Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
bikerthai wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:The search begins for used 747-8i planes.
Why 747-8i? I mean the seat tracks may make it easy to design the interiors, but if push comes to shove, wouldn't a 747-8F works just as well?
747-8, 767-46 and A330 are good candidates as EMI shielding designs are already done.
bt
Raptormodeller wrote:E4B takes what? 100 people, they'll probably go for commonality with 747-8, probably the freighter or a ULR 777 or A350. A350 is unlikely because it's not American. So maybe the choice is 747-8 freighter, 777-8 or maybe a 787 on steroids. I don't see the 767 happening. Sure most of the computing power needed today could be done a couple, ok a few large PC's but the E4 needs to work in a nuclear exchange and digital electronics have a habit and not a practically fixable one of going awry under increased radiation levels etc... even more so on top of the line modern PC's whose brains work at or close to the atomic level, which is a bit shit when you're going to be bombarded by a lot of alpha particles in your mission... survive and control during a nuclear holocaust. the USAF will need the size of a 777/747 for the semi digital/analogue computers currently in use which WORK and probably very well (otherwise they wouldn't use them on their last ditch effort to command their armies), sure they'll be updated and better blah blah but you get what I mean. I don't see USAF using a 767 or even a 737 for that matter. That's my opinion on this E4 replacement....
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Raptormodeller wrote:E4B takes what? 100 people, they'll probably go for commonality with 747-8, probably the freighter or a ULR 777 or A350. A350 is unlikely because it's not American. So maybe the choice is 747-8 freighter, 777-8 or maybe a 787 on steroids. I don't see the 767 happening. Sure most of the computing power needed today could be done a couple, ok a few large PC's but the E4 needs to work in a nuclear exchange and digital electronics have a habit and not a practically fixable one of going awry under increased radiation levels etc... even more so on top of the line modern PC's whose brains work at or close to the atomic level, which is a bit shit when you're going to be bombarded by a lot of alpha particles in your mission... survive and control during a nuclear holocaust. the USAF will need the size of a 777/747 for the semi digital/analogue computers currently in use which WORK and probably very well (otherwise they wouldn't use them on their last ditch effort to command their armies), sure they'll be updated and better blah blah but you get what I mean. I don't see USAF using a 767 or even a 737 for that matter. That's my opinion on this E4 replacement....
You mention worries about computing in a bad environment like that. What do you think would happen to all the electronics on the B77X or B787 in such a situation? You'd have to add tons of equipment and shielding to deal with such things. And it'd be interesting to find out how easy it would be to make a B787 a faraday cage with the composite fuselage. Finally alpha particles are stopped by a thin sheet of paper and even beta particles are stopped by a thin sheet of aluminium. It's gamma you'll be worried about. And anything capable of taking out electronics with enough energy to destroy them will likely be a pretty quick kill for anyone in the aircraft.
The B767-2C is the front runner as it's in active production and it's big. Not 747 big, but it'll be big enough. And it already has had all the military requirement tweaks done. Anything specific to an E4 replacement is the only mods to be made.
If the USN can make do with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury then the US Sec Def can make do with something bigger but maybe not quite 747 sized.
starrion wrote:Then they're runnng out of time to get a 748 as the line will close unless they get an order in soon. Unless they are going to take one or more of the white tails/ parked frames that are up for sale.
Dutchy wrote:UPS Airlines has 13 on order and Volga-Dnepr Airlines has got only 4 on order. With an one or one replacement, 4 are needed. will UPS take all 13? With a looming recession, I doubt it.
Stitch wrote:Pretty sure the E-8 JSTARS used commercial 707s that were then converted so if it has to be a 747 platform, the USAF can follow the same route - plenty of parked 747-400 passenger and freighter frames to choose from.
Dutchy wrote:Would the USAF want to add another type, especially one that has been out of production for so long?
747classic wrote:Seen the present very difficult status of the Volga Dnepr Group :
- CargologicAir shut down
- Transfer of the single CargologicAir 747-8F to Air Bridge Cargo (ABC).
- ABC Cargo load factors down, due trade wars and Covid 19 virus.
