Report: USAF to buy Transaero NTU 747-8s for Air Force One

bikerthai · Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:35 pm

Stitch wrote:
And they're probably going to have to rip that interior out to the airframe itself (so not just the panels, but also the insulation blankets) in order to run all the wiring and such.

Not sure about AF1 but typically the insulation only gets removed if there are skin penetrations or skin/frame modifications to be done. All wiring are routed inside the blankets (keep them from freezing.)

The 747 would be a dream for wiring routing teams as there is much more space to route wiring. But you may be right with most of the interior blankets as they will be pretty much shot once the mod team finish with the aircraft that they might as well order a replacement set of blanket for the mod. At least Boeing still have their blanket shop in Everett, so getting replacement would not be too much of a headache.

USAF336TFS wrote:
I always wondered why the USAF just didn't buy a couple of white tails a few years ago,

It was not up to the Air Force as congress held the purse. And as we all know, Congress can not think that far ahead.

bt

Noshow · Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:49 pm

The almost new laser 747 (-400F) that had parked in the desert has been cut to pieces violently. Why is that? Wouldn't this make for some great spare parts supplier for it's sister 747s?

LMP737 · Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:38 pm

Noshow wrote:
The almost new laser 747 (-400F) that had parked in the desert has been cut to pieces violently. Why is that? Wouldn't this make for some great spare parts supplier for it's sister 747s?

Typically any rotable part is removed from an aircraft that is about to be scraped. My guess for it being scrapped is that it's a one of a kind aircraft whose program was cancelled.

bikerthai · Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:29 pm

I understand that the laser was a chemical laser and spits out mass quantities of yucky chemicals. Not sure if anyone would want any structure spare parts from this plane.

bt

Noshow · Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:36 am

What would be wrong with a new tail or new wings? Is there any political issue like a non destroyed laser plane could be violating any treaty or something?

kanban · Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:02 pm

Let's hope the interior will be as utilitarian as the current planes and not a "trumped" up cross between a bordello and a gold plated Renaissance ballroom.

bmacleod · Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:28 pm

Dutchy wrote:
747classic wrote:
A rare picture of the two future AF 1 aircraft stored at Victorville (VCV)

Original uploaded by Captain Dave's twitter, see : http://twitter.com/DaveWallsworth/statu ... 4882733056

Are they guarded in any way, since they now become destined as AF1 birds? Or will they be flown to an Air Force base?

Edwards AFB is just a 10 minute hop from VCV if the USAF wants to be on the "safe side".

Devilfish · Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:35 pm

I wonder if that satcom dome on top would remain as is, or get modified to Military Specifications should there be differences. I'm assuming the current VC-25s will have served the maximum length of time the Air Force is willing to use them when the new pair arrives in 2024. Also, that they may be too big and a bit technically behind for future battlespace management requirements that both could just be relegated to mundane transport duties (after removal of sensitive gear) or quietly decommissioned instead of taking on other specialized missions.

Stitch · Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:26 pm

Noshow wrote:
What would be wrong with a new tail or new wings?

It may just be that reconditioning the airframe into an airworthy condition is not worth the effort and expense.

kanban wrote:
Let's hope the interior will be as utilitarian as the current planes and not a "trumped" up cross between a bordello and a gold plated Renaissance ballroom.

I doubt the sitting President has much input into the interior configuration beyond suggestions about what does and does not work on the current VC-25 configuration (beds too hard/short | not enough conference space | too noisy). By design, a new Presidential Transport is designed to not enter service until the sitting President's Term of Office has expired in part to prevent such meddling.

Devilfish wrote:
I wonder if that satcom dome on top would remain as is, or get modified to Military Specifications should there be differences.

I'm sure it will resemble the ones on the VC-25 and E-4B fleets, though with modernization it may be possible to fit it in the current blister.

Devilfish wrote:
I'm assuming the current VC-25s will have served the maximum length of time the Air Force is willing to use them when the new pair arrives in 2024. Also, that they may be too big and a bit technically behind for future battlespace management requirements that both could just be relegated to mundane transport duties (after removal of sensitive gear) or quietly decommissioned instead of taking on other specialized missions.

I expect the airframe with the least hours on it will be kept as a backup for a time (just as SAM 27000 was when SAM 28000 and 29000 entered service) while the other will go to the USAF Museum in Dayton to join the other Presidential Transports on display there. The other will eventually go to a museum, as well (my hope is the Museum of Flight here in Seattle to join SAM 970 - the first VC-137 to serve as a Presidential Transport).

rj777 · Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:24 pm

Isn't one of the 747s going to the Reagan Museum?

