B-52 Bomber: One Hundred Years Flight

B-52H pair flying above the Baltic Sea, October 23, 2019.

Despite a record age, long-range Boeing B-52H Stratofortress bombers remain the basis of strategic aviation USA. Moreover, they will maintain this status for the next several decades. The current plans of the Air Force provide for the continued operation of such equipment, but this requires various measures.

The future of long-range aviation

At the end of February, Congressional Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. David Naom spoke at a Congressional hearing. He spoke about the current state of affairs in strategic aviation, and also revealed current plans in this area. According to them, the construction of completely new aircraft does not preclude the continued operation of record-breaking old ones.

In the long term, the US Air Force plans to build a mixed fleet of long-range bombers. Its most important component will continue to be the B-52H, which should once again be modernized. It is also planned the production of new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider aircraft, which will completely replace the two types of equipment. In the near future, the process of decommissioning the obsolete B-1B will begin, and the inconspicuous B-2A will remain in service for now.

According to D. Naom, the 76 B-52H aircraft available in the Air Force still have sufficient resources and can continue to serve. Individual aircraft will remain in units until their century. However, this requires timely modernization of equipment. Need to update electronic equipment, powerplant, etc.

The long-awaited engines

The combat B-52Hs each have eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-103 turbojet engines. These products have been developed since the late fifties using the technologies of that time. A stock of ready-made engines and spare parts was created, allowing to continue to operate until now. Back in the seventies, such motors were recognized as obsolete and in need of replacement. At the same time, the first remotorization project was launched. However, for economic and other reasons, these works were not completed. In the future, new unsuccessful attempts were made to modernize the power plant.

Last year, another similar project was launched - the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program ("Program for replacing engines with commercial"). The Air Force has approached General Electric, Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney with a proposal to develop preliminary designs. In May of this year, a formal request for proposals was sent out, to which responses are expected by July 22 The next months will be spent on evaluating projects, and in June next year, the Air Force plans to sign a contract for the supply of serial motors.

While the technical staff works with the Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-103 engines, but in a few years they will have to master new products

According to the terms of the B-52 CERP program, bombers should receive engines with a thrust of at least 8-9 tons and high rates of efficiency. It is proposed to maintain four twin-engine engine nacelles, which will do without glider processing. To further reduce the cost of remotorization, it is proposed to use engines of "commercial" types. Participating companies offer three options for motors: one ready-made and two promising modifications of serial products.

The Air Force is going to upgrade all 76 B-52H bombers of the combat personnel and reserve. This requires more than 600 engines, and a stock of finished products and spare parts will also be created. Design work on CERP will last until 2023-24, after which the production and installation of new motors will begin. Direct modernization of aircraft will be carried out by Boeing. The modernization of the entire park will be completed in 2035.

New weapons

Over several decades of operation, the B-52H managed to change several sets of target equipment and a number of generations of aircraft weapons. Now a new modernization of this kind is being carried out, as a result of which the aircraft will improve its combat capabilities.

Arms layout

On April 12, 2019, the Air Force and Boeing signed another contract for the modernization of the armament complex of the B-52H and B-1B bombers. The work will last exactly 10 years, its cost is $ 14,3 billion. Official reports mentioned that the project will be carried out according to the Flexible Acquisition & Sustainment Tool. We are talking about increasing combat stability, expanding combat capabilities and increasing combat readiness.

However, other details were not provided, and the key features of the project remain unknown. Later reports by officials as a whole did not change the situation, and so far you have to rely only on fragmentary reports, ratings, etc.

Hypersonic Subsonic

In the foreseeable future, long-range models, including new classes. Obviously, their operation will not do without the B-52H. Moreover, the development and testing of new products depend on old aircraft.

A year ago, on June 12, 2019, one of the cash B-52H became a flying laboratory for preliminary tests of the promising hypersonic aeroballistic missile AGM-183A ARRW. At that time, it was only about the transportation of a prototype, but in the near future the bomber will start launching full-fledged prototypes.

