Slashdot Mirror
USAF Seeks Air Force One Replacement
Tyketto writes "The United States Air Force has taken the first public step in the search for a replacement of the Boeing VC-25, also known as Air Force One, saying it is no longer cost effective to operate and modernize the two 19-year-old VC-25s, which are converted Boeing 747-200s. Airbus has already submitted data for the A380, and while Boeing has had the Air Force One contract for nearly 50 years, delays with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Boeing 747-8, as well as the KC-X Tanker competition, may see the USAF looking to Europe for its next presidential aircraft."
It is actually surprising how much is involved in transporting the POTUS. Last time the POTUS was in town there was a considerable presence that travelled around with him and Air Force One is only a small part of that traveling circus. While the current VC-25 are starting to show their age, one does wonder just what sort of requirements creep are involved. It used to be that simple transport would be acceptable and in actuality, the 737 makes for a wonderful government transport in the C-40 and in fact the current 747 design (though modified since) has been in place since just 1990. In some ways the 747-8 does simplify some systems, making maintenance easier and cheaper as well as possessing more efficient engines, but just playing an opposing advocate, do we really need a 747-8 or an A380? My bias would be yes for a number of reasons, but I also think it is reasonable to ask some harder questions about what is actually required.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Why can't they just buy a new 747? I'm not saying it's the best choice if they need a bigger plane, but it is a solution.
Will the two current ones be sold as certified pre-owned?
Oh please! No matter what the cost, no matter what the delay, no matter what they'll never look outside America to replace Air Force One.
I'm not the type to question the USAF, but the cost effectiveness thing seems odd to me. 19 years is middle-aged for most jet airliners, where it isn't beyond reasonable to find 35 year old airliners still in operation. And I expect that the VC-25s see quite a bit less operational time than your average airliner.
I guess it is true that at the speed the government moves, if they issue an RFP today, it won't go into operation for 5 years anyhow... :)
Technically, "Air Force One" is the call of any aircraft that has the US President onboard. He could get into a Cessna 172 and it would use that callsign.
The aircraft in TFA do not call themselves "Air Force One" when the prez is not aboard. I guess they just use their tail numbers then?
Why should we buy A380s for our head of state?
When the head of state travels, he represents the country. What would it say about the US aircraft industry if he travelled in a foreign airliner?
It doesn't matter if the foreign airliner is better. This is a principle thing. For instance, if there was one head of state who needed to travel fast and high, it was the US President, but we didn't buy a Concorde when that came out. Because it wasn't American.
I can't see why Airbus would want to do any work bidding for this contract. The only reason for asking them is to get Boeing to lower its price.
Obama's giving us change alright. He buys a new plane, we get to keep the change.
I'm thinking the choice will be a Cessna. They're always trying to keep a brother down.
I came in here to make the obvious A380 joke, but I see the summary got their way ahead of me... Next I think I will check the article, see if it makes the same bold suggestion... Of course, checking the article flies in the face of tradition as well. Would that increase or decrease the irony though?
Ah, such tough choices on a saturday afternoon ;-)
It won't fit at most airports due to its dimensions. I suspect that would be too limiting for Air Force One.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
is probably what is going to be the basis for what is used for the presidential jet. Operations and maintenance are the name of the game. You do have to wonder how restricted an A380 would be in terms of airport support. Those things are ginormous and not any old airport will do.
I'm not saying Airbus is better than Boeing, but if you protect your industries from competition like this, you will end up with inferior products and services, and failing domestic industries.
Why not? Northrop Grumman and Airbus got the tanker deal. They could easily retool a couple of those for Airforce One. After all Marine One is scheduled to be of BAE/Augusta origins license built by Lockheed. All deals signed under a Republican administration; and license-building keeps the unions and pork-barrellers happy. You get the technology and keep the manufacturing base, and the europeans spend the money on the insanely long lead-times these projects always have. Win all round if you ask me.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Gee, what are the odds that the plane used to fly around the POTUS is going to be made in Europe by a European company and not made here in America by Americans? Hmmm...
Presidents tend to have pretty big egos, so maybe the space is needed.
On the other hand, the Senate scolded the American Big Three for their corporate jets. Maybe the Air Force should be a better role model, and go for something smaller.
