EF-52 Back From The Dead

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

neiyold 7/3/2008 7:17:50 AM

Only $73million? Wow that's some great math, or else the author cant type or tell the difference between a 9 and a 7.

Quote Reply

LB Two Questions 7/3/2008 8:55:41 AM

This states they will wire 34 B-52's for 24 sets of pods. Will the USAF combat code any more B-52's than it currently operates or keep opposing the Congressional mandate that they operate a dozen more than they say they want?

How many hours are left on the EF-111's at AMARC and does the USAF want it's only EW/ECM strike aircraft to be the B-52? Assuming the F-22 is not a great platform for this mission is the long term USAF plan a future UAV or something else? To put it another way is it possible buying more EA-18G's is more cost effective than other solutions?

Quote Reply

Whispering_Death 7/3/2008 12:04:27 PM

From a layman's perspective it seems that a B-52 would be way more airplane than needed to carry jamming equipment that can fit on an F/A-18 airframe. Can someone please explain to me why the airforce feels the B-52 is the best choice?

Quote Reply

SpudmanWP 7/3/2008 12:19:13 PM

The EF-111 was a penetration jammer.

The EB-52 is more of a "standoff" jammer meant to jam the low-band (read anti-stealth) and regular radars from outside their threat envelopes.

Quote Reply

justbill 7/3/2008 3:33:19 PM

"From a layman's perspective it seems that a B-52 would be way more airplane than needed to carry jamming equipment that can fit on an F/A-18 airframe. Can someone please explain to me why the airforce feels the B-52 is the best choice?"

In a word, growth. Imagine the jamming power you can get from eight engines as opposed to two. The amount of physical space also favors the BUFF. The plan right now is to use jamming pods the size of regular drop tanks. That leaves the cavernous bomb bays and current ECM spaces available for weapons, other new equipemnt, etc. The Growler can carry a couple of HARM's in addition to its ECM gear. An "EF-52" can carry a couple dozen JDAM's, SDB's and airborne decoys in addition to being wired for HARM's. All in a package that won't require any where near the amount of airborne refueling support as would many (most?) Growler missions.

It's like comparing a PT boat to a battleship.

Quote Reply

LB Stand-off 7/3/2008 6:23:09 PM

I'm not entirely clear on how an armed EB-52 is a stand off jammer unless it's only armed with long range weapons? If the mission requirement is stand-off jamming then an aircraft like an EC-130H would do fine. Taking a combat coded B-52 and making it into a stand-off jammer is a method to get around Congressional mandates on the USAF maintaining a given number of B-52's. Congress meant offensive bombers.

This is not to say an EB-52 could not be extremely useful or even cost effective aircraft but rather the fact that the B-52 is far by the nations most cost effective bomb truck and we are not well served by removing combat coded airframes from that role. It is not my understanding that the USAF is going to increase the number of aircraft in service.

All this aside if the B-52 is taking on another important role it's one more reason to revisit re-engineing. New engines would not only decrease fuel consumption and increase loiter time in the new jamming role but new engines would provide very large savings in decreased maintence costs. It's not entirely clear that we really want to rely on these engines to 2040.

Quote Reply

SOP919F3 7/3/2008 8:01:11 PM

Air Force Studies Board (2007) FYI

Replacing each two-engine pair with one larger engine requires the purchase of all new nacelles and pylons (which can be as expensive as the engines) as well as resolving engine-out recovery issues (since an engine failure of a four-engine aircraft results in a 25 percent loss of thrust rather than a 12.5 percent loss for an eight-engine aircraft). Additional engineering concerns include cockpit and control interfaces as well as the quick start capability needed if the B-52 is to continue with its nuclear single integrated operational plan. Also, because unlike the other TF33-powered Air Force platforms, the B-52 carries and releases weapons, safe weapons separation must be ensured, especially for wing-pylon-carried munitions.

The GE CF34-10 is a new commercial engine suitable for B-52 re-engining that was not considered in the re-engining studies referred to above. It is close to the same diameter as the TF33, so that an eight-engine CF34-10 installation would be very similar to that on the current aircraft, possibly obviating many of the engine-out and stores-release concerns engendered when replacing eight engines with four larger ones. The committee did not review either an engineering analysis or a business case for this option.

