Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:59 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Those beercans will be escorted by some Fighter jets so, the purpose is not to jam B-52's but the fighters.
    true, but then the russkies most prolly just lob BVRs form Mig-31s if things get hot.
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  BlackArrow on Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:23 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Send Su-34 and couple of Su-24 all equiped with ECM systems and block their communication as soon as they leave British airspace and fly into international airspace. Demorilize those jokers in advance.

    B-52 comes with its own ECM and ECCM equipment too, you know. I wonder who exactly will be jamming who?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25901
    Points : 26447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:24 am

    If they were B-1Bs I would expect them to be jamming themselves...

    Bears are followed everywhere in international airspace like the countries in the region own the international airspace there, so it would be amusing to see Flankers following B-52s everywhere too and Russian officials complaining about B-52s operating in "their" area... you know... the Arctic ocean... Smile
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14930
    Points : 15429
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  George1 on Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:41 pm

    US Air Force Consolidates Bomber Fleets Under One Command

    The US Air Force will consolidate its B-1 bomber fleets and Long Range Strike-Bombers under the unified command of the US Air Force Global Strike Command, the US Air Force said in a statement.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The decision will move the B-1 bomber fleets and Long Range Strike-Bombers under the same command as the B-2 and B-52 bombers.

    “Consolidating all of our Air Force assets in this critical mission area under a single command will help provide a unified voice to maintain the high standards necessary in stewardship of our nation’s bomber forces,” Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said on Monday.

    Sixty-three bombers and 7,000 people will transfer from Air Combat Command to Global Strike Command by October 1, 2015.

    “Consolidating all conventional and nuclear capable bombers within the same command allows the Air Force to streamline the global strike and strategic deterrence missions, and create a lasting positive impact for the Air Force’s global strike capabilities,” US Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh III said.

    The US Air Force said in the statement the realignment will lead to better coordination in training, tactics, doctrine and aircraft modernization and acquisition.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150421/1021151979.html#ixzz3XxUlDI2l
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14930
    Points : 15429
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:10 pm

    US Air Force Upgrades Aging B-52 Nuclear Bombers for New Smart Weapons

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160114/1033094400/usaf-upgrades-nuclear-bombers.html#ixzz3xDwR2Hr1
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  max steel on Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:10 pm

    Bombing ISIS with B-52s: A Big Waste


    On April 18, the U.S. Air Force’s massive B-52 Stratofortresses launched their first strikes against the Islamic State. In the mission over Qayyarah, Iraq, the lumbering warplanes dropped GPS- or laser-guided bombs onto a nondescript set of buildings.

    But despite being icons of American military power, the bombers might not be the best tools for the job. When Boeing delivered the last B-52s more than a half century ago, the flying branch expected the planes would obliterate sprawling Soviet military bases and cities with nuclear bombs — not carry out pinprick strikes on terrorists in the Middle East.

    “I just feel this is [the] B-52 being shoehorned into current operations,” Brian Laslie, Air Force historian and author of The Air Force Way of War, wrote onTwitter on April 20. “I’m not saying B-52 is wrong platform. I’m just not convinced it is.”

    To be sure, the Pentagon has played up the decision to send the eight-engine heavy bombers back to war. The deployment to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar marked the first time the aircraft — informally nicknamed the Big Ugly Fat Fucker, or BUFF — had flown out of a base in the Middle East in more than 25 years.

    In continuous service since 1955 and repeatedly upgraded, a single B-52 can lug 35 tons of bombs and missiles. While the plane can fly nearly 9,000 miles with a full load of fuel, aerial tankers can keep the BUFF airborne as long as the crew can hold out.

    The bombers are “legendary,” U.S. Army Col. Steve Warren, the Pentagon’s top spokesman for America’s war on Islamic State, told reporters on April 20. “Obviously, the B-52 does have a long and very illustrious history. So we do like to talk about it.”

    The planes replaced B-1 bombers that had been flying over Iraq and Syria since August 2014. According to the Air Force, these “Bones” had flown only seven percent of the missions by manned aircraft since the bombing campaign started, but had lobbed nearly 40 percent of the weapons.

    “The B-52s really are replacing the B-1s,” Warren explained. “[The B-52s] will conduct the same type of precision strikes that we’ve seen for the last 20 months here in this theater.”

    But none of this really explains whether sending the BUFFs — or the “Bones” beforehand— was a practical move in a fight against small groups of militants, with few heavy weapons, who favor civilian style vehicles for transportation.