I was thinking of something like this: http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/vehicles/little-nellie?id=002
The President could have some real fun with that, and it would add teeth to his domestic and foreign policy.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
1) The A380 is too damn big for most non-international airports
If the 747-8 isnt ready, they can always order the 747-400ER. Also a slightly smaller option would be the 777-300ER
In any event, Its not likely the airforce would use an unproven state of the art aircraft. When the current AF1 was bought the 747-200 series had been in production for almost 20 years.
If the Air Force even thought about buying Airbus aircraft for AF1, there would be a great political hue and cry from Congress and much of the population. See the recent aerial tanker competition.
Since Boeing is the only domestic producer of airliners, this effectively gives them a no-bid contract, though with the all-important appearance of letting the Europeans have a chance.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Why doesn't the Government put out a new RFI for a new aircraft specially designed for the President? Make it one of Obama's "Get to work" plans? We'll spend about $30Billion to design the new aircraft, and it will be the future of all aircraft pushing every limit... it will give us new technologies, it will push innovation to the edge! It will travel at Mach 17! It will be able to get the president to any location in under 2 hours! Yea while we are at it, it will also deliver peace to the mid-east! Ok, I'm better now... put the order in for 2 747-8F's and call it a day.
For anyone in the Dayton Ohio area, the Air Force One display at the Air Force Museum near Wright Patterson is recommended. They have all of the old planes their, complete with FDR's Sacred Cow, with custom wheelchair elevator, and Kennedy's plane.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
How can they tell? Seriously. With no profit or loss function, rationale economic calculation is no longer possible. If they want more money, they steal it. There's no Excel spreadsheet running a scenario if X number of consumers buy Y number of widgets, the President can fly around in a palace for Z number of dollars, and increase sales.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
However, that's not a practical proposition and does contain some mutually contradictory requirements. The good news is that as aircraft get bigger, faster, more reliable and flexible the gap between the "do everything" that's being asked for is getting closer to what can be achieved.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
So long as there are message boards, there will be "First Post!!!" messages in second and third position on them.
I'm sure there's a name for this law, "Law of first moron" seems appropriate.
No sig today...
That's exactly right. There is as much chance of the Air Force buying an "Airbus Air Force One" as I do of getting a chance to fly it.
this sig deleted by another sig
They want a new Air Plane?
Go to WallMart and order one made in China.
The United states is only good at manufacturing 2 things.
Weapons and Slot Machines.
The helicopters used by the prez are european (Augusta/Westland models) which they fly over to the US in kit form, just so they can be assembled by american workers.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The A380 is too big and heavy for the vast majority of runways in the world. They would be very limited as to which airports it could fly to.
While it would be "coooooool" and "totally rad" to have that monster painted up in Air Force One colors, it's just not going to happen. It'll be the 747-8 or 777-3 series.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Bill Clinton obviously misses Air Force One something fierce. His foundation's got $billions to spend, and our government needs the extra cash. We should sell it to him (with the nuke football dock ripped out, of course). Otherwise the Air Force is gonna have to hold a bake sale to buy the new one.
--
make install -not war
POTUS would only ever deign to visit major capital cities. All of which are capable of, or are being adapted for, handling the A380 - that's what it was designed for. It wouldn't be much use as a commercial airliner if it could only fly to a few destinations.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Since most of the important modifications for Air Force One have to do with armor, EMP shielding, extra fuel storage, etc., why not start with a military plane that's already got some of these features by design, and just retrofit it with couches and stuff?
One added benefit would be that it could transport the presidential limo/tank in case there is fear of sniper fire at the airport. The president could just be driven from the cargo bay of the plane.
The Marine One replacement, the VH-71, saw its budget more than double and face enormous delays.
One can only image what will happen to the Air Force One budget.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
I've had it with these --ing Presidents on this --ing plane!
Way to expensive.
However I am guessing the the politics of it all will end up landing (har) in Boeing's favor.
19 years old is not exactly old in terms of aircraft. The previous aircraft, the VC-137 was used from 1962 all the way up to the 2001 (after 1988 it was used as an auxiliary aircraft for airports with runways too short for the VC-25)
The VC-25 is not a Boeing 747-200. Yes, it is based on the Boeing 747-200, but it is very very heavily modified with everything from midair refueling capabilities to antimissile counter measures to additional fuel tanks.
It took nearly ten years to develop the VC-25 and untold millions of dollars.
The airframes are still extremely low in flight hours and have been overhauled a couple of times already.
