Wiki lists several orders for the 747-8 BBJ including two in September 2006 within a week of each other. Think its possible the White House is planning on replacing 28000 and 29000? Their two highly modified 747-200's. They've both been in service since 1990. Previous to them the 707 served as "Air Force One" for approx 28 years, from 1962 until 1990. Based on that one would think 28000 and 29000 should still have another 11 years of service as a minimum. Especially when one factors in the vast differences and improvements between the 707 and 747.
On that thought, the Pentagon recently announced the retirement of the E-4B's ( the 747, doomsday plane). They are being replaced with the C-32, the military/government issue 757. One would assume a large factor in that decision would be the lower operating costs of the C-32. Wonder if that would be a possible Air Force One replacement? Personally I would think not. IMO, when the Current Air Force One's are replaced, the White House would most likely want to continue projecting the same image of power only the 747 can do. I would love to see a 747-8 in the blue/white.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7898 times:
I would bet that those particular 747s have quite a bit of life left in them. Does the White House really need the addition room of the 747-8? With airborne refueling, range is not much of an issue. I doubt reliability has been a concern. The parts supply is ample. I would be interested to hear a case for replacing them.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22948 posts, RR: 78 Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7872 times:
The E-4B's mission has been assumed by the E-6 TACAMO (Take Charge And Move Out) which was originally designed to communicate with SSBNs, but has been updated to command the land-based ICBM force, as well, since the chances of a major (1000+ warheads) surprise nuclear attack on the US is remote so we don't need as many command and control birds.
As to Air Force One, the 747 was chosen for it's capacity so I don't see the government going smaller anytime soon. Plus I imagine four engines are preferred for the sake of sheer redundancy.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 474 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7828 times:
I would imagine you will see a 748 buy for that purpose at the very end of the line. I am presuming that there will be no more Boeing 4 engine planes developed and that there is no way in the world that the USAF is going to fly the president around in the Whale Jet.
If that is the case they will probably buy among the last couple 748's to keep them going for a while.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 680 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7828 times:
Quoting Boeingluvr (Thread starter):
Wiki lists several orders for the 747-8 BBJ including two in September 2006 within a week of each other. Think its possible the White House is planning on replacing 28000 and 29000?
The USAF can't just order commercial airplanes in secret. For the USAF to place an order, they would have had to include the order value in their FY budget, which would have been reviewed by an appropriations committee. Replacing the premier executive transport aircraft in the world would have gained some attention on CSPAN.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7780 times:
I think the 748 would be a great replacement, mostly the only benefit i see is fuel economy. The 742's probably use a lot more fuel and are not as environmentally friendly so that could be one reason to move to a newer plane, if they wanted to cut costs they could probably bring over most of the stuff in the current 742's (as they are probably not out dated) and just add a few things to the new planes to cut costs. Fuel economy could be a very important reason since the govt is beginning to become more strict about the environmental impact and reliance on fossil fuels. Since the Pentagon is replacing their 747's with 757's does this mean that they are acquiring more from somewhere? Why don't they get some 767's if they want a little more room?
And on a side note, i think the A380 would be a pretty cool plane for the president, (that might be a problem since it is not american made lol)
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1819 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7702 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 3): I would imagine you will see a 748 buy for that purpose at the very end of the line. I am presuming that there will be no more Boeing 4 engine planes developed and that there is no way in the world that the USAF is going to fly the president around in the Whale Jet.
If that is the case they will probably buy among the last couple 748's to keep them going for a while.
Is this to say the Boeing Y3 program will be a twin or three engine airplane, at most?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20325 posts, RR: 62 Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7662 times:
This has been discussed ad nasuem. People claim the current birds have "lots of life left in them" but fail to even do any research into the history of the program, because if they did they would know that they will be approaching their replacement age by 748i EIS, and considering it takes 2-3 years to convert the planes, one would expect an order in enough time to get new aircraft into service by 2014-2015.
