africawings
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:47 am

2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:54 pm

All right folks, a happy New Year to you all!. I was researching something completely unrelated on the government contracting website, when I came across this real RFP (Request For Proposal...see below). It seems that The United States Government is actually conducting market research into the next generation of suitable aircraft to be designated Air Force One (for our future President) beginning in 2017.

The powers that be have concluded (as we had months ago) that the current VC-25 (Boeing 747-200 airframe) is aging and parts are getting expensive, and is actively looking for a suitable replacement.

I thought it would be fun to review and research the topic with you all (and to be honest, I think the insight from this forum would hands down beat any outside research group) to recommend under some "airliners.net" pseudonym to the Government what aircraft is best suited for the new job of Air Force one.

The top two real contenders in my book are the 747-400 and the 747-8i. Sorry guys the A380 doesn't really stand a chance for consideration given the fact that it is too big and is made in Europe. Other aircraft are two engine (Two holers) and as you all know, we've flogged that topic to death (i.e for security reasons the United States would not use a two holer as a long term long range Air Force One aircraft)

My personal preference is to select the 747-8i.

Let the informed discussions begin



---------------------
EQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION
Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR)



PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION


The United States Air Force is conducting market research to identify potential sources that possess the expertise, capabilities, and experience to meet the requirements of the next generation Presidential fixed-wing aircraft. The current VC-25 Air Force One, based on the 747-200 airframe, was purchased in 1987 and delivered in 1990 with a 30 year design life. As 747-200s have been retired from airline service, parts and maintenance are becoming increasingly expensive. The Air Force conducted an Analysis of Alternatives to examine if it would be more cost effective to maintain the current Air Force One, or to buy a new aircraft. Given the diminishing parts supplier base, increasing maintenance time, and system upgrades that would be necessary to meet future air traffic control requirements, it was found that replacing the VC-25 was the most cost effective option.


The PAR aircraft will be a new-build, commercial derivative, wide-body aircraft, uniquely modified to meet the current and projected requirements for the worldwide transportation of the Office of the President. Modifications regarding passenger communications, information systems, interior work & rest environment, and aerial refueling must be accomplished before delivery of the aircraft. The delivery of the first operationally capable aircraft is required in FY17, with delivery of the second and third aircraft in FY19 and FY21, respectively. The PAR aircraft must maintain the highest possible mission capable rate.


The PAR aircraft will provide the President of the United States, staff, and guests with safe and reliable air transportation with the appropriate level of security and communications capability. Mission communications must provide secure, interoperable command, control, and communications, using net-centric architectures.


The interior must provide a work and rest environment suitable for the President, guests, and traveling staff. The interior configuration must provide the President with ample work and conference areas (including sleeping, lavatory, shower, and dressing areas). The interior must be accessible to the physically impaired. The interior must be configured with galleys that provide the aircrew with the capability to prepare, serve, and store food and beverages. It must also provide for housekeeping and waste disposal.


The modified aircraft will be Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified, and will meet projected aviation requirements to conduct worldwide flight operations in all civil and military airspace as defined by the FAA, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and Department of Defense (DOD).
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4990
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:18 pm



Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):
The top two real contenders in my book are the 747-400 and the 747-8i.

No one is going to be delivering new-build 747-400s in 2017 or 2021.

As of right now, I think the A380 will be a real contender, but the Air Force will ultimately choose the 747-8I to avoid bad publicity. A lot could change in the next few years, though.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:25 am

If a four engine airplane is the only choice and it has to be a new build machine; and assuming a foreign design isn't acceptable for the President, doesn't it make sense to just make an announcement that there will be a new Air Force One in 2017 and it will be based on the latest 747 derivative? Are we certain a 777 wouldn't be chosen? Is it possible the rules have changed very recently regarding how many engines the airplane has to have?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:35 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 2):
Is it possible the rules have changed very recently regarding how many engines the airplane has to have?

