We're not privy to the current OPLAN for conducting a nuclear engagement, but I imagine it is not like the 1950s and 1960s where the general view was that a nuclear engagement would be carried out over a period of weeks and even months with dozens or even scores of follow-on strikes after the initial exchange since the US had five figures worth of bombs to deploy. So the need for an airborne platform that can stay up for multiple days at a time with a massive battle staff coordinating the continued tossing of nukes is no longer a mission criteria.

We're also probably not looking at a "full commit" initial strike due to how distributed everything is now, making it impossible to "decapitate" the command and control structure. So even if you do take out Offut and Washington in the first wave, there are still plenty of ways to get the launch codes to the silos and the subs.

I'd argue a distributed fleet of 4-8 767-2Cs in the "Looking Glass" role is a better option than 2 747-8s in the NAACP role. More targets to try and take down (especially in an upcoming era of hypersonic AAMs with hundreds of miles in range) and even if one or two have to divert due to an engine failure, you still have others in operation prosecuting the overall engagement from the OPLAN.

for now used 747-8I or even F are available. The twin scenario is a "last resort".

bt

If the comments posted here are typical of the discussions in the Pentagon and Congress, nothing is going to happen. we'll keep flying the old dogs with old technology until they won't go anymore and the spend years finger pointing and in committees investigating what went wrong and battling over funding. Even FedEx and UPS will have parked their 747's by then

kanban wrote:

If the comments posted here are typical of the discussions in the Pentagon and Congress, nothing is going to happen. we'll keep flying the old dogs with old technology until they won't go anymore and the spend years finger pointing and in committees investigating what went wrong and battling over funding. Even FedEx and UPS will have parked their 747's by then

Some nitpicking : FedEx has no 747's since 1997. Only 6 747-200F's were obtained from Flying Tigers by FedEx in 1988 (when FedEx bought Flying Tigers)

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/usaf ... eplacement
If this is accurate as of a month ago maybe
progress soon on selection of go forward aircraft.

How about some KC-46 airframe? Low profile, long endurance and spare parts can be reused. Or some E-7 based variant if the equipment needed fits onboard?

JayinKitsap wrote:

That was fast for a base to go under, but programs often change to follow the needed trends. In the Reagan years the Strategic Homeport produced a number of short lived bases.

Every so often our government does needed house cleaning, The whole BRAC cut some important things but also a lot of scurrying around to save everybody's own base. I've probably done a cumulative 200 man days of work updating reports that greatly portrayed building needing serious repairs and upgrades. In the Reagan years there was lots of DOD money, not long after it's base closure season where that stuff was black marks. Make us look good, PLEASE!

The US Navy opened seven new bases in the 1987 time frame. NS Everett, WA was one that stayed open, but the NDAA 87 authorized NS Ingelside, opened 1990 closed 2010; NS Galveston closed 3 years after authorization, having spent like $30M in 2 years. NS Mobile made it 6 years from authorization, and NS New York made it to 94.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Homeport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Real ... nd_Closure

As I recall Comiso AB closed before its weapons system, GLCM, was ever operational. Due to INF treaty.

747classic wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

We are talking about distributes assets not centralizing control.

The computing and communication power can be divided up to multiple aircrafts. However the chain of command is still maintained with the Sec Def in one plane with the primary operation team.

The second plane can have a back up team in case the first plane is in-op. And so on.

You pay for the additional redundancy but if you have no choice of a new 4 engine wide body, then you have to make twin engines work.

bt

There was still a choice, but the politics (and the USAF) let the relative cheap opportunity pass, to go for the last four 747-8's in January 2021.
Now they have to search for secondhand 747-8's or you have go for the second best option (twins), without the required engine redundancy. (I always thought : only the best is good enough for POTUS !)

But remember this :
On a twin, if you are over the ocean and/or in a wordwide emergency/nuclear war, you're always one engine failure from your own created emergency.

One not so simple solution, A380 modified for the purpose could do the job, same as a second hand 747 could.

It would be fantastic seeing “United States of America” on the side of an A380, although some here would be furious.

aristoenigma wrote:

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/usaf-seeks-budget-boost-for-doomsday-plane-replacement
If this is accurate as of a month ago maybe
progress soon on selection of go forward aircraft.