AGM-86B ALCM cruise missiles with external suspension

New information on this subject appeared in the May issue of Air Force Magazine in an interview with the head of the US Strategic Command. General Timothy Ray said the B-52H military aircraft will undergo modernization, which will ensure the use of hypersonic weapons. Currently, only two bombers have such capabilities, used at Edwards Air Force Base for testing. In the near future, six more will join them.

The increase in the number of flying laboratories is associated with the specifics of the designated test program. It is distinguished by its “aggressiveness,” which requires the use of additional aircraft and an increase in the number of personnel. Such processes will continue for approx. 3-5 years, until the end of development work.

Service continues

Thus, the US Air Force is still not going to abandon its oldest combat aircraft and intend to keep them in service for the maximum possible time. Regular B-52H Stratofortress modernization programs are being offered, and ratings for a possible centenary in service are being heard again.

It is not known whether the B-52H will survive in service until the fifties and sixties, but the chances of this are quite high. Thus, the B-52 CERP remotorization program will be carried out until 2035 and will significantly extend the service life. And it is unlikely that the Pentagon will decide to abandon the improved fuel-efficient bombers within 10-15 years after the completion of CERP.

The first export flight of the AGM-183A rocket

Another aspect of the CERP program should also be noted. Previous projects of this kind did not give real results, but they spent time and money. Another failure in this area will be a serious blow to the image of aircraft manufacturers, the Air Force and long-range aviation. First of all, this will lead to additional difficulties for the Strategic Command in “knocking out” funding for new programs.

With the modernization of the B-52H, in addition to an increase in flight performance and economic characteristics, an increase in combat qualities is expected due to new on-board equipment and weapons. Despite the subsonic speed, high visibility for the radar and other shortcomings, the B-52H will remain a convenient and efficient platform for weapons, including promising hypersonic missiles.

Thanks to this, the B-52H will continue to serve for several decades. Until the end of the twenties, the first production B-21s will join them, and by that time the decommissioning of other bombers will begin. Despite its considerable age, the B-52H is not yet out of date - but a variety of efforts and modernization projects are required to maintain the required condition and potential.

Comments

[Sergey985]

The B-52 is an eternal plane. Look at the topwar in thirty years to read about the next modernization)

[Civil]

Will the glider withstand so many upgrades? The same motogandola - traction of new engines?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey985

The B-52 is an eternal plane.

Motolyga with wings.
It's funny that the B-52 remains in service, and the B-1B that was created to replace it is considered obsolete and goes on cancellation.

[5-9]

The B-1B is ok from the B-1A (that was an analogue of the Tu-160, but not a shmagl) with a concept of application (low-altitude breakthrough of air defense and throwing free-falling yadrenbonb), which was already outdated at the time it appeared in the army ... therefore it is not at all neither a carrier of nuclear weapons (according to strategic offensive arms), nor a long-range ALCM, nor a strategic weapon (in fact). "Useless and kind of good" .... their resource was burnt to be ground into rubble in the Afghan mountains.

[Trevis]

Quote: Sergey985

The B-52 is an eternal plane.

Everything has a limit. Not from the good life of a veteran driven)

[volodimer]

So we especially TU-95 are not going to retire. It’s just that with the growth of capabilities of wearable weapons, the requirements for the carrier have decreased ... Speed, range, stealth are not so relevant ... If you can take off the adversary with something hypersonic in your airspace, then the old people can do it well.

[knn54]

If the V-52 is combined into a network with the F-35 / F-22, then the stealth fighters, due to the small EPR, will suppress the enemy’s air defense, and the bomber could finish off the objects left without protection with a more powerful arsenal.

[volodimer]

That’s the point, there is no need for bombers to break through the enemy’s air defense in the current conditions, accordingly, the old, proven-debugged and cheap V-52 and TU-95 can solve the tasks, and V-1B, V-2 and TU-160 become less demanded, although at one time they were called upon to replace the old people.
Cheap, of course, conditionally, but this is compared to followers.