Was it ever actually a "rule" or a commonly held perception that the Presidential aircraft must have four engines.
A perception that would not have been questioned in earlier times.

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13468
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:59 am

A link for those interested: Click here
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
keesje
Posts: 8861
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:05 am

It has to be big & build in America.

Then ETOPS with higher risk for diversions & MANPAD threads is out of the question IMO.

If the president of EU was allawed to have an aircraft the most likely candidate would probably be an A340-500 or A340-600.

Congress will make sure it become a reworked 747-400 or 747-8i. Maybe even a 747-8F fuselage based VVIP if the 8i doesn't make it.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:29 am

It is hard to see an AF1 that is non Boeing. IMO politically impossible. Look at the whole KC-X saga.

By 2017, the B747-400, (as a design) is going to be pretty long in the tooth. Most except possibly the B747-400ER's will be pretty elderly.

Given that the USAF will not buy off the drawing board, the it will be a type that is currently in or approaching EIS.

That means that the choice comes down to the B747-8, B777 or B787.

1. Both the B777 and B787 are twins which raises issues if an engines fails for any reason.

2. Furthermore they are smaller than the existing AF1. Whilst the size of Electronics shrinks, I
do not see this resulting in smaller aircraft, just more capable ones.

3. Is the POTUS going to arrive in a B787, when other world leaders have A340 or B747. I think not.

IMO, It comes down to the B747-8I and the B747-8F. Always bearing in mind that the interior will be mostly custom built.
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:58 pm

If they use an F version aircraft that gives advantages of pallet loading the press. Joking aside, they may publically look at an A380 or perhaps even A340 as options, but in the end it will ahve to be a US design. Two holers are out for "safety" reasons (though if you ask me if you double the engines you double the risk of engine failiure). The 747-400 wont be in production in 2017 surely, so that leaves the 747-800 derivatives only IMO. TBH I see the F version being a much better blank canvas for their proposed modifications than the I.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:09 pm



Quoting GST (Reply 7):
I see the F version being a much better blank canvas for their proposed modifications than the I.

Too many problems using the 748F. Just to name a few, no windows, nose door, smaller hump, reinforced floor. All of those changes will require additional expense to have the aircraft certified by the FAA. Using the 748I is a 'no brainer". The current 747-400s used for AF1 have a space problem on the upper deck with all the comm gear. Having the extended upper deck would allow a better comm suite.

In addition, plan on about a 40 ton increase in the ZFW for the outfitted aircraft compared with a standard 748I. Little things like EMP hardening, 2nd APU, ECM and Comm gear all add up!
Fly fast, live slow
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:35 pm



Quoting GST (Reply 7):
The 747-400 wont be in production in 2017 surely, so that leaves the 747-800 derivatives only IMO. TBH I see the F version being a much better blank canvas for their proposed modifications than the I.

Boeing has already told the USAF that any new-build 747's would have to be the 748. That was as they related to the ABL but the Presidential aircraft would be no different.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8):
The current 747-400s used for AF1 have a space problem on the upper deck with all the comm gear. Having the extended upper deck would allow a better comm suite.

The VC-25s are 747-200s without the SUD option. I don't know why they didn't get the super upper deck on them.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:51 pm

Well I've got to comment on this AF1 thread, though I generally try to stay out of them, as it seems we now have an actual RFP....

As for the rationale for replacement... Spares availability was given as reason for a new aircraft when the VC-25s were ordered... Strangely enough the 89th AW had no problem keeping 26000 & 27000 going for another decade after they were replaced as the AF1 aircraft & DoD has managed to keep the E-3s, E-6s, and E-8s going - no shortage of 707 spares there... The actual reasons for the retirement of the VC-137s (and I'm referring to all of them not just 26000 & 27000) were corrosion, aircraft noise, reliability, and a changing mission requirement...