What exactly is the point of getting a new aircraft? The 747-200 is not even an obsolete aircraft. Plenty of airlines continue to use them. The 747-400 is basically the same aircraft with a slightly stretched upper deck and a few minor changes. It's a perfectly modern aircraft for which parts are readily avaliable. The advantage of the A380 would be that it's somewhat larger. It's not like the current VC-25 is lacking space. The 747-8 would only add marginally more space.
One of the reasons for choosing the 747-200 is that it was a tried and true design that world airports could handle without trouble. The A380 would be far more limited as many regional aircraft can't accommodate it.
Leaving aside for a minute the (huge) political issues of buying a "French" plane, isn't there the very practical issue that a lot of airports aren't equipped to handle the 380's bulk? Wouldn't look good if the president's plane couldn't land in Billings or wherever.
You left out it's also a transformer.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
They don't have all of the old planes, SAM-970 is here in Seattle at the Boeing Museum of Flight. (The Wikipedia article is incorrect, as SAM-970 was one of the 707's used by Ike - the first jet Air Force One, not under Kennedy as the article implies.)
Please reconsider the purchase of a foreign product.
Thanks.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
According to this video, a new Air Force One is already in place
The new Air Force One
Enough Already!
Please Please Please will you people stop saying an A380 is too large and/or heavy to land at most airports! It isn't! OK! I'm not even going to post the links to prove it as there are dozens of others doing the same.
OK?
So ... to recap. The A380 is able, by design, to land at any airport a 747/787 can land at.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
...fellow of darker persuasion, may I recommend the Soul Plane? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Plane
Isn't SAM 27000 at the Reagan Library?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
So long as there are message boards, there will be "First Post!!!" messages in second and third position on them.
I'm sure there's a name for this law, "Law of first moron" seems appropriate.
First Post!!
That ship was built, and is registered and maintained in the Ukraine. They only claim it is soviet.
This is all about national pride. For example, look at the car park at a high level European Union over the last few years:
The Germans arrive in Mercs.
The French in Renault.
The UK's PM arrives in a Chrysler or BMW.
...we could have the presidential blimp. :D
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
As evidenced buy the recent KCX hullabaloo, the "buy American" laws do permit purchases from our European allies. Even France. ~
Maybe the Boeing order could help save some local jobs?
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090110/BIZ/701109906#4500.losing.jobs.at.Boeing
EVERETT -- The Boeing Co.'s hiring spree came to an end Friday when the company announced it would cut 4,500 positions by the end of April.
"We are taking prudent actions to make sure Boeing remains well-positioned in today's difficult economic environment," said Scott Carson, president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
To visit the aircraft, you have to arrive early at the museum and ask your way to the folks who dispense base tickets, as you'll need to take a bus from the museum to the base. Bring good ID, it's a military base and security is serious.
The museum is a great side-trip before or after the Dayton Hamvention. Definitely worth a day, you will find it difficult to see everything in that long.
Bruce Perens.
787 is a better plane than A380 IMO. Higher tech, better fuel economy, higher pressure and humidity in the cabin (which means less dehydration and headaches). If I were Prez, I'd insist on 787.
an obsolete armored luxury rail car, once used to transport the President of the United States. Harry Truman was the last to rely solely on it. I recall the History Channel showed it parked in a secure lower level of Grand Central Station.
One reason that the 747 was chosen over, say, a more reasonably sized 737 or 757 is that it has 4 engines. Aside from cargo type aircraft, only the 747, the A380, and the slightly dated A340 have this essential feature.
"no longer cost effective to operate and modernize the two 19-year-old VC-25s"? huh?
Newer designs are "newer", meaning they're not as well understood. We're better off with a slightly older plane. Newer planes, like the Dreamliner, are NOT much more efficient. Meanwhile they haven't crashed yet, so we haven't had a chance to see what really goes wrong with them. There are lots of 747s around, so there are lots of spare parts and very skilled people.
The stats on modern aircraft stink when compared with the 747, meaning they're much newer and not substantially better. Not much more efficient, certainly.
Please someone tell me why I'm wrong.
(I realize that they're talking about replacing them in 2017, but that's in 8 years. Why make a choice about this now? Why not wait to see whether the machines which were made last year are performing well in 2015, THEN make a decision?)
Oh really? Is that why LM is getting really to make their first delivery for test flight? Moron.
