re: New B-52 engines will keep em flying for 100 years.

quote:

---

This is not necessarily an easy endeavor to update an old airframe with new engines.

---

Weight and balance is important but if the can remove the water burner A model motors and shove CFM56 motors onto the KC135 fleet to include EC and RC135s this too can be done.

quote:

---

any other president would just sign a blank check and say go build something completely new, trump asks why we cant just change engines?

---

This has been a thing for a long time. Look at the Blackhawk/ Chinook.... 100 year platforms..

quote:

---

The new engines could allow a B-52 to fly to any point on Earth without refueling.

---

Nope. The new engines will be anywhere between 20-40% more efficient than the current ones, but nowhere close to providing that type of range.

quote:

---

the military has a budget and they decide how to spend it, not the president.

---

That’s not how it works at all. We submit our budget request to the OMB (part of the Executive branch) who works with the president’s staff including the NSC to develop the President’s Budget Request. That is then submitted to Congress and they develop the NDAA and the Defense Appropriations bill. So actually, Congress has the most power in this process.

quote:

---

Is there any scrap of that plane that is actually original?

---

The airframe is all original and there are a lot of original sub components.

quote:

---

Will still be 8 engines on the jet. The 4 engines in the competition are the Pratt & Whitney PW800, the GE CF 34-10, the GE Passport, and the Rolls Royce BR-725.

---

So we're looking at engines they use on regional commuter jets? Probably about 15,000 to 20,000 pounds of thrust each?

Yep. Trying to stay close to the current thrust rating which is 17,000 lbs per engine. Much less than that and we degrade our max takeoff weight. Too much more would require major structural changes to the engine pylons and wings.

quote:

---

Yep. Trying to stay close to the current thrust rating which is 17,000 lbs per engine. Much less than that and we degrade our max takeoff weight. Too much more would require major structural changes to the engine pylons and wings.

---

A buddy of mine tells me part of the issue with high bypass fans is a tail redesign may be needed?

quote:

---

the issue with high bypass fans is a tail redesign may be needed?

---

Not necessarily high bypass, but large high thrust engines yes. The rudder is not big enough to deal with the asymmetric thrust that would result from one of the outboard engines going out. Plus, you'd have to implement an auto-rudder system in case of that engine out scenario happening during takeoff. A pilot wouldn't be able to react fast enough to prevent the sudden yaw which would result in the aircraft departing the runway. At high gross weights a jet running off the runway into the dirt/grass would result in the landing gear starting to sink into the dirt and then sheering off. Lots of really bad things start to happen at that point.

They had to re-design the rudder and add an auto-rudder system for the KC-135 when they upgraded their engines years ago. We can't afford the price tag for what that would take on the B-52.