements, and would also require extensive airframe integration and flight testing.”

    The firm’s engine enhancement package would address the TF33’s performance, durability, reliability, fuel consumption and time between scheduled overhauls as much as possible without needing to buy new. “The TF33 currently meets all B-52H power and performance specifications and would not require any changes to the aircraft structure,” the company says.

    P&W is pitching this as the “affordable option.” Digitally-controlled commercial propulsors would also need to be militarized and hardened against electromechanical pulses resulting from nuclear explosions as well as cyberattacks.

    Rolls-Royce BR700

    Headquartered in Indianapolis, British engine maker RR’s U.S. division has already had “several conversations” with the Air Force about a B-52 propulsion upgrade. The company would offer something from its BR700 series, which already powers the Air Force’s Gulfstream V/C-37A personnel transport fleet and the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node—based on the Global Express.

    The alternatives in the B-52’s thrust class are the BR715 and BR725 series, but the company has not decided which to offer.

    “A decision has not been reached yet, as we await the specific requirements,” says Thomas Hartmann, RR’s senior vice president for U.S. customer business. “We are confident we can meet the technical and availability requirements.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Normally I leave the Comments along but Someone posted this
Just bite the bullet and bring in Dale Brown as a consultant to get this sorted out.
And I was Laughing.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Bomber passes two preliminary design reviews

  • 16 MARCH, 2017
  • SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM
  • BY: LEIGH GIANGRECO
  • WASHINGTON DC


The US Air Force’s B-21 bomber passed an additional preliminary design review, service’s military deputy for the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition says this week.

The air force conducted a PDR during the programme’s technology maturation and risk reduction phase before the service chose between Northrop Grumman and the Boeing/Lockheed team. A protest followed the contract award to Northrop in 2016 and the USAF conducted another three-day PDR, which just wrapped a few weeks ago, Lt Gen Arnold Bunch said 16 March.

“The tech maturation risk reduction phase was very valuable and we’re moving forward with detailed design at this point,” Bunch says. “We did one [PDR] before but then we had to make sure we came back after the downtime to clean up anything.”

Normally, one PDR is conducted is conducted during the technology maturation and risk reduction phase. The PDR assures hardware and software on the platform is operational. The programme then moves into the engineering, manufacturing and development phase, where a critical design review is conducted.

The USAF has been nearly mum on most aspects of the bomber contract. The service has even shrouded the price of the aircraft, arguing adversaries could gain information on the aircraft’s capabilities by working back the cost of the bomber. When asked about the programme’s timeline, Bunch told reporters he did not have the schedule off the top of his head but the programme is progressing toward detailed design and CDR.

The USAF applying lessons learned from its B-2 bomber programme to the B-21, including the way the service releases information. The air force has completely changed the way it structures the new bomber programme, with a focus on transparency and oversight from Congress, he says.

“We weren’t as transparent as we needed to be,” Bunch says of the B-2 programme. “We didn’t release information at the right times.”

But that philosophy appears to be at odds with other USAF leadership. During a recent Congressional hearing on nuclear deterrence, US Strategic Command head USAF Gen John Hyten complained that the press releases too much information on the price of strategic programmes.

“I hate the stuff that shows up in the press,” he told lawmakers. “I think we should reassess that. I hate the fact that costs us so much to open the press as well. Because if you put a cost estimate out in the press, it's not only our adversaries that are looking at it, but the people that are gonna build the system are looking at that.”

Bunch told reporters the USAF is trying to strike a balance when it comes to transparency and preventing adversaries from taking advantage of information. The service is working with the intelligence community, industry and office of the defense secretary to determine what information can be released, he adds.

“Take my willingness to be open with where we’re at today,” he says. “I don’t see releasing any more details for a period of time. We’ve been very open so far...I don’t know that I have to release anything else right now and we need to watch how we’re communicating so I’m telling you we started this with a balance.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
So the only three countries that have dedicated heavy bombers are USA, Russia, and China?
Why is this? Why did the UK get rid of or cease developing heavy bombers? Why don't other countries do this? India? France?
With some delay. xd

Lets get to the bottom of the point, but keep it simple.

Nuclear triad includes 3 offensive parts:

Ground-based ballistic missiles, including silo-based - best cost-effect efficiency for salvo, simplest to get, easiest for 24/7 standby, - and mobile, employing various techniques to disperse in pre-war period, making them very hard to hunt down.
Downside: they're quite vulnerable, silo-based ones are always vulneralbe(this is why 24/7 standby) despite hardening, mobile ones in peace time(they can be very trollish, this is why their peace time deployement is limited by predefined areas - for Russia, obvsly; China and North Korea can do whenever they like with them).

