It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The B-1 and the maintenance problem

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Will that actually happen, or do you think they'll do it wrong?




posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

No, i think they'll get the B-21 back on track, but it will be expensive, so with luck, the cockpit upgrade and all the changes they're making to the B-1 work.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigTrain
a reply to: Zaphod58

Make the B-1R, brand new, modern manufacturing and upgraded with latest tech, order 25 of them, can the old ones, guaranteed to b cheaper over the long run.


Sam pointed out the B1R in a BONER



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Get the B-21 back on track, and push it through as fast as possible, then move to a B-1 replacement program.


This ^^^ - providing lessons learned, new aircraft designed to manufacture, design to maintain, designed with redundancy for development.....anything else is just pi55ing good money after bad.

Set the future standard based on the experience that the US and some Allies have been in lately. Almost permanent conflict for a period much longer and diverse than any war, going from 3rd to 5+gen we should create a model that allows surge production with interim capability upgrades, and this needs to include availability without compromise which it seems is as much, if not more important that being cutting edge.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

No, i think they'll get the B-21 back on track, but it will be expensive, so with luck, the cockpit upgrade and all the changes they're making to the B-1 work.


Hey have you got any references to the B-21 program being off track???



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Public, no. It's not so much off track as having a few issues getting things to play well with other things. The EMD guys are working hard, and making progress, but they're having a few issues.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What about a re-engine with F-110-132's de-rated to just under 31,000lbs? That would match the original motors thrust and should see a drop in SFC which I wouldn't mind betting is likely already better than the original F101's at the same thrust output. It would also see a vast improvement in reliability and maintenance. Not to mention that a de-rate of the -132 by 1500-2000lbs would see a big life extension to the hot section which I'm guessing is probably better than the F101 already. This could see that 150 man hours of maintenance drop by a couple of tens of hours.
edit on 1-3-2017 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

I imagine it would also do good things for electrical generating capacity as well.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

That's what they're most likely going to end up doing with the B-52s. They're going to have to put engines that are similar weight, and similar thrust rating in a 1:1 swap.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Now I have a mental image of a B-52 with 8 short, adorable little business jet turbofans hanging off of it. I could see the CF34 doing the trick nicely.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

The CF34-10 is the most likely candidate. It's about a thousand pounds lighter than the TF33, with similar thrust. The lower end thrust rating is about 17,640 pounds, compared to the 17,000 pounds of the TF33-P-3 used on the B-52 now.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Damn, I'm good



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Unless Pratt has a similar engine, and can convince the Air Force that their GTF issues are a one time thing, it's about the only thing that makes sense. They wanted to lease them RB211s at one point, but they planned on replacing the B-52, so it didn't go anywhere. And the CF6 is way too much engine. It would overstress the airframe and cause cracks in the wings and airframe.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Aren't pretty much any/every 4-engine B-52 repower solutions nonstarters because the only way they could even come close to fitting a ~34,000 lbf high-bypass fan on the outboard pylons would be via a funky low-clearance setup like the CFM56's on the 737, chipmunk cheeks and all, and even then, they'd still be clearance nightmares and FOD magnets due to the BUFF's wing flex and their far-outboard locations?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TheBadCabbieGet the B-21 back on track


Just saw this. Is it in that much trouble already?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

They can do a four engine refit, through a couple different ways, but the stress of the extra weight, and power is too much for the airframe. The CF6-50, has a dry weight of between 8966 and 9047 pounds, and rates at 52,500-61,500 lbf of thrust. The JT3D-1, which is the civilian version the TF33 is based on, weighs 4361 pounds, and is 17,000 pounds. So even adding two engines per pod, you're looking at about 200 pounds extra weight per engine mount for the lower weight of the CF6, and over 18,000 pounds more thrust per mount. That's a lot of stress to put on the wing of a 60 year old aircraft that wasn't designed for that kind of weight and power.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, it seems like every repower attempt on the B-52 ends at "It ain't really broke, so let's hold off on trying to fix it".

The Bone on the other hand, seems like a hot mess, and there doesn't seem to be anything coming down the pipeline that can do everything it can do.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
There may be another option for the BUFF. The CFM-56-5B3 as used on the A321 outputs 33,000lbs, and the -5C4 on the A340-200/300 put out 34,000lbs which is exactly what a pair of TF-33's produce. And I'm betting a single CFM weighs less than a pair of the incumbent motors which would help in reducing stress on the strut to wing interface that a modified single engine mount would need.

Spec update:

A TF-33 weighs around 4500lbs (model dependent). A CFM-5B series generally weigh about 5250lbs with the -5C variants weighing a fair bit more at a shade under 8800lbs. The later and improved -7 series weigh about 5220lbs. So you could replace the TF-33 even with the by far heaviest nearly 25 year old -5C and still weigh a little less than a pair of incumbent engines (probably less with a simplified single strut/pylon structure). And this is before we get to the obvious vastly improved SFC, likely lower drag and a plethora of other improvements we could name.
edit on 2-3-2017 by thebozeian because: Info update.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

They could do something about it now if they just bit the bullet and re-instated the fourth generator. All they would sacrifice is a couple of hundred pounds and the absolute top end speed, which very likely is seldom if ever reached anyway. The gains in reliability and future capacity with that fourth gen would easily outweigh that performance loss. The upgrade could be performed during PDM.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

But would the CFM engine's no-USA SNECMA DNA be considered kosher for what is still a strategic weapons system? Or would SNECMA be willing to license the design for a wholesale GE developed variant for a fleet-wide B-52 repower?




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join