Eh? The last time I checked Boeing had managed to torpedo the decision in favour of the USAF variant of the Northrop Grumman/EADS A330 MRTT. The bidding will be redone in 2009, it's being called an "expedited recompetition". This time it will feature the same Northrop Grumman/EADS A330 MRTT vs a revised version of the Boeing KC-767 with a lot of dirty political mud fighting and crotch kicking thrown in for our amusement. With Obama and his democrat protectionists in power there is a heavy momentum for a decision in Boeings favour even if it's aircraft doesn't seem to fit the USAF's ideas very well. The question is only how often will we have to witness the KC-X circus repeated until Boeing finally manages to not screw things up completely? Boeing has so far screwed up two chances it has been given to win the KC-135 replacement contract, first with the Druyun business and then by simply offering an inferior aircraft (according to the USAF) to compete with the Airbus A330 MRTT. The only hope Northrop Grumman/EADS have is to underbid Boeing again in which case the Dem's will have a hard time torpedoing Northrop Grumman/EADS a second time simply because of the current economic situation. The KC-X program is also likely to be reviewed and possibly considerably scaled down due to defence budget cuts, the USA will still have to replace at least some of the KC-135 fleet which is getting pretty tired.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Pigs will fly over the frozen landscape of hell well before Airforce One is built by a non-American company.
They don't even serve French wines in the White House; no way are they going to buy a plane made in France.
(And yes, I know that Airbus buys US components. Doesn't matter.)
There is not a chance that the aircraft will come from anywhere but the US. The president is part of the US military, and they are mandated to purchase equipment from the US only, for strategic purposes. They will likely wait for the Dreamliner, or go for the 777ER (in a modified form), so as to allow in-flight refueling, an upgraded avionics/communications package, and of course, a modified cabin/office area. Being able to fly from the US to anywhere else in the world non-stop would solve the problem of landing in a friendly country half way around the world, where all the neighbors are not quite so friendly.
Why does the United States care about a third world, impoverished nation?
Because the current administration's strategy of "let's bomb them back into the Stone Age and then they won't be a threat to us any more" seems to have failed and might be causing more problems than it solves. Bombing corrupt dictatorships who have fallen out of favour into lawless non-states or marginally functional new states and destroying all their national infrastructures and employment for some reason doesn't seem to have reduced the number of disaffected angry young men and women who are desperate to vent their anger and are happy enough to listen to local radicals who think the USA is to blame.
Perhaps getting the president out to some of these places and getting him to talk and listen to these people might persuade a few not to dedicate their lives to killing as many Americans as possible, and maybe work with the USA instead. The last US plan doesn't seem to have won them over.
...the fucking thing should at least be supersonic. If his time is so valuable, then get him there faster. Also, less time in the air means less time in danger etc. and less cost of bloated staff because an SST would HAVE to be smaller and more stops could be fitted in to a typical itinerary.
*** Don't be dull.***
Instead of wasting time and money modifying a passenger aircraft to contain countermeasures and escape pods, why not just start with a military bomber like the B-1 or B-2. Seal the weapon bay and put a lounge in there.
Then you will start with a hardened aircraft with supersonic or stealth capabilities, a full suite of countermeasures and in-air refueling capabilities and you only need to put in creature comforts. Surely that would be easier than adding all the military components to a passenger craft. Heck, a military cargo plane is even a better choice than a passenger aircraft.
If I were president, I'd rather show up in a converted B-1 than a poopy Airbus cattle car. If there isn't enough space for the rest of the presidential retinue, they can fly behind Air Force One in a regular passenger aircraft. The press could be carried in an external bay that could be jettisoned if they got too annoying.
an F-22 Raptor?
That would one bad-ass mo-fo ride.
I would NOT want to mess with him in that.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"9/11 sucked, but it wasn't a national emergency. It was an emergency in NYC, D.C. and a Pennsylvania field."
We know that now. But at the time, I don't think it was especially obvious, especially given that the ultimate target of the UAL 93 hijackers presumably wasn't a field in PA. The government shut down all public US air traffic for three days, remember?
I think it's more likely that there was simply no useful message that could be put out on the EAS. Broadcast operators had already independently preempted practically every civilian broadcast channel for news programming. More to the point, there wasn't much individuals could do about it. In, say, a biological attack, you can give instructions like "boil water; avoid fresh food". What could have been said on 11 Sep 2001? "Planes are flying into buildings -- everybody duck!"?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
While the flight control system, sweet avionics and whatnot probably make the F-22 a relatively easy fighter to fly, the key word is "relative". Even if Obama was theoretically capable of piloting such an aircraft safely, I think he's got more important things to do than learn to play fighter jock ;)
Bush senior and junior were both fighter jocks, and Junior probably could have learned to fly the F-22 (perhaps with all that spare time he spent at Crawford). How did that work out for your country? :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"That's why you see commercial jets dump or burn off fuel before an emergency landing."
