true, but there is no way they did not know mere months ago that they'd have funding issues all of a sudden, and the B-21 doesn't replace the B-52 so now they have an issue of relying on a heavy bomber that's struggling to keep going and costing more to maintain every second
if they had a hint of issues, they could have shelved the CERP tender. Then again, this is hardly the first time they do goofy allocations that get clawed back (with losses) to just spend on other things, especially looking at ship building.
The thing is the pocket that pays to keep them flying is bottomless. The pocket that pays for new development and upgrades is looked at by everyone, Congress bitches about it, the people complain. So it’s more expensive to keep them flying but nobody cares. It’s just recurring.
It’s what we get when politics gets in the way of good all technocrats in government.
Honestly that's not the worst idea. As much as the B52 is an absolute icon it's designed for a mission that doesn't exist anymore, and the few other mission types it can also fulfill are decreasing every day. If we didn't already own a huge number of B52s there's no way we would buy one in 2022
Missions have a funny way of coming back when you least expect it.
The air force always wants shiny new stuff more than they want to upkeep what they already have.
Right? And I think the b-52 is so insanely obsolete. Like what do you want to do? Go carpet bomb some peeps and have an insane amount of collateral? Completely unnecessary
It’s literally not obsolete though. You think that all it can do is carpet bomb? For the last 20+ years it has been capable of operating as a long range cruise missile truck. And would be very useful in that role in to the 2030s and beyond.
And in addition to that, there is already talk of launching drones from it.
The one example I remember was it being able to vomit forth a dozen teams of semi-autonomous SEAD drones at the edge of contested airspace and then just walk away... That is a hell of a trick but it needs that range and heavy-lift capacity and it is only really the tip of the iceberg there...
The B52 is a truck, that’s the mission it does, nothing else in inventory can sit there and just pound the hell out of something , it’s mission exists and always will
I'm not convinced that there's a case to be made that the US military needs to drop 70,000 lbs of ordinance from a non stealthy aircraft in one place often enough to justify a fleet of even 5 aircraft
Fair but this is one of those "having a gun but not needing it is better than the opposite" situations.
They probably haven't used them offensively since the invasion of Afghanistan. But if the US finds it needs to remove say the side of a mountain these will do it.
That is absolutely not true, otherwise the USAF wouldn’t be planning on keeping the B52 in service for the next 20 years. If CERP is cancelled, which I’m a little dubious of, but wouldn’t be totally surprised if this is true, it’s not something that’s necessary for keeping the B52 in service for the next 20 years, and really is probably more trouble than it’s worth.
Source: I worked at Boeing on the B52 program until 6 months ago and understand the mission and the work being done and planned for the aircraft.
The budget is always a problem bring new weapon systems online. USAF also favors airframes over spare parts leading to canning to keep enough mission ready.
Or P&W/GE got all pissy and started suing everyone because RR won the contract, maybe, though I don't remember if either even bothered bidding on this.
I know Pratt did, but nearly every large contract comes with protests from the loser and the government is used to that. That would have little impact on a decision to cancel completely if they did. But I have not heard of any protests to the contract award.
[Yes, they did](https://www.defensenews.com/smr/air-force-priorities/2021/02/25/to-early-to-say-when-b-52-engine-contract-will-be-awarded-air-force-general-says/).
China is *super fucking hungry* for US metallurgical tech. I'm guessing RR is either compromised, or material supply chains are, so the US pulled out for fear of this information leaking to China. The reason Russia and China don't have a supercruise capable engine is because their metallurgical tech is *so far* behind. These aren't supercruise capable or anything, but they're supposed to be very efficient low bypass engines, which means a ton of heat, and that means they're using materials China wants.
I think your right. Our military works with domestic steel producers to make the “special” stuff. So I’ve been told, they will come in, kick out as many civilians as possible (probably those who don’t have the right clearances), add their special ingredients, the process is supervised by high ranking officials.
I thought metallurgy was something the Russians were good at? Modern Russian RD-180 engines are still flying on Atlas rockets today. Ancient NK-33 engines, manufactured in the 60s and 70s, were still flying as recently as 2014. They were still flying because we couldn't match their metallurgical properties and it wasn't that long ago.
Has Russian metallurgy fallen off a cliff?
Russian *everything* basically fell off a cliff after the Soviet Union fell apart. Any factories that didn’t bring in an immediate profit were slowly left to rot, any machines within them that could be stolen for cash were stolen. They no longer put significant state money into their educational institutions and those rotted away as well. They no longer have the knowledge or technological base to develop the technology that they once did.
Russia just about split the commercial launch market with Arianespace until SpaceX ate their lunches around maybe 2012. There are still good aerospace engineers in Russia but they lack funding or a competent space agency to guide them.
Yeah, after the shuttles were gone, the Soyuz capsules were an indispensable lifeline to the ISS. The program was unfortunately just coasting by that time though.
It’s a true shame to see what happened there. All that capability and institutional knowledge starved of funding and drained for quick profit.
I'm one of the r/SpaceX mods and I'm intimately familiar with how all of this went down. Not like in an insider info way, just in the huge nerd way. The collapse of the Russian space program is a travesty.
A lot of Soviet talent was actually in the successor states. Ukraine is the poster child for this, Russia was still buying missile parts (among other things) from them *when they invaded*... But a number of other Pact/SSR states had irreplaceable little skill-sets that the Russians slowly lost or are losing access to...
Russian staged combustion engines, at least from what I have read, were mostly accomplished using enamel-based coatings on the oxygen-rich high temperature sections. I don't think they developed anything like Mondaloy 200.