I do believe that it's possible both of those VIP 748i were for this purpose, unidentified because that's the SOP. If not, they will be ordered sooner than later.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Bkircher From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7587 times:
i think it would be pretty cool if in the future, air force one be replaced by a special 787. i think it would look rather cool to see af1 as a 787. i would think that the current one is not as fuel efficiant as some newer planes, but idk. its the presidents plane.
If the Air Force developed the F-117, the SR-71, the B-2 Spirit and the "Aurora" without out CSPAN announcing it to the world. I would say its very possible that some Government "shadow" corporation could easily purchase two 747-8 BBJ's without anyone noticing. Hell, when congress is fighting over $100 Billion to send over to Iraq, whats say $600 million in the grand scheme of thing.
As far as Y3 goes, I would put my money on a 747-8 for a replacement Aircraft. Y3 as well as Y2 and Y1 right now is "New technologies to be introduced include composite aerostructures, more electrical systems (reduction of hydraulic systems), and more fuel-efficient turbofan engines". Considering the amount of time it takes to go from that to having a prototype in the air, and from there to full production is a considerable amount of time. Say the current AF1 has ten years of life left; for numbers sake. Boeing has not even started production on the 747-8 yet. Y3 is the replacement for the 747-8 and 777 models. It will be the new long range high capacity aircraft.
The 747-8 will eventually replace the current Air Force One aircraft. Considering the amount of time it takes to order an a/c, build it, and then heavily modify it. I would say there is a very strong possibility that those orders are government orders. And if not, look for some to come.
Just as the 747-8 will replace the current 747-200's, the Y3 will eventually replace the 747-8.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 680 posts, RR: 54 Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7392 times:
Quoting Simps747 (Reply 10):
If the Air Force developed the F-117, the SR-71, the B-2 Spirit and the "Aurora" without out CSPAN announcing it to the world...
Why on Earth would the procurement of a new AF1 be considered a black project?
After the KC-767 fiasco, do you think anyone on Capitol Hill or at the Pentagon has any inclination of placing a covert order for Boeing products? It would be a career killer.
Not a black project, I was simply saying that if they wanted to, it could be easily done. I too see no reason why they would try to shroud such a thing in secrecy.
I definitely agree it would be a career killer, I was just saying that if for some strange obscure reason the Pentagon decided the replacement a/c needed to be acquired in confidence, it could be done. Maybe they plan on purchasing them now, upgrading and modifying them and then announcing them/presenting them when the time is right (IE when the time comes to retire the current ones). You can't order the new a/c when you retire the old ones, I would say from ordering them, to production, to modification, and finally to service you would be looking at a five year window. Based on that if they haven't already ordered them, as I said earlier I would expect an order in the next few years.
If anything one would think that an announcement of a purchase of replacement jets would be hyped up from the "more enviromentally friendly" angle. With all that goes on on "the hill", the procurement of two jets could have as much or as little attention as one would want it to have.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 30 Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7293 times:
Not in the least. The American public will demand a USA build plane. Go figure on a 747-800 or 787, but this will not happen for a while. I would say NW WILL retire their nines before Air Force One gets changed.
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 897 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7278 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11): Why on Earth would the procurement of a new AF1 be considered a black project?
After the KC-767 fiasco, do you think anyone on Capitol Hill or at the Pentagon has any inclination of placing a covert order for Boeing products? It would be a career killer.
Why would it not be considered black up front. There is a lot of special technology that goes into AF1 (and AF2) and I don't see any reason to announce years in advance that you are doing it.
As far as your second comment.... Ahhhh, what kind of plane do you think the US will use for it's next AF1 & 2.
Of course it will be a Boeing 747 (for many reasons - and regardless of the KC-767 - and any other - fiasco). It most certainly will not be an A380, or any other foreign aircraft.