    “I’m never a fan of using a platform just to use it,” Laslie noted on Twitter. “Was B-52 only platform capable?”



    When the BUFFs touched down in Qatar, the Air Force already had F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16C Viper fighter bombers, F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, A-10 Warthog ground attackers and drones in the region. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps had F/A-18 Hornets and AV-8 Harrier jump jets flying from aircraft carriers and land bases. Coalition partners France and the United Kingdom added even more planes to the mix.

    The vast majority of these planes can carry the same types of bombs the B-52 dumped on Qayyarah. Of course, the bombers can stay airborne longer and carry more weapons on each flight, potentially taking out more targets on each outing.

    But that comes at a cost. The Air Force spends around $70,000 for every hour a B-52 is in the air. By comparison, the Bone costs the flying branch just over $61,000 per flying hour. At some $20,000 an hour, the smaller F-16s are significantly cheaper to put into combat. The venerable A-10 costs even less than that.

    So for every hour of BUFF flight time, the Air Force could get three times as much out of its Vipers or Warthogs. In a video the Pentagon released of the strike at Qayyarah seen above, four or five individual bombs appear to rain down on different buildings in an Islamic State “weapons storage facility.”

    We don’t know if the bomber went on to hit any other targets. But Air Force and Navy pictures routinely show their smaller jets carrying these many bombs — or more — on strikes in Iraq and Syria.

    And the cost figures take into account the relative costs to repair and fuel up the various planes. Unlike many of the Pentagon’s smaller jets, which are still rolling off the assembly line in many cases, the aging B-52 can be logistically demanding.

    When an A-10’s engine gave out over Iraq on April 9, 2015, the Warthog made an emergency landing at Al Asad Air Base. Five days later, a repair team — with the help of U.S. Marines at the base — had the jet ready to go again after installing an entirely new engine.

    Unlike an A-10, replacing any one of a B-52’s eight engines costs $1.5 million and lot more effort, the Air Force explained in a 2013 news release. And compared to more modern power plants, Pratt and Whitney’s Cold War-era TF-33 turbofan is a noisy, dirty, inefficient gas-guzzler.

    The BUFFs have encountered other problems after decades of use. In January 2014, a B-52H was totaled after old electrical systems caught fire in the cockpit. The Air Force decided it would be cheaper to pull another bomber out of the famous Boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona than fix the burned out plane. The flying branch estimated it would cost some $13 million to put the previously retired “Ghost Rider” back into action.

    Even upgrading the BUFFs to keep them up to date is becoming increasingly difficult, as the B-52’s existing spinning launchers inside their bays were built to only carry nuclear bombs and cruise missiles. To carry conventional ordnance, the bombers must use cumbersome racks and external pylons.

    The Air Force has been testing a modification to allow the bombers to carry more and newer types of smart bombs and missiles with an internal rotary launcher. But in recent tests, Air Force weaponeers encountered problems getting the launchers to work with the necessary software. “Imagine if the avionics computer, which is required to operate the weapons system, shuts down just prior to a bomb run?” an official Air Force article asked.

    Because this is exactly what happened. Technicians had to install multiple hardware and software fixes so the BUFF’s crew could “talk” to the its new internal weapon racks without crashing the whole system. With this Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade still in development, the bombers in Qatar are making do with the older setups.

    All of this could help explain why the Air Force was initially reticent to send the bombers to the Middle East. In January, after the B-1s departed, the Air Force insisted it had no plans to deploy the BUFFs to fight Islamic State.

    None of this is to say the B-52 isn’t still relevant or decidedly impressive, especially with the age of the basic design. The airframe is extremely durable and can keep flying through the mid-2040s. Instantly recognizable, the bombers have a psychological effect on enemy forces that many newer planes simply don’t possess.

    Besides, new motors and other modifications could breath extra life and more efficiency into the old BUFFs. In February, the Pentagon announced it was looking into building an “arsenal plane” that could spit out dozens of long-range missiles or other weapons to get past ever improving surface to air missiles and air defense radars. Depending on the exact requirements, the B-52 could be a perfect platform for that plan.

    With the help of new anti-ship missiles, the BUFFs could help offset the potential threat of hostile warships in the Persian Gulf or the South China Sea. Since at least April 2014, the Air Force has been looking at turning some of its remaining H-model bombers back into maritime patrol planes — a role older G variants previously filled during the later stages of the Cold War.

