RR won the contract over GE and PW.  With the engine and some other upgrades, sounds like the old gal will get a new designation to B-52J and fly well into 2050s.  Would be cool if it made it to 2061 to make it 100 years on some of those models.  
 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42517/rolls-royce-will-provide-long-awaited-new-jet-engines-for-the-b-52-bomber-fleet

If they can't do water injections I don't want 'em!! Can they?🤣

Edited September 25, 20214 yr by dogfish78

Any foreseen risk of protest of the non-US company similar to Airbus tanker?

Rolls-Royce is the supplier of the C-130 engines so I think not.

Article I read says they'll be produced in Indianapolis which is where the Herk engines are built.

RR bought Allison back in the 90s.

Any foreseen risk of protest of the non-US company similar to Airbus tanker?

Protest to be filed for sure, but agree as above not for those reasons. Same engine already on E-11 and C-37, if I recall.

Whether it was the best choice or just the least costly one will be interesting to see play out.

Nobody cares that the PT-6 (which powers nearly ever turboprop it seems) is from Canada. The engines are designed and built in Indy as was previously stated. I don't see how a "foreign-source" protest argument would hold water.

In addition to the C-130 engines, the V-22 engines are also sole-sourced from RR.

Nobody cares that the PT-6 (which powers nearly ever turboprop it seems) is from Canada. The engines are designed and built in Indy as was previously stated. I don't see how a "foreign-source" protest argument would hold water.
In addition to the C-130 engines, the V-22 engines are also sole-sourced from RR.

Yeah, I don’t think it’ll be foreign source, but protest on whether the objective/threshold/cost decision was made properly.

On 9/24/2021 at 7:44 PM, b52gator said:

RR won the contract over GE and PW.  With the engine and some other upgrades, sounds like the old gal will get a new designation to B-52J and fly well into 2050s.  Would be cool if it made it to 2061 to make it 100 years on some of those models.  
 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42517/rolls-royce-will-provide-long-awaited-new-jet-engines-for-the-b-52-bomber-fleet

You keeping the analog engine stack or is glass part of the upgrade?

You keeping the analog engine stack or is glass part of the upgrade?

Part of the CERP is digital engine display to tie into the modern engine controls, and also act as the modern radar display.

B-52, 7th generation fighter. 

If they don’t ef up the strike eagle/hornet radar and pay more to take features away.

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Part of the CERP is digital engine display to tie into the modern engine controls, and also act as the modern radar display.

Which won't interface at all with the bombing computer because of the nuclear certification so the navs still need to hand jam the atmospheric data.

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Part of the CERP is digital engine display to tie into the modern engine controls, and also act as the modern radar display.

Will be pretty cool to see a ~68 year old BUFF with a modern glass cockpit 

Is the F130 one of RR’s triple spool motors? Don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade & I’m sure they’ll be an improvement but I’d take a GE or even a Pratt option over RR any day of the week after experiencing all three on my company’s 757 fleet. Seemed like the RRs were far more problematic than the others. Hopefully y’all get years of reliable service out of these ones. 

59 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Is the F130 one of RR’s triple spool motors? Don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade & I’m sure they’ll be an improvement but I’d take a GE or even a Pratt option over RR any day of the week after experiencing all three on my company’s 757 fleet. Seemed like the RRs were far more problematic than the others. Hopefully y’all get years of reliable service out of these ones. 

These are nothing like the RR 757 engines. These RE BR700s (F130 mil designation) are the same motors as those found on G5s and globals (and 717s), among other applications. They seem to work pretty well in those applications from what I understand, and 1) are already in the USAF inventory and 2) have a ton of proven historical data. 
 

The GE options were the CF34-10 or the newer passports. The former is meh/older tech. The latter (passports) should be pretty solid (powering the new large globals), but don’t have a lot of history as they are fairly new. I think the passports are made with the same or similar cores (or at least tech) to the CFM LEAPs on the MAX/NEO. Should be a good motor, but not a lot of data on them.

The pratt option was the motor that powers the gulfstream g500/g600, the PW800 series, which is the same core as the geared turbofan Pratts on the A220. Gulfstream made a big move switching from RR to pratt for the G500/600. They look like solid motors. But, like the passports, are relatively new. 
 

