Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3288 posts, RR: 4 Posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3507 times:
Within the "VIP 747" posting an interesting point was raised that got me thinking about what will happen IF twins take over and specifically Boeing develops its Y3 as a twin. I think it deserves its own thread.
Will it ever be acceptable for the flying White House/Mobile Command Post/Air Force One to be a twin? And if not what will be done?
Perhaps the US Gov could ask Boeing to engineer a special wing for the next gen Y3 that will allow them to hang two more engines on it. Just my first thought, may be silly or unfeasible.
Other options are of course, like Marine One, go euro (let's not get too heated over this thought now. No A or B bashing cuz it'll be a Northrop Grumman or Lockheed tie up), go military - C5 (doubtful), C17, all new C, or....?
I think that the POTUS will need more than two engines and not because of reliability issues, strictly security.
Tug
(Edited to change the post title.)
[Edited 2007-01-10 02:39:14]
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 3806 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3463 times:
I don't see why not...I mean, how would the public feel if the US Gov't came out and said that a 2 engine aircraft wasn't safe enough for the President to fly on, but the FAA says it's ok for anyone else to?
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 680 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3430 times:
Quoting Tugger (Thread starter): Within the "VIP 747" posting an interesting point was raised that got me thinking about what will happen IF twins take over and specifically Boeing develops its Y3 as a twin. I think it deserves its own thread.
Will it ever be acceptable for the flying White House/Mobile Command Post/Air Force One to be a twin? And if not what will be done?
The primary Air Force One (VC-25A) developed from the 747-200 platform are actually quite new. The first President to use the 747 AF1 was George H.W. Bush. They will not require replacement anytime soon. The USAF will not replace Air Force One simply because it is a quad and airlines are ordering more and more twins.
When the time comes to replace Air Force One, I suspect they will order another 747 if Boeing is still producing them. The aircraft is simply so damn impressive compared to something like a 777 or 787.
If Boeing has discontinued 747 production, it's anyones guess.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3309 times:
Quoting C680 (Reply 1): He flys on a Gulfstream V (the U.S. Air Force calls it a C-37A - why must they rename *everything*?!?!?) when going into smaller airports.
He has also used the VC-32A (B-757-200) and the VC-40B (B-737-BBJ2). In fact, he recently used the VC-32A to fly from Vietnam to Singapore, and back (a long way over water), while the VC-25A was having some tires changed.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6197 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3300 times:
Quoting C680 (Reply 1):
He flys on a Gulfstream V (the U.S. Air Force calls it a C-37A - why must they rename *everything*?!?!?)
Uhhh, they have a lot of aircraft (and variants thereof) to keep track of and a designation system is the easiest way for them to do so. It's not as if the DoD is the only one.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10019 posts, RR: 76 Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Let us not forget Eisenhower's famous rides in this sleek, powerful thing of beauty.
A320ajm From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3269 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4): I suspect they will order another 747 if Boeing is still producing them. The aircraft is simply so damn impressive compared to something like a 777 or 787.
I would disagree. The 777 has a better safety record and longer range capability. For the 787, we'll have to wait for when it comes into service but i can imagine the USAF opting for the 777 for the POTUS.
If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6197 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3269 times:
Quoting A320ajm (Reply 8):
I would disagree. The 777 has a better safety record and longer range capability. For the 787, we'll have to wait for when it comes into service but i can imagine the USAF opting for the 777 for the POTUS.
If USAF were to acquire the hypothetical KC-777, this would be significantly more possible, as the VIP version could then be based upon the 777-300ER and have great commonality.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3259 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 9): If USAF were to acquire the hypothetical KC-777, this would be significantly more possible, as the VIP version could then be based upon the 777-300ER and have great commonality.
I would think they would base a VIP version of the B-777 on the B-777-200LR. That would eliminate the need for air refueling for AF-1 (not that they use it a lot now). That airplane would have even more in common with a KC-777 order (should that ever happen), as both are based on the same airframe (the B-777-200LR and B-777-200F have many things in common).
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3288 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3258 times:
I guess I never realized the variety of aircraft that the President uses. But what about the "Mobile Command Platform" concept of it? Do all the other aircraft have that? In a national emergency would he not use only the VC-25 which I understand to have defensive systems built into it and a full "war room" and communications system? Also during an emergency wouldn't the joinot chiefs and/or cabinet be on it?
Tug
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6197 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3256 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10): I would think they would base a VIP version of the B-777 on the B-777-200LR. That would eliminate the need for air refueling for AF-1 (not that they use it a lot now). That airplane would have even more in common with a KC-777 order (should that ever happen), as both are based on the same airframe (the B-777-200LR and B-777-200F have many things in common).