That refueling photo show how massive the 747 is vs the 767. If they need floor space, they may need 3 767 for each 747!

bt

They won't need the old amount of floorspace onboard again. The equipment and staff needed to operate it is way smaller now. E-4s have been used as normal VVIP transport for that reason.

Noshow wrote:

They won't need the old amount of floorspace onboard again. The equipment and staff needed to operate it is way smaller now. E-4s have been used as normal VVIP transport for that reason.

It's not the equipment but the staff that requires the space. The new equipment may be smaller, but new tasks (and equipment) will be added and some extra space for future tasks would be welcome.
Also the electrical power demand will be high , requiring at least 6 engine generators in a N-1 situation, so like the present E-4B's and future VC-25B's 2 generators at each engine.

Positives for selecting a 747-8I :
All (very expensive)design work for shielding of the GEnx-2B FADEC and shielding of the (partly digital) flight controls of the 747-8I are already done for the VC-25B.
Also the VC-25B flight deck will be totally rewired / shielded, requiring a lot of redesign work, that could be copied 1:1 for a future E-4C based at the 747-8I..
It would be wise to spread (part of ) the conversion cost over 6 aircraft i.s.o. over only 2.

But on top of that : AFAIK the USAF requirement for four (4) engines is still valid.

Are there 4 747-8s available in near future from Korean Air fleet? Korean has latest build 748s and lately an aircraft agent is advertising availability of a 2016 7478i with minimal time? In a pinch could L/N 1446 owned by Boeing be resurrected from early dismantling given the large budget the Air Force would have?

aristoenigma wrote:

Are there 4 747-8s available in near future from Korean Air fleet? Korean has latest build 748s and lately an aircraft agent is advertising availability of a 2016 7478i with minimal time? In a pinch could L/N 1446 owned by Boeing be resurrected from early dismantling given the large budget the Air Force would have?

yes the Korean air planes are the likely candidate as they will be retired in the early 2030's (as I think that's when the lease runs out just like the ANA a380's)

L/N 1446 is not coming back as it probably has frame issues.

Cardude2 wrote:

L/N 1446 is not coming back as it probably has frame issues.

Frame issues : Source ?
L/N 1446 was stored inside a hangar (BSL) for many years (December 28th 2012 - April 6th 2022) and was at regulary times pushed outside for flight control checks, etc.
IMHO the best preserved 747-8I frame with very low flight hours and cycles.
But ideal to become a (structural) spare parts donor for the future VC-25B's and new E-4C's (if selected by the USAF !!)

747classic wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

L/N 1446 is not coming back as it probably has frame issues.

Frame issues : Source ?
L/N 1446 was stored inside a hangar (BSL) for many years (December 28th 2012 - April 6th 2022) and was at regulary times pushed outside for flight control checks, etc.
IMHO the best preserved 747-8I frame with very low flight hours and cycles.
But ideal to become a (structural) spare parts donor for the future VC-25B's and new E-4C's (if selected by the USAF !!)

I thought there was an issue with it being stored as basel that made it in not good condition

747classic wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

L/N 1446 is not coming back as it probably has frame issues.

Frame issues : Source ?
L/N 1446 was stored inside a hangar (BSL) for many years (December 28th 2012 - April 6th 2022) and was at regulary times pushed outside for flight control checks, etc.
IMHO the best preserved 747-8I frame with very low flight hours and cycles.
But ideal to become a (structural) spare parts donor for the future VC-25B's and new E-4C's (if selected by the USAF !!)

Agree with 747classic and think Boeing would not have paid 40++M to buy back L/N 1446 if it had anything but a pristine airframe condition. It was a hangar queen for a decade but was tended to in an expensive manner befitting future use or donations.

I wonder if Boeing would get involved if Korean Air elects to sell lower time 748s in the run up to E-4B replacement. Maybe they could assist Korean by packaging replacement A/C on trade.

I don't know if the idea has been mentioned previously but if 4 engines is a must have... what about converting a couple C-17s?

Wouldn't the Air Force want as much commonality possible with the new 748 Air Force Ones?

mikejepp wrote:

I don't know if the idea has been mentioned previously but if 4 engines is a must have... what about converting a couple C-17s?