    “I could be wrong as I’m not down range planning,” Laslie added during his online discussion of the bomber’s merits.

    But deterring China, Russia and Iran correspond with the B-52’s strengths. Flying around Iraq picking off individual buildings and militants riding around in pickup trucks does not. And it’s far from economical.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7804
    Points : 7887
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:35 pm

    Ryan Browne
    ‏Verified account @rabrowne75
    1h1 hour ago

    The Air Force "ordered a safety stand-down of the B-1B Lancer fleet June 7. During the safety investigation process following an emergency landing of a B-1B in Midland, Texas, an issue with ejection seat components was discovered that necessitated the stand-down"





    Air Force Global Strike Command on Thursday ordered a safety stand-down of its B-1B Lancer bombers after discovering a problem with its ejection seats.

    In a release Friday morning, Global Strike said the problem with B-1 ejection seat components was discovered as part of a safety investigation board looking into the May 1 emergency landing of a B-1B at Midland International Air and Space Port in Texas.

    Photos of the incident showed that the bomber, based at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, blew at least one of its four cockpit escape hatches, but the ejection seat did not deploy.

    This raised questions as to whether the ejection seat failed, which the Air Force would not comment on last month.


    https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/06/08/air-force-b-1b-bombers-grounded-after-a-problem-with-its-ejection-seats/
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14930
    Points : 15429
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  George1 on Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:03 am

    Interesting photographs (taken by Russian fighters on March 20, 2019) of intercepted strategic bomber Boeing B-52H Stratofortress (US Air Force number 61-0013, short side number "1013", code "LA", callsign AERO32) from the 20th Bomber Squadron of the 2nd Bomber Wing of the United States Air Force flying over the Baltic Sea near the Kaliningrad Region, rising from the British Fairford airbase.

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 6669785_1000

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 6668585_original

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 6669907_1000

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 6669202_original

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 6668942_original

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3576621.html
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7804
    Points : 7887
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:24 pm

    From the chart it looks like she cruised over the Atlantic from her home, probably Minot AB, went for a sightseeing tour of the Baltic and then back to RAF Fairford for tea and cakes in the Officers Mess there comparing their Flanker photos.

    There are apparently around 6 B-52 on detachment there atm.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14930
    Points : 15429
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  George1 on Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:14 am

    The contract for the modernization of weapons systems of the US strategic bomber B-1B and B-52N

    On April 12, 2019, the US Department of Defense issued a $ 14.3143 billion contract to Boeing Corporation for upgrading the B-1B and B-52N strategic bomber weapons systems. The contract is for ten years - until April 11, 2029.

    Details of the planned modernization are not disclosed. The report says that the contract under the so-called flexible scheme Acquisition & Sustainment Tool (F2AST) is aimed at "increasing combat capabilities, combat stability, improving technical support and increasing combat readiness" (increase lethality, enhance survivability, improve supportability, and increase responsiveness). Of this amount, $ 1.215 million is expected to be spent already in the 2019 fiscal year.

    Recall that now in the US Air Force there are 62 strategic bomber Rockwell B-1B and 58 strategic bomber Boeing B-52N.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3609513.html
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14930
    Points : 15429
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  George1 on Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:59 am

    US Air Force plans to have a fleet of strategic bombers from aircraft B-21 and B-52


    According to Stephen Losey’s American publication, Air Force general: Two-bomber fleet is the future, Lieutenant General David Naom, deputy chief of staff of the US Air Force for planning and programs, spoke on February 27, 2020 in a committee on U.S. House of Representatives Armed Forces, said the U.S. Air Force plans to have a mixed fleet of strategic bombers of two types in the future - the newly created Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider and the upgraded Boeing B-52 Stratofor veteran bombers tress.

    Thus, the new B-21 bombers should replace the strategic B-1B and B-2A bombers in the US Air Force. Unobtrusive Northrop Grumman B-2A Spirit bombers, according to General Naom, will remain in service for another ten years until the B-21 is fully operational and certified to carry nuclear weapons.

    The fleet of strategic bomber B-1B Lancer is in poor technical condition and will actually be decommissioned before the arrival of B-21 aircraft (2025-2026 are now considered to be the beginning of deliveries of V-21). The publication recalls that although the U.S. Air Force in 2018 stated that the level of combat readiness of B-1B is 51.75%, in August 2019, General John Heiten (now deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) told lawmakers that in fact there are only six B- 1B are in a combat-ready state, and a considerable part of the B-1B fleet has been in a non-flying and "difficult to recover" state for a long time. The recently announced draft US defense budget for fiscal year 2021 proposes to remove 17 of the 62 B-1B aircraft from the Air Force.