[Bersaglieri]

Like the Tu-95MS (Prada, MS- younger than B-52H, 15-20 years)

[Tom Johnson]

The new engines are necessary to produce electricity for "other" onboard sensors and systems.

[nikon7717]

Interesting conclusions suggest themselves. The first. The USA, like us, does not plan to radically renew the YES park.
Second. Why. Either they cannot do it qualitatively (this is unlikely), or we are on the verge of a new technological revolution and the money goes into the development of more promising areas (like the change of a wooden sailing fleet to armored cruisers).

[Sergey Valov]

Over the past 30 to 40 years, there have not been any “technological revolutions” in the aircraft industry, and they are not foreseen. The development of aviation equipment and its production (technology) over the past decades has been going through the slow licking of previously found solutions. There was some progress with the introduction of CNC equipment and polymer materials, but not fundamental. As riveted connections reigned, so they dominate. With engines, the situation is no less easy. WFD almost reached the limit of perfection, for a meager increase in performance you have to pay an exorbitant price. During this period, only avionics abruptly jumped forward, but even here the development limit has been outlined, it will definitely fail to replace a person in the foreseeable future. The B-52, in my opinion, is a masterpiece of engineering, since not only an excellent aircraft was created, but, voluntarily or involuntarily, aviation development was predicted for many decades to come.

[ycuce234-san]

Pulse detonation engine has only been studied for 70 years.
And he is not the only one - there are previously studied aviation nuclear reactors.
There are projects of a thermonuclear engine for space with laser ignition of microcapsules of thermonuclear fuel. Given the current progress with lasers, it is likely that such an engine will appear on airplanes faster than we think - then the pilots on Aviks, taking off, will happily yell into the air something like - "Let's go!", Meaning the launch of a ramjet atmospheric thermonuclear engine.
While progress has room to move.

[Sergey Valov]

It is precisely in theory that all this has long been known, but in practice, things are not going further than laboratory experiments. With lasers, too, everything is very specific - in theory everything is simple, but where to get the necessary amount of energy? How to summarize it? We were taught in the distant 70s - you can draw everything, try to do it.

[ycuce234-san]

Here - the difficulties are mostly engineering.
For now, of course, it’s too early to drag a thermonuclear engine into a fighter, bomber or tank, but for large ocean-going ships it looks more real, like a technological horizon of about 50 years, since the engines there have incomparably large dimensions and mass, which means it will be easier to implement them.

[ycuce234-san]

In addition - it seems that the problem of supersonic aircraft propellers is also still waiting for its solution.

[Tom Johnson]

Soft robots that can deflect and warp wings are not revolutionary? you will see soon.

[strelokmira]

And only one conclusion suggests itself: it’s cheaper to send one old b-52 for bombing in a banana republic than to build your base there and use a-10, f-15, etc., and it’s safer, more than one MANPADS will not achieve to the strategist

[Bersaglieri]

Especially, given the fact that the Kyrgyz Republic launches for 1-2 thousand kilometers to the target :)

[strelokmira]

Especially, given the fact that the Kyrgyz Republic launches for 1-2 thousand kilometers to the target :)

And where does the KR happen when the b-52 can work just fine with bombs without them?

[Bersaglieri]

There is no sense, since the CDs fly several thousand kilometers. Now, if "war with alien invaders" - then the color will be different :)

[Kot_Kuzya]

The B-52 glider is like an ax, the form of which there is nowhere to improve further, a perfect worked-out form, ideal for a subsonic bomber. Just as the concept of the airframe of subsonic passenger airliners, as they were developed in the 50s, does not change, they have remained so until now. Only engines change to more high-torque and more economical ones, the filling of avionics changes, composites can be used, but the form of the airframe itself remains the same.

