US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member
There wasn't enough space to fit 4 large diameter engines due to the wings. Replacement of the wings was too expensive. Also, there would never be low bypass ratio engines due to fuel economy and range. Low bypasses are made for fighter jets while bigger, slower planes use higher bypass ratios.
Old hitory of 8 to 4 there, they have tried some, proposed some but ended with the last proposal that we know today:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

zavve

New Member
Registered Member
Exactly it's why they put 8 like I said...the choice of 4 low bypass would not have been a gain.
You said, "So it was possible to fit 4 low bypass bigger engine". It was not possible as I said without changing the wing. The choice of 4 high bypass engines which I presume you mean would definitely be a gain considering the advantages in range and reliability but it was not possible due to the low wing of the B-52.
 

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member
You said, "So it was possible to fit 4 low bypass bigger engine". It was not possible as I said without changing the wing. The choice of 4 high bypass engines which I presume you mean would definitely be a gain considering the advantages in range and reliability but it was not possible due to the low wing of the B-52.
They have tried-it with bigger turbojet j-75 and after that it was possible with 4 PW2000 or with 4 RB211-535, 757 engines without need to change the wings. RB211 were high bypass and fit but presently RB211 are out of production and any other engines ready on the list have a bigger diameter than it. So they hit the wall because of the wings.
 

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member
It's said that eight are used instead of four because B-52's control surfaces couldn't handle situation if it lost even one engine.

Quite an feat if those engines really stay on wings for decades to come.
The B-52 where clearly made with quite a structural margin to achive that. New plane made of composite and bigger milling and printed parts made repairs and patching a lot more difficult to salvage flying hours on airframes. It's not a time of letting a lot of margin anymore while B-52 was made with slide ruler calculation.. They where careful to not strech their numbers optimistically.
 

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In a major victory for incumbent manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, the Air Force has decided not to pursue a new engine for the F-35A in its fiscal 2024 budget request, dashing the hopes of potential competitor General Electric and likely ensuring that Pratt will continue to power the global Joint Strike Fighter enterprise for years to come.

Dot Dot Dot

Pratt said today the company is “pleased to see the President’s Budget includes funding for the Engine Core Upgrade. All F-35 variants need fully-enabled Block 4 capabilities as soon as possible, and with this funding, we can deliver upgraded engines starting in 2028. The F135 ECU saves billions, which ensures a record quantity of F-35s can be procured. It also ensures funding will be available to develop 6th generation propulsion for the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance Platform.”

It is quite the dilemma for our air forces. The F-35 does need as much range as it can get, especially for any operations in the Pacific. However, a brand new engine will take years to finish development, not to mention producing and refitting F-35s in meaningful quantities. By the time all of that happens, we might've already lost a conflict in the Pacific.

So, a simple ECU upgrade does make sense even if it's a suboptimal solution. Past 2028-2030 we're really more concerned with NGAD and all the programs associated with it rather than the F-35. Still, I think it would've been better to authorize both. Especially since both parties have essentially given a blank check to the military to counter China.
 

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member
The fearmongering was indeed fascinating.

Pirates, predatory states, and the fleets of great powers did as they pleased.
dot dot dot
These events were temporary, if expensive. Imagine, though, a more permanent breakdown. A humiliated Russia could declare a large portion of the Arctic Ocean to be its own territorial waters, twisting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to support its claim. Russia would then allow its allies access to this route while denying it to those who dared to oppose its wishes.

Imagine if a belligerent United States declared the Taiwan Straits to be territorial wat... Oh whoops. Anyway, it is highly unlikely that any modern state would harass international shipping. If anything, owning the Arctic Ocean would give Russia greater incentive to make sure that there isn't any piracy.

“If you like Walmart,” I often told my mother, “then you ought to love the U.S. Navy. It’s the Navy that makes Walmart possible.”

I would like to sink the US Navy.

Jokes aside, I do think the article is largely correct, but I do have an issue with a couple points.

Reindustrialization, in particular the restoration of merchant-shipbuilding capacity and export-oriented industries, will support the emergence of a new, more technologically advanced Navy. The cost of building Navy ships could be coaxed downward by increasing competition, expanding the number of downstream suppliers, and recruiting new shipyard workers to the industry.

I mean, compared to China we are behind, but honestly... our industrial base is really not that bad. I don't know why people automatically think that, we need to put things into perspective. We still build lots of things, especially military ships and jets. What we need, is a much better approach to civilian-military industrial cooperation and simple project planning. The Zumwalt and LCS didn't fail because our shipyards were horrible.

Similarly, the article also talks about how mergers are apparently really bad. That's not really the case though. Mergers allowed for economies of scale on big projects. What we need to do, is to reduce barriers to entry and to focus more on rewarding innovators rather than those with cozy political connections.
 

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member
The fearmongering was indeed fascinating.

He also quotes someone else about expanding the US fleet by an additional 500 ships. Not to mention subsidizing the ship building industry. Where are they going to find that much money for such a task anyway? The idea is just unrealistic.

The chief of naval operations recently called for a fleet of some 500 ships. He quickly pointed out that this would include about 50 new guided-missile frigates—small surface vessels able to operate closely with allies and partners—as well as 150 unmanned surface and subsurface platforms that would revolutionize the way wartime naval operations are conducted.
 

SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
Speculating that the Darkstar in Top Gun: Maverick could be closer to reality (in some senses) then we think.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Personally, I would just attribute this to some PR person using the wrong wording in the tweet in question. On the other hand, the Darkstar was a great movie prop and it is totally awesome that Lockheed’s SkunkWorks built a full-size model for the move. Much better than any CGI crap.

Also, obligatory awesome photo of said Darkstar model.

944DCC7B-6301-4B13-ABCD-C974464C345B.jpeg
 
Top