olddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8143 times:
A colleague of mine swears he knows people that say our government is looking at a new Air Force One Fleet. "IF SO" I would think the 777-X would be a better fit more than anything else, although the 748 is pretty smashing. If they had "size envy" could they go with the A380? I don't know if we would buy aircraft for our military from EADS instead of Boeing, but nothing surprises me from the current and up-coming administrations. Can anyone shine some light on it?
finnishway From Finland, joined Jul 2012, 187 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8105 times:
From wikipedia: "On 28 January 2009, EADS announced they would not bid on the program, leaving Boeing the sole bidder, with either their Boeing 747–8 or Boeing 787 Dreamliner being proposed".
olddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8029 times:
It's TRUE??? OMG... I think the 787 would be too small? But couldn't they fly to anywhere in the world from WAS on a suped-up 787?
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8754 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8008 times:
The Air Force likes proven technology and does not care much about fuel burn unless it reduces range. The actual number of hours that the airplanes are in the air means fuel costs are meaningless in the budge. The Air Force wants proven technology that is more reliable rather than the latest and greatest. I would expect the same with a new Air Force One. They'd want a model that is already in service rather than cutting edge. That's why they picked the 742 over 744. That's why they wanted the 767 over the 787.
The 747 that they current have is not enough to carry everyone. The white house typically charters another airplane (often a UA 747 or similar plane) to carry all the press around. A 787 sized airplane would never work with how bloated the government is.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
xlc From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7982 times:
"The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its Airbus commercial aircraft manufacturing subsidiary is not planning to compete against Boeing for the prestigious contract to supply three planes to transport future U.S. presidents, according to company officials." (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5bac3feb-1f4b-497a-a858-19c4b793d613)
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7996 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7985 times:
Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 2): I think the 787 would be too small? But couldn't they fly to anywhere in the world from WAS on a suped-up 787?
Air Force One can in-flight refuel, it can fly indefinitely. In an airplane that can fly around the world over and over, a little "one tank" range boost isn't a factor.
bomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 364 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7967 times:
If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7900 times:
I doubt seriously the Air Force is going to back down from buying these new airplanes. It seems to me I read somewhere, perhaps here at a.net, that the airplanes are becoming hard to maintain because they're based on the -200 series 747. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Consider too that other heads of state (Middle Eastern countries) are flying around in 744s, as do government heads of Japan. Might be embarrassing for the president to be one-upped like that. Just a hunch.
SSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7846 times:
Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 8): It seems to me I read somewhere, perhaps here at a.net, that the airplanes are becoming hard to maintain because they're based on the -200 series 747. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
You read another thread on Air Force One replacement here on anet? No way.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7783 times:
First:: this is the third AF1 thread on the first page of this forum... at the bottom of this page are 8 additional threads same subject...
Second: the replacements will be 3 747-8i a/c not warmed over -200's or surplus commercial aircraft.. see the other threads for why. No A380, no 777, no 787...
NASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7629 times:
Quoting bomber996 (Reply 7): If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?
The way Obama is racking up the miles and time on it lately campaigning all over the place it might be bringing its service life near an end
Quoting finnishway (Reply 1): From wikipedia: "On 28 January 2009, EADS announced they would not bid on the program, leaving Boeing the sole bidder, with either their Boeing 747–8 or Boeing 787 Dreamliner being proposed".
They could do both - 747-8 replaces the VC-25 (747-200) and the 787 replaces the VC-32 (757) that the VP uses or president uses for smaller airports, although the VC-32s are only about 12 years old or so.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11714 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7620 times:
Quoting xlc (Reply 5): I think the only question is: 744 or new 748?
It will be a new build. The B-747-400 is no longer in production. I doubt the B-777X would be considered, since we are looking at a delivery schedule of the first one in 2017, second in 2019, and third in 2021.
The WH is all over this dispite they want to cut about $1T over the next 10 years from the DOD.