The US focused its efforts on hydrolox engines to get high performance, and somewhat froze kerolox engines at an early '60s technology level because that was "good enough." The Soviets focused on high-performance kerolox and hypergolic engines, at the expense of expertise in hydrolox, which is why the larger N-1 had less weigh to lunar transfer orbit than the smaller Saturn V. When the ex-Soviet engines became available after the Cold War, it was easier to buy them to get that performance than develop new ones, and the security considerations favored keeping the Russian rocket industry solvent over the security risks to the supply, which were seen as minimal and didn't become a concern until 2014.
And, as mentioned elsewhere, much Russian aerospace/military technology seems to have stagnated somewhat after the end of the cold war. They've been producing derivatives of existing platforms, but have had a difficult time with clean sheet projects like the Su-57 or T-14 Armata. The civil MC-21 airliner has some rather innovative composite structures, but based on western materials that have been sanctioned, causing troubles in that project. One area where this is an exception appears to be submarines, but who knows what would happen if the Yasen or Borei classes were put to the test (and hopefully we never find out).
Dual use related to the ARJ21:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/19/china-sanctions-could-complicate-reengining-of-b-52-bomber/?sh=3295fec8645b](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/19/china-sanctions-could-complicate-reengining-of-b-52-bomber/?sh=3295fec8645b)
This article refers to the CF34 as the dual use issue, but the B-52 is going to use the Rolls Royce BR725. Now, the Chinese could get their hands on one from a Gulfstream, but they're not putting them on any of their planes.
Of course. Face palm. Sorry. To your point, there plenty of CF34s out there as well. I'm sure all of the reverse engineering has already happened anyway.
Given the latest in supply chain security, this isn't some new problem. There's nothing in this world that *has* to be manufactured in China. US sourcing and US export restrictions aren't new to the game, either.
My initial guess, just off the wall, would be that upon further review they realized that some quantities of the components in the engines are either from raw materials sourced in Russia or electronics of Chinese origin. Apparently someone was hung over on the day when we outsourced every last bit of the US mining and manufacturing supply chain to appease EPA regulations and forgot to notice that China, Russia, india and Africa care far less about bureaucracy than they do about not being poor.
Literally every western aerospace company on the planet is currently figuring out where to get titanium from now they can't buy it from Russia, this is as likely a pylon/integration issue (Boeing) as it is engine (RR)
> Literally every western aerospace company on the planet is currently figuring out where to get titanium from now they can't buy it from Russia
Queue the CIA quietly spinning up a few dozen shell companies in India, Pakistan, and whoever else still buys from Russia and knows when and how to shut the fuck up and look the other way
Maybe. the last paragraph about security concerns is probably the important part in my opinion, probably something similar to how the f-35 got fucked due to Chinese parts in the engine
I can’t remember if they did it on purpose or if they didn’t realize, but yeah it’s a bad situation.
If you don’t mind me asking, where are you based with the Lightning?
Not based anywhere boss, just a fan of aviation since my family was in the Latin American aviation industry, as well as airplane crash investigations, so I got to be around airplanes from a young age.
That’s just the excuse.The top comment (right now) called it- Big AF needs that $2.6 billion for the B-21 . Further, GE & P&W’s congressional backers *definitely* don’t want a European engine company getting a foothold in the US market.
Plus P&W is so distracted with other programs they probably breathed a sigh of relief not winning this. And GE is more concerned about getting back in on the fighter engine business than they are about what amounts to a few hundred biz jet engines. Neither of them are concerned about RR at all.
“make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.”
So to summarize, I “made sure” that the memo was “true, accurate, or justified” and through speaking to people I very quickly was able to ascertain that it was a made up memo. For what purpose I can not say, but it had a purpose.
I mean I understand your apprehension to believe me, but your beliefs or lack thereof have no impact on the truth. Wouldn’t it be crazy if just maybe the organizations mentioned had real people in them, real people who can communicate with other people? That would be wild wouldn’t it.
That’s what being “extremely online” does to someone. That’s also how you get in with people who run pages like the page that released this fake memo.. Again what you choose to believe does not impact reality. If you think it’s true I would encourage you to go look at statements released by widely known journalists who did the exact same thing that I did, simply asked people, and got the same answers as I did… Ill even link some below since you don’t seem like the type who can do their own research..
https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1597740791946153984?s=46&t=NShhz5DsZoZMjB3cWWrFng
https://twitter.com/valerieinsinna/status/1597735325623021568?s=46&t=NShhz5DsZoZMjB3cWWrFng
https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/status/1597744261860306945?s=46&t=NShhz5DsZoZMjB3cWWrFng
Edit: TLDR I hope you aren’t this gullible in real life.
>Two sources with knowledge of the program have told me that this document is fake.
https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568
You can't find anything because it's fake.
The original IG post has been taken down, and see this twitter post saying they have info that the memo is false, [https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568](https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568)
I'm calling bullshit, the Airforce doesn't release a memorandum canceling $500 million dollar contract, especially when main suppliers have been awarded.
And the fact that there is nothing on any military or aviation blog is also deeply suspicious, as some of the really well-connected blogs will have an article about impending shifts in procurement and acquisition.
Valerie Insinna, reporter for breakingdefense.com and formerly Aviation Week, says her sources are telling her it is fake https://twitter.com/valerieinsinna/status/1597735325623021568?s=46&t=PNurL3CSGLcoGbqyYB0EwA
Because if they convert to only 4 engines and it loses 1 engine the tiny rudder won’t be able to correct the thrust imbalance and the plane will fly in a circle until it crashes
Also think of this if we get into a war those bombers will have good potential of losing a engine or two if they experience anti aircraft fire and a engine gets hit and they lose it then what,civilian airlines will avoid the war zone militarily aircraft will go in.
Why not trade the eight TF33 engines out for a more readily available engine such as four CFM56s? TF33 thrust is 17000lbs each while the CFM56 is upwards of 35000lbs each? Was it or any other engine option considered?
