Airliners.net

A colleague of mine swears he knows people that say our government is looking at a new Air Force One Fleet. "IF SO" I would think the 777-X would be a better fit more than anything else, although the 748 is pretty smashing. If they had "size envy" could they go with the A380? I don't know if we would buy aircraft for our military from EADS instead of Boeing, but nothing surprises me from the current and up-coming administrations. Can anyone shine some light on it?

From wikipedia: "On 28 January 2009, EADS announced they would not bid on the program, leaving Boeing the sole bidder, with either their Boeing 747–8 or Boeing 787 Dreamliner being proposed".

It's TRUE??? OMG... I think the 787 would be too small? But couldn't they fly to anywhere in the world from WAS on a suped-up 787?

The Air Force likes proven technology and does not care much about fuel burn unless it reduces range. The actual number of hours that the airplanes are in the air means fuel costs are meaningless in the budge. The Air Force wants proven technology that is more reliable rather than the latest and greatest. I would expect the same with a new Air Force One. They'd want a model that is already in service rather than cutting edge. That's why they picked the 742 over 744. That's why they wanted the 767 over the 787.

The 747 that they current have is not enough to carry everyone. The white house typically charters another airplane (often a UA 747 or similar plane) to carry all the press around. A 787 sized airplane would never work with how bloated the government is.

They don't need new airplanes.

"The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its Airbus commercial aircraft manufacturing subsidiary is not planning to compete against Boeing for the prestigious contract to supply three planes to transport future U.S. presidents, according to company officials." (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5bac3feb-1f4b-497a-a858-19c4b793d613)

I think the only question is: 744 or new 748?

[Edited 2012-09-15 13:58:19]

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 2): I think the 787 would be too small? But couldn't they fly to anywhere in the world from WAS on a suped-up 787?

Air Force One can in-flight refuel, it can fly indefinitely. In an airplane that can fly around the world over and over, a little "one tank" range boost isn't a factor.

If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?

Peace   

I doubt seriously the Air Force is going to back down from buying these new airplanes. It seems to me I read somewhere, perhaps here at a.net, that the airplanes are becoming hard to maintain because they're based on the -200 series 747. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Consider too that other heads of state (Middle Eastern countries) are flying around in 744s, as do government heads of Japan. Might be embarrassing for the president to be one-upped like that. Just a hunch.

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 8): It seems to me I read somewhere, perhaps here at a.net, that the airplanes are becoming hard to maintain because they're based on the -200 series 747. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You read another thread on Air Force One replacement here on anet? No way.

They're 200 airframes with 400 engines.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 9): They're 200 airframes with 400 engines.

Wouldn't that be 800 engines?  

First:: this is the third AF1 thread on the first page of this forum... at the bottom of this page are 8 additional threads same subject...
Second: the replacements will be 3 747-8i a/c not warmed over -200's or surplus commercial aircraft.. see the other threads for why. No A380, no 777, no 787...

Quoting N766UA (Reply 6): Air Force One can in-flight refuel, it can fly indefinitely.

That is true that it 'can' in flight refuel, but if I'm not mistaken it never, ever has with a President on board. So the point is moot.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 4): They don't need new airplanes.

And the world is flat, isn't it???  

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 7): If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?

The way Obama is racking up the miles and time on it lately campaigning all over the place it might be bringing its service life near an end

Quoting finnishway (Reply 1): From wikipedia: "On 28 January 2009, EADS announced they would not bid on the program, leaving Boeing the sole bidder, with either their Boeing 747–8 or Boeing 787 Dreamliner being proposed".

They could do both - 747-8 replaces the VC-25 (747-200) and the 787 replaces the VC-32 (757) that the VP uses or president uses for smaller airports, although the VC-32s are only about 12 years old or so.

Quoting xlc (Reply 5): I think the only question is: 744 or new 748?

It will be a new build. The B-747-400 is no longer in production. I doubt the B-777X would be considered, since we are looking at a delivery schedule of the first one in 2017, second in 2019, and third in 2021.

The WH is all over this dispite they want to cut about $1T over the next 10 years from the DOD.

I don't know about a B-787 being bought for an AF-2 replacement for the C-32A/Bs. By then the USAF will already have the KC-46A in production and it would be easy to buy a few C-46As (or a "B" model with windows, no cargo door, WARPs, or Boom, but retain the receiver air refueling capability) to replace the C-32s. The KC/C-46 is actually a new model in the B-767 family, and is based on the newly designed B-767-2C, a version slightly longer than the B-767-200ER. It can be equipped with blended winglets from the B-767-300ER/ERF, or the raked wingtips from the B-767-400ER, but I don't think the KC-46A will have either of these wingtip devices.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 4): They don't need new airplanes.

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 7): If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?

No, it doesn't. Its time to replace them.