I would suggest the real reason for this RFP is that USAF sees the possibility that the 747 line may close in the next 3 - 4 years and along with that closure may come the last chance (for the forseeable future) to order a U.S. aircraft that meets the size, range, and three/four engine requirement. The RFP preserves the possibility to have a U.S. aircraft to replace the VC-25s that in the out years will be 30+ years old.

I find it curious that the RFP mentions the possibility of a third aircraft.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:12 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 9):
The VC-25s are 747-200s without the SUD option.

The only classic with the SUD option is called the 747-300. That would have been a disaster to use because of the increased ZFW of the stretched upper deck. There were a couple of STCs out to convert the shorter upper deck to the stretch, but there was no Boeing option.
Fly fast, live slow
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:34 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):

Yeah, I thought Boeing offered it on later new-build 742s but apparently I was confusing that with the upper deck window option.  Smile
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:35 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
There were a couple of STCs out to convert the shorter upper deck to the stretch, but there was no Boeing option.

Did anybody other than Boeing ever do the upper deck stretch??
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:14 pm

Yep. And AF1s will be old by then, by traditional standards (if you do the math, you'll see what I mean). I'm surprised the RFP wasn't issued 4 years ago.

I believe it will be the 747 simply because it is an american aircraft and it would look bad to be flying an A380 around (no support for our own products). Same reason congresspeople drive American cars even if they don't want to. The planes would be produced in 2014 then refitted/specialized for 2-4 more years before entering service.

Also, it will be an easier transition if AF moves from 742s to 748s.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8588
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:18 pm

The President, Vice President, and Secretaries fly on twin-jets all the time. The 777 isn't out just because it's a twin. The White House has the need for something bigger than a 773ER. When the public thinks Air Force One, they think of the 747. That image of Presidential power is what trumps the A380.

It'll be the 747-8I.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:20 pm



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
That image of Presidential power is what trumps the A380.

It'll be the 747-8I.

That's part of it. And with the hump and the length, when not parked side by side, the 748 looks large and in charge.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:32 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
The President, Vice President, and Secretaries fly on twin-jets all the time.

The President (and generally SecDef as well) only fly twins domestically. Overseas travel is always 4 engine.....

For diplomatic & protocol reasons alone it would be unacceptable for AF1 to divert in the engine out case

[Edited 2009-01-08 10:33:54]
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:43 pm



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 17):

The President (and generally SecDef as well) only fly twins domestically

Right, and then generally only when they have to. If they can take the VC-25 they do it.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8588
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:07 pm



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 17):
The President (and generally SecDef as well) only fly twins domestically. Overseas travel is always 4 engine.....

The President takes the VC-25 overseas because of the size of his entourage. There isn't a twin in USAF service that would be adequate. The VP and Secretaries who have a smaller team have traveled overseas with the C-32 and C-40s a number of times.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 17):
For diplomatic & protocol reasons alone it would be unacceptable for AF1 to divert in the engine out case

It's not like the Secret Service doesn't prepare diversion plans for the VC-25. Engine-out scenarios aren't the only reason they would need to land unexpectedly. The President is also followed by additional aircraft anyway, so getting stranded is a non-issue. These days twins reach their destination more often than quads in airline service. In the meticulous hands of the USAF, there's no reason to believe a twin would be any less safe or diversion prone.

What kills the 777 and other twins is size, or lack thereof.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:21 pm



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
The President takes the VC-25 overseas because of the size of his entourage. There isn't a twin in USAF service that would be adequate. The VP and Secretaries who have a smaller team have traveled overseas with the C-32 and C-40s a number of times.

The entourage that travels aboard AF1 is not as big as you think

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
so getting stranded is a non-issue.

Getting stranded is not the issue. Arriving unexpectedly at short notice is. A single engine shutdown on the 747 is pretty much a non event, they wouldn't even need to brief pax. Might even have occurred with the VC-25 in the past and nobody outside the Oval Office and the PPG knows.... With a twin it would be a different story. Short notice arrival at the divert field means: Protocol arrangements, security concerns, diplomatic issues, transportation and housing arrangements, etc all change at the last minute.