The new tech motors often have hotter temps and tighter tolerances, and that can mean a bit more finicky maintenance. As a datapoint, the on wing time of the CFM LEAPs on the NEOs has been underperforming targets and they have needed to get overhauled earlier. That was one of the big reasons frontier switched from CFM LEAP to pratt GTFs for their future NEO orders. And the pratt GTFs had tons of issues when they were launched as well. Trusting either of those cores to be integrated with the buff could be asking for trouble. 
 

The latest and greatest/most efficient motor isn’t always the goal of military (or cargo) planes. I think the USAF probably made a good (conservative at least) choice picking a tried and true, reliable and fairly easy to maintain, already-in-the-inventory, not entirely dated technology engine. The marginally better/newer bizjet motors that don’t have much historical in service data (and none in the military) probably didn’t offer enough of an advantage to be worth it. 
 

I think it was a decent choice. 

just my $0.02

20 hours ago, Prozac said:

Is the F130 one of RR’s triple spool motors? Don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade & I’m sure they’ll be an improvement but I’d take a GE or even a Pratt option over RR any day of the week after experiencing all three on my company’s 757 fleet. Seemed like the RRs were far more problematic than the others. Hopefully y’all get years of reliable service out of these ones. 

After working the past 40 years on TF-33's or JT3D's anything will be a improvement.  I had one stretch in Saudi where I changed 7 TF-33's in two weeks on the same tail number(E-3C). Always a oil pressure related problem. The last 7 years on KC-135's I've changed 4 engines on a fleet about 400 airplanes and some those jets still have the same engines on the wing when they were hung when upgraded from A to R model, that is what they are hoping for.

21 hours ago, pilot said:

These are nothing like the RR 757 engines. These RE BR700s (F130 mil designation) are the same motors as those found on G5s and globals (and 717s), among other applications. They seem to work pretty well in those applications from what I understand, and 1) are already in the USAF inventory and 2) have a ton of proven historical data. 
 

The GE options were the CF34-10 or the newer passports. The former is meh/older tech. The latter (passports) should be pretty solid (powering the new large globals), but don’t have a lot of history as they are fairly new. I think the passports are made with the same or similar cores (or at least tech) to the CFM LEAPs on the MAX/NEO. Should be a good motor, but not a lot of data on them.

The pratt option was the motor that powers the gulfstream g500/g600, the PW800 series, which is the same core as the geared turbofan Pratts on the A220. Gulfstream made a big move switching from RR to pratt for the G500/600. They look like solid motors. But, like the passports, are relatively new. 
 

The new tech motors often have hotter temps and tighter tolerances, and that can mean a bit more finicky maintenance. As a datapoint, the on wing time of the CFM LEAPs on the NEOs has been underperforming targets and they have needed to get overhauled earlier. That was one of the big reasons frontier switched from CFM LEAP to pratt GTFs for their future NEO orders. And the pratt GTFs had tons of issues when they were launched as well. Trusting either of those cores to be integrated with the buff could be asking for trouble. 
 

The latest and greatest/most efficient motor isn’t always the goal of military (or cargo) planes. I think the USAF probably made a good (conservative at least) choice picking a tried and true, reliable and fairly easy to maintain, already-in-the-inventory, not entirely dated technology engine. The marginally better/newer bizjet motors that don’t have much historical in service data (and none in the military) probably didn’t offer enough of an advantage to be worth it. 
 

I think it was a decent choice. 

just my $0.02

Isn't the Rolls easily left/right interchangeable? Way more life than the airframe so very few if any removals/overhauls to plan for. Also to your original point a lot of spare parts readily available off the shelf if needed.

13 hours ago, Prosuper said:

After working the past 40 years on TF-33's or JT3D's anything will be a improvement.  I had one stretch in Saudi where I changed 7 TF-33's in two weeks on the same tail number(E-3C). Always a oil pressure related problem. The last 7 years on KC-135's I've changed 4 engines on a fleet about 400 airplanes and some those jets still have the same engines on the wing when they were hung when upgraded from A to R model, that is what they are hoping for.