The communications power load needs to be greater than the current planes can handle or can be made to handle.

Two or three airplanes is hardly an expense.

NS

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 7): If this is infact true I can see a lot of people very angry about this. I think the United States needs to get our budget in order before we even think of replacing the current fleet. It still does the job right?

The USAF has a need to start replacing 4 E-4 airframes (specially modified 747-200s for the Airborne Command Post mission) and the 2 VC25s are getting fairly up there in age. So that is 6 frames in total that need replacements and all are between 22 (VC25s) and 38!!!!(E-4s) years old.

The E-4s certainly need to be replaced and will be 45+ years old by the time the new AF1 is ready. The current VC25s will be 30+ years old.

The reason they are buying 3 is that traditionally the E-4s have served as backup to the 2 VC25s. It could be argued that they aren't buying enough replacements and that they've waited far too long to start the replacement cycle.

The current plan is to combine the functionality of the E-4s and the VC25 together in the 3 planned planes taking advantage of the miniaturization of electronics over time to get more functionality in a smaller space. I actually wouldn't be surprised if they end up buying a 4th a couple years down the line.

The USAF has to be running into issues at this point as well with keeping up with current comm/data technologies with the older VC25 and E-4 infrastructure.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3): They'd want a model that is already in service rather than cutting edge. That's why they picked the 742 over 744.

The 744 wasn't even available (introduced into service in 1988) when the 742's were completed and entered service (w president Reagan). [Mrs. Reagan helped with the paint design of them too!] That means the years in modifications were started well before that.

Here's another recent and full of information thread on this topic.
Air Force One & Marine One (by JayinKitsap Aug 10 2012 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)


Regards,
135Mech

[Edited 2012-09-17 14:33:20]

[Edited 2012-09-17 14:36:21]

Quoting 135mech (Reply 18): the 742's were completed and entered service (w president Reagan).

The VC-25s didn't enter service till mid/late 1990 with Bush. Airframes completed in '86, first flight '87.

Quoting seachaz (Reply 19): The VC-25s didn't enter service till mid/late 1990 with Bush.

1990 or soon thereafter, Bush Sr. flew on them and Clinton was president from 1994-2000.

Quoting seachaz (Reply 19): Quoting 135mech (Reply 18): the 742's were completed and entered service (w president Reagan). The VC-25s didn't enter service till mid/late 1990 with Bush. Airframes completed in '86, first flight '87.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 20): Quoting seachaz (Reply 19): The VC-25s didn't enter service till mid/late 1990 with Bush. 1990 or soon thereafter, Bush Sr. flew on them and Clinton was president from 1994-2000.

Hmmm... I remember seeing the Reagans flying on them, must have been a special flight then.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 21): I remember seeing the Reagans flying on them

I know the last they would have traveled on it was after he passed and his casket and Nancy were flown from California to DC and then back after the state funeral.

I believe Reagan flew into retirement on one.

Quoting kanban (Reply 23): I believe Reagan flew into retirement on one.

That's what i remember seeing... was super cool of them to do that!!!

I think it will be a quad - so a 748I . One of the reason is that any twin might be forced to land at the next airports in case of a misfunction of one of the engines - and I can imagine there a lot of of airports on this planet where the US president would not like to land without notice and months of razzias by the US secret service.

Now I heared that the costs of the interior of the VC25 exceed the costs of the plane by far - so it does not really matter which one you take.

One thing I just thought of and have seen heavily used is the incredibly short turning (actual turn arounds and u-turn capabilites) radius of the 747's and that is one of the great things about the current AF-1's (and the E4's) that makes it so versatile for the needed duties. If it were one of the current twins, their abilities for this very well liked and much used feature would be a limiting factor in some of it's destinations. (please don't crucify me, just adding to the topic of the 747-8i as a great replacement for it).

Regards,
135Mech

Quoting spink (Reply 17): The USAF has a need to start replacing 4 E-4 airframes

How much use do the E-4s get these days? I'm pretty sure they tote around the Secretary of Defense but I've kind of heard conflicting rumors regarding how useful they still are, given my understanding as to how/why they were originally ordered and built.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 14): The way Obama is racking up the miles and time on it lately campaigning all over the place it might be bringing its service life near an end

And Bush didn't???? You guys are unbelievable.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 28): Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 14): The way Obama is racking up the miles and time on it lately campaigning all over the place it might be bringing its service life near an end And Bush didn't???? You guys are unbelievable.

Yes, we get enough political ads now a days so can we keep the politics off the A-net for another month or so?

Besides, as a citizen, I would prefer that if POTUS was to go out campaigning, he campaign with all the necessary equipment near his side in case of emergency.

bt

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29): Besides, as a citizen, I would prefer that if POTUS was to go out campaigning, he campaign with all the necessary equipment near his side in case of emergency.