Landing weight is a concern. However, they also dump fuel so there's less fuel to burn if the fuel tanks are breached in the landing attempt. In emergency landings that actually make it to the "landing" stage, fire and smoke kill more people than blunt force trauma due to impacts. In emergencies, aircraft without fuel dumping systems will prefer to circle, to burn up fuel with the engines. Only if they must land immediately will they skip that. (Contrary to expectations, not all emergencies require immediate landing. Stuck landing gear, for example.)
Sources:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0054a.shtml
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245a.shtml
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
As a US Citizen and an ex-USAF NCO I firmly believe that an aircraft "Representing the United States of America to the World" as Air Force One does, should be designed and built in the US, not some foreign aircraft with "United States of America" slapped on the sides...
My personal preference would be something from Boeing, but my requirement would at least be something from the US.
(This is above and beyond the security aspects of any aircraft systems designed or manufactured by a potential enemy - and ANY country other than us is a potential enemy...)
--
Tomas
> "may see the USAF looking to Europe for its next presidential aircraft."
Yeah, like that'll fly.
Thank you, I'll be all night. Be sure to tip your waitresses.
...oh, right. They lost one in the Ford administration...
Not true. We also produce the finest in hardcore pornography.
The best transport for any recent president from Texas would be the delightful Bell/Boeing V22 Osprey.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Wikipedia says:
"The 777-200LR is capable of flying 9,450 nautical miles (17,501 km, equivalent to 7/16 of the earth's circumference) in 18 hours."
That's a winner. Sure, the president gets an air refueling feature, but using it is a logistical pain. Range is good.
New Air Force One needs a KFC onboard.
I was just trying to figure out how small of a plane we could realistically expect the president to use. Given the sheer expense of converting a plane to meet presidential standards, it's a case were the cost of the airframe ends up being a minor cost. So you might as well go with a bus over a SUV.
I don't read AC A human right
While he probably occasionally brings some journalists along, I don't remember ever hearing about this being a regular thing. Being on the flights is normally restricted to government types.
Using a smaller plane probably wouldn't actually make it that much cheaper, given all the other expenses associated with the plane. Then, as other posters have mentioned, often the president's flight actually requires multiple transport planes(as opposed to fighter escort), so there goes financial savings with a smaller one if you go from 3 planes to 4, etc...
What happens if he wants to hold a conference with all of his departmental secretaries? That'd fill the plane up pretty fast.
I don't read AC A human right
The C-5 can land on grass or dirt.
Things didn't work out quite as well as desired. The plane tends to carve up the ground pretty well. Still, it does work. If you bulldoze a second runway, or redo the one you landed on, you can even take off again.
An extra bonus is that the president can easily bring a helicopter with him. (or a main battle tank!)
should be "For all intents and purposes"
Well that makes perfect sense. She *is* the Queen of Canada, and she was making an official visit to her kingdom. So naturally the costs of the visit are borne by Canada.
One of the biggest differences arguing against a foreign built Air Force One but allowing a little more slack with Marine One is that Air Force One represents the US around the world, and it would be a bit embarrassing not to have it be a US designed and manufactured aircraft...
Marine One is pretty much a "domestic flights only" craft, and does not represent the US to other countries. (Keep in mind that Marine One comes from a US/European consortium, and built in the US.) Even if it were to get in trouble, it's here, not half way across some foreign country...
(Remember, too that with Air Force One flying to foreign countries, one does not want any of it's critical components designed/constructed by any potential enemies, and that anything other than the US is a potential enemy... There is always the potential for built-in "gotchas" if some foreign country is looking ahead to a day when they might want/need to, uh, "disable" Air Force One.)
--
Tomas (ex USAF)
A340 is not that "dated", it's actually the most recent 4-engine long-range passenger plane, and one of the latest long-haul civilian aircraft to enter service. The other designs to enter service in the last 15 years were B777 and A380.