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6193 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6881 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4): The USAF can't just order commercial airplanes in secret. For the USAF to place an order, they would have had to include the order value in their FY budget, which would have been reviewed by an appropriations committee. Replacing the premier executive transport aircraft in the world would have gained some attention on CSPAN.
Why couldn't they just use what's left over from the $500 staplers? Actually I think it'd be really funny if they bought the Pres a couple of A380s!
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
CMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 184 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4939 times:
There is now some fairly formal talk about replacing the 747-200s that are used as Air Force 1, see this weeks Aviation Week. Isn't there some secret service ruling going way back that the president can only fly on a four engine aircraft?? To me this is obviously pre ETOPS rules and the reliability of the multiple examples of two engine aircraft out there. Would the 777-300ER be big enough in terms of interior space to replace the 747 or would the -8 intercontinental be the better candidate given how the current pair of aircraft are used? I believe that the same article this week stated EADS had passed on bidding a new AF1. Can't blame them there, no hope of a foreign aircraft type getting this mission.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4935 times:
Quoting CMB56 (Reply 16): Isn't there some secret service ruling going way back that the president can only fly on a four engine aircraft??
It's not uncommon for POTUS to fly on the C-32s (757) and probably the C-40s (737) as well. Actually I believe President Obama's first official ride as Air Force One was on the C-32.
That said, I'm 99% certain the VC-25 (747-200) replacement will have four engines, and in that regard I'm 95% certain it'll be the 747-8I.
G38 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4891 times:
Until the country is out of debt maybe the President should fly something a little less expensive. Like say a Cessna 172. Just kidding. Yeah, a 748 would be really cool as AF1.
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1374 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4573 times:
Why replacing these two presidential 747-200's within a few years time?
Both VC-25A aircraft are very heavy modified 747-200's, but powered by "747-400 engines", with very little hours/cycles on both airframes. All the modifications doubled the pricetag of the two aircraft.
To be exact, both are powered by CF6-80C2B1 engines, that's the first CF680C2 variant with a mechanical fuel control, supervised by a digital control (PMC variant).
In fact it's an in between 747-400, only 3-4% less fuel efficient than the real 747-400 and more than 9% more fuel efficient than the standard 747-200/CF6-50E2 ( E-4B ).
If you want a "green" VC25A, you can modify this aircraft with a pair of blended winglets,
as test flown by Boeing Aviation partners in 2000 (SFC improvement more than 6%), but not put into production.
The result will be an aircraft that is 2-3% more fuel efficient than a 747-400, against a fraction of the costs of obtaining two new 747-8I aircraft, including modification.
With this winglet modification you can defer the successor by at least 3-5 years. The total economical lifespan of these aircraft could be easily extended to more than thirty (30) years.
Estimated costs for two "presidential" 747-8I's = 1000 milj. USD.
Estimated cost of two shipsets winglets and certification costs : max 30 milj. USD.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4432 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 20): Lets hope other heads of states (e.g. China, EC, India, Russia) don't need A380's to do international trips.
The USAF did send out inquaries to EADS for VIP A-380-800s and to Boeing for VIP B-747-8BBJs. But I doubt anything would be done with this information for a few years. USAF and the Secret Service will have to look at the needed modifications to each type to make them "flying White Houses".
The earliest I think you will see an order for a new Air Force-1 will be around 2017 or 2018, with delivery (in final configueration) about 4-5 years later. This will be a no-bid contract awarded directly to an OEM (most likely Boeing). Other VIP models (B-777, B-787, A-330, A-350) could be ordered at the same time, but I doubt it. In any case, there will not be an RFP. I think they learned a lot with the VH-72A/B/C screw-up.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7303 posts, RR: 13 Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4413 times:
Quoting CMB56 (Reply 16): There is now some fairly formal talk about replacing the 747-200s that are used as Air Force 1
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21): The USAF did send out inquaries to EADS for VIP A-380-800s and to Boeing for VIP B-747-8BBJs.