    Concerning the fate of the B-52, General Naom pointed out that, despite the age, surviving aircraft of this type still have a large resource, and some of the aircraft will be able to remain in service for up to 100 years (the last production B-52Ns were built in 1962).

    By upgrading the key elements of the B-52, including replacing engines, adding a new airborne radar and other new technologies, “we can do with this aircraft what we cannot do with the B-1 or B-2,” said General Naom.
    According to Will Ropera, US Deputy Secretary of State for Procurement, Technology and Logistics, the B-52’s modernization project is “going well,” and the Air Force’s request for proposals to modernize this aircraft (primarily to replace engines) should be published this year .

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3949538.html
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25901
    Points : 26447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:07 am

    So the Russians will end up with PAK DA and Tu-160M2, and withdraw the Bear over time, while the US is withdrawing the B-1B and B-2, and going for an improved new build B-2 called the B-21, and the ancient B-52... considering they are replacing everything in the B-52 you would think it would make rather more sense to just adapt a 747 for the job and just use that instead... make some brand new ones modified from scratch for the role... Even just making them four engined high bypass turbofans would reduce fuel costs and fuel use and improve flight performance...
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7804
    Points : 7887
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Mar 19, 2020 12:50 am

    GarryB wrote:So the Russians will end up with PAK DA and Tu-160M2, and withdraw the Bear over time, while the US is withdrawing the B-1B and B-2, and going for an improved new build B-2 called the B-21, and the ancient B-52... considering they are replacing everything in the B-52 you would think it would make rather more sense to just adapt a 747 for the job and just use that instead... make some brand new ones modified from scratch for the role... Even just making them four engined high bypass turbofans would reduce fuel costs and fuel use and improve flight performance...

    RR working up their 8 new engine proposal for the B-52. RFP at end of this year. Similar thrust to existing engines (the military version of the PW JT3D) but 20% cheaper to run.

    Rolls-Royce has completed early engine tests with the F130, the engine which will be offered for the US Air Force B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program. Full-engine tests were completed recently at Rolls-Royce facilities in Indianapolis, US, confirming the engine design and performance are a perfect fit for the B-52 aircraft say Rolls-Royce.

    In addition to full-engine tests, Rolls-Royce has already compiled more than 50,000 hours of digital engineering time to further develop and refine the F130 for the B-52.

    Adam Riddle, Rolls-Royce, Executive Vice President, Business Development and Future Programs, said: “The Rolls-Royce F130 engine for the B-52 is part of a proven and efficient family of engines with millions of operational hours. We are excited about our test results in Indianapolis as we continue to demonstrate that the F130 engine is the perfect fit for the B-52. The F130 is the affordable, modern option for this iconic US Air Force aircraft.”

    The F130 engine for the B-52, say the firm, produces 17,000 pounds of thrust and is a variant of the Royce BR725 commercial engine.

    The F130 series of engines already power aircraft in the US Air Force fleet, including the E-11A and C-37 aircraft, with more than 200,000 hours of combat flight operations. Also Gulfstream V & Bombardier Global Express.


    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rolls-royce-f130-engine-for-b-52-completes-early-testing/
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1066
    Points : 1064
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:57 am

    It's not just cheaper to run, it will give a longer range to the bomber.

    I know that 8 engines seems a bit silly, but the b52 existing airframes have still quite a bit of life in them and they want to keep using them without changing too much.
    In the past there had been talks about having a b52 with 4 eingines (using the same engines found on a320 or boeing 737) but this was not realistic, since the current wings and pylons could not accomodate such engines (and they would sit too low anyway).
    The only way to do a 4 engines version of b52 would be to completely redesign at least the wings and the pylons, and this is not an acceptable option, also because they are not planning about building new airframes but just to fit new engines in the existing airframes and keep them flying for another 30 years.

    By the way there are 4 engines proposals for the replacement.

    https://www.defensenews.com/video/2019/09/18/which-engine-will-get-on-the-b-52-take-a-look-at-all-4-options/

    One is from Pratt&Withney (the PW800), one is the one you mentioned from Rolls-Royce (the F130/ BR725), and two proposals are from GE: the new Passport engine (with better performance and fuel efficiency than the alternatives but possibly more risky, since it is brand new and without the same proven records in operation and lastly the proven and experienced CF34, used in many different aircrafts (including the chinese regional jet ARJ-21).