With potential war over Taiwan on the horizon, they would need all the C-17 they can keep.

bt

Sierra Nevada corps builds hangar at KDAY in hopes of winning contract to convert a four holer.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... sday-plane

Interesting article.

Apart from the green L/N 1446 what are the lowest time 748s that could become available or pursued?

"Although the SAOC program is largely classified and the names of competitors kept under wraps, defense giant and OEM Boeing says it responded to the Air Force’s request for proposals and identified its own low-hour aircraft to meet the need. Boeing is doing similar work under the Air Force’s VC-25B Presidential Airlift Replacement program, replacing the older VC-25A Air Force One aircraft with newer, used 747-8s."
Maybe that explains N458BJ future?

"While SNC has not provided specifics, it says it has picked its aircraft for the program, adding that “the USAF values quality at a low life-cost for the SAOC program.” Maybe a KE bird?

The Dayton complex is designed to accommodate 747-8s.

Boeing eliminated from competition due to its refusal of Air Force's fixed price contract requirement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-eliminated-us-air-forces-doomsday-plane-competition-2023-12-01/

dk1967 wrote:

Boeing eliminated from competition due to its refusal of Air Force's fixed price contract requirement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-eliminated-us-air-forces-doomsday-plane-competition-2023-12-01/

Fine. Let them wither. My guess is that a big part of their military divison losses are due to KC46 overruns. In other word, their own fault.

Still likely to be a Boeing airframe even if Boeing isn't the lead contractor.

Boeing 748s will likely be the choice. Boeing probably hopes/expects to sell N458BJ to the project whoever gets to be lead contractor and I would think Boeing gets some necessary sub work.

SteelChair wrote:

Fine. Let them wither.

With the E-7A and P-8A contract, they will be fine

This contract is not as prestigious as the VC-25B and only worth one or two frames. So it does not play to their strengths.

A smaller outfit would actually be more nimble and provide quicker responses.

bt

SteelChair wrote:

dk1967 wrote:

Boeing eliminated from competition due to its refusal of Air Force's fixed price contract requirement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-eliminated-us-air-forces-doomsday-plane-competition-2023-12-01/

Fine. Let them wither. My guess is that a big part of their military divison losses are due to KC46 overruns. In other word, their own fault.

And if the last remaining contractor refuses a fixed price contract ?

LTEN11 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

dk1967 wrote:

Boeing eliminated from competition due to its refusal of Air Force's fixed price contract requirement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-eliminated-us-air-forces-doomsday-plane-competition-2023-12-01/

Fine. Let them wither. My guess is that a big part of their military divison losses are due to KC46 overruns. In other word, their own fault.

And if the last remaining contractor refuses a fixed price contract ?

Then the USAF become the prime contractor and subcontract bits out to specialists.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Fine. Let them wither. My guess is that a big part of their military divison losses are due to KC46 overruns. In other word, their own fault.

And if the last remaining contractor refuses a fixed price contract ?

Then the USAF become the prime contractor and subcontract bits out to specialists.

Then it becomes a hodge podge of different contracts and inevitably the budget blows out. Anyway, that's the USAF's choice, if it comes to it.

I can't blame Boeing that they don't accept a "fixed price "contract, seen the constant changing requirements and follow up discussions of the cost sharing, during the duration of each USAFprogram and particular the latest KC-46A and VC25B programs.
Boeing first has to fix it's relation with the FAA and get the 737-MAX10, -max 7, 779, 778 and 778F certified and resolve several (subcontactor induced ?) production (787, KC46A) issues.

The USAF had the opportunity to purchase the last four production 747-8F aircraft relative cheap, before Atlas Air bought these 4 aircraft (with a large discount).
Now the USAF is facing a purchase of secondhand 747-8 aircaft, with the OEM not participating in the "E-4C master change program", a receipe for a (financial) disaster
Also a major discussion will pop up over the use of the modifcations (e.g. wiring and FADEC EMP hardening) from the Boeing VC-25B program at the new E-4C program, led by another company (or companies).

