It took 10 years to build 744 B-52s from 1952-1962 but now it will take 15 years from contract being awarded to give 76 remaining B-52 engine upgrades.
The Rolls-Royce F130 engine upgrade for the B-52 Stratofortress is replacing about 600 aging Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines with more efficient, reliable F130 engines. This will enhance fuel efficiency by up to 30%, extend range, reduce maintenance needs, and support the bomber’s service life into the 2050s. The plan was to completely switch engines by 2030. Initial operational capability (IOC) is now projected for fiscal year 2033, about three years behind the original schedule. Rolls-Royce will produce over 600 F130 engines in its Indianapolis facility, with full re-engining of the 76 B-52s expected by 2036. There delay and cost overruns. They had to redesign the inlets on the engines and there have been other problems and delays.
In September 2021, the Air Force awarded Rolls-Royce a CERP contract worth potentially $2.6 billion through fiscal 2038 to outfit the B-52 with the F130 engine, based on Rolls-Royce’s commercial BR725 carried on Gulfstream G650 business jets.
Originally, each B-52 in 1962 was about $9.28 million, making the total outlay at the time $6.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, this is about $94 million per aircraft and $69.9 billion for all 744 bombers today.
Critical Design Review (CDR) for the Engine: Successfully completed in December 2024, on schedule for the engine component, following detailed design work and collaboration with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and Boeing.
Altitude testing of the engines started in February 2025 at the USAF’s Arnold Engineering Development Complex in Tennessee.
The early testing phases in Indianapolis were completed by July 2025, as noted in Rolls-Royce’s half-year results announcement on July 31, 2025.
In June 2025, wind tunnel testing confirmed the redesigned engine inlet, addressing earlier integration issues and allowing CERP to proceed into the engineering and manufacturing development phase during the summer of 2025.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
In a world of hypersonic glide missiles it’s good to know these giant planes will be outfitted with new engines. I guess the planes could be used for humanitarian food and water drops.
Those videos of hypersonic missiles coming down in Israel were pretty impressive, until they banned filming the attacks.
They can also carry stealth and hypersonic stand-off weapons. Your remark is silly.
Yes.
Not to mention the fact that you get into the domain of diminishing returns too. Nobody wants the same 1962 engines. And to squeeze every bit of extra performance, you need more and more research, more and more precise manufacturing, better alloys and so on. The low-hanging fruit have been picked decades ago, now you have to climb the R&D tree always a bit more. The title “it took 10 years to do X and now takes 15 years to do Y” completely misses the point that X and Y are absolutely not comparable. If it stated “it took 10k man-hours of R&D and 500k of cumulative engine research and manufacturing to develop Y” it would probably be less sensational but more accurate.
One (of many) interesting aspects of the “dumb B-52”, is long before modular, or adaptable were words associated with defense technologies, the B-52 was just that. It was big enough, and flexible enough to incorporate new technology. Since new technology is much smaller (circuits and programs), the most robust warhorse, offers the most flexibility. Powerplants offer the same metric, but the inability to adapt, as quickly. The B-52 is likely to be “active”, in one way or another past 2040. Says a lot, about that amazing beast.
Not really surprising that the MIC, on the heels of Korean war, was able to mass produce dumb bombers. The dual engine nacelle was a product of the times – they needed 8 turbojets because the plane was designed prior to turbofans. Twenty years later it would have been a 4-engine plane (TF39 in the C5 Galaxy – first fired 1964). So, the RR engine, with 8 tons of thrust (small) looks like a good choice to replace the old smoking engines (that were once started with 10″ shotgun shells) – only the last version B52H (still in service) came with the TF33s (per wiki).
If we really needed the bombers, God forbid, they would have been re-engine much more quickly without a doubt. Stuff is slow in [relative] peacetime.
Yes.
Not to mention the fact that you get into the domain of diminishing returns too. Nobody wants the same 1962 engines. And to squeeze every bit of extra performance, you need more and more research, more and more precise manufacturing, better alloys and so on. The low-hanging fruit have been picked decades ago, now you have to climb the R&D tree always a bit more. The title “it took 10 years to do X and now takes 15 years to do Y” completely misses the point that X and Y are absolutely not comparable. If it stated “it took 10k man-hours of R&D and 500k of cumulative engine research and manufacturing to develop Y” it would probably be less sensational but more accurate.
The re-engining the B-52 with business jet engines. Basically commercial off the shelf.It’s a pretty modern platform out since 1995 I believe.