Well, the 777-300ER would have almost as much in common with the 777F. There is very little difference between the -300ER and -200LR, primarily in the length of the fuselage, amount of tankage, and FADEC settings. Since the difference between the -200LR and the 777F are primarily interior fittings and tankage, I don't see operating even a small number of -300ERs as being a problem.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3217 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 11): But what about the "Mobile Command Platform" concept of it? Do all the other aircraft have that? In a national emergency would he not use only the VC-25 which I understand to have defensive systems built into it and a full "war room" and communications system? Also during an emergency wouldn't the joinot chiefs and/or cabinet be on it?
Pretty sure POTUS uses the E-4B in the event of war, its much better equipped for airborne command.
JakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1203 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3211 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 12): Well, the 777-300ER would have almost as much in common with the 777F. There is very little difference between the -300ER and -200LR, primarily in the length of the fuselage, amount of tankage, and FADEC settings. Since the difference between the -200LR and the 777F are primarily interior fittings and tankage, I don't see operating even a small number of -300ERs as being a problem.
Depends if the President needs the additional space the 300 has. KC135 has a point. From my point of view, it makes much more sense to go with a 200LR, and the way technology has advanced, you can fit much more equipment in the same or smaller amount of space (using the technology available on the VC-25 in 1990 as an example.)
If the President needs the space, then it would most likely be a 300LR since it would not need to carry cargo/passengers, only the necessary supplies of food, drink, etc. Additional fuel tanks would most likely be placed in some of the cargo compartments, plus, a strong possibility this aircraft would be lighter than its passenger counter-parts, enabling it to fly further distances. Reason, no cargo/passengers/luggage/etc. But, this aircraft would also have air-to-air fueling capability regardless of range/endurance on its own tanks. Reason, nuclear war. You want to be moving all the time, making yourself a very difficult target to hit. There are other reasons, but just an example.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3288 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3186 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14): Pretty sure POTUS uses the E-4B in the event of war, its much better equipped for airborne command.
Thanks for that RichardPrice! Yes, I think I was confusing that with AF1. So my question probably applies to the E-4B as well. But that most defintiely could be superseded by a C-17 of something like that.
Whatever AF1 is in the future it will probably always be the biggest of all the other heads of state if possible. Of course it flew as a VC-137 for years after the 747 was around. How many HoS will begin to utilize the A380 when it comes available. I can imagine some in the middle east will, but any others?
Tug
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1792 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3151 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14): Pretty sure POTUS uses the E-4B in the event of war, its much better equipped for airborne command.
Not so much, no. The VC-25 has all the bells & whistles POTUS needs these days, which is one of the reasons they are phasing out the E-4B. In fact, the mission name was changed from National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) to National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC). Even FEMA can use if necessary as a temporary command center in the event of a natural disaster.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10019 posts, RR: 76 Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3046 times:
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3288 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2990 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 21): Ah, but the thread title specifies "Air Force" One.
I must say that when I first started this thread the title was different (and I had started it in Civ Av but it was moved). The original title was "Will the US president's plane ever be a twin?". I think a primary difference between the helo flights and AF1 is that those are inside of the controlled, defended airspace of the USofA. Correct me if I'm wrong (as I very well could be).
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 20): Why might it be different?
My original thought was that a quad might be required for redundancy over a significant period of time. Say the plane needs to stay up for over four, five, six days (who knows)? If any one or two engines fail it would still be up, a third fails it could at least get to the ground under some form of control. Again my whole thought has everything to do with redundancy and survivability of the most important people in the US under possibly extreme circumstances and has nothing to do with standard operating reliability of a twin.
Tug
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10019 posts, RR: 76 Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2977 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 22): a primary difference between the helo flights and AF1 is that those are inside of the controlled, defended airspace of the USofA. Correct me if I'm wrong
Not sure but I could envision a situation where they would make a US military helicopter available to the President in other parts of the world. Bulk of the flights - White House lawn to Andrews I'll wager.
By he way. From a heat-seeking missile point of view, four engines is four targets. I'm aware that they have countermeasures but...
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
25 Tugger: I agree, I'm sure that has happened quite a few times. Also wasn't one of the reasons given for the VH-71 (US101, a derivative of the AgustaWestland
26 N328KF: I would guess that you will see a future AF1 (if not the current one) operational with something like MTHEL -- eg., an active defense against incomin
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3288 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 392 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