Confuscius · Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:46 pm

727200 wrote:
What would be the cost of retrofit on these 2 birds? Knowing how government works, and the fact that what program saves money in the history of this country, these will not be cheap by any stretch. I would think to re-work the planes alone with the modifications is gonna be one serious cost; about the size of a phone book.

It'll be cheaper to outsource the retrofit overseas. Heck, the Chinese might include some extra things free of charge.

Stitch · Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:11 am

rj777 wrote:
Isn't one of the 747s going to the Reagan Museum?

Where would they put it? Plus they already have SAM 27000 and she barely fits.

It's pretty much a given the USAF Museum will get either 28000 or 29000 as they have every other Presidential Transport. So I expect the two most-likely places for the other will be the Udvar-Hazy Annex of the Smithsonian at IAD or the Museum of Flight here in Seattle (since she was built in Everett).

USAF336TFS · Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:43 pm

I always wondered why the USAF just didn't buy a couple of white tails a few years ago,

bikerthai wrote:
It was not up to the Air Force as congress held the purse. And as we all know, Congress can not think that far ahead.

So true about Congress, Senator McConnell making excuses is a perfect example, but perhaps out of the initial funding for R&D. Can't imagine why it would cost upwards of $100M to plan requirements and capabilities.

But then again, what do I know? I'm just an ignorant U.S. taxpayer. :roll:

AirlineCritic · Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:21 pm

kanban wrote:
Let's hope the interior will be as utilitarian as the current planes and not a "trumped" up cross between a bordello and a gold plated Renaissance ballroom.

Sir, you win the Internet today!

PITingres · Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:34 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
... Plus, it's not like anyone knew these frames would go to the USAF while they were being built for Transaero. I find it impossible that someone slipped listening devices or something onto a frame destined for a commercial airline on the off chance they might go bankrupt and re-purpose the frames for VIP use.

Actually, the thought has occurred to me that this is exactly how I'd do it. If I wanted to bug a potential AF1, I'd try to cook up something that would end up in every single 748i, and hope for the best.

Now mind, I don't really think this happened. But if you figure that a bug-on-a-chip can be made for a fraction of a penny these days, and if you imagine some small outfit being subverted to (say) stick one in every LED driver or fluorescent ballast they make, you don't have to worry about hitting a specific target. It's the fish approach instead of the mammal way. :-)

I'll now forget that I ever suggested such a thing, and let the professionally paranoid take it from here...

Oroka · Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:13 am

It wouldnt be unreasonable to have an airline that is on shakey financial ground order a few planes that will most likely be the next AF1, with a model that is on its way out, then go out of business leaving 2 airframes sitting there... just ripe for the picking by some politician trying to be frugal.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:44 pm

Eh, I think you're really reaching for conspiracy theories if you're going that far.

The airframes will be stripped of any customer stuff anyways. So nothing installed for Transaero will remain. Everything else will be standard Boeing stuff and will likely be inspected with a fine tooth comb by the USAF and SS. On top of all that there will probably be rooms within the plane taht are shielded as it often carries press anyways. So yeah, any chances of a bug surviving long enough to be useful is pretty slim. Assuming someone managed to get lucky and put a bug on the planes as is.

bikerthai · Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:17 pm

PITingres wrote:
But if you figure that a bug-on-a-chip can be made for a fraction of a penny these days, and if you imagine some small outfit being subverted to (say) stick one in every LED driver or fluorescent ballast they make, you don't have to worry about hitting a specific target.

Simple transmitting chips will not work. The airplane's EMI shielding protection will prevent signal from any chip from exiting the fuselage. You would need an insider to have a chance to read any information from any chip/bug. After modification, the airplane will also be "scanned" for EMI signals to verify shielding. This test should pick up any signal strong enough to exit the fuselage.

bt

LMP737 · Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:52 pm

bikerthai wrote:

The 747 would be a dream for wiring routing teams as there is much more space to route wiring. But you may be right with most of the interior blankets as they will be pretty much shot once the mod team finish with the aircraft that they might as well order a replacement set of blanket for the mod.

With all the electrical and structural work that needs to be done I'm willing to bet all the insulation blankets will be taken out.

starrion · Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:26 pm

kanban wrote:
Let's hope the interior will be as utilitarian as the current planes and not a "trumped" up cross between a bordello and a gold plated Renaissance ballroom.