ZANL
1992-1996 - Transportation supervisor/planner with the AF1 detail at ADW
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
africawings
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:47 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:30 pm

This is really good stuff!

Any chance the USAF looks at the 777-LR or the 777-300ER for the role?

They have the size and the range don't they?
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2205
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:31 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 6):
It is hard to see an AF1 that is non Boeing. IMO politically impossible.

Just out of curiosity, what is the official aircraft of the heads of the United Kingdom, France, Germany & Spain? Is it only Airbus?
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:05 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
The only classic with the SUD option is called the 747-300.

Actually there are 742 SUD's (Ex KLM) and I think JAL had 741SUD's, now operated by Orient Thai..

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lasse Kaila

The last of the famous international playboys
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:14 pm



Quoting United787 (Reply 22):
Just out of curiosity, what is the official aircraft of the heads of the United Kingdom, France, Germany & Spain? Is it only Airbus?

Can't speak for the others but the UK does not have a long haul aircraft for the Head of Govt or Head of State, they usually charter a BA aircraft, quite often a B777

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:32 pm

France has 3 used A310, 2 new A319 and 2 used A340.

However given the role of AF1, I think that the USAF will need to buy a new plane.
 
keesje
Posts: 8861
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:53 pm

Imagine the USAF sends out RFP and Airbus comes back with a better cheaper proposal.

Where's the beer and pop corn again..

Can't the currents ones be overhauled, or a few low hour 747-400 bought?

How many hours a year do they make anyway?

[Edited 2009-01-08 16:13:33]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
romeokc10fe
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 3:45 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:54 am



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
The only classic with the SUD option is called the 747-300.

Not true, Dash 200's could be ordered with the Stretched Upper Deck, trust me, I fly them for my airline.

Here's a good link.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...for-air-force-one-replacement.html
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:05 am



Quoting United787 (Reply 22):
Just out of curiosity, what is the official aircraft of the heads of the United Kingdom, France, Germany & Spain? Is it only Airbus?

The UK charters a BA B-777-200 or B-747-400. France bought a used A-340-200, and also has A-318CJs and A-319CJs. Germay has two A-310-300s, as does Canada. I am not sure what Spain has, my guess would be an A-319CJ.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
Can't the currents ones be overhauled, or a few low hour 747-400 bought?

How many hours a year do they make anyway?

Yes, the current VC-25s can and do get full overhauls (C & D checks are actually doone by Boeing). There is no need to replace the VC-25As with late model B-747-400s. the VC-25A is not a full B-747-200. It was built with the landing gear of the B-747-300, and the engines and struts of the B-747-400. I believe the cockpit avionics are from the -400, too.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
Imagine the USAF sends out RFP and Airbus comes back with a better cheaper proposal.

Airbus could offer the three replacement airplanes for free, and Boeing would still be given the contract. BTW, what could Airbus propose that is better than a B-747-8i?

There is also a possibility of Boeing developing another model of the B-747-8i, perhaps an ER version.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:42 am

Kind of a sideways question here. In a WWIII type situation where time aloft would be more of a factor than distance covered, would AF1 go to two thrusting engines at whatever speed and altitude is most efficient, or are four engines at 50% just about as efficient as two at 100%.
Anon
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:06 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
Congress will make sure it become a reworked 747-400 or 747-8i. Maybe even a 747-8F fuselage based VVIP if the 8i doesn't make it.

This the same congress than ensured that POTUS flies around in a European helicopter assembled by American workers?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
I believe it will be the 747 simply because it is an american aircraft and it would look bad to be flying an A380 around (no support for our own products). Same reason congresspeople drive American cars even if they don't want to. The planes would be produced in 2014 then refitted/specialized for 2-4 more years before entering service.

