Airbus A380 Seen as Possible Replacement for Air F

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Well they don't seem to need a replacement. Anyways Air Force one is simply just for showing off. In an emergency the President and the National Command Authority would board the E-4 "Nightwatch" aka NEACP (National Emergency Airborne Command Post). Anywhere the President goes, NEACP is supposedly, close by just in case.

NEACP has inflight refueling capabilities and is EMP resistant.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4B

Sorry for replying to and old thread, I work a lot. But Press Clinton put an end to ridding on the at the time "NEACP" while he was in office. Minus computers and aircraft specific stuff, both planes are built the same way, except VC-25 has self defense, while the E-4B does not.  And since the mission changed of the E-4B, it is now called National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) for the National Command Authorities. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=99 Air Force web site, because I hate Wikipedia. The Secretary of Defense mainly rides on it, but it still follows the President where he goes because I have ran into it 4 times now since I have been in the Air Force.
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/ ... 3T-004.JPG Sec Def with E-4b in back ground.

But the Topic at hand, Air Bus may get, or can get other sales in the USAF, but never to replace the C-5 or VC-25.
On the C-5:
-The A380 has no way of getting an M1A2 on it, or to the feild.
-Can't carry the Mobile Bridge layer which only the C-5 can carry.
-Can't easily load and unload rolling stock, let alone heavy armored trucks, and SAM launchers
-Can't carry Navy stuff http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/g ... /c5072.jpg
http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/g ... /c5092.jpg
-Can't carry the Navy Seals assault boat http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/g ... /c5128.jpg
-Nasa would not be able to use it to carry booster rockets and stuff http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/g ... /c5102.jpg
http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/g ... /c5150.jpg
-Can't carry Other large ships http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/g ... /c5173.jpg
-Can't carry a double wide trailer..? http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/o ... /mn_01.jpg
-Not sure if A380 can be used in Antarctica http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/g ... /c5110.jpg and yes we still go there.

On replacing VC-25:
-Secret Service would not trust Airbus with the amount of secrecy needed to be built into the plane.
-Boeing, Lockheed, & Northrop Grumman, have sworn to secrecy, and are know for that commitment to the DOD and Secret Service.  
-A380 would not fit inside the secure hanger that the 747's fit in.
-A380 does not fit every known air port or air field that the 747's can operate from.
-A380 does not have the same known record that the 747 has has over the years mainly because it is very new.*not their fault*
-And it would be easier to build 2 new 747-8's, and swap every thing over from the 2 747-200B's to the 2 new 747-8's, and modifie the equipment as needed, and they would both fit inside the Secure Hanger built for the 747's.

-

[chornedsnorkack]

-A380 would not fit inside the secure hanger that the 747's fit in.
-A380 does not fit every known air port or air field that the 747's can operate from.

-

If those things ever mattered, why was 747 ever made Air Force One to begin with?

The wingspan of 747 is 59,6 m.

The wingspan of 707-320 is about 44 m.

There are plenty of airports and hangars where 707-320 fits, but 747-200 does not fit.

Now look at DC-10-30. It has high-bypass engines, giving it the range and fuel economy unlike that of 707, it has widebody accommodation volume - but its wingspan is 50 m. Only slightly larger than 707-320. Many airports and hangars are large enough for DC-10-30, but too small for 747-200.

Why was DC-10-30 not made Air Force One?

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

The hanger I was referring to is the reinforced concrete armored hanger at Andrews AFB, where the 2 VC-25's sit when not in use.
But on a side note the 747 was designed back then to fit into existing hangers found at almost every airport. which incidentally the hanger at Andrews AFB was originally used to house the 2 707's that used to be used VC-137, and both 747's fit right in.

And Production of the DC-10 ended in December 1988, and at that time the 747 had a larger range of 6,700miles vs the at the time 5,700 miles of the DC-10. And with the bigger 747 it allowed it to have all the special stuff that it has now, that simple would not fit on the DC-10. Also the 747 can land heaver then the DC-10 can, which in an emergency makes a big difference.

ex. A KC-10 can take off with 590,000lbs but if it ever had to turn around and land for an emergency, it would have to dump 150,000lbs of gas or it could destroy the gear on landing.

-vs-
747-2B can take off with 833,000lbs, and land almost fully loaded.  

[chornedsnorkack]

The hanger I was referring to is the reinforced concrete armored hanger at Andrews AFB, where the 2 VC-25's sit when not in use.
But on a side note the 747 was designed back then to fit into existing hangers found at almost every airport. which incidentally the hanger at Andrews AFB was originally used to house the 2 707's that used to be used VC-137, and both 747's fit right in.

Do you mean that when 747 was designed, and the biggest passenger jets were DC-8-6x series with span of under 45,3 m (707-320 and VC-10 were also in 44...45 m range), almost every airport had built hangars suitable for 59,6 m wingspan of 747-100?

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I can't it now like I did yesterday when I was looking, but it came down to the high sweep angle of the 37.5 degrees wings which let it use the same hangers as the DC-8 and 707 used at the airports with the tail sticking out, as well as give it speed and lift.

I'll have to keep looking, but I found a diagram to back that up yesterday.

[chornedsnorkack]

I can't it now like I did yesterday when I was looking, but it came down to the high sweep angle of the 37.5 degrees wings which let it use the same hangers as the DC-8 and 707 used at the airports with the tail sticking out, as well as give it speed and lift.

I'll have to keep looking, but I found a diagram to back that up yesterday.

If you are fully satisfied to take a hangar intended to admit a whole plane with wingtips and tail and close door after it, and shelter just the nose of a bigger one, then yes, you can get the nose of 747 under the same roof as 707 tail: the tail height is 13,3 m for DC-8 and something like 12,9 m for 707, whereas the roof of 747 hump is around 10,2 m. But you can shelter the nose of A380 the same way: it stays below 11 m.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

If you are fully satisfied to take a hangar intended to admit a whole plane with wingtips and tail and close door after it, and shelter just the nose of a bigger one, then yes, you can get the nose of 747 under the same roof as 707 tail: the tail height is 13,3 m for DC-8 and something like 12,9 m for 707, whereas the roof of 747 hump is around 10,2 m. But you can shelter the nose of A380 the same way: it stays below 11 m.

Well at the time all they had were hangers that could hold 4-6 DC-8's/707's. So if you move the first two rows of planes, you could get the front of the plane in the hanger, which for almost every thing maintenance related you could do with the tail hanging out.

But that was back then, and now for security purposes, the whole plane has to be secure at all time, and the 2 A380's that would be needed, would be sticking out the hanger if they could fit the wings into it.

And besides on the A380 you still have to take in: stopping distance after touch down, turning radius, taxi space, parking, wing growth into and out of and area, wing clearance, and ease of getting parts when it needed.

Now I'm not saying it is a bad plane, but if yo give it some time, I'm pretty sure one of the Oil rich country's will have one very soon as a privet plane to replace their -200, -300, or -400 series 747, and they will have the space to flaunt it and operate it.