   For the most part, we stop doing our job at the end of the day. The POTUS doesn't. He is the President from the time he says "so help me God" until the next guy does.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 30): For the most part, we stop doing our job at the end of the day. The POTUS doesn't. He is the President from the time he says "so help me God" until the next guy does.

Amazing then that he found time for 104 rounds of Golf since taking office...

Quoting morrisond (Reply 31): Amazing then that he found time for 104 rounds of Golf since taking office...

Golf course owners are constituents are they not?

And since these owners and the people who play golf have money to spend (and/or contribute to campaigns), it is only natural for POTUS to spend time there,  

bt

From Answers.Com;

During 2 terms as President, Bush took spent all of part of 477 days at Camp David, on retreats and made 77 trips to his Crawford Ranch, in Texas, where he spent all or part of 490 days, on his Ranch.
The total number of days of vacation or retreat President Bush took, while in office over a period of 8 years was 967 days, or 32% of his total time in office, was spent on vacations or retreats

JM

Nice find j.mo

Quoting morrisond (Reply 31): Amazing then that he found time for 104 rounds of Golf since taking office...

Appears Obama just following the lead of his predecessor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJvRUL81ZU8

In the grand scheme of things Air Force One is a drop in the bucket as far as expenses go, all presidents have used it to campaign but every year the opposite party gets their panties in a bunch about it. The safety it affords the President and the prestige and power it projects when overseas is invaluable.

Back to the topic at hand, I'll be curious with all the electronics now required how much longer it will take to outfit the next AF1 vs the last. Will electronic hardening from EMP have the same requirement now that cold war is over? Would a carbon fiber skin make that task easier/harder/same?

Quoting seachaz (Reply 34): In the grand scheme of things Air Force One is a drop in the bucket as far as expenses go,

Yes, the cost of operating Air Force One (even the mod) is probably not much considering the cost of the security detail that precede and follows the president everywhere he goes.

It so funny how we all debate about a cost of one airplane or airplane program during peace time, but throw any fiscal prudence (sometimes with good reason) out the window when the shooting starts. I would bet there was enough wasteful spending in Gulf War II to fund several F-35 type programs. I know you can't "optimize" on how you fight a war, but I just want agree that we should consider the perspective.

bt

As a former Air Force guy (and a combat crew member) I am well aware of what the USAF looks for in replacement aircraft. Frankly, I think the EADS proposal for a C-135 replacement was the better deal--they were even going o build a factory in Alabama to build them and employ thousands of Americans (read this, Gov. Romney). But politics are politics and Boeing made some bad moves. I seem to recall that at least one person went to prison over that contract. Instead they went with 1980's technology in a warmed-over 767. Yawn.

The security of the presdent is paramount--cost is irrelevant. The USAF wil burn Jet-A until the planet ceases to exist and make no apologies for it. But they are acutely aware of political implications. They have been good, loyal Boeing customers--I myself flew 58 combat missions over Southeast Asia on RC-135's that are STILL in service 40 years later!

The 748 and 748i are the only logical replacements.

It is interesting to note that in this critical election period the POTUS is flying a 747 from Andrews to Richmond, VA rather than a 757. I assume the DNC is reimbursing the AF for the costs. When the POTUS was in Williamsburg last week prepping for the last debate, the VC-25 sat parked at PHF--I saw it myself--with Marine One stashed in an a hangar nearby.

Another point is that the 748 would make an EXCELLENT off-the-shelf cargo/troop transport.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 36): I think the EADS proposal for a C-135 replacement was the better deal--they were even going o build a factory in Alabama to build them and employ thousands of Americans (read this, Gov. Romney). But politics are politics and Boeing made some bad moves. I seem to recall that at least one person went to prison over that contract. Instead they went with 1980's technology in a warmed-over 767. Yawn.

Actually, the factory was only to be a "conversion" factory. Turns out, EADS would still build the frame in France and then ferry them to Alabama for conversions. Yes, they would have employed Americans to do it, but not on the scale that was once thought.

Also, the KC-46 is not a "80's tech" plane anymore... the cockpit is shared from the 787 and a lot of the systems have been upgraded to current technologies.

Regards,
135mech

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 36): Another point is that the 748 would make an EXCELLENT off-the-shelf cargo/troop transport.

It cannot carry armored vehicles or large helicopters due to entry size and floor strength.
It has no rough field or short field capability.
Any cargo has to be loaded/unloaded with a tall forklift or K loader, no ramp to drive things on and off
No ability to airdrop.
These type of aircraft (commercial cargo) can be rented/contracted from a large number of private cargo companies for a significantly less cost than it would be for the USAF to purchase and maintain the aircraft themselves.

In an era of reduced budgets, purchasing a large number of 748s solely for cargo purposes would be a very poor decision.