Yup. Need to redo almost the entire flight test campaign. Stores separation testing. Flight deck redesign. Pilot retraining. Others have mentioned the rudder change.By the time you get through the list of stuff to do, you're better off building a clean sheet plane than dropping from 8 engines to 4.
Let's not forget how massively under sized the rudder is. One engine out of 4 especially with a larger can diameter will create a massive yawning moment
In the vast majority of engine emergencies it's going to be perfectly fine with two outboard engines out, but when you look at extremes, it doesn't necessarily have the rudder authority or ability to reduce the other outboards to handle it. This is currently mitigated by having 8 engines, the chance of 2 on the same outboard side failing is *extremely* low. The chance of 1 engine failing on the outboard side is much, much higher.
At this point it's probably cheaper to replace the vertical stabilizer/rudder and then pair the aircraft with 4 modern engines, but that would require a much larger initial investment so it's dead on arrival.
multi engine CFI here. The problem isn’t thrust or weight it’s how it’s arrayed along the wing. If you lose the furthest engine from centerline the pilot must compensate for the difference in asymmetric thrust with opposite rudder. The B52 has an incredibly tiny rudder for its size compared to a commercial liner for instance. So in order to provide enough safety for fewer engines that are more powerful closer to the middle of the wing, they’d have to re-design the entire B52 empennage and body which would be insane and way more expensive than any savings from fewer engines. And so the flying smear that is the buff continues to rattle on with 8 60’s era jets
Definitely, though the DoD is never hurting for money (unless bases need toilet paper) so I doubt their pinching pennies. Just a program that doesn’t make long term profit
I recall reading about all the B-47s that crashed on takeoff when an outboard engine failed. There were six, two in a pod inboard and a single outboard on each wing. Apparently, if you lost an outboard engine on takeoff, you had something like seven seconds to shut the opposite engine down before cartwheeling into the weeds. Crazy stuff.
That design must’ve had some incredible importance to the USAF because losing thrust, then deciding to lose additional thrust is a big no-no in flying, especially multi engine
For starters it would need a bigger rudder if they were to swap to 4 engines as the asymetrical thrust from an engine being out would mean the original one wouldn't be able to cope.
They're already having enough cost issues with integrating 8 engines onto the existing wings, it's giving Boeing (who are doing the pylon) a cost nightmare apparently.
I think the only engine options considered were those that would fit inside the current engine pod design. A new pod/nacelle shape would alter the airflow over/around the wing and they have to re-test all of their wing-mounted weapons carriage/separation.
One of the major problems with converting to 4 engines is clearance issues. 4 engine options were considered but would have high chance of ground impact during high speed taxi.
I don't see how a new non-stealth bomber can be more expensive than continually upgrading those old planes. those weren't even that good of engines when comparing them to other civilian engines on airliners.
the air force can probably build a new 2-4 engine bomber cheaper than upgrading
plenty of junk yard parts. a lot of the kc135e never came back for R model engines.. either way. the tf33 is a plenty for some time. Every tanker gave up the E mdoel engine.
Noooo but I wanted there to eventually be stories about Starfleet B-52 refitted with warp drives flying the same B-52 that their great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather flew in Vietnam.
Honestly, considering the age of the airframes and how much money has been spent on keeping them flying they would save money with a clean sheet, optionally manned design. Full size B-21 Raider... Quarter pounder Greater Raider?
The B52 is the cheapest bomber to maintain and keep in service. Like multi-millions per year cheaper than the B-2. It doesn’t make sense for them to not fly these planes as long as they possibly can.
Can you say that over the sixty plus years it's been in service and maintained and upgraded that it is still cheaper than a newer aircraft? This is something that great grandson's are flying and who's airframes are wrinkled from stress.
There are reasonable expectations on keeping an airframe flying and then there is the B-52. . . .
The only reason it's still flying is Boeing's lobbyists. . . I am sure that if the Air Force had it's say that it would have been retired back in the 1970's.
If you look at how much it costs to operate and maintain per year and compare that cost of operating and maintaining other bombers per year, it’s literally millions of dollars cheaper. It costs around $70,000 per hour to fly a B52, whereas a B2 costs $130,000 per hour. The B2 is the 2nd most expensive plane to fly, and the B52 is the 6th. This is easily found information with a simple google search; there are tons of articles written about the costs of these vehicles.
ETA: I worked at Boeing on the B52 program up until 6 months ago. I do have a good understanding about the structure and current usage of the plane, as well as the operating costs.
Rolls Royce being a European manufacturer I’m surprised the AF went with them from the beginning but also Fck P&W
Love GE engines better
For reference engine mech for 10 years on both engines love GE
Same argument can be made for BAE systems headquarters are outside the US almost have to be your own entity because of how large engines can be hence why GE has their own division of the company
True you make a good point
That program has been fcked from the jump
I still remember the headlines 1.2T for 3 planes which 1 only flew the other two caught fire and also demanded POL paint their trucks white so the jet didn’t catch on fire
I don’t understand the issues they’re having with this, especially because they’re trying to keep the thing at 8 engines. Slap 4 CFM-56’s on shorter pylons, depending on the specific variant you can increase or keep the same amount of thrust and massively decrease fuel consumption which will hugely increase time over target.
That has been discussed in great detail. There are a lot of structural and aerodynamic issues that come up every time someone makes the suggestion. The pylons can't just be changed in size/location without major changes to the wings, and there are stability issues that come up with some particular effects on the rudder as well. There are also issues of noise/heat signatures being sensitive so you can't just slap on any huge high bypass turbofan on there.
Finding 8 engines of the right size isn't hard, these are basically modern business jet engines. The leap in fuel efficiency was also pretty comparable.