Another article which leaves open the possibility of over ten airframes?! If it is indeed 747s, then they would need to go hard after maybe a whole civil carrier’s fleet.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b ... ion-report

Buckeyetech wrote:

Another article which leaves open the possibility of over ten airframes?! If it is indeed 747s, then they would need to go hard after maybe a whole civil carrier’s fleet.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b ... ion-report

LH has already said they want to hold on dearly to their 19 748s, the only other options are KE and CA. Air China has significant political issue associated with it but would be roughly the right fleet size and KE while also approx correct size has the issue of having one of their 748s as a presidential jet that only makes sense operated together with the others in fleet.

More likely imo to see a possible sale of some of the middle eastern VVIP jets and N458BJ or the purchase of some cargo carriers 748Fs - maybe air Belgium.
The big problem for the USAF is there aren’t many 748s to begin with and nobody really wants to part with theirs and can therefore pretty much charge the usaf whatever they want

My guess is the choice will be for something smaller than the 747. Most likely something based on the 767-2C airframe. Specifically because getting hands on that number of good 747s will be a pain at best.

As already stated many times : The USAF finds itself in this difficult position, because of all opportunities missed in the past to purchase relative cheap some "green" 747-8 aircraft direct from Boeing, especially during the end of the 747-8 production when demand was low.
The only way out to get a 747-8 based E-4B successor is obtaining a few (3-4) used 747-8I's.
At the moment the only source seems to be Korean, a thrusted US ally, because LH is not williing to sell some aircraft and Air China is a not a viable contender.
I don't know what the exact status is of N458BJ, purchased by Boeing ( VC-25B spares ?)
She could be used as a pilot aircraft for the required modifications, but without the OEM (Boeing) particpating in a future E-4C program, this seems also a dead end street.

Maybe employing N458BJ is not a realistic due to VC25B spares commitments etc but won't Boeing's participation still be necessary in some capacity to assist in the required modification of three or four Korean Air 747-8i's regardless of who the lead contractor is? Is the cost of acquiring N458NJ already sunk into the booked loss for Boeing AF1 project? I thought selling it to USAF for the Doomsday project could get Boeing a few dollars back.

aristoenigma wrote:

but won't Boeing's participation still be necessary in some capacity to assist in the required modification of three or four Korean Air 747-8i's regardless of who the lead contractor is?

Boeing's participation would aid in the design work significantly as they have the digital data to help with the digital design.

However this advantage only comes in to play as the number of aircrafts being modified increases, and the variation between frames multiply.

If you are dealing with only one configuration or only a couple of airplanes. A small design group can work it adequately. Its like comparing a small custom shop vs a full up production factory. As the number of frames increases, the efficiency of the factory overcomes the nimbleness of the custom shop.

bt

So the industry is getting rid of 4 engine a/c, the US Air Force if they want 4 engine a/c will have to have one designed and built from scratch.
Now if they move with the industry they will have to look at twin engine a/c, if they need range and power they have to look at 777 or A330 a/c, if they do that now, there is enough feed stock to make the purchase of the frames as cheap as can be, unfortunately, based on what they want the a/c to do, the reconfiguration which most likely would include an entire rewire of the frame / avionics is probably the greatest cost, even if new build.

par13del wrote:

So the industry is getting rid of 4 engine a/c, the US Air Force if they want 4 engine a/c will have to have one designed and built from scratch.
Now if they move with the industry they will have to look at twin engine a/c, if they need range and power they have to look at 777 or A330 a/c, if they do that now, there is enough feed stock to make the purchase of the frames as cheap as can be, unfortunately, based on what they want the a/c to do, the reconfiguration which most likely would include an entire rewire of the frame / avionics is probably the greatest cost, even if new build.

My guess is that it'd be quicker and cheaper to simply restart 747-8 production. Sure there are naysayers who say it can't be done, but it most certainly could be done (for a price). Speaking strictly from the point of view of an enthusiast, a USAF order for 50 748F's (which they always should have had), 4-5 748 E-4B replacements, and the 2 AF1 aircraft would be a sweet order.

SteelChair wrote:

My guess is that it'd be quicker and cheaper to simply restart 747-8 production. Sure there are naysayers who say it can't be done, but it most certainly could be done (for a price). Speaking strictly from the point of view of an enthusiast, a USAF order for 50 748F's (which they always should have had), 4-5 748 E-4B replacements, and the 2 AF1 aircraft would be a sweet order.