Like the other TF33-powered Air Force platforms, re-engining the B-52 would reduce both fuel and maintenance costs as well as provide operational benefits such as access to shorter runways, higher takeoff weights at high ambient temperatures, and longer range and endurance.

Reduced dependence on foreign oil, improved operational capabilities, and enhanced Global Power projection are important considerations that should be taken into account in the decision to proceed or not proceed with a re-engining program for the B-52. This committee believes these less tangible benefits, considered in conjunction with the improvements in fuel burn and maintenance costs, swing the argument for proceeding with a re-engining program.

Previous studies showed that fuel savings of 15-20 percent could be realized for the B-52 alone, increasing to 38 percent for a mission when tanker fuel is also a factor. Also, unrefueled mission radius can be increased by 45 percent. Maintenance costs for the B-52 engines have grown much, much faster

Quote Reply

CCNorman EB-52 7/3/2008 8:01:39 PM

EF-52? Should be EB-52, the Buff is many things, but it will never be a fighter! :)

Quote Reply

sjdoc 7/3/2008 10:26:23 PM

The GE CF34-10 is a new commercial engine suitable for B-52 re-engining that was not considered in the re-engining studies referred to above.

In recent years, there's been much press about the USAF effort to increase utilization of domestically-produced synthetic fuels (synfuels) created from resources other than petroleum.

Is there any assessment of the new CF34-10 engine's ability to operate efficiently and with acceptable wear-and-tear using the synfuels that the USAF has been testing and is expected to accept into long-term overall use?

Quote Reply

SOP919F3 7/4/2008 10:17:52 PM

4/10/08 "Sasol (South Africa) has become the first company worldwide to receive international approval for its 100% synthetic jet fuel. Sanctioned by global aviation fuel specification authorities, Sasol?s Coal to Liquids (CTL) process will be the first fully synthetic fuel to be approved for use in commercial airliners."

I take that as just about all modern jet engines, but with some concerns (especially military use):

Testing areas looked at:

Gravity and conductivity: Gravity affecting aircraft range, conductivity for safe transfer of static charges. SDA (static dissipater additive) is used in JP-8 for conductivity.

Chemical composition: Typical JP-8 fuel samples contained approximately 60 percent paraffins, 20 percent cycloparaffins, and 20 percent aromatics. In contrast, the FT fuel samples contain mostly the same as JP-8 but less than 1 percent cycloparaffins and aromatics. During combustion, the absence of aromatic compounds reduces the formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) soot precursors.

Thermal Stability: The ability of a fuel to resist formation of surface and bulk deposits upon exposure to high temperatures. High-thermal-stability fuels can be used as effective heat sinks (coolant) for the thermal management of aircraft and engine components.

Low Temperature properties: During high-altitude, long-duration flight, jet fuel in the tank can approach very low temperatures (-40 C). The freeze point of synthetic fuels can go as low as -59 C well below the JP-8 specification of -47 C. The additive used in JP-8 is FSII, not sure if the test on the FT fuel contains the same and if so the ppm.

Combustion properties. Evaluations of soot emissions from FT fuels, FT/JP-8 blends, and JP-8 were performed using a T63-A-7000 turboshaft engine. Results showed reduced particulate emissions for both idle and cruise conditions. The reduction was attributed to reduced aromatic concentration, which reduces PAH (soot nuclei precursors) formation during combustion. No changes in NO_x emissions were observed.

Two challenging areas with FT fuels:

Elastomer swell: Most aircraft fuel system seals swell when exposed to fuel. However, nitrile O-rings soaked in FT fuels showed very little swelling (<2 percent), whereas those soaked in JP-8 fuel swelled by approximately 16 percent. Thus, the nitrile swell characteristics of FT fuel can be improved by additives that increase swell, blending with petroleum-derived fuels, or the addition of aromatic species to prevent fuel system leaks.

Fuel lubricity. Lubricity permits trouble-free operation of fuel delivery system components such as fuel pumps and flow-control valves. The JP-8 fuel specification calls for the addition of a corrosion inhibitor (CI), which also improves fuel lubricity. FT fuels exhibit borderline lubricity, and corrosion inhibitor/lubricity improver additives are required to improve fuel lubricity.

	News As History - August 21, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us