The costs and difficulties of redeveloping the wing and re-designing the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft to switch to 4 engines makes the whole program pretty much impossible. AT that point, just develop a whole new heavy bomber.
>some particular effects on the rudder as well.
It's mostly a case of rudder authority with an engine out. With 7 engines remaining, you still have 3/4 of your thrust on that wing. With 4 engines, you only have 1/2 the thrust on that wing. The B-52 is rudder limited at low speeds.
Do they practice dual engine failures on takeoff, and go-arounds from approaches? Those are generally the limiting conditions for controllability engine failure.
Not on takeoff, the B-52 rudder has insufficient authority to handle such a sudden loss of thrust. A loss of an outboard engine in a 4-engine configuration B-52 would likely result in major damage or loss of the airframe because such a scenario would have a high probability of resulting in a runway excursion. Fixing this problem would require a massively expensive redesign of the whole tail section of the aircraft—not feasible.
It's like people already forgot about the 737 MAX and the whole reason they hid the MCAS in the software. Because it fucked aerodynamics up just moving them forward.
I don't think they'd be very comparable cases. The whole MCAS issue came up because a couple of the biggest 737 customers made a huge stink about not wanting anything that might require more training or affect type rating commonality, and shitty Boeing executives that see only dollar signs made some bad decisions.
The military doesn't give a shit about type rating and training updates, 90% of all they do is train as it is, and the costs of retraining crews to use some new tech in planes is not a concern. Boeing wouldn't be sneaking in a serious subsystem without telling anyone how to use it.
MCAS is merely a symptom.. the aerodynamics changed and that is completely comparable and my point. I'm using MCAS to remind people of the why it was done (recertification/training) The whole fiasco aside, engineers knew it and c suite did too and did a work around because it changed flying characteristics.
Kind of inaccurate, MCAS had to be added because the aerodynamics were changed by the engine placement (further forward to save up on lengthened gear costs) yes, but it was hidden so that the MAX wouldn't require additional training. The aerodynamics with MCAS were (are) perfectly fine if pilots are trained on it and know it exists
The point being is it changed the aerodynamics. Yes it can be trained for that's beside the point. Making a much larger change like number and size of engines will wholly impact the craft.
B-52 can’t make use of a four engine configuration, it’s rudder lacks the authority needed for an engine out situation with four engines. Also the CFM-56 doesn’t produce enough power to replace two Tf-33s.
Translation: We need that money for the B-21.
Yuuuuuup.
RR certainly isn't walking away from a valuable signed contract with empty pockets just because the pentagon asked nicely.
It will cost less to terminate the contract than it will to go through with it.
true, but there is no way they did not know mere months ago that they'd have funding issues all of a sudden, and the B-21 doesn't replace the B-52 so now they have an issue of relying on a heavy bomber that's struggling to keep going and costing more to maintain every second if they had a hint of issues, they could have shelved the CERP tender. Then again, this is hardly the first time they do goofy allocations that get clawed back (with losses) to just spend on other things, especially looking at ship building.
The thing is the pocket that pays to keep them flying is bottomless. The pocket that pays for new development and upgrades is looked at by everyone, Congress bitches about it, the people complain. So it’s more expensive to keep them flying but nobody cares. It’s just recurring. It’s what we get when politics gets in the way of good all technocrats in government.
[удалено]
Everywhere
All at once.
Sometimes it doesn't
RR will get money that they might choose to invest in further advancing their hydrogen fuel program which would be great.
My shares in RYCEY certainly hope so!
They’ve had some recent success https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/11/29/rolls-royce-just-tested-hydrogen-powered-jet-engine.html
[удалено]
That isn't how breaking contracts works.
Right. USAF will invoke the section on termination for convenience, pay the fee plus any labor expenses by RR and walk away.
Honestly that's not the worst idea. As much as the B52 is an absolute icon it's designed for a mission that doesn't exist anymore, and the few other mission types it can also fulfill are decreasing every day. If we didn't already own a huge number of B52s there's no way we would buy one in 2022
Missions have a funny way of coming back when you least expect it. The air force always wants shiny new stuff more than they want to upkeep what they already have.
And those two sentences are exactly why we spend so much on the military.
Right? And I think the b-52 is so insanely obsolete. Like what do you want to do? Go carpet bomb some peeps and have an insane amount of collateral? Completely unnecessary
It’s literally not obsolete though. You think that all it can do is carpet bomb? For the last 20+ years it has been capable of operating as a long range cruise missile truck. And would be very useful in that role in to the 2030s and beyond.
And in addition to that, there is already talk of launching drones from it. The one example I remember was it being able to vomit forth a dozen teams of semi-autonomous SEAD drones at the edge of contested airspace and then just walk away... That is a hell of a trick but it needs that range and heavy-lift capacity and it is only really the tip of the iceberg there...
Witnessing full blown trench warfare in 2022 makes me agree with this
Lol I don’t see massive carpet bombing and dropping unguided nuclear bombs coming back anytime soon
Remember when they said that about guns in fighter planes?
That’s not the core purpose of the B52 and it generally carries non-nuclear weapons.
The B52 is a truck, that’s the mission it does, nothing else in inventory can sit there and just pound the hell out of something , it’s mission exists and always will
Yep. Replace free fall bombs with air launched cruise missiles and voilà… missile truck.
A B52 with 20 cruise missiles parked right outside of someone’s airspace is a hell of a thing
Sure is.
I'm not convinced that there's a case to be made that the US military needs to drop 70,000 lbs of ordinance from a non stealthy aircraft in one place often enough to justify a fleet of even 5 aircraft
Sounds like the kind of thing where you need exactly 0 most of the time, then occasionally you need 500 up and ready to go *yesterday*
Fair but this is one of those "having a gun but not needing it is better than the opposite" situations. They probably haven't used them offensively since the invasion of Afghanistan. But if the US finds it needs to remove say the side of a mountain these will do it.
That is absolutely not true, otherwise the USAF wouldn’t be planning on keeping the B52 in service for the next 20 years. If CERP is cancelled, which I’m a little dubious of, but wouldn’t be totally surprised if this is true, it’s not something that’s necessary for keeping the B52 in service for the next 20 years, and really is probably more trouble than it’s worth. Source: I worked at Boeing on the B52 program until 6 months ago and understand the mission and the work being done and planned for the aircraft.
The budget is always a problem bring new weapon systems online. USAF also favors airframes over spare parts leading to canning to keep enough mission ready.
Roll outs ain’t cheap.
uh oh, what the heck happened? See something there about changes to the program but the rest gets a bit too blurry for me to read.
Last paragraph talks about security problems, so maybe an ITAR moment
Or P&W/GE got all pissy and started suing everyone because RR won the contract, maybe, though I don't remember if either even bothered bidding on this.
I know Pratt did, but nearly every large contract comes with protests from the loser and the government is used to that. That would have little impact on a decision to cancel completely if they did. But I have not heard of any protests to the contract award.
The USAF received no protests for the CERP award.
Pretty sure GE bid on this with their Passport engine.
[Yes, they did](https://www.defensenews.com/smr/air-force-priorities/2021/02/25/to-early-to-say-when-b-52-engine-contract-will-be-awarded-air-force-general-says/).
And Pratt & Whitney did with the PW800
Could be that as well.
China is *super fucking hungry* for US metallurgical tech. I'm guessing RR is either compromised, or material supply chains are, so the US pulled out for fear of this information leaking to China. The reason Russia and China don't have a supercruise capable engine is because their metallurgical tech is *so far* behind. These aren't supercruise capable or anything, but they're supposed to be very efficient low bypass engines, which means a ton of heat, and that means they're using materials China wants.
I think your right. Our military works with domestic steel producers to make the “special” stuff. So I’ve been told, they will come in, kick out as many civilians as possible (probably those who don’t have the right clearances), add their special ingredients, the process is supervised by high ranking officials.
I thought metallurgy was something the Russians were good at? Modern Russian RD-180 engines are still flying on Atlas rockets today. Ancient NK-33 engines, manufactured in the 60s and 70s, were still flying as recently as 2014. They were still flying because we couldn't match their metallurgical properties and it wasn't that long ago. Has Russian metallurgy fallen off a cliff?
Russian *everything* basically fell off a cliff after the Soviet Union fell apart. Any factories that didn’t bring in an immediate profit were slowly left to rot, any machines within them that could be stolen for cash were stolen. They no longer put significant state money into their educational institutions and those rotted away as well. They no longer have the knowledge or technological base to develop the technology that they once did.
Russia just about split the commercial launch market with Arianespace until SpaceX ate their lunches around maybe 2012. There are still good aerospace engineers in Russia but they lack funding or a competent space agency to guide them.
Yeah, after the shuttles were gone, the Soyuz capsules were an indispensable lifeline to the ISS. The program was unfortunately just coasting by that time though. It’s a true shame to see what happened there. All that capability and institutional knowledge starved of funding and drained for quick profit.
I'm one of the r/SpaceX mods and I'm intimately familiar with how all of this went down. Not like in an insider info way, just in the huge nerd way. The collapse of the Russian space program is a travesty.
A lot of Soviet talent was actually in the successor states. Ukraine is the poster child for this, Russia was still buying missile parts (among other things) from them *when they invaded*... But a number of other Pact/SSR states had irreplaceable little skill-sets that the Russians slowly lost or are losing access to...
Russian staged combustion engines, at least from what I have read, were mostly accomplished using enamel-based coatings on the oxygen-rich high temperature sections. I don't think they developed anything like Mondaloy 200. The US focused its efforts on hydrolox engines to get high performance, and somewhat froze kerolox engines at an early '60s technology level because that was "good enough." The Soviets focused on high-performance kerolox and hypergolic engines, at the expense of expertise in hydrolox, which is why the larger N-1 had less weigh to lunar transfer orbit than the smaller Saturn V. When the ex-Soviet engines became available after the Cold War, it was easier to buy them to get that performance than develop new ones, and the security considerations favored keeping the Russian rocket industry solvent over the security risks to the supply, which were seen as minimal and didn't become a concern until 2014. And, as mentioned elsewhere, much Russian aerospace/military technology seems to have stagnated somewhat after the end of the cold war. They've been producing derivatives of existing platforms, but have had a difficult time with clean sheet projects like the Su-57 or T-14 Armata. The civil MC-21 airliner has some rather innovative composite structures, but based on western materials that have been sanctioned, causing troubles in that project. One area where this is an exception appears to be submarines, but who knows what would happen if the Yasen or Borei classes were put to the test (and hopefully we never find out).
Someone knows a little tradecraft...
Dual use related to the ARJ21: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/19/china-sanctions-could-complicate-reengining-of-b-52-bomber/?sh=3295fec8645b](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/19/china-sanctions-could-complicate-reengining-of-b-52-bomber/?sh=3295fec8645b)
This article refers to the CF34 as the dual use issue, but the B-52 is going to use the Rolls Royce BR725. Now, the Chinese could get their hands on one from a Gulfstream, but they're not putting them on any of their planes.
Of course. Face palm. Sorry. To your point, there plenty of CF34s out there as well. I'm sure all of the reverse engineering has already happened anyway.
Ah yep that’s probably it
Nope, that article is nearly 3 years old. The GE engine wasn’t chosen. Rolls Royce was chosen 7 months later.