The 747-8 product was civilian commercial, Boeing book keepers would want the Air Force to pay all cost to restart including re-engaging or getting new suppliers on board, based on the way they do booking on the commercial side, I am betting it would be cheaper to start a new design from scratch, just imagine the certification hell the "new FAA" would put Boeing through, in addition to the Air Force brass who want their input.
We have seen numerous cases where the experts in the US Air Force have screwed the pooch, so in some cases, the politicians need to tell them what to do, and no, I am not talking about those who caused the F-111 / F-14 programs. The Air Force is getting or has already gotten over 100 767 based frames, that program dates back decades from the initial no bid contract which saw people go to jail, based on economy of scale, why is there even a debate? If the politicians mandated the 767 be used for the AWACS, E4B, JSTARS and did so years ago, how far along would they be and how many individuals would not be empowered fleshing out all these new programs? At times it looks as if the Air Force follows the civilian market in how picky they are as a customer, and before the nay sayers jump in, I am not talking about safety. Cue the last presidential helicopter flop, anyone track those produced units that were sold off for scrap....I mean pennies on the dollar?

par13del wrote:

We have seen numerous cases where the experts in the US Air Force have screwed the pooch, so in some cases, the politicians need to tell them what to do, and no, I am not talking about those who caused the F-111 / F-14 programs. The Air Force is getting or has already gotten over 100 767 based frames, that program dates back decades from the initial no bid contract which saw people go to jail, based on economy of scale, why is there even a debate? If the politicians mandated the 767 be used for the AWACS, E4B, JSTARS and did so years ago, how far along would they be and how many individuals would not be empowered fleshing out all these new programs? At times it looks as if the Air Force follows the civilian market in how picky they are as a customer, and before the nay sayers jump in, I am not talking about safety. Cue the last presidential helicopter flop, anyone track those produced units that were sold off for scrap....I mean pennies on the dollar?

Yes, the USAF & DOD should standardize all of these into 3 frames -
The E-7 Wedgetail - others could be different mission packages from the current, but the frame would be certified already.
The P-8 - certainly variations are OK but the Frame, in flight refueling, etc staying as the base frame.

The KC-46 - other variants deriving from the 767-2C be it freighters, tankers, or E-4B type of programs. With today's electronics do we really need the size of a 748? Might be better to fit in the 767 a combined executive travel - command center - and ecoms into one frame and get a dozen or 2.

Boeing might do a fixed fee contract if it is a fixed scope contract, not this loosey goosey scope that keeps biting for years to follow. Boeing supplies frames ready for the mission package, but the install of that package is on a follow on competition.

I understand that the decision timelines are not short for any options The E-4B is expected to reach the end of its service life in the early 2030s. The idea of designing and building a new plane from scratch or rebirthing the 747 line might be far too unrealistic. With Putin regularly rattling nuclear threats and the Israel wars always at risk of expanding and who knows what China wants to do over Taiwan time is running. I think the Pentagon/USAF needs to get on with it. That is why used 748s are likely decided on. As for fixed pricing good luck.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-12-01/

https://www.rgj.com/story/news/money/bu ... 831958007/

SteelChair wrote:

My guess is that it'd be quicker and cheaper to simply restart 747-8 production.

Neither quick, nor cheap. All design engineers for the 747-8 have moved on. The floor space for the 747 is most likely reserved for the NMA. All the sub-tier suppliers have move on or already having production issues ramping up for the 737, 787 and soon to be certified 777-9. Boeing will not risk those lines to resurect The Queen.

bt

If money is not an issue, then pay Boeing to accelerate the 777-8F. Then offer Cargo Carrier to swap out their 747-F for the 777-8F for cheap.

I bet there would be lots of takers

bt

bikerthai wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

My guess is that it'd be quicker and cheaper to simply restart 747-8 production.