It won't be THAT difficult to unmount the stripper pole when the new POTUS takes over.

Noshow · Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:59 pm

The looks are not making it more costly. It's the special equipment deep inside, made by military custom request and under secrecy that makes it expensive. The looks inside will be Air Force no-nonsense style. You could put in golden or pink plastic covers without making a difference too big if you want.

Devilfish · Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:54 am

This must be the source of the confusion regarding the two "new" frames in Boeing's latest O&D update... :confused:

...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ft-440946/

Quote:
"Boeing confirms that two passenger-carrying 747-8s added to the order backlog a week ago will be delivered to the US Air Force for the Air Force One replacement.

The USAF ordered two 747-8s that Boeing previously built for defunct Russian carrier Transaero, which filed for bankruptcy in 2015 before it could take delivery.

Boeing finally removed the Transaero orders from the backlog in June.

When the USAF finalised a deal to acquire the two aircraft, Boeing re-inserted the orders into the backlog."

Dutchy · Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:03 am

I think they mean, they struck the order (build plus unbuild) from Transaero because of the bankruptcy and got 2 "news" orders for the now white tails, previously build for Transaero.

KarelXWB · Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:21 pm

Small update on the program:

The Air Force awarded a contract modification for just under $600 million to Boeing Sept. 12, 2017, for preliminary design efforts for the next presidential aircraft.

The contract modification includes the design to incorporate a mission communication system, electrical power upgrades, a medical facility, an executive interior, a self-defense system and autonomous ground operations capabilities into two commercial Boeing 747-8s.

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/ ... -aircraft/

Dutchy · Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:28 pm

Wow 600m for just a design will be expensive.

Jayafe · Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:39 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Wow 600m for just a design will be expensive.

"preliminary design", more design to come

Stitch · Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:42 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Wow 600m for just a design will be expensive.

This is why the entire program was projected to run upwards of four billion. On the plus side, we do get forty years out of them so it's only $100 million a year.

WIederling · Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:57 am

Jayafe wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Wow 600m for just a design will be expensive.

"preliminary design", more design to come

Look at the aborted Marine 1 design/procurement
$100m for the basic chopper
$900++m for the projected girligigs.

Dutchy · Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:51 pm

Yes, that was crazy too. Why on earth would they accept such a price? Ah well, the government....

litz · Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:52 pm

at $4bil for two airplanes, it may come down to a contest of which costs more : Air Force One or a Space Shuttle orbiter ..

Jayafe · Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:39 am

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... -in-midair

...Now, it appears that the U.S. Air Force is slashing key requirements, including mid-air refueling, for its new presidential aircraft, the future Air Force Ones, to try and make good on his claim about cutting the cost of the program by $1 billion.

Defense One’s Marcus Weisgerber, who has been following this ongoing saga uncovered the new details, as the Air Force tries to match Trump’s boast that he trimmed $1 billion from the program's still unknown final price tag after an hour of negotiations with Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg. The president made the comments during a rally in Florida in February 2017 and no one had been able to definitely explain where the specific figure came from....
....Weisgerber’s sources added that it wasn’t a major problem since “the current aircraft have never made use of that capability.” But that claim appears to be false.

In 2014, a former U.S. Air Force boom operator told The War Zone’s Tyler Rogoway, then writing for Foxtrot Alpha, that he had topped up Air Force One on more than one occasion. One of these instances involved a nighttime link up with the tanker as President George W. Bush traveled to Baghdad, Iraq for a surprise visit in November 2003.....
....The service’s decision to use an off-the-shelf environmental control system, which would include air filtration and recycling components, for Air Force One seems like it could only carry additional risks. It is reasonable to assume that the present VC-25As have a system purpose built to keep out a range of hazards including chemical and biological agents and nuclear fallout. We can only wonder what else has been left out in order to cut the plane’s power generation needs....

Dutchy · Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:50 am

Well, if all other world leaders could do with less, why couldn't the US? Ah well, it is their money, so their decision. I do not pay taxes in the US, with the exception for the occasional visit.

bigjku · Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:40 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Well, if all other world leaders could do with less, why couldn't the US? Ah well, it is their money, so their decision. I do not pay taxes in the US, with the exception for the occasional visit.

It has been explained before...

Certain aspects of the US national security command and control impose requirements other leaders don't have to cope with. These things are expensive but to a certain degree necessary.