    A curious fact is that even the GE engines contain several parts sourced from China (usually they should be simple parts, like brackets, gaskets, etc but still....) if i am not mistaken they abandoned the traditional suppliers because china could produce them at s cheaper price...
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7804
    Points : 7887
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:31 am

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

    A curious fact is that even the GE engines contain several parts sourced from China (usually they should be simple parts, like brackets, gaskets, etc  but still....) if i am not mistaken they abandoned the traditional suppliers because china could produce them at s cheaper price...

    Like much of industry in the World. Apart perhaps from Germany. Bought a quality new kitchen last year and, unlike UK made kitchens, all the hinges and fittings were still made in Germany. Part of why it was more expensive.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1066
    Points : 1064
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:44 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

    A curious fact is that even the GE engines contain several parts sourced from China (usually they should be simple parts, like brackets, gaskets, etc  but still....) if i am not mistaken they abandoned the traditional suppliers because china could produce them at s cheaper price...

    Like much of industry in the World. Apart perhaps from Germany. Bought a quality new kitchen last year and, unlike UK made kitchens, all the hinges and fittings were still made in Germany. Part of why it was more expensive.
    not everything. Even for washing machines or similar. If you buy here in Germany a washing machine from Bosch you buy something manufactured in Poland (even the south Korean Samsung's washing machines sold in Germany are made in Poland). The only household machines still made in Germany are from the company Miele.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7804
    Points : 7887
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:56 am

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    not everything. Even for washing machines or similar. If you buy here in Germany a washing machine from Bosch you buy something manufactured in Poland  (even the south Korean Samsung's  washing machines sold in Germany are made in Poland). The only household machines still made in Germany are from the company  Miele.

    Yes, aware of that, just bought one Smile I was really comparing the bits and bobs as you mentioned re the engines.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14930
    Points : 15429
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:28 pm

    Plans for equipping American B-1B bombers with ARRW hypersonic missiles


    The website of the American Air Force Magazine in John A. Tirpak's AFGSC Eyes Hypersonic Weapons for B-1, Conventional LRSO reports that the US Air Force's Global Strike Command is planning to modernize the remaining Rockwell strategic bombers B-1B Lancer equipped with their promising hypersonic missiles AGM-183A ARRW (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon) and a non-nuclear version of the developed aviation strategic cruise missile LRSO (Long-Range Stand-Off).

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 79433310
    Demonstration of the possibility of placing a conditional promising hypersonic missile on the fuselage revolver launcher Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL) from a B-52H bomber installed in the enlarged bomb bay of the experimental Rockwell B-1B Lancer of the US Air Force. Edwards Air Force Base, 08.28.2019 (c) Giancarlo Casem / U.S. Air Force


    This was stated by General Timothy Ray, commander of the US Air Force Strategic Command, in an interview to be published in the May issue of Air Force Magazine.

    General Ray said in an interview that the Strategic Command wants to repair and modernize the remaining B-1B aircraft [that is, 44 units] after the US Air Force writes off 17 units [planned to be cut by the draft defense budget for fiscal year 2021]. This modernization will include the restoration of eight external suspension units, on which it was originally planned to deploy two AGM-86 ALCM strategic cruise missiles on each; these components of the suspension were dismantled in connection with the Russian-American strategic arms reduction treaties, providing for the abandonment of the use of B-1B bombers as carriers of nuclear weapons.

    “My goal would be to get at least one squadron of B-1B aircraft equipped with external suspension components to carry the ARRW hypersonic cruise missile,” Rey said. Squadron B-1B usually has 18 aircraft.

    The 412th test wing at California's Edwards Air Force Base showed off B-1B options for additional armament capabilities last August, including the use of external suspensions, as well as larger internal compartments and the use of the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher fuselage turret launcher (CSRL ) for carrying non-nuclear cruise missiles JASSM-ER.

    According to Ray, some aircraft "will require significant modernization work." “We can do these smart things, and we have Congressional support to do this. This is what we are working on to get it ourselves. We had a very good dialogue. ”

    General Ray said that upgrading the B-1B to carry ARRW was not requested in the fiscal year 2021 budget, but this is “a project we are working on. "There are several options that we could consider, but we believe that the easiest, fastest, and probably most effective in the short term will be the use of external suspensions." ARRW, he said, is "a good combination of glider and weapon configuration that will help us quickly enter this game."