[volodimer]

Recently, I often refer to our clone of Popular Mechanics magazine, there are a lot of American cookies there, but this does not interfere with looking at their common ideas. One of ... described the results of the competition for civil aircraft of the future, and in particular the choice of layout ...
Bottom line: Through the screen of selection according to the criteria, the classic passed without question.
But the flying wing, banana-ring-planes, and other exotics have dropped out.
I wanted to finish the comment already ... and here:

The B-52 glider is like an ax, the form of which there is nowhere to improve further, a perfect worked-out form, ideal for a subsonic bomber.

As with AK ... All improvements include drawing out some characteristics to the detriment of others ...
That somehow it turns out .... Regards!

[your1970]

At one time, this became LI-2, whose brother in the United States established a resource-as

[Captan78]

At the same time, advanced American citizens do not forget on occasion to call the Tu 95 a rare junk .... And who are the judges?

[volodimer]

They have a legendary junk in service with no less. And if we have the right to be proud of AK, PM, DShK (even if we lead it from the Shpaginsky modification and not from the Degtyarev source), then they can Colt 1911, Browning M2, and the M60 is also a long-liver. Sophisticated equipment is dropping out of the armies of arms manufacturers faster, but for a long time it lives with the poor, our T-34-84, T-55, their M-48, etc. Here the opportunities to contain equipment begin to affect ... Ships are complex and 7k and Fletchers have not served customers for a long time, although they have been fully qualified for the role of old men. By air ... MIGs and SUs are still on the wing, just like their peers Phantoms, but this is in the countries of the 3rd world ... But such serious systems as the B-52 and Tu-95 .... Yeshe will serve, well, that we didn’t let under the knife with Gorbachev.

[merkava-2bet]

Yes, the old stuff as we see it. All YES of the USSR / Russia are pure nuclear warplanes, the Tu-22M is a small exception, it can sink ships (in theory).
Unlike the leadership of the USSR, the Yankees did not destroy the bombers, and we (the USSR / Russia / Ukraine) joyfully jumped in for green lavender, and even planted it, now we are trying to give birth to something on the basis of technologies of the 60-70s, a shame for powers.
When we talk about the US Armed Forces, we do not forget that they are technically and technologically the first in the world, this time, the second location of the bases, and most importantly the Giant Combat Experience, in any theater of operations, there is something to think about.

[Knell wardenheart]

In a war with the Papuans or banana dictatorships, all this can and will be relevant until the middle of the century, but for a serious war the plane is painfully slow and noticeable - there are too many smart and smart weapons, and after 15 years, hypersound will appear in Iran, so I can’t share optimism of the USA.

[A. Privalov]

and the Tu-95 and B-52 are great cars.

Don't rush girls
Take care of grandfather.
Grandpa also has
How to entertain anyone.
(G. Huberman)

I wish both models many, many years of peaceful life.

[Undecim]

The official reports mentioned that the project will be carried out according to the Flexible Acquisition & Sustainment Tool. We are talking about increasing combat stability, expanding combat capabilities and increasing combat readiness.
However, other details were not provided, and the key features of the project remain unknown. Later reports by officials as a whole did not change the situation, and so far you have to rely only on fragmentary reports, ratings, etc.
Woe writers did not understand that Flexible Acquisition & Sustainment Tool - This is not a prerequisite for the modernization of the B-52H aircraft and it is impossible to find any technical information in it. This is a kind of US Air Force project management program to upgrade its fleet. Total.
There is also the IWSSP program - the Integrated Arms System Support Program.
As for the "key features of the project", they are well known.
The first is the new radar. Instead of the ancient AN / APQ-166 will be installed AN / APG-83 SABR with AFAR. A similar one is installed on the latest upgraded versions of the F-16.
Second, it is, as it is fashionable to say now, "digitalization" of what we call avionics, and "they" have avionics - the Combat Network Communication Technology program. The Americans themselves joke that this is a program for transforming the B-52 from a telephone with a rotary dial to an iPhone.
Third, upgrading weapons systems. Instead of the AGM-86 aircraft plan to arm the LRSO. The aircraft is also seen as a carrier of promising hypersonic ARRW.
Fourth. Modernization of REP systems. Today's version of the AN / ALQ-172 of the early eighties requires updating.

