I read the Air Force is spending $750 million to upgrade the B52H and she will get new engines. Does anyone have any details? I'd love to see a picture with the new engines. What else is going to be upgraded? Will this become the B52J?

New engines have been proposed several times, but AFAIK have always lost out to other USAF priorities. Thought I saw that an avionics upgrade was coming, but that's all I know of.

Have and B52's been fitted with new engines, I recall seeing a picture of one with at least one engine "set" replaced with a single engine. It's a while ago since I saw the picture and I can't remember where, and I don't know if it was a photoshop job.

Regards.

The most recent B-52 avionics upgrade is the CONECT program.

The engine replacement has been considered many times but never approved. If you have seen a picture, it is an illustration and not a photograph.

There is a recent book that covers the avionics and weapons upgrades of the B-52 in considerable detail. I wrote it.

B-52s have been used as airborne test-beds for engines under development; johnr might have seen a photo of one of these.

There was the NB-52E engine testbed for the C-5, which had one set of engines replaced by a GE TF-39 for the Galaxy.



Some more info on this Buff (57-0119) and it's sad fate at http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/B-52s_in_the_desert.htm

I can't help but think we will have a B-52X flying in 2080.

2040 is the currently planned retirement date.

You are right. I thought it said it would replace the engines, but it said it was not going to do so.


Boeing Awarded $750M B-52 Engineering Sustainment Contract
WICHITA, Kan., June 30, 2009 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that it has received a $750 million, 10-year contract from the U.S. Air Force to provide engineering support for the B-52 bomber. Under the Engineering Sustainment Program (ESP) contract, Boeing employees in Wichita, Oklahoma City, and Shreveport, La., will perform engineering assignments that maintain the B-52 as a ready, reliable and viable asset to the Air Force.
“The ESP contract will allow Boeing to continue supporting our customer by sustaining, modernizing and upgrading the B-52 to meet the warfighter’s needs both today and in the future,” said Mike Houk, B-52 Fleet Support Program manager for Boeing. “Boeing employees understand the B-52 as well as anyone in the world, and we look forward to continuing to modernize this fleet of vital aircraft.”
The ESP contract replaces Boeing's current B-52 fleet support contract and sustains approximately 150 jobs at Boeing facilities in Wichita and Oklahoma City, and at Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport. Boeing engineers will support software, communications, avionics and electrical upgrades; structural analysis; rewiring; and other tasks as directed by the Air Force.
“This contract also allows us to provide 24/7 in-flight emergency support to aircrews around the world -- the pilots can contact Boeing engineers from the cockpit to troubleshoot and solve problems real-time,” said Houk.
All B-52s in the U.S. inventory were built at and delivered from the Boeing facility in Wichita.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32 billion business with 70,000 employees worldwide.

The last plan was to install 4x RB211 engines as used by the 757, but Boeing wanted WAY too much money to do it. Enough so that staying with the TF33s was actually cheaper in the long run. It would have meant a marked increased the range and payload of the BUFF though.

There's also a cheaper alternative that uses JT8D engines, but that hasn't gone anywhere either.

- John

Best I could find picture wise was an artist's impression of a BUFF with generic large turbofans.

An increase in Range and Payload?

Mind boggling!

"Tower, we've lost four engines!"

Probably not payload.

Makes you really wonder why the re-engine program failed. If they want to fly it till 2040 the fuel saved in those 30+years should pay for it alone.

You might get some extra payload, you are chucking 4 engines and the associated junk one bolts onto a 1950s jet engine.

I wonder if Obama will get rid of some or all of them in coming arms agreements with Medvedev/Putin.




-K

Probably not. After all, the Russians would have to give up some Bears in return, and Putin is getting a kick out of his long range recon flights.

- John

New engines may not mean that a greater payload can be carried or that maximum range will be extended, but I would be very surprised if the maximum range for a heavy payload was not greater.

Is it me or does that make the BUFF look, well, uglier? Nothing technical, them turbofans just don't do the B-52 justice. (I know it's just an artist impression, still...)

There is no way to make a BUFF look uglier.

The US won the Cold War because we had the ugliest bombers, BTW.

History will never record that particular fact, sadly.



Shot

Obviously, you have never seen a visualization of Dale Brown's B-52 Megafortress from Flight of the Old Dog? I feel like getting a brain scrub every time I think about it!

Despite the "U" in its nickname, I've never thought of the B-52 as ugly. While not a 707, she is a very dignified, graceful aircraft. To my eye, the extended nose of the G and H models broke up her classic lines. For "ugly", look to the A-10 and AH-64. The four-engine rendering makes her look even more graceful

With respect to Shot, are you saying that a B-52 is uglier than a Bear? Sov designs look like they were designed from the outset to scare people!

B-47 - ugly?

B-58 - ugly?

XB-70 - ugly?

B-1 - ugly?



B-36 - well.....

I've always liked Bears, they seem so lean and graceful. The models with the radar(?) bulge in the nose, not so much, but the others...



