You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

B52's To Get New RR Engines

Your online Air Force Base.
 

DXing 25 Sep 21, 01:02Post
Didn't our dimentia in chief say something about buy American??

Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc’s North America unit beat General Electric Co. and incumbent Pratt & Whitney to provide upgraded engines for the Air Force’s aging B-52 bomber in an award that could grow to $2.6 billion, the Pentagon announced Friday.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/oldest-u-s-bomber-will-get-rolls-royce-engines-over-ge-pratt/ar-AAON0js?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Airbus must be reviving their bid packet for a new Air Force One as we speak!!
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
darrenvox 30 Sep 21, 13:48Post
rr2b11s? or the l-1011 engines? or do i have the wrong number

:) :) :)
darrensfs9site.weebly.com
captoveur 30 Sep 21, 13:54Post
darrenvox wrote:rr2b11s? or the l-1011 engines? or do i have the wrong number


BR700s.. They need to still have 8 of them to avoid a massive redesign.
I like my coffee how I like my women: Black, bitter, and preferably fair trade.
BR725 14 Oct 21, 08:04Post
DXing wrote:Didn't our dimentia in chief say something about buy American??


Well, the B52 engines will be assembled in Indianapolis by Rolls-Royce North America, formerly known as Allison Engine Company. 150 additional jobs will be created in Indy and in-service support will also be done in the US.

The BR725/F130 engine was the only reasonable choice for the replacement programme. The USAF was looking for a mature and reliable off-the-shelf engine with proven service record. PW800 and GE Passport are not in service for a long time, hence didnt collect many service hours and dont meet this requirement. The CF34 which was also pitched by GE is based on a 50 year old design. The BR725 was the perfect allrounder bringing together state-of-the-art technology, service experience, (relatively) low cost and of course also meeting the technical spec.

...but my view on this topic might be a bit subjective as Rolls is paying my bills :-)
miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 14 Oct 21, 14:45Post
You would think they would get something with more thrust, not less. BR725 has 16,900 pounds while the TF-33-P-3 is 17,000. One hundred pounds may not sound like much, but new engines should have some more thrust.

On a brighter note, with lower SFC, the BR725 will give the BUFF more range.
And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen
GQfluffy (Database Editor & Founding Member) 14 Oct 21, 16:55Post
Given the age of the airframes...could they even handle more thrust?
Teller of no, fixer of everything, friend of the unimportant and all around good guy; the CAD Monkey
BR725 15 Oct 21, 04:28Post
miamiair wrote:You would think they would get something with more thrust, not less. BR725 has 16,900 pounds while the TF-33-P-3 is 17,000. One hundred pounds may not sound like much, but new engines should have some more thrust.

On a brighter note, with lower SFC, the BR725 will give the BUFF more range.


I dont know if the USAF asked for more, less or the same thrust. But to increase or reduce the thrust of a jet engine by just a few (hundred) pounds is no problem with tweaking the limits and laws of the engine control unit. In other words, only a software update required to tweak the thrust rating, no hardware change.

Example were the same was done is the BR715 which powers the Boeing 717. The engine has three different thrust ratings ranging from 83 to 95 kN. There is no physical difference between the variants.
Queso (netAirspace ATC Tower Chief & Founding Member) 15 Oct 21, 16:02Post
GQfluffy wrote:Given the age of the airframes...could they even handle more thrust?

I thought about that too. I also wonder how the weights of the two are going to balance out, will the new ones (and their control systems) be heavier or lighter?
Scan complete, no malware detected.
miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 15 Oct 21, 16:13Post
About a thousand pounds lighter per engine.
And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen
Queso (netAirspace ATC Tower Chief & Founding Member) 15 Oct 21, 16:26Post
miamiair wrote:About a thousand pounds lighter per engine.

So that's not a bad tradeoff for a plane bomb truck that doesn't depend on speed as it's defense, give up 800 lbs of thrust for 8,000 lbs EW, that's also another 4 2,000 lb JDAMS or a little more fuel, etc.

If I were making that decision for my own personal B-52, I'd take it. Also good to not go with bleeding-edge tech and take one step back for well-proven and less expensive product. Uncharacteristically good decision on the part of the AF. {thumbsup}
Scan complete, no malware detected.
halls120 (Plank Owner) 31 Oct 21, 17:15Post
I’m glad they picked the right engine regardless of what company designed it. That should come before politics, but these days, I realize that is an obsolete notion.
At home in the PNW and loving it
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT