Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7160 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, 7338 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7020 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 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6985 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, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6881 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, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6854 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 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6709 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, 14212 posts, RR: 62 Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6668 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, 14212 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6600 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, 2220 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6597 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 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6599 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 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6561 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: 32 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6555 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 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6524 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, 9320 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6462 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 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6445 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 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6415 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, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4949 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, 389 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4890 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.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 26, posted (11 months 19 hours ago) and read 4960 times:
I think it would be political unwise to upgrade any presidental transport since the US is suffering economically. The current AF1 will probably fly another 30 years.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 28, posted (11 months 11 hours ago) and read 4829 times:
Quoting Alessandro (Reply 26): think it would be political unwise to upgrade any presidental transport since the US is suffering economically. The current AF1 will probably fly another 30 years.
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 types carried.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 29, posted (11 months 8 hours ago) and read 4789 times:
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 28): 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 types carried.
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 smaller widebody. The replacements will probably be bought towards the end of a term for use by the next administration.
B. The image of the 747 is an impressive symbol of power. Power of an office that has taken 200+ years to mature. No President, even a very humble one, is going to intentionally weaken the image of the President. It would effectively be weakening his (or her) ability to accomplish the administration's agenda. Even if he wanted to, Congress (who must authorize an expenditure) might not let him.
C. Having a small cadre of the press traveling with the President is an asset for the executive branch, not a burden.
StudeDave From United States, joined Oct 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (11 months 5 hours ago) and read 4737 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 29): C. Having a small cadre of the press traveling with the President is an asset for the executive branch, not a burden.
I'm certain that's exactly what Bill was thinking after that haircut at LAX way back when...
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6843 posts, RR: 8 Reply 31, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4182 times:
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 current AF1 can easily fly another 20 years. Its low cycles mean that a 15 or even 25% better fuelburn wont make it economically useful to replace them anytime soon. I doubt that over the next 5, maybe 10 years someone would waste a thought about a new one.
Look at the E-4Bs, they are even more than 15 years older, and is anybody talking about replacing them? Not to speak of other, secondary US Gov. VIP transports.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 32, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4080 times:
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 from the WH!
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 412 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3995 times:
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 rims on the wheels. All the windows are tinted, there is a Playstation 2 hooked up to a big screen TV in the trunk, and has a 2003 Sunfire body kit installed.
I will never again post a clear answer to a 'will the A380/748 be the next AF1' thread.
Pictues From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 219 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3967 times:
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 carrying press with them, and that they are more capable for the mission of Air Command. so it would be 6 planes needing replacement possibly. Oh and btw both planes normally fly when the president goes on high profile flights
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 412 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3389 times:
Quoting PP705 (Reply 35): Is there a chance that the US might consider a A380 for Air Force 1?
Actually, they have already bought 18 of them, outfitted them with gold sinks, and they are environmentally friendly because they are fueled exclusively with the all the hot air and methane produced by all the bull shit that will be created on board.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5117 posts, RR: 55 Reply 37, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3361 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5): 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.
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 the 25 miles from CPH to the lawn in front of H.M. The Queen's summer cottage.
Those guys are traveling with overweight baggage. 748i or 380, it's all way too small.
Anyway I don't expect those present day VC-25s to be replaced any time soon. Not only are they low on hours and well maintained, they are also very specialized planes with a lot of special stuff for inflight refueling, communication and self defence - systems which they to a high degree share with the E-4.
When replacement orders are filed for the E-4s, then I would expect a trailing oder for new AF1s.
If the VC-25 had to be replaced today, then I would expect the order to be for a plane, on which most of those special systems have already been integrated. For planes in current production it leaves one choise: The C-17.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Flighty From United States, joined Apr 2007, 4433 posts, RR: 2 Reply 38, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3325 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 31): Look at the E-4Bs, they are even more than 15 years older, and is anybody talking about replacing them?
These were slated for retirement but currently, are supposedly receiving a $2 billion refurbishment, some $500 million per airplane (4x). I would love to know exactly what they are doing to the E4-B.
The point is that our existing 747 VIP fleet (6 aircraft) could provide a lot of useful service for many years to come. The E4B and VC-25 are both aging aircraft technologically, but updates common to the 747 platform allow them to be maintained in essentially as-new condition with a high level of technology.
It is also easier, politically, for the US government to refurbish than replace. Repair sounds "thrifty" while new purchases sound "expensive." Even though the truth is something in between.
Gigneil From United States, joined Nov 2002, 13883 posts, RR: 89 Reply 39, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3318 times:
Obama heavily supports rejuvenating the US economy by stimulating business. Placing an order for a pair of presidential aircraft is a strong public statement that also has backing to it.
Flighty From United States, joined Apr 2007, 4433 posts, RR: 2 Reply 41, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 39): strong public statement that also has backing to it.
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 footage of a UA 744 taking off with 90,000 hrs on the clock... and a quote from UA saying "our 744s are still running well, thank you for asking." People might ask why the VC25 needs replacing...
There needs to be a "problem" with the VC25 that justifies replacement. Inconveniently, the AF always brags how cherry these VIP 747s are. 2020 at the earliest... IMO
Avro7 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 41 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2986 times:
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 couple of -200 somewhere else in the E-4 fleet?
DL767captain From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1707 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2889 times:
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 E-4Bs. Yes they are already ordered but by the time they are delivered green and are retrofitted for presidential use it will be a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if they got a few 787-8s to replace the 757 at some point.
A 748 is the logical replacement, they may not always need that size but it's always better to have more room than not enough.
Quoting Res (Reply 25): Will the A380 be used as AF1? How about the 787 or 777?
I in no way see an A380 being used. People flipped out over an A330 tanker aircraft there is no way they would allow the president for fly around in a European plane when there is a Boeing alternative available. As for the 787 and 777 I think they are just too small for every mission and I'm sure they would prefer the president to have 4 engines instead of 2 even with etops.
Quoting Ssublyme (Reply 21): I wouldn't mind seeing the A340-600.
But it is less efficient for having the same role a 773 could take. A 773 could not always fill the role of a 748/A380.
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 791 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
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 production in ten years. And a 380 has about as much chance of getting the job as Quasimodo has of buying a suit off the rack.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1520 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10185 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2006, 64 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1142 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2220 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, 3162 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2005, 2877 posts, 
I'm certain that's exactly what Bill was thinking after that haircut at LAX way back when... 
OR- maybe not!!!!
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6843 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 412 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5117 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 4557 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8906 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