In short - they're your take when:
1)You want to somehow obtain global deterrent
2)You expect things like unwarned salvo(for example, against command chain), and you want other party to know it.
3)preferably - you're a big country.

Sea-based deterrent - SSBNs. Long story short - boomers are by far the most destructive weapon on planet, and the only one allowing for almost invulnerable to countersalvo continious deterrent.
Money and technology intensive, they are both the best and the worst solution money-wise.
Best - well, because they're almost uncounterable in good hands and with good alliances, good old sword of Damocles.
Worst - because they're not very useful beyond.

In short - they're your take when you're developed nation(technologically), and you just don't want to be touched with nukes. At all.

There are much more to both(for example, SSBNs mobility metters alot, and allows for very serious counter-force scenarios, or they're not invulnerable just because you built them), but this is beyond explanation.

Last one is air-based deterrent.
This one is harder.
First of all, manned bombers are expensive, vulnerable, yet technologically-intensive.
Second - they're meh, slow. Basically - in most scenarios they're expected to be there after initial ballistic missile salvoes are already there. Third - if not forewarned - they're very vulnerable, especially non swing-wing ones(airfield requirements are terrifying),
Combination of these two qualities nearly killed them in 1960s, but - nearly not means the end, because there is more.

1)Nuclear bomber has brains onboard and are slow enough, thus allowes for mistakes - you actually can call them back.

2)Bomber is nigh-invulnerable if pre-warned - good look catching dozens of tough targets somewhere deep in the enemy skies.

3)bomber is unique among strategic platforms in keeping reconnaissance qualities - it can check and verify targets. Or even find them on it's own. Thus it's the best option for follow-on strikes.

4)bomber makes any suspendable kind of ammunition strategic, because it gives them reach. B61 bomb in B-2 will still be city killer if you want it to. It's perhaps even more important, since bomber is by far the easiest to rearm in unexpected location.
Nuclear war doesn't end with first salvo.

5)Subpoint of previous one - bomber force is the likeliest to rapidly return to standby condition after actual exchange. I.e. they allow for rapid ressurection of detterent, - in case of, say, unnecessarily curious 3rd party.

5)bomber is perfectly viable everyday option - you can show it to your friends and adversaries, you can bomb rebels or you can use them in any type of conflict: from peaceful weekly trolling and counter-insurgency to sea blockades, and strikes against industrial targets.


Long story short, you build nuclear bombers if you:

1)actually expect to fight nuclear war till the end and beyond;
2)have sufficient need for flexible stick with global reach.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
There is also their conventional use.
Heavy bombers like the B52 and B1 even B2 and Russian Bombers spend the majority of their combat mission time not loaded up with city killers but conventional munitions. There long Range and high payload makes them capable of a variety of conventional mission types against conventional and Asymmetric forces. A B52 can flatten a Tank Division, A B2 can deploy antiship missiles by the Dozen, a B1 can release bunker busters into mountain entrenched Taliban. but that ability comes at a cost. Unit costs easily 2-5 times the unit cost of smaller fighters, They also demand more life cycle support as every issue you have with a fighter is blown up for a bomber.
For the British it became an issue of Costs as they moved operational strikes lower and lower down the chain and shrank there MOD investment more and more.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I add

Bernard said:
So the only three countries that have dedicated heavy bombers are USA, Russia, and China?
Why is this? Why did the UK get rid of or cease developing heavy bombers? Why don't other countries do this? India? France?

Only 2 countries coz Tu-22M and H-6 are medium Bombers not heavy/Strategic Bombers since WWII always only these two countries have even British Vulcan, Victor was medium, Mirage IV less big 30+ tons was can be considered " heavy fighter bomber " as FB-111, B-58 for give an idea.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
For the British it became an issue of Costs as they moved operational strikes lower and lower down the chain and shrank there MOD investment more and more.
RAF lost its nuclear role awhile ago.
Armee d'Air, however, didn't. Certain amount of Rafales will retain it, and they're probably the most capable current NATO tactical nuclear carriers.

A B2 can deploy antiship missiles by the Dozen
B-52s can(around 2 squadrons are fitted with asuw-related hardware)
B-2 never had missiles to begin with. This is expected to change, but by now long range LACMs ceased to be strategic bombers' unique field of expertise.

Only 2 countries coz Tu-22M and H-6 are medium Bombers not heavy/Strategic Bombers since WWII always only these two countries have even British Vulcan, Victor was medium, Mirage IV less big 30+ tons was can be considered " heavy fighter bomber " as FB-111, B-58 for give an idea.
Mirage IV weight is somewhere around 50% of FB-111, and fully loaded Mirage weights around 50% of Hustlers' fuel alone.
Hustler was so called "medium strategic" by SAC classification, and actually was intended to perform intercontinental strikes.
 
Top