[Old26]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: Sergey985

The B-52 is an eternal plane.

Motolyga with wings.
It's funny that the B-52 remains in service, and the B-1B that was created to replace it is considered obsolete and goes on cancellation.

Not so simple, Alex. Americans now do not understand at all, then they are going to write off B-1B, then, given the possible withdrawal from START-3, they will be re-equipped with statues again. At least I heard that of the 66-67 B-1B currently existing, they plan to upgrade about half of the carriers of hypersonic weapons. And if they really come out of START-3, it’s easier to upgrade even 3 dozen V-1V paths than to build 30 new ones

Quote: 5-9

The B-1B is ok from the B-1A (that was an analogue of the Tu-160, but not a shmagl) with a concept of application (low-altitude breakthrough of air defense and throwing free-falling yadrenbonb), which was already outdated at the time it appeared in the army ... therefore it is not at all neither a carrier of nuclear weapons (according to strategic offensive arms), nor a long-range ALCM, nor a strategic weapon (in fact). "Useless and kind of good" .... their resource was burnt to be ground into rubble in the Afghan mountains.

Well, firstly, they "could". The first 1 vehicles were produced in the B-4A version and only then were upgraded to the B-1B version. It's just that the concept changed at that time (the use of "low-altitude air defense breakthrough"), since new anti-aircraft systems appeared. And the B-1B, by the way, like the B-1A, was capable of carrying cruise missiles. Only on the B-1A was the AGM-1A variant planned. The performance characteristics of this version of the ALCM did not satisfy the military in terms of range. Therefore, the B-86B variant was already planned for the AGM-1B. And before the conclusion of the next START treaty, he was a strategic carrier. But the launch of the B-86A program led to the fact that the Americans would have a very large excess in bombers. Therefore, the B-2B were withdrawn from the provisions of the START treaty. A sliding partition was fixed between 1 and 1 bomb compartments and the external suspension units were removed. Prior to that, the B-2B was capable of carrying 1 AGM-8B cruise missiles in a combined bomb bay and up to 86 of the same cruise missiles on 14 twin nodes and two single ones. In total, 6 pieces (according to SALT-14), the limit was 2. In total, it could carry (if there is no contract) 12 cruise missiles.
As for the "resource burned" - perhaps the part really burned, but it is quite possible to replace the engines and modernize. Therefore, the Americans should not underestimate this reserve of bomber aviation.

[merkava-2bet]

Good afternoon, Vladimir, you wrote everything correctly, but there are nuances.
External suspensions were never used, only several sets were created, for a pair of B-1B of the first series, so this is advertising and PR.
In general, for aviation connoisseurs I recommend the Aviation and Cosmonautics magazine from No. 3 of 2019 to the present, a whole monograph with details about this legendary plane, as well as the book of K. Kuznetsov

[Ryaruav]

stratofortress is a great car worthy to be included in the list of 500 best cars, but the Tu-95 is more economical, cheaper and inferior in load, but the excellent beard (radar) of a Boeing is worse and mostly containers

[Falcon5555]

Surely, from a dream liner or from C-17 you can make a bomber more efficiently, but then you need to arrange financing through Congress, and they will ask why, if there is already a subsonic bomber.

[Old26]

Quote: Falcon5555

Surely, from a dream liner or from C-17 you can make a bomber more efficiently, but then you need to arrange financing through Congress, and they will ask why, if there is already a subsonic bomber.

It is theoretically possible, but it is prohibited by contracts to convert civilian (transport) aircraft into nuclear weapons carriers.