Some interesting stuff from Wiki:
Quote:
The VC-25As are expected to be replaced, as they have become less cost-effective to operate. The USAF Air Mobility Command has been charged with looking into possible replacements, including the new Boeing 747-8 and the EADS Airbus A380.[16] On January 7, 2009, the USAF Air Materiel Command issued a new requirement for a replacement aircraft to enter service beginning in 2017.[17] On January 28, 2009, EADS announced they would not bid on the program, leaving Boeing the sole bidder, with either their Boeing 747-8 or Boeing 787 being proposed.[18]
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4125 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 22): Quoting 2175301 (Reply 14):
It most certainly will not be an A380, or any other foreign aircraft.
If I'm not mistaken, Airbus didn't bother to do anything about the request for a VIP A380. I think they actually declined the request.
The VC-25As are expected to be replaced, as they have become less cost-effective to operate. The USAF Air Mobility Command has been charged with looking into possible replacements, including the new Boeing 747-8 and the EADS Airbus A380.[16] On January 7, 2009, the USAF Air Materiel Command issued a new requirement for a replacement aircraft to enter service beginning in 2017.[17] On January 28, 2009, EADS announced they would not bid on the program, leaving Boeing the sole bidder, with either their Boeing 747-8 or Boeing 787 being proposed.[18]
Thanks, I did not know EADS dropped out.
25 PC12Fan: It would look damned good, that's all I know.
26 KC135TopBoom: Great picture, but I don't see the air refueling receptical. I know the VC-25A has never refueled with the President aboard, but it is still maintane
27 CMB56: Given that the range of the basic -8I will likely not require air refueling for any normal trip the president might make adding that very expensive mo
28 Trex8: IIRC the number of places they can stop and refuel at in an emergency are more limited than a commercial airliner for security and diplomatic reasons
29 ZANL188: The air refueling capability is not there for any normal trip. The air refueling capability was added for emergency situations, such as 9-11, where a
30 Flighty: The current machine does well, too. A stop in Anchorage or Hawaii can reach nearly anything across the Pacific, even as far as Jakarta or Perth. HNL-
31 KC135TopBoom: I believe the longest non-stop, unrefueled flight Air Force-1 (VC-25A) ever made was ADW-SYD, by President Bush in 2006. ADW-SYD is just under 8,500
32 Flighty: Wow. That is very, very impressive. Thanks KC135. It's surprising to hear they did that nonstop.
33 Cpd: Rather they didn't even bother to bid. And I agree with them on that, it would have been a waste of time, money and resources for any foreign company
34 KC135TopBoom: True, but wasn't the VH-72A/B/C originally an EADS design, but it was screwed by cost overruns from the USN, SS, and LM?
35 Moose135: Yeah, but I don't think the average person could pick the Presidential helicopter out of a line up, where as the VC-25 is an unmistakable image that
36 Par13del: More Americans visit the "Peoples House" than Andrews, the colours of the Marine a/c used for the presidential fleet are just as well known, it's not
37 PC12Fan: It's there, it just doesn't show up very well in the smaller version of the photo.
38 Moose135: True, but what I was trying to say (and did a poor job of) was that most people couldn't tell one green Marine helicopter from another. Just about ev
39 StealthZ: Not to be too nit picky but this should read VH-71, the UH-72 also an EADS design is, I believe, being successfully used by the US Army without the d
40 ThePointblank: Nope, the VH-71 is a Finmeccanica product. Different company. Also the company responsible (through their Alenia Aeronautica division) for the C-27J,
41 KC135TopBoom: Ooops, me bad.........damed keyboard.........
42 Allegro: Yeah ... best livery out there IMHO. It is such abeautiful site to see with ones own eyes. My first chance was in the mid-90's when Pres. Clinton too
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1015 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 37 posts, 
Actually I think it'd be really funny if they bought the Pres a couple of A380s! 
Yeah, a 748 would be really cool as AF1.
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1374 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4765 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