How come this did not apply to the a/c used for Marine One, a precedent has been set, does it make a difference whether its a helicopter or a ULH?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Airbus could offer the three replacement airplanes for free, and Boeing would still be given the contract. BTW, what could Airbus propose that is better than a B-747-8i?

When it comes to the Office of the POTUS better is not really the main criteria, the office represents the country, sort of funny for an industrial country with its own aviation industry to not be supported by its leader, or in the case of the a/c used for Marine One, assembly a foreign made / designed product.

I believe it will come down to politics, if the US needs the European's help for whatever, they would offer up the prestige of having them brag that they supply the a/c that the POTUS flies. Downside???

My big question is why exactly is the US even asking or inviting Airbus to present a proposal, the a/c used for the POTUS is a symbol of the nation, it is not about whether its the best a/c for the job, it about the best a/c that the nation has and its leader should be front and center supporting the country industry. The EH101 in use in military service is one thing if its the best helicopter going, but the a/c for Marine One carries other symbolisms, at least it used to and should.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:25 am

I guess the USAF will finally get the enlisted man out of the cockpit by getting a new Airbus or Boeing without a FE position. But from my point of view as a Crew Chief I did lock horns with the FE about how the best way to fix something during my VC-137 days plus with the new acft the pilots will lean more on their flying Crew Chief since they don't have that 3rd set of eyes in the flight deck no longer.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:36 am



Quoting United787 (Reply 22):
Just out of curiosity, what is the official aircraft of the heads of the United Kingdom, France, Germany & Spain? Is it only Airbus?



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 25):
France has 3 used A310, 2 new A319 and 2 used A340.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
The UK charters a BA B-777-200 or B-747-400. France bought a used A-340-200, and also has A-318CJs and A-319CJs. Germay has two A-310-300s, as does Canada. I am not sure what Spain has, my guess would be an A-319CJ.

The A340 of France is not an VIP aircraft it is in airliner configuration and used to carry troops.
France will get an used A332 as new VIP aircraft as they considered the A319ACJ as too small.
France, Spain, Germany and Belgium all use A310s but they will be retired soon.
Germany has ordered 2 used A340s from Lufthansa and two new A319ACJ and 4 Global 500 to replace their aging VIP fleet of Canadair Challengers and A310. Belgium recently has announced that they want to replace their A310s but have not mentioned a type.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:04 am



Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 27):
Not true, Dash 200's could be ordered with the Stretched Upper Deck, trust me, I fly them for my airline.

I suggest you take a look at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/specs.html You eill find there is NO SUD option for new build aircraft. The only option was to order the 300 if it was in production. There were at least 2 companies, Boeing and Bedek (IIRC) that did the SUD STC. You could not order a new build from Boeing in that configuration. Check the Technical specs and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
Actually there are 742 SUD's (Ex KLM) and I think JAL had 741SUD's, now operated by Orient Thai..

The stretch was not done as a new aircraft! Please re-read my post! The stretch was done as a STC. I never wrote there was no stretch.
Fly fast, live slow
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:07 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
It was built with the landing gear of the B-747-300

The 300 has the same MTOW as the 200, which is 830,000lbs whild the 400 is 875,000 so the 400 is more capable.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
I believe the cockpit avionics are from the -400, too.

The cockpit is the same as it is on all the classics. However, it has been updated to flat screen displays in some areas. The 400 cockpit and avionics are completely different.
Fly fast, live slow
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:27 am

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...for-air-force-one-replacement.html

According to this article the USAF has requested (and received) detailed info regarding the a330, a340 and a380 as possibilities for AF1 replacement.

But I agree with most sentiments here that A probably has no chance of winning this. Boeing will do everything to keep AF1 and it will be politically pratically impossible for Airbus to win. If the POTUS wants the biggest aircraft however...  Big grin
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
keesje
Posts: 8861
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:16 am

If think if Airbus proposes a similar price or a few % less for a proven A380 then Boeing for a paper 747-8i, there is an issue.