- A new ABC 747-8F ready to be delivered at Everett, but it seems ABC has no hurry to accept this 747-8F..
- 4 remaining ABC 747-8F orders
Ideal circumstances (for POTUS) for a very favorite deal to obtain the last available new built "green" 747-8F aircraft (and also from a former Russian order, like both VC-25B's !!)
mmo wrote:With all the talk about a 748I or 748F, I think people are forgetting the fact, the E-4 replacement will require A/R capability. The VC-25A replacement does not have that and adding that option is will be very expensive. It makes more sense to go with something which has the capability already. A modified KC-46 without all the A/R plumbing not installed and just the receiver plumbing installed it would be a very useful replacement. If they really wanted to save money, then they could use a stock KC-46A with the A/R plumbing and boom installed bot buddy refueling if needed.
As much as I loved flying the 747 family, I just don't think it will be selected as a replacement.
747classic wrote:mmo wrote:With all the talk about a 748I or 748F, I think people are forgetting the fact, the E-4 replacement will require A/R capability. The VC-25A replacement does not have that and adding that option is will be very expensive. It makes more sense to go with something which has the capability already. A modified KC-46 without all the A/R plumbing not installed and just the receiver plumbing installed it would be a very useful replacement. If they really wanted to save money, then they could use a stock KC-46A with the A/R plumbing and boom installed bot buddy refueling if needed.
As much as I loved flying the 747 family, I just don't think it will be selected as a replacement.
Deleting the A/R from the future VC-25B was a political move (PR : it saves a lot of money, "fake news"), not a military decision.
Section 41 (the fwd section) of the VC-25A (present AF1), E-4B and a future 747-8F based E4B replacement are all aerodynamically exactly the same (short upperdeck), so aerodynamical certification testing would be minimal.
Beside the jump from the paper drawings of the present 747 A/R system (re-fuelling mechanism + tubing ) into the digital age (as performed with all 747 drawings from L/N 1145, a 744 for China Airlines, in 1998.) nothing has to be adapted mechanically, only the A/R control has to be integrated into the digital controlled fuel system (no F/E on board).
Tugger wrote:OK, I'll say it again:
What about using the current VC-25 aircraft? They already have AR installed, have low hours and can be used for decades to come, they are already modified with many of the needed elements (hardened for one), and are owned already.
Tugg
747classic wrote:
Deleting the A/R from the future VC-25B was a political move (PR : it saves a lot of money, "fake news"), not a military decision.
Section 41 (the fwd section) of the VC-25A (present AF1), E-4B and a future 747-8F based E4B replacement are all aerodynamically exactly the same (short upperdeck), so aerodynamical certification testing would be minimal.
Beside the jump from the paper drawings of the present 747 A/R system (re-fuelling mechanism + tubing ) into the digital age (as performed with all 747 drawings from L/N 1145, a 744 for China Airlines, in 1998.) nothing has to be adapted mechanically, only the A/R control has to be integrated into the digital controlled fuel system (no F/E on board).
mmo wrote:747classic wrote:
Deleting the A/R from the future VC-25B was a political move (PR : it saves a lot of money, "fake news"), not a military decision.
Section 41 (the fwd section) of the VC-25A (present AF1), E-4B and a future 747-8F based E4B replacement are all aerodynamically exactly the same (short upperdeck), so aerodynamical certification testing would be minimal.
Beside the jump from the paper drawings of the present 747 A/R system (re-fuelling mechanism + tubing ) into the digital age (as performed with all 747 drawings from L/N 1145, a 744 for China Airlines, in 1998.) nothing has to be adapted mechanically, only the A/R control has to be integrated into the digital controlled fuel system (no F/E on board).
I agree with you up to a point. However, if the aircraft is going to be FAA certified, then regardless of the commonality it will be an expensive mod. The autopilot has to have the A/R mode installed in the software and since that has not even been designed or written, that alone will be a monumental expense.
Tugger wrote:OK, I'll say it again:
What about using the current VC-25 aircraft? They already have AR installed, have low hours and can be used for decades to come, they are already modified with many of the needed elements (hardened for one), and are owned already.
Tugg
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:Hours and airframe fatigue.
bikerthai wrote:SuperiorPilotMe wrote:Hours and airframe fatigue.