Neither quick, nor cheap. All design engineers for the 747-8 have moved on. The floor space for the 747 is most likely reserved for the NMA. All the sub-tier suppliers have move on or already having production issues ramping up for the 737, 787 and soon to be certified 777-9. Boeing will not risk those lines to resurect The Queen.

bt

Every shop I know is actively scrapping fixtures and dumping the 747 spares and AOG work onto subsuppliers. The cost of restarting composite layup and machine work in addition to recertifying manufacturing processes and final product is so vastly immense that Big Blue will absolutely be better off buying used. Secretary of Big Blue is also on record stating only a four engine aircraft will be considered, so 777 and A350 are a complete non-starter.

RobertoMugabe wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

My guess is that it'd be quicker and cheaper to simply restart 747-8 production.

Neither quick, nor cheap. All design engineers for the 747-8 have moved on. The floor space for the 747 is most likely reserved for the NMA. All the sub-tier suppliers have move on or already having production issues ramping up for the 737, 787 and soon to be certified 777-9. Boeing will not risk those lines to resurect The Queen.

bt

Every shop I know is actively scrapping fixtures and dumping the 747 spares and AOG work onto subsuppliers. The cost of restarting composite layup and machine work in addition to recertifying manufacturing processes and final product is so vastly immense that Big Blue will absolutely be better off buying used. Secretary of Big Blue is also on record stating only a four engine aircraft will be considered, so 777 and A350 are a complete non-starter.

Restarting 748 production will be very expensive, most, if not all, assembly rigs have been scrapped already.

However the OEM (Boeing) is obliged to deliver spares during a certain time (10+ years ??) after shutting down production.

Note : 748 structural parts and (composite) skins are made of different materials than previous 747 series.

RobertoMugabe wrote:

Secretary of Big Blue is also on record stating only a four engine aircraft will be considered, so 777 and A350 are a complete non-starter.

...which is a problem to be rectified.
Based on his bio which for the most part is science / engineering based, he more than anyone else should know that 4 engine a/c is a done technology in the aviation industry, any future frames will be custom built including the engines, imagine the cost.
The US Airforce has problems with its F-35 logistics - propriety license issue - ongoing purchasing and deployment resulting in F-15EX, how exactly are such things now taking place under such a capable secretary, if it takes years to U-Turn a decision imagine the cost of this one for a few frames which are not bombers? No one is perfect, he has many ties to the industry so he does know what is considered "old / obsolete tech", how many 747-8 frames does he intend to recommend that the US Government purchase to keep the two presidential a/c afloat for the next 10 to 20 years, all of them, is the E4 program being added to that purchase?

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies ... k-kendall/

747classic wrote:

However the OEM (Boeing) is obliged to deliver spares during a certain time (10+ years ??) after shutting down production.

Boeing old philosophy is to support an aircraft as long as they fly. You just have to be pay the cost. Not sure about the new philosophy. These air frames are design to last at least two "life times" with proper maintenance and repairs, which is about 40 years.

Spares do not include replacing wing and body skins or other structural components. The composite wing skin would be an issue as they require curing tools. Frames are less of a problem because they are NC machined aluminum, so the dataset can be kept forever.

If the frames are formed aluminum, then tooling would be an issue.


bt

747classic wrote:

RobertoMugabe wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Neither quick, nor cheap. All design engineers for the 747-8 have moved on. The floor space for the 747 is most likely reserved for the NMA. All the sub-tier suppliers have move on or already having production issues ramping up for the 737, 787 and soon to be certified 777-9. Boeing will not risk those lines to resurect The Queen.

bt

Every shop I know is actively scrapping fixtures and dumping the 747 spares and AOG work onto subsuppliers. The cost of restarting composite layup and machine work in addition to recertifying manufacturing processes and final product is so vastly immense that Big Blue will absolutely be better off buying used. Secretary of Big Blue is also on record stating only a four engine aircraft will be considered, so 777 and A350 are a complete non-starter.

Restarting 748 production will be very expensive, most, if not all, assembly rigs have been scrapped already.

However the OEM (Boeing) is obliged to deliver spares during a certain time (10+ years ??) after shutting down production.

Note : 748 structural parts and (composite) skins are made of different materials than previous 747 series.

Never said it would be cheap. I said cheaper than an all new airplane. Not that USAF cares about $$$.

SteelChair wrote:

Not that USAF cares about $$$.

Yes they do because they have lots of other needs and Congress does not have a bottomless pocket.

bt