AFMC Search for new Air Force One

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[QUOTE] AFMC begins search for new Air Force One

By Bruce Rolfsen - brolfsen@militarytimes.com
Posted : Saturday Jan 10, 2009 10:15:53 EST

The Air Force needs new a new Air Force One

[expat]

In aircraft life terms they must be still new regardless of analog cockpits. I would like to know how many hours and cycles they have. In comparison to any other 747 in this world probably nothing.............glad I am not a US tax payer

Still, should spark a few Boeing/Air Bus threads throughout the amassed aviation websites

Matt

[an-225]

Regardless of capability, I highly doubt the A380 will be the next Air Force One.

Why?

The 747 is a national icon. It is an awe inspiring sight to watch a 747 complete with the Star Spangled Banner roll into your home-airport's General Aviation section.

I also doubt that they will use a 777 as the new Air Force One, because of the safety issue of only two engines. I have never seen a VC-25 refuel. The VC-25 pilots train on E-4Bs due to the risk.

If such a regular occurrence in military aviation is barred under normal circumstances, having only two engines could cause a quandary.

I've heard that the VC-25 uses a half analog cockpit. I also see no reason for the current VC-25s to be replaced anytime soon, the USAF would even like to extend C-5 Galaxy service until around 2040. With -400 engines, I can see the VC-25 lasting until 2030 for such a delicate operation.

The VC-25 has only been around for 20 years...it is still a very young airplane. Maybe I'm just reluctant to accept any airplanes different to the ones I already know. Air Force One has always been a 747-200 in my mind.

[specter177]

They should wait until Boeing comes out with the BWB, or a new SST.

[C]

I suspect unless a major US contractor offered a straight off the shelf airframe conversion (which would be nigh on impossible), Airbus wouldn't bother on financial grounds. Can't see it going to a non-US manufacturer, ie, Airbus.

Not to mention there are several issues with keeping a 747 based platform (AAR etc) rather than a new type.

the presidential helicopters now in development cost around $400 million each.

Journalism at its best - is that the Presidential helicopter programme that was all but cancelled a fortnight ago.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

In aircraft life terms they must be still new regardless of analog cockpits. I would like to know how many hours and cycles they have. In comparison to any other 747 in this world probably nothing.............glad I am not a US tax payer

Still, should spark a few Boeing/Air Bus threads throughout the amassed aviation websites

Matt

They asked the white house for that very information, and they did not comment, said it was classified. Although it should have less hours then a normal 747-2, it is still used a lot, every time the President leaves Washington D.C., they take the big plane.

And like the article said, to upgrade both planes would be crazy expensive. Just from reading past articles on other planes getting new upgrades, like the Nimrods for example, I would guess it to be well over $400+ Million worth of upgrades to just one plane, plus paying for the depot work to install the new $400+ million dollars worth of computers. So maybe $1Billion total after it is said and done, when a 747-400 is now around $200millon, and comes with all the new equipment that is required, and all that is left is added the extra computers and defensive systems. So if they go with the 747-8i it has the latest computers, since they are only looking now, by the time they decided to buy it if they do, the 800 series should have already been made for a while and should go down in price as more and more people have been buying them.

But Air Force Material Command is still only looking, because they have some time to get requirement right before making a purchase by 2017

[Al_Fallujah]

I recommend converting the C-23 Sherpa.



In all honesty though.. maybe someone can explain to me why or why not a conversion from a tried and true cargo aircraft like the C-17 or something?

Its got SPACE in there.They could add what ever they want.
Its got 4 engines, heavy lifting ability, and can land places a 747 couldn't.

Addidtionally, as a taxpayer, if it saves some money, and they have to make a small sacrifice on space, I  think I can live with that.

[Al_Fallujah]

I just wanted to add, I know overall, the C-17 is a smaller aircraft.
But, all politics aside, the times call for downsizing.

If corprorations are being forced to drop their aviation programs, why can't the executive branch downsize its needs?

Just an idea.

