Warplanes: September 24, 2003

Archives

Impressed by the continued success of the B-52 in Iraq, the air force is again considering replacing the ancient eight TF-33 engines with four, or eight, more modern, powerful, fuel efficient and easier to maintain engines. The current TF-33 engines generate 17,000 pounds of thrust each, for a total of 136,000 pounds. These could be replaced by eight Pratt & Whitney JT8D-219 engines (22,000 pounds of thrust each, for a total of 176,000 pounds) or four GE F103 engines (51,000 pounds of thrust each, for a total of 204,000). The more modern engines, especially the four GE F103s, would be the most fuel efficient, reducing the number of air refuelings. Boeing, the manufacturer of the B-52, has been proposing new engines for the B-52 since the 1970s (when an earlier version of the GE F103 was proposed). But these proposals have been just as regularly turned down. At one point, the air force actually mounted a larger JT9 engine in place of a pair of the TF-33s, and flew the aircraft successfully several times. Before the current proposal, there were others in 1996, 1992 and 2002 (after seeing what the B-52 could do in Afghanistan). But what appears to be making new engines more attractive is the arrival of GPS guided bombs like JDAM, and the usefulness of having B-52s circle for hours on end, releasing bombs as needed to aid the battle below. This requires a lot of aerial refueling, and fuel delivered that way costs about $18 a gallon. This adds up, and the spreadsheets are now saying, "New Engines Are Good.". So a more powerful and fuel efficient engine would pay its way very quickly. The air force has also taken a close look at TF-33 maintenance costs. There are plenty of TF-33s in inventory (and also on C-141 transports, which are being stripped of their engines and junked). The KC-135 also uses TF-33s. But all these TF-33s have been rebuilt so many times, and are basically much older technology, that the potential maintenance cost savings grow each year as more efficient engine designs enter service. The air force is also well aware of the fact that the B-52 costs half as much to operate as the B-1. So if future battlefields must be patrolled by heavily loaded bomber, the cheapest way to do it is with a re-engined B-52. 

 


Article Archive

Warplanes: Current 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 


X

ad
0
20

Help Keep Us Soaring

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling. We need your help in reversing that trend. We would like to add 20 new subscribers this month.

Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage. A contribution is not a donation that you can deduct at tax time, but a form of crowdfunding. We store none of your information when you contribute..
Subscribe   Contribute   Close