Shot

Those zits and whiskers do detract from a plane's appearance! Bears have a certain brutish grace; video of them flailing away at the air with all those props is very impressive. And of course, they are beautiful in the most basic sense; they perform their designed missions well.

Ditto. Love the Bear. Gorgeous plane. Wish I had one.

Make sure it comes with hearing aids.

I can't hear you! Type louder!

180 degrees off topic, but...

Eye-candy for Tomas and Shot: Video of Bears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU2IBqkSjhk...feature=related

No accounting for taste in music, tho...

Thought Dale Brown had already done it?

YDM! That was WTFC, except for the '80s hair-band soundtrack.


Was that in 'Flight of the Old Dog'? I never read the book. You'd have to describe how he made a BUFF uglier.


Shot

A pointy stealth-nose, and a V-tail.

stealth nose on a B-52

It's just like the stealth nose on the Century Series!

I think "Ride of the Valkyries" was composed for the Bear. Wagner was ahead of his time.

Because big honking turbofans are more stealthy than a rounded nose and smaller turbo jets....uh huh.

SHEP 854. The BEAR, at least to me always had the look of a plane that " time forgot". Guess I'm justr an antiquated trendy.. WB
.

Not sure how we won the cold war with ugly bombers.

It sure didn't work for the French in WW II.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/amiot-143.php

http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/bloch-210.php

http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/potez-540.php

http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/farman_f-222.php

Protective eyewear is recomended

I always like to call the French bombers with the large nose and all that glass the sky bar & lounge.

B-52Hs don't have turbojets. They're turbofans.

It certainly looks more "old-fashioned" than a B-52. Didn't the every early concept designs of the B-52 have turboprops?* I suppose you could say the J-57 saved the BUFF from being an "Ameri-Bear". Considering they have a common ancestor (B-29/Tu-4), you could say they are distant cousins. The Bear is a brute-force solution to the long-range bomber problem, whereas the BUFF was a more "elegant" solution.

Of interest is that Bears remained in production into the 1990s, whereas the B-52 production ended in the early '60s. This brings up the question; which is really the better aircraft?

*EDIT: Yes, they did.

Thanks! Wiki only showed the last three concept drawings.

Oh gawd ouch. Ugly.

Shep: Thanks for that vid, gosh Bears are so pretty. If only I had better aircraft-building skills and if Trump's 1/72 Bears weren't so expensive....

BTW, in that vid, there are parts showing the Bear and the props moving slowly...? Were the props really moving slowly or was that an optical illusion?

It looks to me like those parts of the clip were shot with a video camera set to a high shutter speed. The camera scans faster than normal, capturing all of the movement of the blades, without the blurring that occurs at slower shutter speeds (and the naked eye).

And to my eye, at least, the first part with the "slow-looking" blades looks to be slo-mo'd to some extent, as well.

Tomas,
Pop on eBay or elsewhere and obtain a copy of FS2004 "A century of flight" (super cheap these days)

Then get a free download of the Samdim design group aircraft addon of the TU-95MS and TU-142M (in same package). Then have at it. Very good virtual modeling, as you might expect with a 52MB addon aircraft. I don't know the poly count, but it's gotta' be huge. I highly recommend it

Pop in here:

http://samdimdesign.free.fr/

And mouseover the first view box on the left and click "Screenshots Gallery". Lots to look at, click on thumbnails at top of screen.

http://www.rcuvideos.com/video/Tu-95-Second-Flight-wmv

The original airplane concept to carry the designation XB-52 was the Boeing Model 462. Think a larger B-29 with turboprop engines. Between 1945 and 1949, the concept developed, with the Model 464-17, 464-29 and 464-35 all being powered by turboprops. The Model 464-40 was the first concept powered by eight turbojet engines. The Model 464-49 was the first concept powered by P&W J57 engines. If you look at sketches of the concepts, it is the first concept that is identifiably a B-52.

FYI, the actual XB-52 and YB-52 that first flew carried the Boeing internal designation Model 464-67. The last B-52 in production was the B-52H, Boeing internal designation Model 464-261.

Ken, you probably can answer this. According to Wikipedia:
"In November 1959, SAC initiated the Big Four modification program (also known as Modification 1000) for all operational B-52s except early B models. The program was completed by 1963.[31] The four modifications were:
Ability to perform all-weather, low-altitude (below 500 feet or 150 m) interdiction as a response to advancements in Soviet Union's missile defenses. The low-altitude flights were estimated to accelerate structural fatigue by at least a factor of eight, requiring costly repairs to extend service life "


Why would low-altitude flight increase the structural fatigue? Is it due to a higher air density at lower altitude?

"Why would low-altitude flight increase the structural fatigue? Is it due to a higher air density at lower altitude?"

Yes it is.

By a strange stroke of luck it was found that the Long wings og the B-52 would flex enough in low altitude flight to give at least an acceptable ride in the cockpit/crew area. Some other aircraft of that era with delta type wings (short and stiff) transmitted to much buffeting to the crew for sustained low altitude flights/penetrations.