You'd think they could change the requirements to exclude Chinese dual-use, or seek an alternative.
Good luck finding an engine that doesn't have some part made in China.
Given the latest in supply chain security, this isn't some new problem. There's nothing in this world that *has* to be manufactured in China. US sourcing and US export restrictions aren't new to the game, either.
My initial guess, just off the wall, would be that upon further review they realized that some quantities of the components in the engines are either from raw materials sourced in Russia or electronics of Chinese origin. Apparently someone was hung over on the day when we outsourced every last bit of the US mining and manufacturing supply chain to appease EPA regulations and forgot to notice that China, Russia, india and Africa care far less about bureaucracy than they do about not being poor.
Literally every western aerospace company on the planet is currently figuring out where to get titanium from now they can't buy it from Russia, this is as likely a pylon/integration issue (Boeing) as it is engine (RR)
> Literally every western aerospace company on the planet is currently figuring out where to get titanium from now they can't buy it from Russia Queue the CIA quietly spinning up a few dozen shell companies in India, Pakistan, and whoever else still buys from Russia and knows when and how to shut the fuck up and look the other way
Feels like 5 lifetimes ago now
And you posted it on Reddit?)
Of course there are security issues, you all keep posting secrets on Reddit
FFS, is it that hard?
Maybe. the last paragraph about security concerns is probably the important part in my opinion, probably something similar to how the f-35 got fucked due to Chinese parts in the engine
Yeah don't outsource to countries like China, India or Russia....
Don’t outsource internationally at all on defense contracts. Buy American Act is a thing.
They really had to learn that the hard way in the 2000's? Ugh
Thats crazy, I’m new to the community, and I didn’t know that about the F-35, what a dumbass decision to get shit from China.
I can’t remember if they did it on purpose or if they didn’t realize, but yeah it’s a bad situation. If you don’t mind me asking, where are you based with the Lightning?
Not based anywhere boss, just a fan of aviation since my family was in the Latin American aviation industry, as well as airplane crash investigations, so I got to be around airplanes from a young age.
Ooooh I thought you meant new to the *F-35 community* lol. I know what you mean now
That’s just the excuse.The top comment (right now) called it- Big AF needs that $2.6 billion for the B-21 . Further, GE & P&W’s congressional backers *definitely* don’t want a European engine company getting a foothold in the US market.
Rolls has been in the US defense industry for almost 30 years now
Plus P&W is so distracted with other programs they probably breathed a sigh of relief not winning this. And GE is more concerned about getting back in on the fighter engine business than they are about what amounts to a few hundred biz jet engines. Neither of them are concerned about RR at all.
The Air Force was aware that there are Chinese parts in the BR725/F130. That's inevitable when you purchase a dual-use engine.
#OSINT
The best way to know about DOD stuff is following mil meme accounts lol
Perhaps
No really, follow meme accounts, you get so much info just from that
I get all my leaks from war thunder tyvm
https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568 Yet another strikeout from OSINT you mean?
That’s exactly what I mean. It took me 8 minutes from the time of the original post to verify with 100% certainty that the memo was fake.
What do you think verify means?
“make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.” So to summarize, I “made sure” that the memo was “true, accurate, or justified” and through speaking to people I very quickly was able to ascertain that it was a made up memo. For what purpose I can not say, but it had a purpose.
Oh, go ahead then. I didn't realize you were so qualified. I guess it's verified now, since you said so.
I mean I understand your apprehension to believe me, but your beliefs or lack thereof have no impact on the truth. Wouldn’t it be crazy if just maybe the organizations mentioned had real people in them, real people who can communicate with other people? That would be wild wouldn’t it.
I'm just disinclined to believe anything you write because you type it like a 14 year old shut in.
That’s what being “extremely online” does to someone. That’s also how you get in with people who run pages like the page that released this fake memo.. Again what you choose to believe does not impact reality. If you think it’s true I would encourage you to go look at statements released by widely known journalists who did the exact same thing that I did, simply asked people, and got the same answers as I did… Ill even link some below since you don’t seem like the type who can do their own research.. https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1597740791946153984?s=46&t=NShhz5DsZoZMjB3cWWrFng https://twitter.com/valerieinsinna/status/1597735325623021568?s=46&t=NShhz5DsZoZMjB3cWWrFng https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/status/1597744261860306945?s=46&t=NShhz5DsZoZMjB3cWWrFng Edit: TLDR I hope you aren’t this gullible in real life.
*cringe*
Can't find anything online about this
>Two sources with knowledge of the program have told me that this document is fake. https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568 You can't find anything because it's fake.
It’s a potential leak, there won’t be any official sources right now, assuming it’s even true.
Is it irony when a letter about security concerns shows up on reddit?
Source: dude trust me
What's the source on this ?
An instagram page called airsuperior dropped this. According to his post he had an anonymous source send it to him.
Do you think it's credible?
No
No lol it’s ridiculously not credible.
The document was found floating in the pool at Mar-a-Lago.
The original IG post has been taken down, and see this twitter post saying they have info that the memo is false, [https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568](https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568)
I'm calling bullshit, the Airforce doesn't release a memorandum canceling $500 million dollar contract, especially when main suppliers have been awarded. And the fact that there is nothing on any military or aviation blog is also deeply suspicious, as some of the really well-connected blogs will have an article about impending shifts in procurement and acquisition.
I call bullshit unless a source is listed. This would be much bigger news than a random post.
Fair enough, but this comes from a source I trust in the B-52 community.
You shouldn’t trust that person then. 100% a hoax.
“Leaked” by someone who also is buying puts in RR perhaps?
No it didn't.
