+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. (/showthread.php?tid=260387)
The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - freeradical - 10-04-2021
100 years. Just crazy.
They're getting new fuel efficient engines to replace the TF33 that has been in use since the 1960's.
From what I understand, it costs something like $2 million dollars to overhaul a TF33 engine. The B-52 has eight of them.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2788242/daf-awards-rolls-royce-b-52h-engine-contract/
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - Yoyodyne ArtWorks - 10-04-2021
Bah, throw a few bottles of Sea Foam in there and they’ll be fine…
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - Ombligo - 10-04-2021
Pilots are already flying planes their grandfather flew, give it another 40 years and it will potentially be great-great grandfather.. that is just insane.
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - raz - 10-04-2021
or we could spend a few hundred billion dollars designing a new heavy bomber that would fit the needs of all the services and might be ready in 15-20 years.
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - Lew Zealand - 10-04-2021
I hope this doesn't go off the rails, but...
Does this happen because the only time there's sufficient willpower to make those time and money investments on a replacement are during wartime or the looming threat of the same? Or are heavy bombers merely so niche (even in wartime) that there's very little use for a new design when compared to that development cost?
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - Paul F. - 10-04-2021
Lew Zealand wrote:
I hope this doesn't go off the rails, but...
Does this happen because the only time there's sufficient willpower to make those time and money investments on a replacement are during wartime or the looming threat of the same? Or are heavy bombers merely so niche (even in wartime) that there's very little use for a new design when compared to that development cost?
The use case for "non-stealthy" heavy bombers has shrunk considerably in the last 50 years. But, when you need that capability and don't care if it's stealthy (because you've already destroyed everything that has a radar), you need it.
Even with upgrades, the B-52 is cheap to operate, unlike the B-1B that can carry more bombs than the B-52.
The B-52 is going to go down in history with the DC-3, and the 1911 pistol... in it's niche, there's just nothing better. Eventually, the niche goes away, and they stop being used... but as long as there's that niche - they're in service.
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - DP - 10-04-2021
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - MrNoBody - 10-04-2021
raz wrote:At which point it's already obsolete!
... and might be ready in 15-20 years.
:emoticon-tv-015:
only $1.6M each, not including 'launch platform'...
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - ztirffritz - 10-04-2021
Paul F. wrote:
I hope this doesn't go off the rails, but...
The B-52 is going to go down in history with the DC-3, and the 1911 pistol... in it's niche, there's just nothing better. Eventually, the niche goes away, and they stop being used... but as long as there's that niche - they're in service.
I'd include the A-10 Warthog in there too. Nothing in our arsenal does what it does. It's basically an armored gun with a plane strapped on to it.
Re: The B-52 is going to end up flying for 100 years. - DP - 10-04-2021
I've read about re-engining B52s with modern turbofans since the '80's. Interestingly, the early plans were to use four modern turbofans to replace the eight "ancient" turbojets.
But this plan calls for eight RR F-130s!
https://www.inceptivemind.com/rolls-royce-f130-turbofan-engines-usaf-b-52-bomber-fleet/21373/