Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18394 posts, RR: 59 Posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7079 times:
While not that old yet, they aren't getting any younger. With EIS of 2011 for the pax version, could we see new presidential transports coming on line about 2014, since it would take over a year to modify and test the 748i for this type of use?
The 707s were nearly 30 years old, and by 2014, the 747s would be nearly 25 years old and technology will have improved a great deal so that going new might be better than retrofitting an old frame like that, as well as doing super heavy maintenance including complete skin refurbishment/replacement.
Not to mention the added room, crown space usage opportunities, etc. For example, the upper deck is now large enough to be the "executive suite" with meeting rooms in the crown space, leaving the main deck for all the other offices, secret control rooms, press seating, etc.
Just my brain thinking aloud when seeing two UFO 747s ordered. Not that these are the planes, just the idea of "who would buy two but not announce it" sparked the thought of the US government being the secret customer.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Steeler83 From United States, joined Feb 2006, 7305 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6939 times:
That would be an excellent place for the 748i to be... It all makes sense: all that extra space with the longer fuselage, the overhead space... I have seen some renderings of what the interiors of the pax versions would look like. Sweeeeet!!
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
MarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1520 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6904 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter): Just my brain thinking aloud when seeing two UFO 747s ordered. Not that these are the planes, just the idea of "who would buy two but not announce it" sparked the thought of the US government being the secret customer.
Or some really rich Arab oilman....
But it does make sense for the 748 to be used as a presidential plane
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18394 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6800 times:
The 707s were taken out of service as presidential planes at age 26 and 28, and they should have been replaced sooner, honestly. They were no longer fit for the job.
The 747-200B VC25A is still suitable for the job in terms of size, but it will be 20 years old when the first 748i is flying, so I would guess that it is in the cards.
So I guess rather than asking "if" like i did, it's really a question of when, right? 2015 would be 25 years on the old frames.
The question though would be: do they take the 748i, or do they modify a 748F, instead. The F has the small upper deck like the 742B they chose last time even when longer upper decks were available, and the 748F also is a bit longer, making more usable main deck space.
Either way, the plane is rebuilt anyway inside, with one of a kind wiring, ventilation and other systems.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18394 posts, RR: 59 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6773 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4): I think it would be better to choose the B787 and not waste so much of the taxpayer's money.
Yeah, well luckily you aren't a taxpayer so it doesn't effect you.
The 747s are full when they fly and are airborne strategic command, press corps and staff meeting facilities in one. It can carry thousands of meals and remain airborne indefinitely. The old 707 couldn't do all that, and often had support aircraft bringing other people behind it, which was also wasteful.
The 787 would be too small. A 773ER might be a good choice, though, but either way, this is one of those situations where "4 engines 4 long haul" really applies. With inflight refueling ability, having an engine go out is not going to force an emergency landing on the 747, but it would on the 777, which is a mission critical flaw for this type of plane.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6628 times:
Quoting Metti (Reply 6): What about the European A380 for a US-president?
Lufthansa's internal fittings company already have 2 VVIP A380s on order for Arabian clients, and from the looks of it they arent exactly holding anything back in the conversion
Srbmod From United States, joined Mar 2001, 14187 posts, RR: 61 Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6587 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
The fact is that the VC-25As are the most well cared for a/c on Earth. Those a/c, in fact just about every a/c used to transport the President and other members of the Executive Branch, are in better shape than a comparable a/c of the type that rolled off the assembly line at around the same time. The two VC-25As are probably the only 15 and 16 year old a/c that are probably in as good of shape as they were when they rolled off of the assembly line. They've probably flown in their careers as many miles as an average 747 in passenger service does in a year.
Srbmod From United States, joined Mar 2001, 14187 posts, RR: 61 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6519 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 9): If there are two of them shouldn't it be Air Force One and Air Force Two?
Any USAF a/c that is carrying the President uses the call sign "Air Force One".
Any USAF a/c that is carrying the Vice President uses the call sign "Air Force Two"
Any USAF a/c that is carrying any other member of the Executive Branch usually uses the call sign "Air Force" and whatever the tail number of the a/c is.
SA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2215 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6516 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5): Yeah, well luckily you aren't a taxpayer so it doesn't effect you.
While we may not be USA Citizens, we pay taxes (GST comes to mind) when we visit the USA. When I pay taxes I regard myself as a taxpayer. So "technically" you are incorrect. However, my vote goes towards the B748.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6518 times:
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 9): If there are two of them shouldn't it be Air Force One and Air Force Two?
No, the 'Airforce One' designation is only taken when the President is aboard, it isnt ascribed to any one aircraft, just hte current US Airforce aircraft he is aboard. There are similiar designations for naval and civilian aircraft (Marine One and Executive One).
