B777A340Fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 786 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8095 times:
I apologize in advance if this topic has already been discussed, but I was wondering whether the United States government had any immediate intentions to replace the President/VP's aircrafts? I mean, not a lot of people fly 742s.... Hypothetically speaking, if they were to consider a replacement for Air Force One, what would it be? the 748? How likely would it be that the US government pick an Airbus aircraft? I know, when pigs fly, right?
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7729 times:
The previous Air Force One fleet was used for over 25 years and there is little reason to think that the current one would be any different. The main advantages of the newer 747s are mostly fuel economy, slightly more space and higher MTOW, factors that are not very important for use as Air Force One. Fuel economy is not very important since the plane spends little time in the air, nowhere near enough to justify the cost of new planes. More space and lift are always better, but the improvement is not enough to make much of an operational difference.
QXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2408 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7601 times:
Quoting VS11 (Reply 4): How old is the current one? They may wanna wait until the A380 is finally ready.
Haha. That was a joke right? I just want to make sure. Deffinatly not during the Bush time period will he want to fly on a French Air Force One.
IMO, there will not be a new one for some time. Maybe in 10 years or so they will get the newest jet out from Boeing. Probably not a 747-8 or anything like this. I can see Joni's idea of a T7. I really liked the look of the older Air Force One without a hump. Plus, the current Air Force One is just huge and not necessary.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7534 times:
Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 6): Probably not a 747-8 or anything like this.
IIRC, Air Force preferred 707 first and 747 later due to their four engines. It's harder to destroy and safer to land in case one (or two) engines get damaged during missile attack. The 747 with one engine destroyed lacks only 25% of power, while 777 would loose not only 50% of it, but also potentially destroyed engine would create much greater damage to aircraft structure due to the massive size of GE-90, affecting the manoeuverability of the aircraft and its overall safety.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised that in 20 years or so, the next Air Force One platform would be based on heavily modified passenger 747-8. Keep in mind, that current one - based on 747-200B - is often called "747-400 without winglets", since it is not only heavily modified military airplane, but also it features a great deal of modifications done with 747-400 in mind.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
PC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2585 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7528 times:
Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 6): Plus, the current Air Force One is just huge and not necessary.
And every square inch of it is used. If it had the capability to use the "crown attic", they would. I personally see them doing this if/when a 747-8 is ordered. Equipment that is not used on the E4-B's can be incorporated into the "VC-25NG" attic space. Then the aircraft will have the capability for a simple POTUS transport to a (God forbid) full fledged flying war room with no need for the E4's.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40298 posts, RR: 73
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7528 times:
Quoting Joni (Reply 5): An obvious alternative would be the B777 or B787, IMO
Let's hope that never happens.
It would make more sense to go for space and that would mean the 747. They would never go with Airbus so a 747-400 or 800 would be the one to go for.
The current Airforce One has PLENTY of life left in it so don't expect another replacment for at least another 10-15 years.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7328 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12): I am constantly amused when people say that the A380 is French.
Isn't France going to take over more of the A380 work from Germany? I think the events of the last few months have pulled the wool from most peoples eyes and revealed that the French have more control over Airbus and have been using it to acquire technological expertise at the expense of their European partners. Germany appears to have just realized this reality despite the supposed parity in ownership. BAe seems to have realized that they had little influence at Airbus and got out of it. And Spain has had the smallest stake all along.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
CF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7297 times:
now that we are talking about Air Force One... can someone be so kind to actually state the unique features of it... such as a bullet resistant airframe, nuclear resistant airframe, etc etc? Who would be the ones responsible for the actual design and development of Air Force One and at that... how the hell do they know it can withstand a nuclear pulse lol? any rumors would also be cool to discuss.