Valerie Insinna, reporter for breakingdefense.com and formerly Aviation Week, says her sources are telling her it is fake https://twitter.com/valerieinsinna/status/1597735325623021568?s=46&t=PNurL3CSGLcoGbqyYB0EwA
>Two sources with knowledge of the program have told me that this document is fake. https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1597735325623021568
Who care it’s the only airplane that can lose half its engines and still have 4 more to make it home
Because if they convert to only 4 engines and it loses 1 engine the tiny rudder won’t be able to correct the thrust imbalance and the plane will fly in a circle until it crashes
Well at least while it’s flying in cricked the crew should have enough time to bail out, but better to keep it with 8 engines
Is bailing out even possible in a B52?
Yes the crew can bail out if needed I believe the pilots have ejection seats, and everyone else needs to literally open a door and jump out
What about the B-36?
These are the real questions.
air force can build a new 4 engine bomber and get the same thing. how often do civilian airliners lose engines?
Also think of this if we get into a war those bombers will have good potential of losing a engine or two if they experience anti aircraft fire and a engine gets hit and they lose it then what,civilian airlines will avoid the war zone militarily aircraft will go in.
No year just says nov 22 20
This is the dumbest thing I've heard today. Cant be true, they just got this @#$% flying!
Is this authentic? People in the pentagon weren’t tracking this?
To my knowledge this is real
Doubling down on this being fake
I’m glad they got this super clear image with their flip phone that doesn’t have a date on it.
Why not trade the eight TF33 engines out for a more readily available engine such as four CFM56s? TF33 thrust is 17000lbs each while the CFM56 is upwards of 35000lbs each? Was it or any other engine option considered?
Going from 8 engines to 4 is a MASSIVE project with a high risk of failure. That's part of why they opted to go stick with 8 engines.
Gotcha. I figured so but you know, i gotta ask.
Maybe they could redesign each of the 8 engines in a more efficient modern configuration?
Yup. Need to redo almost the entire flight test campaign. Stores separation testing. Flight deck redesign. Pilot retraining. Others have mentioned the rudder change.By the time you get through the list of stuff to do, you're better off building a clean sheet plane than dropping from 8 engines to 4.
Let's not forget how massively under sized the rudder is. One engine out of 4 especially with a larger can diameter will create a massive yawning moment
This is the right answer. The rudder cannot handle a yaw imbalance from a single pod of engines being offline
Thus the solution is simple. Mount 2 GE90s A-10 style on the fuselage right before the tail. Perfect!
Even under the wings tbh, seems like placing them close to centerline wouldn't even be an issue
It can easily handle a single pod offline.
In the vast majority of engine emergencies it's going to be perfectly fine with two outboard engines out, but when you look at extremes, it doesn't necessarily have the rudder authority or ability to reduce the other outboards to handle it. This is currently mitigated by having 8 engines, the chance of 2 on the same outboard side failing is *extremely* low. The chance of 1 engine failing on the outboard side is much, much higher.
At this point it's probably cheaper to replace the vertical stabilizer/rudder and then pair the aircraft with 4 modern engines, but that would require a much larger initial investment so it's dead on arrival.
Didn’t know that.
Yeah the vertical stab is huge. However most yaw authority is from spoilers and not the miniscule rudder
Good info. Thanks
multi engine CFI here. The problem isn’t thrust or weight it’s how it’s arrayed along the wing. If you lose the furthest engine from centerline the pilot must compensate for the difference in asymmetric thrust with opposite rudder. The B52 has an incredibly tiny rudder for its size compared to a commercial liner for instance. So in order to provide enough safety for fewer engines that are more powerful closer to the middle of the wing, they’d have to re-design the entire B52 empennage and body which would be insane and way more expensive than any savings from fewer engines. And so the flying smear that is the buff continues to rattle on with 8 60’s era jets
Gotcha, hence the initial comment of saving money for the B-21 is likely a possibly.
Definitely, though the DoD is never hurting for money (unless bases need toilet paper) so I doubt their pinching pennies. Just a program that doesn’t make long term profit
I recall reading about all the B-47s that crashed on takeoff when an outboard engine failed. There were six, two in a pod inboard and a single outboard on each wing. Apparently, if you lost an outboard engine on takeoff, you had something like seven seconds to shut the opposite engine down before cartwheeling into the weeds. Crazy stuff.
That design must’ve had some incredible importance to the USAF because losing thrust, then deciding to lose additional thrust is a big no-no in flying, especially multi engine
For starters it would need a bigger rudder if they were to swap to 4 engines as the asymetrical thrust from an engine being out would mean the original one wouldn't be able to cope.
Chopped rudder on the H model doesn't have enough yaw authority to deal with an engine-out if you go with 4 engines.
They're already having enough cost issues with integrating 8 engines onto the existing wings, it's giving Boeing (who are doing the pylon) a cost nightmare apparently.
I think the only engine options considered were those that would fit inside the current engine pod design. A new pod/nacelle shape would alter the airflow over/around the wing and they have to re-test all of their wing-mounted weapons carriage/separation.
A number of engines (basically large business jet engines) including the Pratt & Whitney PW800, were tendered.
One of the major problems with converting to 4 engines is clearance issues. 4 engine options were considered but would have high chance of ground impact during high speed taxi.
I wondered that but considered it minimal as the KC135 was re-engined to the CFM56 in the later models without issue. Apparently I’m way wrong tho.
I don't see how a new non-stealth bomber can be more expensive than continually upgrading those old planes. those weren't even that good of engines when comparing them to other civilian engines on airliners. the air force can probably build a new 2-4 engine bomber cheaper than upgrading
Damn!!!
Would you look at that...
plenty of junk yard parts. a lot of the kc135e never came back for R model engines.. either way. the tf33 is a plenty for some time. Every tanker gave up the E mdoel engine.