DTW757 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 1235 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6480 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4): I think it would be better to choose the B787 and not waste so much of the taxpayer's money.
You've got that right! However I think you will see the current VC-25A's for years to come. There is no need to replace them. They are well maintained and are not in service daily so the possibility is there to keep them in service for 40 years.
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 9): If there are two of them shouldn't it be Air Force One and Air Force Two?
The term "Air Force One" is merely a call sign for ATC to keep the aircraft from being confused with other air traffic. The term only refers to any US Air Force aircraft only when the president is on board the airplane. If he is on board a Marine aircraft then it would be referred to as "Marine One" If for some reason he is traveling aboard a private aircraft it would be known as "Executive One".
If for instance the vice president is aboard an aircraft it would be referred to as "Air Force Two". I have heard that if the aircraft are used for other dignitaries that the call sign uses "SAM" for special air missions. So the VC-25A's or 747 presidential aircraft without the president aboard would be called SAM 28000 or SAM 29000.
Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 31 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6474 times:
Personally, a 772LR would make a better AF1 than a 748, but then I'm thinking of the potential "non-stop to anywhere in the world without refueling" senario as such a machine would be lighter and probably be fitted with giant versions of Trent 1000 engines. Perhaps Trent 1x00, whatever number? I'd support that.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Supa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6443 times:
The 748i's main advantage is fuel burn. Probably not a major concern.
Why not just fit the VC-25s with new interiors / systems? Mechanically they will be in perfect shape for decades to come. I just cannot think of one reason to replace them.
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 9293 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6381 times:
Replacement of at least one of the 'Air Force 1' 747's should be considered when the next generation of 747 comes out. While the 'Air Force One's' have low cycles and hours for their age and are probably the best maintained aircraft in the world, they are also to be an emergency base for the President wherever he goes or in case of a major disaster (think 9/11). That means absolute reliability is needed and after 20 years you are bound to see age related problems, for example, in the wiring. Those are systems that will be very expensive to repair and you really want newer generation electrical, safety and protection systems in the Presidential a/c. The continuing increase in demand for electonic tech on AF1 a/c's means you need newer generation electrical systems as well. So replacement with the 747 next gen should be considered.
You can go into one of the ex-presidential 707's (the 2nd 707 built for Presidential use) at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, and you can see it was inadquate for use even by the 1970's.
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6364 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): The F has the small upper deck like the 742B they chose last time even when longer upper decks were available, and the 748F also is a bit longer, making more usable main deck space.
The 747-400 was not considered for the new "Air Force One" platform because at the time of the order, the -400 was not quite available. Also, form what I understand, the Air Force was a little leery about the massive systems changes from the -200 to the -400.
I would bet a lot of money (my own ) that you will see the next "AF1" be the 748. I think you will see that the main deck will be nearly exactly the same as the current "AF1". The big changes will be on the upper deck and in the crown space or attic. I believe that the upper deck areas will be set up as a "war room" with the crown space used to house the computers/electronics that are used on the E4-B's. Now you can retire the E4-B's and have a multi use aircraft. (just me thinking out loud as well)
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 8): I think it would be better to choose the B787 and not waste so much of the taxpayer's money.
An understandable feeling. You just have to remember that AF1 is more than just the Presidential Transport aircraft. It is in fact a "flying White House". The current "AF1" already has many capabilities that may not be possible in a smaller aircraft. It already has taken some of the responsibilities away from the E4-B's.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6334 times:
I should clarify my previous post:
LHT (Lufthansa Technik) have had two orders from clients for VVIP A380 conversions, but they havent , as far as I know, placed orders with Airbus yet because the conversion decision and design process is a long winded one.
A VVIP conversion will cost a client upward of $50million per aircraft, and 2 years from the point the aircraft is delivered to LHT.
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 8):
I think it would be better to choose the B787 and not waste so much of the taxpayer's money.
I think you misquoted me.
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 8): The fact is that the VC-25As are the most well cared for a/c on Earth. Those a/c, in fact just about every a/c used to transport the President and other members of the Executive Branch, are in better shape than a comparable a/c of the type that rolled off the assembly line at around the same time. The two VC-25As are probably the only 15 and 16 year old a/c that are probably in as good of shape as they were when they rolled off of the assembly line. They've probably flown in their careers as many miles as an average 747 in passenger service does in a year.
Here's the actual user being quoted:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4): I think it would be better to choose the B787 and not waste so much of the taxpayer's money.