Highly doubt this. While most 747 makes two or more flight per day. The VC-25 spends most of it's life sitting in the tarmac. Even on overseas trip, it is probably on the ground more than flying.
The value in the two presidential 747s are not how much money you can save by repurposing them to another mission. They will be more valuable culturally preserved as museaum displays.
bt
ThePointblank wrote:bikerthai wrote:SuperiorPilotMe wrote:Hours and airframe fatigue.
Highly doubt this. While most 747 makes two or more flight per day. The VC-25 spends most of it's life sitting in the tarmac. Even on overseas trip, it is probably on the ground more than flying.
The value in the two presidential 747s are not how much money you can save by repurposing them to another mission. They will be more valuable culturally preserved as museaum displays.
bt
Would be more of spare parts availability. The VC-25's are technically 747-200B's with some systems from the 747-400's. Very few 747-200's are left, and the number of 747-400's are also dwindling. Getting a hold of spare parts would be increasingly difficult and costly because of diminishing user base.
Tugger wrote:ThePointblank wrote:bikerthai wrote:
Highly doubt this. While most 747 makes two or more flight per day. The VC-25 spends most of it's life sitting in the tarmac. Even on overseas trip, it is probably on the ground more than flying.
The value in the two presidential 747s are not how much money you can save by repurposing them to another mission. They will be more valuable culturally preserved as museaum displays.
bt
Would be more of spare parts availability. The VC-25's are technically 747-200B's with some systems from the 747-400's. Very few 747-200's are left, and the number of 747-400's are also dwindling. Getting a hold of spare parts would be increasingly difficult and costly because of diminishing user base.
I don't think that is accurate at all. The more 747 that retire quite frankly, the more spare parts will be available. I can't see spares being a huge issue. The 747 family will be flying for another 10 to 20 years, there will be spares.
Tugg
texl1649 wrote:The logical solution would be a derivative of the P8 frame, already militarized and configured a bit for endurance etc. also, clearly, would give the guys in Renton some more actual production work.
Phosphorus wrote:texl1649 wrote:The logical solution would be a derivative of the P8 frame, already militarized and configured a bit for endurance etc. also, clearly, would give the guys in Renton some more actual production work.
Folks here argue 767-sized frame would be too tight for E-4 replacement. Are they wrong, and could you package all that into a P-8 derivative?
747classic wrote:So an E-4B replacement needs a lot of floor space, not for the smaller digital equipment, but for the many control stations to filter and evaluate the incoming data stream.
IMHO a 767-2C and a P8 frame have not enough floorspace for this task.
Tugger wrote:ThePointblank wrote:bikerthai wrote:
Highly doubt this. While most 747 makes two or more flight per day. The VC-25 spends most of it's life sitting in the tarmac. Even on overseas trip, it is probably on the ground more than flying.
The value in the two presidential 747s are not how much money you can save by repurposing them to another mission. They will be more valuable culturally preserved as museaum displays.
bt
Would be more of spare parts availability. The VC-25's are technically 747-200B's with some systems from the 747-400's. Very few 747-200's are left, and the number of 747-400's are also dwindling. Getting a hold of spare parts would be increasingly difficult and costly because of diminishing user base.
I don't think that is accurate at all. The more 747 that retire quite frankly, the more spare parts will be available. I can't see spares being a huge issue. The 747 family will be flying for another 10 to 20 years, there will be spares.
Tugg
Mortyman wrote:I'm sure Airbus would be willing to sell / design them a special version of the Airbus A330 MRTTsomething tels me however, that the US government would not be interested in buying from Airbus.
Stitch wrote:747classic wrote:So an E-4B replacement needs a lot of floor space, not for the smaller digital equipment, but for the many control stations to filter and evaluate the incoming data stream.
IMHO a 767-2C and a P8 frame have not enough floorspace for this task.
They felt a 767-400ER had enough floorspace when that platform was originally tasked to be the E-4B replacement so perhaps a 767-300F will be large enough to hold the staff and equipment.
rlwynn wrote:Can you stand up in a 767 cargo hold?
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:I cannot conceive how that can even be a factor.