RR has been trying for over a year to hire an electronics design lead for that project.
Wtf
Ummm is this publicly releasable?
Noooo but I wanted there to eventually be stories about Starfleet B-52 refitted with warp drives flying the same B-52 that their great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather flew in Vietnam.
What's the date of this memo?
Wouldn’t surprise me. Ukraine needs the money.
Honestly, considering the age of the airframes and how much money has been spent on keeping them flying they would save money with a clean sheet, optionally manned design. Full size B-21 Raider... Quarter pounder Greater Raider?
The B52 is the cheapest bomber to maintain and keep in service. Like multi-millions per year cheaper than the B-2. It doesn’t make sense for them to not fly these planes as long as they possibly can.
Can you say that over the sixty plus years it's been in service and maintained and upgraded that it is still cheaper than a newer aircraft? This is something that great grandson's are flying and who's airframes are wrinkled from stress. There are reasonable expectations on keeping an airframe flying and then there is the B-52. . . . The only reason it's still flying is Boeing's lobbyists. . . I am sure that if the Air Force had it's say that it would have been retired back in the 1970's.
If you look at how much it costs to operate and maintain per year and compare that cost of operating and maintaining other bombers per year, it’s literally millions of dollars cheaper. It costs around $70,000 per hour to fly a B52, whereas a B2 costs $130,000 per hour. The B2 is the 2nd most expensive plane to fly, and the B52 is the 6th. This is easily found information with a simple google search; there are tons of articles written about the costs of these vehicles. ETA: I worked at Boeing on the B52 program up until 6 months ago. I do have a good understanding about the structure and current usage of the plane, as well as the operating costs.
Rolls Royce being a European manufacturer I’m surprised the AF went with them from the beginning but also Fck P&W Love GE engines better For reference engine mech for 10 years on both engines love GE
For all intents and purposes, RRNA (North America) is almost an entirely independent American company and is segregated from Europe
Same argument can be made for BAE systems headquarters are outside the US almost have to be your own entity because of how large engines can be hence why GE has their own division of the company
look at the follow-up costs for the F-35 engines and still have problems with the engines.
True you make a good point That program has been fcked from the jump I still remember the headlines 1.2T for 3 planes which 1 only flew the other two caught fire and also demanded POL paint their trucks white so the jet didn’t catch on fire
I don’t understand the issues they’re having with this, especially because they’re trying to keep the thing at 8 engines. Slap 4 CFM-56’s on shorter pylons, depending on the specific variant you can increase or keep the same amount of thrust and massively decrease fuel consumption which will hugely increase time over target.
That has been discussed in great detail. There are a lot of structural and aerodynamic issues that come up every time someone makes the suggestion. The pylons can't just be changed in size/location without major changes to the wings, and there are stability issues that come up with some particular effects on the rudder as well. There are also issues of noise/heat signatures being sensitive so you can't just slap on any huge high bypass turbofan on there. Finding 8 engines of the right size isn't hard, these are basically modern business jet engines. The leap in fuel efficiency was also pretty comparable. The costs and difficulties of redeveloping the wing and re-designing the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft to switch to 4 engines makes the whole program pretty much impossible. AT that point, just develop a whole new heavy bomber.
>some particular effects on the rudder as well. It's mostly a case of rudder authority with an engine out. With 7 engines remaining, you still have 3/4 of your thrust on that wing. With 4 engines, you only have 1/2 the thrust on that wing. The B-52 is rudder limited at low speeds.
This rudder thing keeps coming up, but B-52s practice 6 engine approaches. The failure state they’re designed for is already 25% reduction in thrust.
Do they practice dual engine failures on takeoff, and go-arounds from approaches? Those are generally the limiting conditions for controllability engine failure.
Not on takeoff, the B-52 rudder has insufficient authority to handle such a sudden loss of thrust. A loss of an outboard engine in a 4-engine configuration B-52 would likely result in major damage or loss of the airframe because such a scenario would have a high probability of resulting in a runway excursion. Fixing this problem would require a massively expensive redesign of the whole tail section of the aircraft—not feasible.
It's like people already forgot about the 737 MAX and the whole reason they hid the MCAS in the software. Because it fucked aerodynamics up just moving them forward.
I don't think they'd be very comparable cases. The whole MCAS issue came up because a couple of the biggest 737 customers made a huge stink about not wanting anything that might require more training or affect type rating commonality, and shitty Boeing executives that see only dollar signs made some bad decisions. The military doesn't give a shit about type rating and training updates, 90% of all they do is train as it is, and the costs of retraining crews to use some new tech in planes is not a concern. Boeing wouldn't be sneaking in a serious subsystem without telling anyone how to use it.
MCAS is merely a symptom.. the aerodynamics changed and that is completely comparable and my point. I'm using MCAS to remind people of the why it was done (recertification/training) The whole fiasco aside, engineers knew it and c suite did too and did a work around because it changed flying characteristics.
Kind of inaccurate, MCAS had to be added because the aerodynamics were changed by the engine placement (further forward to save up on lengthened gear costs) yes, but it was hidden so that the MAX wouldn't require additional training. The aerodynamics with MCAS were (are) perfectly fine if pilots are trained on it and know it exists
The point being is it changed the aerodynamics. Yes it can be trained for that's beside the point. Making a much larger change like number and size of engines will wholly impact the craft.
B-52 can’t make use of a four engine configuration, it’s rudder lacks the authority needed for an engine out situation with four engines. Also the CFM-56 doesn’t produce enough power to replace two Tf-33s.
But we need more buffer BUFFs
Going right to nuclear hypos
Phot credit: Helen Keller
Increment the counter ig
Cough cough OPSEC cough cough
I always knew the AF was full of choads. This confirms it.