Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Once Again The USAF Is Looking To Re-Engine Its B-52 Fleet
The USAF is kicking around 'creative concepts' under which it could re-engine its fleet of 74 ever evolving B-52H Stratofortresses. With the bombers remaining in front-line service until at least 2040, and considering that flying with eight 1960s vintage TF33 engines is far from fuel efficient (burning 3k gallons an hour), re-engined B-52s should make great financial sense. (foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com) Más...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
You'd have to be f'n nuts to do this.
Well if they were allowed to do it, it might work. It sounds screwy at first but it would amount to someone putting up the engines and their return on investment would be the savings in fuel. Now that is the uncertain part as there are too many factors that can affect that figure. I figure it will have to be some type of guaranteed return and then there would be the issue of ownership. As you said, you'd about have to be nuts to do something like this.
I still marvel at how our elected officials use good old "logic & reasoning".
It would seem that some of their estimates might be a trifle off as the cost of refueling the 'ole 52 would/could be dramatically decreased since the extra efficiency would allow some extended missions to be flown without refueling. Or at least reduced refueling sorties by support aircraft. (A significant cost.) I am sure that some existing mission profiles could be used to cost/factor these numbers. With modern engines, an already established support chain in place, proven maintenance histories, it looks to the casual observer as a win/win.
Where is my thought process in error?
It would seem that some of their estimates might be a trifle off as the cost of refueling the 'ole 52 would/could be dramatically decreased since the extra efficiency would allow some extended missions to be flown without refueling. Or at least reduced refueling sorties by support aircraft. (A significant cost.) I am sure that some existing mission profiles could be used to cost/factor these numbers. With modern engines, an already established support chain in place, proven maintenance histories, it looks to the casual observer as a win/win.
Where is my thought process in error?
Well, a given to support your theory on the savings is that with new engines, they wouldn't be burning 3k per hour
That's over $50 million per plane to re-engine an over 60 year old design. That is insane. Do we really need to be flying a 90 year old warplane? Time to replace the BUFF was 20 years ago.
What really gets me is that they tried with both the B1 and B2 and didn't, and this engine thing was known when the decision was made to upgrade it.
You are up early for an old guy...must have all your spunk back. That is good news.
Speak for yourself. LOL. I good except for wind and voice. I think the voice is coming. The lack of wind I'll just have to get used to and convince my wife I am not an invalid. I got to go meet with my lawyer later today. I had all my retirement in a 401K based out of Denver and was fixing to move it all out and into a local bank her and start a good weekly annuity. Well, the company changed 401K companies and they are all PO'd, and I am caught in the middle. Got to lawyer up to get my own money. Living on just this Social Security is rough. Hopefully it will get cleared up in the next week or 2. Lawyer seems confident. He don't get paid unless he is successful.
I was up for surgery which starts at 715. Be sure to ask for legal fees from the slugs.