Congress will fight to get the basic requirements "right" making the A340-600 too small and the A380 too big.

And then the GAO will have a look.

Interesting times ahead for the Boeing lobby. KC30, A380, A400M..

Still I think buying to new 747-400s, e.g. Qantas 747-400ER's shouldn't be ignored.

It costs a fortune to rebuild, but so does any new AF1.



Low hours (first D-check yet to come), latest mod status, extra range, extra room, new interiors, GE engines, low risk.. QF is going A380 anyway.

Some specific designs can be improved slightly / copied / transferred from the VC-25.
(APUs, air refuelling, lower deck doors, floors etc).

Looks like a low risk low cost solution.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:30 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Still I think buying to new 747-400s, e.g. Qantas 747-400ER's shouldn't be ignored.

The only problem with that is the RFP clearly states that it must be a new build airframe. No way for the ex Qantas aircraft, and Boeing has stopped taking orders for 744s for years now, with the last production example to roll off the line within months.

Though I would like to see the 744ER as the replacement...

If someone thinks this is some sort of economic stimulus though, they're insane. I'd rather take a $20 credit to my taxes.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:10 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 30):
My big question is why exactly is the US even asking or inviting Airbus to present a proposal,

 checkmark 

I'm betting Airbus will carefully test the water this time around before plunging head first into another RFP for the USAF... Especially for 'only' 3 airframes.

They gave the USAF access to their aircrafts' data, but will attentively consider the answer they get from that before drawing up a proposal, if at all.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:10 pm



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 29):
n a WWIII type situation where time aloft would be more of a factor than distance covered, would AF1 go to two thrusting engines at whatever speed and altitude is most efficient, or are four engines at 50% just about as efficient as two at 100%.

In a scenario like this, the aircraft's mid-air refueling capabilities would be utilized should there be a need to keep AF1 airborne for extended periods of time. However, this has not yet been used except maybe pre-delivery testing.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 30):
How come this did not apply to the a/c used for Marine One, a precedent has been set, does it make a difference whether its a helicopter or a ULH?

The difference is that Marine One is not the "superstar" of the presidential fleet.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 34):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
I believe the cockpit avionics are from the -400, too.


The cockpit is the same as it is on all the classics. However, it has been updated to flat screen displays in some areas. The 400 cockpit and avionics are completely different.




Though not seen in the photo, it also has a pretty nice navigator station behind the AIrcraft Commander's position.
I lift things up and put them down.
 
ssublyme
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:04 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:22 pm



Quoting GST (Reply 7):
holers are out for "safety" reasons (though if you ask me if you double the engines you double the risk of engine failiure).

Not true. Your total chance of atleast one engine failing might be higher, but not double. Redundancy is where you get a benefit of a quad. Which is also why they ETOP immune, overall risk of the plane going down because of an engine failure is less.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:16 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Still I think buying to new 747-400s, e.g. Qantas 747-400ER's shouldn't be ignored.

It costs a fortune to rebuild, but so does any new AF1.

I think this would be a great option as long as the -400ER is re-equipped with the GEnx.
Having a "green" AF1 would be important on the stage of world opinion, let alone the huge performance benefits.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:03 pm

I would think there's just too much custom work to even consider a used frame. They'd have to tear the thing completely down to install all the stuff needed to equip a Presidential aircraft.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:12 pm

I agree that a lot of people are missing the obvious here.

AF1 is not a passenger jet, it is a flying White House.

Consequently it must be a New Build.

Equally IMO it must be a Quad, unplanned diversions are not really on.

Purchase of the A380 is politically impossible.

The only option, (assuming that it will be replaced in the next decade) is the B747-8, or more precisely, a derivative of it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23203
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:56 pm

I don't buy the "prestige means big" argument. I mean the President tooled around for decades in a 707 when the DC-10, L1011 and 747-100 and 747-200 were available.