Ssublyme From United States, joined Dec 2008, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4868 times:
Some relatively recent articles I've come across say the Airforce is evaluating planes from both A & B. However it is unlikely President elect Obama will ever ride in the replacement. My guess is the only option B has to offer is the 748i while could offer the A380 &A340. As someone mentioned, "4 engines 4 long haul" so to speak, the airforce probably won't be considering twin engines. I wouldn't mind seeing the A340-600. The presidential plane is also a status symbol and I think the sleek A346 is more "uppity" than the rest. However the public outcry for buying European obviously puts A at a disadvantage.
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4809 times:
I was told on while on a tour of the mx facilities at Andrews, that they purposely have a 4 engine aircraft as the presidents primary aircraft to protect him in case of an engine failure or attack. So 777s and 787s are out.
The 748F or A-380 are the top choices for a replacement, projected in 2017 (unconfirmed date).
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
...And sure enough, almost every thread comes to the same consensus: the two 747s will not be replaced any time before 2015, pending no major disaster/development.
Res From United States, joined Jul 2000, 410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4653 times:
Will the A380 be used as AF1? How about the 787 or 777?
Sit tight and lets all wait for an official announcement FROM THE AIR FORCE, rather than pass judgment every time a new aircraft is built.
The A380 is such a joke.
26 Alessandro: I think it would be political unwise to upgrade any presidental transport since the US is suffering economically. The current AF1 will probably fly an
27 Dalb777: This thread is almost 3 years old...older than some of the links you posted, btw...
28 Cloudy: Someday, a president might want to score political points by going with something smaller. That might also be an excuse to reduce the number of media
29 DfwRevolution: A. If a President authorizes the purchase of a new VIP transport for use in his term, it's going to look like a selfish act. Even if it's to a smalle
30 StudeDave: I'm certain that's exactly what Bill was thinking after that haircut at LAX way back when... OR- maybe not!!!!
31 NA: Unless the US looses its role as the planets mightiest country in the next years a 748I is the only logical choice for the next AF1. But... The curren
32 AirRyan: AF1 may finally begin to get some serious flight time on her now that the next President will be going to Hawaii every time he needs a smoke break fro
33 Oroka: No, the 748 will not be the next AF1, that will be the A380, of which the CIA has 5 ordered, all armored, with laser turrets in the nose and spinner r
34 Pictues: you guys realize there are i believe 4 other E-4B's that i have heard the president fly's on mainly when there isn't a need for Press arrivals, or car
35 PP705: Is there a chance that the US might consider a A380 for Air Force 1?
36 Oroka: Actually, they have already bought 18 of them, outfitted them with gold sinks, and they are environmentally friendly because they are fueled exclusiv
37 Prebennorholm: When Bill Clinton visited Copehagen some ten years ago he arrived on two VC-25 and three C-5. His baggage included three CH-47 which were used for th
38 Flighty: These were slated for retirement but currently, are supposedly receiving a $2 billion refurbishment, some $500 million per airplane (4x). I would lov
39 Gigneil: Obama heavily supports rejuvenating the US economy by stimulating business. Placing an order for a pair of presidential aircraft is a strong public st
40 Bennett123: Contrary to what Oroka says, I see no prospect of an order for the A380. IMO the KC-X saga shows what would happen. The only aircraft IMO that fits th
41 Flighty: Meh... the VC-25s are still brand new. On television they would have a field day. "Aviation Experts" would cluck and crow. They could cut to stock fo
42 R12055p: Regardless of whether or not it is picked Airbus is planning on bidding the A-380 as the next Air Force 1.
43 Avro7: Seems pretty obvious that there will be no need to replace the -200's in less than 10 years- at the very earliest- but what if there was a need for a
44 Jmhayes: ... except for that pesky 72-hour oil change!
45 DL767captain: There are a ton of threads on this but it ever gets old. There are a few 748 VIP orders which would just happen to replace the 2 VC-25s as well as the
46 Oroka: Did I mention they will be installing Type XIII Phaser banks on the A380s (aka VC-666)?
47 Nomadd22: Maybe I missed this in the thread somewhere, but an obvious reason that they might need to replace the 200s soon is that the 748i might not be in prod
48 Scbriml: In view of the age of this thread and yesterday's development, please continue discussion in this new thread: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2005, 18394 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1520 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10181 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2006, 64 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1141 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2215 posts, 
) that you will see the next "AF1" be the 748. I think you will see that the main deck will be nearly exactly the same as the current "AF1". The big changes will be on the upper deck and in the crown space or attic. I believe that the upper deck areas will be set up as a "war room" with the crown space used to house the computers/electronics that are used on the E4-B's. Now you can retire the E4-B's and have a multi use aircraft. (just me thinking out loud as well)
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3154 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2005, 2869 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
