Posted on 08/19/2002 8:56:33 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Despite interest from the office of the secretary of defense in exploring the possibility of re-engining the B-52 fleet, the Air Force maintains such a project is not a requirement at this point, though improvements to the engines and the overall platform may become necessary as the service seeks to expand the bomber's combat role, according a senior official.In an interview this week with Inside the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Dan Leaf, director of operational requirements, said the service is looking at using the B-52 as an electronic jamming platform. Currently, the Air Force is studying the concept as part of the Airborne Electronic Attack analysis of alternatives and is "looking at investment in this budget cycle," he added.
"As we continue to expand the B-52 utilization we're looking at it in addition to its primary attack role carrying perhaps standoff attack electronic jamming pods," Leaf said. "As we consider that, we'll have to consider what that means for the [aircraft's] service life." Leaf declined to give any further details.
Though an electronic attack variant of the B-52 may require some modifications or other sustainment work to get off the ground, the B-52 bombers' engines are meeting their requirements. The average Pratt & Whitney TF-33-103 engine is 40-years-old.
"We've got a sustainment plan not just to sustain [the engines] but to recognize, predict and overcome any problems that evolve as the engine life continues to increase," Leaf said. "We think it's a sustainable engine. It's delivering acceptable levels of performance, and so our intention is to stick with it."
Boeing, which built the B-52s, proposed in 1996 to re-engine the fleet, company spokesman Paul Guze said this week. The company recommended several possible replacements including engines from Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls Royce, though the Air Force ultimately decided against the project.
The Air Force currently has more pressing priorities and is focusing its investment dollars on modernizing the aging fighter fleet with the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, Leaf said. "We don't see that as a wise investment of our limited defense dollars to re-engine an airplane that's meeting or exceeding our reliability requirements in an engine sense," he explained.
In June, Pete Aldridge, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, asked the Defense Science Board to establish a task force to study the possibility of re-engining the B-52 fleet.
"This weapons system, first placed into service in the late 1950s and last manufactured in 1962, will likely remain in inventory as late as 2040," the Pentagon's chief acquisition official wrote June 26. "Given its projected use in a variety of scenarios and situations, it is prudent to consider steps to ensure its continued viability."
The DSB's report is expected by Sept 30, 2002, according to the Aldridge memo. To date, the task force has met twice and plans to meet Aug. 27 before issuing a report, Leaf said, noting the service provided information and advice to the task force.
Officials said the B-52 is undergoing a wide variety of other sustainment projects, such as the avionics midlife and situational awareness defensive improvements, both of which are funded through fiscal year 2007. The SADI is the highest B-52 modification priority, the officials said, noting the current ALR-20 panoramic receiver system relies on 1960's era technology that is no longer supportable.
Other improvements include memory-enhancing upgrades to the ALQ-172 electronic countermeasure receivers/transmitters and the addition of the 1760 weapons interface to the bomb bay so the aircraft can carry "smart" weapons internally.
The service could not give cost estimates or a proposed timeline for the B-52 modernization because funding issues have yet to be resolved, a spokeswoman said.
"Limited by funding available, we use combat needs to prioritize and fund the upgrades through the corporate process," she explained. "The far term upgrade plans will carry the B-52 through the next decade. Federal Acquisition Regulations document the only time line restriction: the Air Force cannot start a major modification within 5 years of the retirement date of a weapon system."
-- Laura M. Colarusso
...thereby reducing the size and budget of the Air Force, which is one reason it won't happen.
It gives me an immense feeling of satisfaction to know that when we are forced to destroy somebody's country, we do it with a weapon that was created before I was even born. American ingenuity and know how exemplified.
I think that they've gotten better though...
They still smoke on takeoff, and probably always will.Unfortunately, not in the numbers they used to. My father was a KC-135 pilot for many years, a few of these years sitting alert.
Seen it from right underneath during the heyday of B-52s, about 1960. Engines running rich, military power for takeoff, heavy loads. Can't forget the experience; don't want to, either.
'The Air Force currently has more pressing priorities and is focusing its investment dollars on modernizing the aging fighter fleet with the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter'
...thereby reducing the size and budget of the Air Force, which is one reason it won't happen.
Not if the priorities of the Air Force are internally driven, but the Air Force is too important to be left up to the generals. If the B-52s were re-engined, they would not only be more efficient, they would be much cleaner and quieter. The budget rules need to be changed so there are incentives to operate more efficiently. The savings from not needing to purchase more tankers could be used to buy more fighters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.