Stitch · Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:22 pm

On the flip side, the likelihood VC-X will need to operate for any period of time, much less an extended period of time, in an NBC (Nuclear | Biological | Chemical) environment is far less today and going forward than it was in the 1980s during the Cold War and a general build-up to tactical and strategic nuclear, biological and chemical forces by the US and USSR.

The VC-X also should offer another 34,000 liters (25,500kg) of fuel volume over the VC-25 along with significantly lower fuel burn, improving range and endurance a fair bit over the VC-25. As such, the need for in-flight refueling should be unnecessary during normal operations and in the event of "special" operations, the President can use the E-4B or it's upcoming replacement (which will almost certainly have mid-air refueling).

Jayafe · Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:30 pm

Stitch wrote:
...or it's upcoming replacement (which will almost certainly have mid-air refueling).

Dont know in what it can be based, as it is cut off from the AFO, likely there as well...

Stitch · Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:33 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Stitch wrote:
...or it's upcoming replacement (which will almost certainly have mid-air refueling).

Dont know in what it can be based, as it is cut off from the AFO, likely there as well...

The E-4B replacement will most likely be based on the 767-2C platform used for the KC-46A and that platform has already been designed for in-flght refueling. There are also the 737-700ER (AWE&C) and 737-800ERX (P-8) platforms, both of which have in-flight refueling capabilities.

Jayafe · Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:23 pm

Good to know, thanks! But with the same logic, should be the design of the refuelling system in the 744, already designed and in use, transferible to the 748?

Stitch · Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:34 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Good to know, thanks! But with the same logic, should be the design of the refuelling system in the 744, already designed and in use, transferible to the 748?

The one in the VC-25 and E-4B should be usable as a base to develop it for VC-X, but it will still require development for VC-X specifically as well as the installation cost. So the decision to eliminate it is being driven by cost considerations, not capability ones.

ZEDZAG · Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:07 am

Ive forgotten why A380 was discarded as a presidental transport(AF1). Can someone explain?

bigjku · Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:10 am

ZEDZAG wrote:
Ive forgotten why A380 was discarded as a presidental transport(AF1). Can someone explain?

Practically because it isn’t built in the US and the president isn’t going to fly around in a billboard for a European company.

Why it should be rejected if there was a competition? It’s ugly as sin and simply doesn’t look anywhere nearly as graceful as the 747-8. If it were an American plane I still wouldn’t want it.

Slug71 · Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:30 pm

bigjku wrote:
Why it should be rejected if there was a competition? It’s ugly as sin and simply doesn’t look anywhere nearly as graceful as the 747-8. If it were an American plane I still wouldn’t want it.

Too each their own, but looks has little to do with anything.

bigjku · Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:41 pm

Slug71 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
Why it should be rejected if there was a competition? It’s ugly as sin and simply doesn’t look anywhere nearly as graceful as the 747-8. If it were an American plane I still wouldn’t want it.

Too each their own, but looks has little to do with anything.

Never said it did but when two planes can do the same job take the better looking one. X-32 was one to be rejected simply based on how sinfully ugly it was as well.

Slug71 · Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:30 pm

bigjku wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
Why it should be rejected if there was a competition? It’s ugly as sin and simply doesn’t look anywhere nearly as graceful as the 747-8. If it were an American plane I still wouldn’t want it.

Too each their own, but looks has little to do with anything.

Never said it did but when two planes can do the same job take the better looking one. X-32 was one to be rejected simply based on how sinfully ugly it was as well.

Going off topic here, but it wasn't simply looks that made the X-32 lose out to the F-35. The X-32 had poor hover characteristics and was way overweight IIRC. It also lacked in other flight performances. It WAS sinfully ugly though! But, looks is all personal preference. I happen to think the A380 is a pretty good looking plane. I do wish the cockpit windows was raised a little though. Just below the second deck would have made it look a lot better. And if the windows were curved. A sharper nose like the A350's wouldn't hurt either. Kinda surprised no one has photo-shopped it that way.

Stitch · Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:04 pm

ZEDZAG wrote:
Ive forgotten why A380 was discarded as a presidental transport(AF1). Can someone explain?

Airbus chose not to submit a bid. It would have required Airbus to set up an A380 FAL in the United States and ship all the major components by ship/rail/air to it. The costs involved for two airframes would have been tremendous and there would be no way they could offer a bid anywhere near what Boeing could have charged.