And the KC-45A and E-101 decisions have made it clear the Department of Defense is buying whatever is best, not what is politically expedient.

The USAF chose the 747-200 for it's size when they RFP'd the VC-25. The larger size has been a huge benefit to the Office.

So why not buy an A380-800? You'd have space to burn and you could make the entire upper deck private for the President and his cabinet while the lower deck could carry the entire reporter pool and save on having to bring a second plane as is the case now with the VC-25.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:42 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
So why not buy an A380-800?

Because if you want to commit political suicide there are a lot easier ways to do it.
Anon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23203
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:57 am



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 45):
Because if you want to commit political suicide there are a lot easier ways to do it.

It didn't stop the USMC from buying European to shuttle the President to and from the VC-25.

And it didn't stop the USAF from buying European to refuel the VC-25.

So why should it stop them from buying European to fly him around in the replacement for the VC-25?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:39 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
And it didn't stop the USAF from buying European to refuel the VC-25.

The USAF selected the Airbus aircraft; Boeing and political pressure killed the deal. If (and this is a big if) there are any new tankers, they will be Boeing.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:40 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
If think if Airbus proposes a similar price or a few % less for a proven A380 then Boeing for a paper 747-8i, there is an issue.

By the time these airplanes are ordered, in 2014, the B-747-8i will not be a paper airplane. LH will have at least 20 of them, there will also be several B-747-8BBJs flying around the world, and who is to say some other airline won't order them?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Interesting times ahead for the Boeing lobby. KC30, A380, A400M..

There is no USAF KC-30, A-380, and who knows when the A-400 will ever fly?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Low hours (first D-check yet to come), latest mod status, extra range, extra room, new interiors, GE engines, low risk.. QF is going A380 anyway.

QF is keeping their B-747-400ERs. They have nothing to do with the QF A-380s.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
I don't buy the "prestige means big" argument. I mean the President tooled around for decades in a 707 when the DC-10, L1011 and 747-100 and 747-200 were available.

When the DC-10, L-1011, B-747-100/-200 were new airplanes, the first VC-137C (# 26000, ordered in 1962) wasn't even 10 years old, yet. The second VC-137C (# 27000) was ordered in 1972.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
the KC-45A and E-101 decisions have made it clear the Department of Defense is buying whatever is best, not what is politically expedient.

The DOD/USAF have ordered exactl;y how many KC-45As? BTW, the DOD had nothing to do with the original KC-45A decision, and the GAO found numerous problems with the RFP and contract award.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
So why not buy an A380-800? You'd have space to burn and you could make the entire upper deck private for the President and his cabinet while the lower deck could carry the entire reporter pool and save on having to bring a second plane as is the case now with the VC-25.

First, a second airplane is always going to fly behind AF-1. The second airplane (which is chartered by the USAF) might be an A-380, but AF-1 won't be one.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
And it didn't stop the USAF from buying European to refuel the VC-25.

What???? Which European airplane (tanker) ever refueled the VC-25A? I know, I know.....NONE. The VC-25A has only been refueled by KC-135A/E/R/Ts and KC-10As. It does get refueled to keep the refueling equipment working properly and keep the VC-25A crews qualified. The only time an aircraft with the POTUS was aboard was ever refueled was when (then) President Carter flew aboard the E-4B, and a KC-135A did that refueling.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: 2009 RFP For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:50 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 47):
Boeing and political pressure killed the deal. If (and this is a big if) there are any new tankers, they will be Boeing.

This is probably true. Boeing will determine what the next AF1 looks like, what it costs and how it is equipped. Boeing probably wants to sell some more 748I frames, and keep their custom shop busy. This is an excellent way to do that. Since Boeing is in control of aircraft procurement at the USAF, they can just write the terms down and arrange for the signatures to be done. Boeing has a whole department of people in Washington who do this.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mortyman and 8 guests