    When asked if the head of the US Air Force Strategic Command prefers ARRW over other hypersonic missiles, Ray replied: “I think we are committed to ARRW because I think our capabilities to use it are good for this.”

    The United States Air Force is also working with the United States Department of Defense Advanced Defense Research Agency (DARPA) on the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC). Pentagon officials said the U.S. Air Force is considering the possibility of carrying hypersonic missiles on B-1B and B-52 bombers both on the inside and the outside. Using external pendants and the CSRL fuselage turret launcher, the B-1B could carry 31 hypersonic missiles simultaneously.

    General Ray said the B-52 fleet will also be equipped to carry hypersonic missiles, and since this aircraft will have new engines, radar, communications equipment and weapons, it is currently planned to increase the number of these bombers for testing from two to eight aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base. According to him, the B-1B will be able to take on part of the "load from the B-52" when testing hypersonic missiles. The test program, which was developed in coordination with the Air Force Materiel Command, is “very aggressive” and will require the US Air Force to “allocate more aircraft, escorts and personnel” for testing over the next three to five years said Ray.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3986665.html
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25901
    Points : 26447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:13 am

    Plans for installing hypersonic missiles in the bomber they have decided they are not going forward with... American military logic right there.

    And regarding the B-52 why don't they want to make changes to its engines... are they going to put Norden bomb sights back in them?

    It is a joke they have 8 engines in this day an age when long range airliners have two engines.

    There are four engine pylons... why not have four engines... it is not rocket science and should make the aircraft much better.

    I mean it was no problem to change the engines of the Tu-144 from the old engines to the new NK-32s from the Blackjack and they are internal engines... it is pathetic.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6782
    Points : 6929
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  kvs on Mon Apr 13, 2020 3:48 am

    GarryB wrote:Plans for installing hypersonic missiles in the bomber they have decided they are not going forward with... American military logic right there.

    And regarding the B-52 why don't they want to make changes to its engines... are they going to put Norden bomb sights back in them?

    It is a joke they have 8 engines in this day an age when long range airliners have two engines.

    There are four engine pylons... why not have four engines... it is not rocket science and should make the aircraft much better.

    I mean it was no problem to change the engines of the Tu-144 from the old engines to the new NK-32s from the Blackjack and they are internal engines... it is pathetic.

    Everything is so expensive in the USA that rational choices cannot be made. That is a serious problem that few talk about it.
    For fanbois it is evidence of magical power.

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6104
    Points : 6255
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon May 18, 2020 10:23 pm

    The result of a B-1B Lancer taking off, and it's exhaust hitting a defenseless F-16! Embarassed lol1

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 EYPzVG9UEAAK9gz?format=jpg&name=small
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14930
    Points : 15429
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  George1 on Fri May 22, 2020 10:21 pm

    USAF Opens Bidding Phase Of B-52 Re-Engine Competition


    The U.S. Air Force has kicked off a three-way competition to re-engine the entire 76-aircraft B-52 fleet from 2021 to 2035.

    The request for proposals (RFP) released on May 19 invites bids from GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce to supply 608 engines to replace each of the eight, 60-year-old, 16,000 lb.-thrust P&W TF33 turbofans on the heavy bomber.

    GE can choose between the CF34 or Passport engine or offer both. P&W has proposed the PW800. Rolls-Royce will offer a military version of the BR.725.

    The Air Force RFP lays out a two-step selection process. In step one, companies must submit “virtual” prototypes of their engine, meaning a digital design with integrated models for manufacturing, performance and sustainment.

    Step 2 calls for the traditional engine source selection process, which will be informed by the data from the virtual prototypes and an integration risk analysis completed in the first step.

    The Air Force has said the TF33 engines that now power the B-52 cannot be sustained practically beyond 2030. The Cold War jet, meanwhile, is expected to continue operating beyond 2050, outliving the B-2 and B-1B fleets scheduled for retirement in the 2030s.

    Armed with a new class of hypersonic and long-range missiles, including the nuclear Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon, the B-52 will perform the standoff mission, while the B-21 penetrates into contested airspace.

    https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/usaf-opens-bidding-phase-b-52-re-engine-competition

    Sponsored content

    B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress: - Page 2 Empty Re: B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:03 pm