I don't know about a B-787 being bought for an AF-2 replacement for the C-32A/Bs. By then the USAF will already have the KC-46A in production and it would be easy to buy a few C-46As (or a "B" model with windows, no cargo door, WARPs, or Boom, but retain the receiver air refueling capability) to replace the C-32s. The KC/C-46 is actually a new model in the B-767 family, and is based on the newly designed B-767-2C, a version slightly longer than the B-767-200ER. It can be equipped with blended winglets from the B-767-300ER/ERF, or the raked wingtips from the B-767-400ER, but I don't think the KC-46A will have either of these wingtip devices.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 16, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7483 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 4): They don't need new airplanes.
Quoting bomber996 (Reply 7): If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?
No, it doesn't. Its time to replace them.
The communications power load needs to be greater than the current planes can handle or can be made to handle.
spink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7422 times:
Quoting bomber996 (Reply 7): If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?
The USAF has a need to start replacing 4 E-4 airframes (specially modified 747-200s for the Airborne Command Post mission) and the 2 VC25s are getting fairly up there in age. So that is 6 frames in total that need replacements and all are between 22 (VC25s) and 38!!!!(E-4s) years old.
The E-4s certainly need to be replaced and will be 45+ years old by the time the new AF1 is ready. The current VC25s will be 30+ years old.
The reason they are buying 3 is that traditionally the E-4s have served as backup to the 2 VC25s. It could be argued that they aren't buying enough replacements and that they've waited far too long to start the replacement cycle.
The current plan is to combine the functionality of the E-4s and the VC25 together in the 3 planned planes taking advantage of the miniaturization of electronics over time to get more functionality in a smaller space. I actually wouldn't be surprised if they end up buying a 4th a couple years down the line.
The USAF has to be running into issues at this point as well with keeping up with current comm/data technologies with the older VC25 and E-4 infrastructure.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7272 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3): They'd want a model that is already in service rather than cutting edge. That's why they picked the 742 over 744.
The 744 wasn't even available (introduced into service in 1988) when the 742's were completed and entered service (w president Reagan). [Mrs. Reagan helped with the paint design of them too!] That means the years in modifications were started well before that.
Here's another recent and full of information thread on this topic.
seachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, RR: 9 Reply 22, posted (8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6925 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 21): I remember seeing the Reagans flying on them
I know the last they would have traveled on it was after he passed and his casket and Nancy were flown from California to DC and then back after the state funeral.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6829 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 23): I believe Reagan flew into retirement on one.
That's what i remember seeing... was super cool of them to do that!!!
25 Burkhard: I think it will be a quad - so a 748I . One of the reason is that any twin might be forced to land at the next airports in case of a misfunction of on
26 135mech: One thing I just thought of and have seen heavily used is the incredibly short turning (actual turn arounds and u-turn capabilites) radius of the 747'
27 Newark727: How much use do the E-4s get these days? I'm pretty sure they tote around the Secretary of Defense but I've kind of heard conflicting rumors regardin
28 rwy04lga: And Bush didn't???? You guys are unbelievable.
29 bikerthai: Yes, we get enough political ads now a days so can we keep the politics off the A-net for another month or so? Besides, as a citizen, I would prefer
30 PC12Fan: For the most part, we stop doing our job at the end of the day. The POTUS doesn't. He is the President from the time he says "so help me God" until t
31 morrisond: Amazing then that he found time for 104 rounds of Golf since taking office...
32 bikerthai: Golf course owners are constituents are they not? And since these owners and the people who play golf have money to spend (and/or contribute to campa
33 j.mo: From Answers.Com; During 2 terms as President, Bush took spent all of part of 477 days at Camp David, on retreats and made 77 trips to his Crawford Ra
34 seachaz: Nice find j.mo Appears Obama just following the lead of his predecessor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJvRUL81ZU8 In the grand scheme of things Air
35 bikerthai: Yes, the cost of operating Air Force One (even the mod) is probably not much considering the cost of the security detail that precede and follows the
36 DTWPurserBoy: As a former Air Force guy (and a combat crew member) I am well aware of what the USAF looks for in replacement aircraft. Frankly, I think the EADS pro
37 135mech: Actually, the factory was only to be a "conversion" factory. Turns out, EADS would still build the frame in France and then ferry them to Alabama for
38 cargotanker: It cannot carry armored vehicles or large helicopters due to entry size and floor strength. It has no rough field or short field capability. Any carg
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jul 2012, 187 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