There have been CFM56's that have gone 40,000+ hours without an overhaul.  Granted these were -5 and -7's.  KC-135's have -2's.  Of course, everything -7 and newer, I believe, have generally been FADEC controlled.  

On 9/26/2021 at 8:56 PM, pilot said:

These are nothing like the RR 757 engines. These RE BR700s (F130 mil designation) are the same motors as those found on G5s and globals (and 717s), among other applications. They seem to work pretty well in those applications from what I understand, and 1) are already in the USAF inventory and 2) have a ton of proven historical data. 
 

The GE options were the CF34-10 or the newer passports. The former is meh/older tech. The latter (passports) should be pretty solid (powering the new large globals), but don’t have a lot of history as they are fairly new. I think the passports are made with the same or similar cores (or at least tech) to the CFM LEAPs on the MAX/NEO. Should be a good motor, but not a lot of data on them.

The pratt option was the motor that powers the gulfstream g500/g600, the PW800 series, which is the same core as the geared turbofan Pratts on the A220. Gulfstream made a big move switching from RR to pratt for the G500/600. They look like solid motors. But, like the passports, are relatively new. 
 

The new tech motors often have hotter temps and tighter tolerances, and that can mean a bit more finicky maintenance. As a datapoint, the on wing time of the CFM LEAPs on the NEOs has been underperforming targets and they have needed to get overhauled earlier. That was one of the big reasons frontier switched from CFM LEAP to pratt GTFs for their future NEO orders. And the pratt GTFs had tons of issues when they were launched as well. Trusting either of those cores to be integrated with the buff could be asking for trouble. 
 

The latest and greatest/most efficient motor isn’t always the goal of military (or cargo) planes. I think the USAF probably made a good (conservative at least) choice picking a tried and true, reliable and fairly easy to maintain, already-in-the-inventory, not entirely dated technology engine. The marginally better/newer bizjet motors that don’t have much historical in service data (and none in the military) probably didn’t offer enough of an advantage to be worth it. 
 

I think it was a decent choice. 

just my $0.02

Thanks for the reply. Glad to hear the motors are solid & that the BUFF is finally getting some attention. Even big girls need lovin’ sometimes! 😉

On 9/24/2021 at 9:29 PM, dogfish78 said:

If they can't do water injections I don't want 'em!! Can they?🤣

Ya haven't lived til an outboard water pump on a hot day with a maxed out KC (say...#5 in a six ship... mired in a haze of black smoke from twenty four lead water burners)..shucks it's nutz...  Then of course..sometimes ya didn't..

23 minutes ago, Alpharatz said:

Ya haven't lived til an outboard water pump on a hot day with a maxed out KC (say...#5 in a six ship... mired in a haze of black smoke from twenty four lead water burners)..shucks it's nutz...  Then of course..sometimes ya didn't..

It's hard to believe the A-model had less than 57% of the thrust the R-Model has today and that was with water injection (less than 45% without).  We've even got old, de-rated CFM's on our KC-135's.  The newer models they've got on 737's and the 320 family can put out over 30,000lbs each.  The LEAP is over 31,000.

Edited September 28, 20214 yr by TheNewGazmo

So, basically were looking at

1 Year for GE and Pratt to appeal the decision. 

2 Years to build the first 8 motors.

2 Years to modify the airframe and avionics.

2 years worth of flight testing at Edwards.

Edited September 30, 20214 yr by MC5Wes

S0 basically were looking at
 
1 Year for GE and Pratt to appeal the decision. 
2 Years to build the first 8 motors.
2 Years to modify the airframe and avionics.
2 years worth of flight testing at Edwards.

And then an additional 10 years to install the rest, if the projected 2038 completion is accurate. Timely.

On 9/28/2021 at 7:53 AM, TheNewGazmo said:

There have been CFM56's that have gone 40,000+ hours without an overhaul.  Granted these were -5 and -7's.  KC-135's have -2's.  Of course, everything -7 and newer, I believe, have generally been FADEC controlled.  

Weeellll the hydromechanical MEC of the -2s IS inherently nuclear hardened. 😁