[Ivan]

@an-255
You want 747's getting refuelled... you get 747s being refuelled
http://www.ausairpower.net/kb-747-1A.jpg
OK it's an IIAF VIP transport but the system is the same

And an E-4
http://www.bytebakpc.com/135refuelE4B.jpg

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Well after you load a C-17 up with all the stuff the current VC-25 has, then add the weight of the EMP shielding, plus all the back ups it has, you now have a plane that has to be Air Refueled every time it leaves the country with the President on board. Not to mention it is almost 200kts slower in top speed, and you would have to modify at least 4 of them.

And although a VC-17 would make a great plane to fly around Nourth America with, the logistics that go with it for flying to other countries to support a Presidential move would require even more planes total.

Trip to Europe with VC-25: VC-25 back up, E-4B, C-32, C-5B, 2 C-17's, and Jet for all the Secret Service guys.

Trip with VC-17: 3 back up VC-17's, E-4B, C-32, C-5B, 2 regular C-17's, 2 KC-10's, And Secret Jet id they don't ride on the KC-10's.

The only reason I say that, is because with the C-17 maxed out on weight it cuts it range down, since it was designed as a tactical air lifter, unlike the C-5. So As soon as the 4 VC-17's were air born, they would all need topping off. And since it is a presidential mission, they have to have a back up tanker ready to go at a moments notice just in case the first one broke for any reason. While on the other hand the 2 regular factory modded C-17's carrying support stuff would be light enough to make it all the way over.

As a fellow tax payer, I agree why can't they use a smaller plane like a 777 or 787. But as an avid aircraft person, and seeing things first hand I under stand the impotence of protecting one of the most powerful people on Earth at all cost.

Nobody really though about it but Tony Blair had one of the best secure planes before they retired it, the Concorde. It flew to fast to be a target, and you really could not plan an assassination on it because the RAF like the USAF kept mission secret until it happened. And not many people could plan and implement a way to get to him in the time it took the Concord to leave the UK and land in the US or any of the another countries he needed to visit.        

Between the: US(747-2), UK(Concord/777), & Japan(747-4), all the planes went high, fast, and have decent range to keep the leaders out of harms way.

[C]

[quote]
Nobody really though about it but Tony Blair had one of the best secure planes before they retired it, the Concorde. It flew to fast to be a target, and you really could not plan an assassination on it because the RAF like the USAF kept mission secret until it happened. And not many people could plan and implement a way to get to him in the time it took the Concord to leave the UK and land in the US or any of the another countries he needed to visit.      

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Nowadays, the UK government and Royals charter/use scheduled BA 777s (and others) as required. If they're going to "hotter" places, so to speak, the VIP comms fleet of 32Sqn with the DAS equipped BAe 146 and 125 take over.

Why does the US have to have a 747? To be bigger than everyone else of course. Impressions count. Even Mr Sarkozy of France has just ordered an A330.

I have seen the Ba-125 when Canada came down to visit us for something, great plane if you don't have do a lot inside it. Kinda hard to run your country from it though, not enough room to do any thing on it, just make phone calls.

You gotta remember the USAF went from C-45, to a C-121, to 707, and almost every time they went from one plane to the next, the requirements changes. Right now the need is for: Long Range Unrefueled, In flight refueling, standard communication, VHF, UFH, SATCOM, Broadband, Secure Telecommunication,

[an-225]

Ivan, I understand that specially fitted 747s can refuel in mid-air. But my point is, that I've never seen the VC-25 do it, and the pilots train on the E-4B instead.

If AAR is such an issue for the plane carrying the president, I can't see a plane with two engines being supported.

[C]

Every one figured the French President was gonna get an A380 any way, that really comes as no surprise, after all Airbus is French based, and that is there most crowning build, so why not fit it to the leader of there country?

He isn't. He's getting an A330, not an A380.

If AAR is such an issue for the plane carrying the president, I can't see a plane with two engines being supported.

Not really an issue, but more of a problem would be the extended loitering ability of a twin should they lose an engine.

[The Ruptured Duck]

thank god airbus won't bid!