Should the USAF B-52 have used engines, from the soon to be retired KC-135, replace its smoky JP-guzzling engines?

Some of the reasons quoted do not make sense. The BUFF's still flying are all H models so they aren't the smoke billowing aircraft mentioned. Granted I flew many many years ago but the H model has more power than it needs and did actually have thrust gates so the argument for more power also doesn't make sense. The only real advantage could be in fuel savings but others above hint at costs involved with that could overshadow any benefit. I'm sure P&W could make fuel efficiency modifications far cheaper than replacing the engines.

KC135 engines have more time on there jet engines or almost the same amount of time as the B-52 engines.They should have the jet engine personnel rebuild the B-52 engines instead. The B-52 engine may use more fuel but you need to look at the size of the B-52 before you replace them with KC-135 engines/ Cost and break down. I worked around the KC135 for 2 years in FMS sq. at a base where there were 140 KC135's on a SAC base.. Start up every day run for an hour and then shut down.

I have heard and even read fiction of using B-757 engines. i work for a major airline and as far as our fleet is... it's the second gas hog behind the MD-80, but the Rolls-Royce RB-211 or GE engine are probably more efficient than the 135 engines in current use. Yes, initial cost would be up there, but could be made but fuel savings. one option could be the newest B-737 engines... more efficient than 757 engines.

Along with the KC-135R, the B-52H is slowly and quietly going to the boneyard. There are several B-52Hs there now. One B-52H was reactivated last year from the boneyard at DM to replace one that was damaged in a ground fire. It took over a year and several millions of $$ to bring that one bomber up to the standards of the remaining fleet. The B-52 is a very expensive airplane to operate, and reengining her with KC-135R F-108 engines will not reduce the operating costs enough to have a reasonable return on the investment. It would take 536 engines, plus spares to reengine the fleet of 67 B-52s. That is the equivalent of 134 KC-135s, and even though the KC-46 is starting to come on-line, they will not replace that many KC-135s until about 2025. Currently there are about 15-18 KC-135Rs in storage.
It is that reason why I believe the B-52 will stay around until 2040. The LRS program is now well under way (with an IOC about 2025), and we have the B-1B and B-2A, as well as tactical bombers, like the F-15E to fill the tactical and strategic missions, both with conventional and nuclear weapons. I believe the B-52 will stay around to about 2030 and no longer. That is now less than 15 years and I just don't see the Congress wanting to spend the large amount of money in engineering, design, system modifications, refurbishing the already "paid for" engines, and training for such a short period of time, especially with a new bomber coming on line and at the cost of a significant portion of the tanker fleet. The time to reengine the B-52 is long past, it should have been done back in the 1980s when the KC-135s were reengined. Then again, if they had done that, we would not have either the B-1B or B-2A today (but the FB-111A might still be around).

thank you for your opinions, your service in the USAF as a mechanic who has hands-on experience to help push this idea. Some AF brass said its feasible but not that cheap but I say it could probably be done for less than a squadron of F-35s over the lifetime of the planes. I have had good AF rank and file discussions and, though I am an Army Officer and not a pilot, I go to every air show I can and I subscribe to A and S Smithsonian and other aviation mags to keep up. Keep giving us your thoughts!

LTC (Join to see) - One of the biggest problems to be faced out the gate is (look at the test bed bird) hanging those big blowers on the outboard pylons. I can tell you that with a full load of gas, even with the outrigger (tip gear) you stand a good chance of dragging a cowl...or worse. Then you have the weight factor of the engines, the change in wing flex (currently about 14 feet either side of jig position (the position the plane was in when built) and you make an already hard to fly airplane even harder to fly. Now I agree there will be added fuel savings but how much do you lose due to added engine weight, restructured wings and loss of payload capacity.

The A-10 is a bird I had the pleasure to watch in a fly off while in ATC at McConnell AFB in 1974...yes, it's that old. Initial thought was a gorgeous plane someone forgot to put engines on it. But WOW what a great piece of work. It beats the hell out of the ol AC-47, AC-119 and early models of the AC-130.

The FA-18, F-15, F-16 and a couple of others are proven airframes that should somehow be kept flying. I personally think the latest generation of one size fits all JSF is Bull! I am all in favor of getting something all the flying branches can use (last one was the F-4 PhantomII) but one must be practical as well. The major issue with "F" aircraft is the regular and sustained high G factors. It tires the bird out long before it's useful flight time is reached.

SSgt Jim Gilmore - thanks for your comments. It sounds like if we add those KC 135 engines we will have to put U-2 style wheel gears on the end of each wing and have the air force buy some dodge Hellcats or equivalent Camaros to trail the B-52 on landing LOL.

The B-52 already has the tip gears. Look closely at the wing tip tanks...The only reasons the U-2 had a chase car was 1) the pilot could not see the runway when landing and 2) to have troops catch the wings and set the pogos before a wing dropped. Originally, El Caminos with 396ci were used.

they did it to the KC-135 by upgrading the engines a decade ago. Why buy the engines new, why not use them again. It won't cost jobs just keep the jobs already there for maintenance.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/once-again-the-usaf-is-looking-to-re-engine-its-b-52-fl [login to see]

they always want to go new and they never look at what is already out there and paid for! It is like me going to GM and buying a 454 V8 for my 1970 El Camino SS and buying a rebuilt one without a core charge instead of buying one from A/C DELCO and being super expensive!