An interesting twist to all this is the USAF deciding to go with white-tails rather than new-builds for cost reasons. As such, I wonder if Airbus could have pitched the two Skymark NTUs if they had been available or whether their assembly in TLS would have invalidated them under the "must assemble in the USA" requirement for the new-builds.

Jayafe · Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:15 pm

Stitch wrote:
ZEDZAG wrote:
Ive forgotten why A380 was discarded as a presidental transport(AF1). Can someone explain?

Airbus chose not to submit a bid. It would have required Airbus to set up an A380 FAL in the United States and ship all the major components by ship/rail/air to it. The costs involved for two airframes would have been tremendous and there would be no way they could offer a bid anywhere near what Boeing could have charged.

An interesting twist to all this is the USAF deciding to go with white-tails rather than new-builds for cost reasons. As such, I wonder if Airbus could have pitched the two Skymark NTUs if they had been available or whether their assembly in TLS would have invalidated them under the "must assemble in the USA" requirement for the new-builds.

Watching what happened with the tanker, there was no way at all the US would allow that contract to go to a foreign manufacturer, never mind what or how much Airbus (or any other ?) would have tried or done. Simply politics....

ZEDZAG · Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:16 pm

Stitch wrote:

Airbus chose not to submit a bid. It would have required Airbus to set up an A380 FAL in the United States and ship all the major components by ship/rail/air to it. The costs involved for two airframes would have been tremendous and there would be no way they could offer a bid anywhere near what Boeing could have charged.

An interesting twist to all this is the USAF deciding to go with white-tails rather than new-builds for cost reasons. As such, I wonder if Airbus could have pitched the two Skymark NTUs if they had been available or whether their assembly in TLS would have invalidated them under the "must assemble in the USA" requirement for the new-builds.

And reasonable reason for "Assembled in USA" is?

When you request an RFP with that kind of term, its clear who will win it and its visible from outta space.... so RFP is just pro-forma

Like components for A380 are not made in USA... and for sure it could have been outfitted in BFM... so american jobs are not endangered

Stitch · Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:40 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Watching what happened with the tanker, there was no way at all the US would allow that contract to go to a foreign manufacturer, never mind what or how much Airbus (or any other ?) would have tried or done. Simply politics....

Uh huh. The KC-30B selection was overturned because a non-partisan review board due to the USAF and NG/Airbus colluding to ignore the RFP requirements and credit the KC-30B for capabilities beyond the RFP. Of course, if Boeing had won for the same reasons, we'd still to be hearing from The Usual Suspects on how the US "rigged" the selection to ensure a US win, but that's all swept under the rug and instead it's just put down to "politics" by them.

it's doubly laughable when you see just how much business "foreign" companies like BAE systems and others do with the US Military when "US" companies offer competing products. But, of course, that wouldn't fit the narrative that the US alone is a protectionist system and Europe and Asia are totally open. :rotfl:

ZEDZAG wrote:
And reasonable reason for "Assembled in USA" is?

I'm guessing security control to ensure that VC-X is not infested with surveillance devices (like the ex-DL 767 modified by US companies for use by the Chinese President).

bikerthai · Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:29 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Good to know, thanks! But with the same logic, should be the design of the refuelling system in the 744, already designed and in use, transferible to the 748?

The concept is transferable. Maybe the system routing. However, all the details will have to be "re-engineered" to be digital as opposed to old PCM/dimmensioned drawing to support manufacturing (new materials and manufacturing processes and all). Other items like pumps, controllers, sensors etc . . . would also be new as I doubt that those components is still being built. Note that the new plane is longer, with new frames, so all the interface between the fuel line run from the nose to the tanks may need to be updated as well.

bt

Aesma · Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:10 am

40 years for these birds ? That's very optimistic.

I bet that in less than 20 the president would want to be flying something else, a spaceplane maybe ? I see the Shuttle has been mentioned in the thread already...

USAirKid · Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:18 am

Aesma wrote:
40 years for these birds ? That's very optimistic.

I bet that in less than 20 the president would want to be flying something else, a spaceplane maybe ? I see the Shuttle has been mentioned in the thread already...

The 747-8 based Air Force One replacement is scheduled to go into service around 2024, at which date the current 747-200 based SAM 28000/29000 will be 34 years old.

Given the long development times for planes to fly the president, expecting the new planes to fly for 40 years isn't too much of a stretch.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net