Another pretty recent long-range plane, also fitted with 4 engines, and often overlooked, is the Ilyushin 96. No sure the US citizens would like their president travelling around in that plane though, but it was good enough for paranoid president Putin, so it must be quite reliable...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
I've had it with these motherfucking Presidents on these motherfucking planes!
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
On a routine basis, I doubt that many general or whoever can make decision and give order, ... fly for several days at a time in those planes.
For one the awacs has an active radar, it is easy to know where it is so they are relatively easy targets.
You don't want to fill it with your top command.
Air Force One will be much more discreet while communicating with the AWACS and the people corrdinated from the AWACS.
Why don't they just use the Samsung GDG airliner. Same quality--more or less--but much cheaper!
I highly doubt it. Planes are regularly flown somewhat economically for 30 years, which granted is almost the age they will be when the AF1 replacement is planned to be ready. Northwest still flies a considerable number of DC-9s with an average age of 35 years. With 2 aircraft, I bet the AF1s have less than 30k hours each. Commercial planes are flown to 80 or 100k hours, that's over 22 years of 10 hour days every single day.
The time and expense in acquiring new AF1s are mostly in the customization for long duration missions, survivability, and communications. This plan to replace AF1 circa 2020 is probably a misuse of taxpayer money. The current aircraft should be refitted where necessary including re-engined and flown to 2030 at least.
The AF1 mission has not changed enough to need a new airframe with much improved performance characteristics. If anything as another poster pointed out, the President could probably use a smaller supplement aircraft like a 737 or maybe 787 for visiting less developed nations, and flying into smaller closer in airports to his final destination that can't handle a 747 or A380.
If so that does narrow the field considerably.
If the pool is extended all etops-180 capable aircraft then there are a few more (twin engine) options.
What exactly do you replace a 747 with that isn't another 747, has four engines and lower operating costs? a340-500 or 600 come to mind, that's about it.
How about Russian? Nothing would say badass as showing up in an
An-225 Mriya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjTu0jhqqPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T294TYbeWYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUDuPWRiRug
A more helpful response: Probabilities don't add quite that way. Does the first missile hitting or missing affect the other? No.
The math you're looking for is basically .6 + (1-.6)x.6 = 84% minimum, .9 +(1-.9)x.9 = 99% maximum. Using 60%, missile 1 hits or doesn't. If it does the target is destroyed. Of the 40% chance it doesn't there's another 60% the other missile does the job. That's a total of 84%.
.The time and expense in acquiring new AF1s are mostly in the customization for long duration missions, survivability, and communications. This plan to replace AF1 circa 2020 is probably a misuse of taxpayer money. The current aircraft should be refitted where necessary including re-engined and flown to 2030 at least.
Somebody mentioned that due to the extra weight the AF1 planes fly with, they suffer more stress. Wing spars only have so much life to them. I read on Wiki that most airlines have sold off their 747-200s to lower tier airlines and agencies. DC-9s are a substantially different plane.
I'm sure somebody has run the numbers and determined that replacement around 2020 makes sense. It includes costs like the upgrades you mention.
If anything as another poster pointed out, the President could probably use a smaller supplement aircraft like a 737 or maybe 787 for visiting less developed nations, and flying into smaller closer in airports to his final destination that can't handle a 747 or A380.
I don't remember the President having to ever travel extra on the ground due to airport restrictions. As you note, the customization is the expensive part; not the plane. So what use is going for a smaller plane? Besides publicity, what's the use of going with a smaller plane if the presidential caravan normally takes three planes anyways? You'd just be flying even more planes.
I don't read AC A human right
Spars are rarely the life limiting factor of aircraft unless they are involved in an incident. Generally fuel burn, repetitive MX demands, and corrosion control make the plane uneconomical to fly. I'd believe AF1 gets some extra abuse, but commercial aircraft suffer daily abuse too.
Most airlines sold off their -200s because they were older and uneconomical with higher fuel prices and lower passenger loads. AF1 is one of the last -200s to enter service. I have less faith than you that someone in the government made a thoroughly researched and rational financial case to replace AF1 in 2020.
I doubt if the POTUS has to make extended travel arrangements due to airport restrictions we'd particularly hear about it. They would probably arrange for Marine One in the US. Overseas who knows. If he is meeting a head of state possibly they would arrange to meet in another location.
But part of the idea of a smaller plane is that it looks like the POTUS will need to expand his diplomatic footprint to some smaller countries and a smaller aircraft might be beneficial getting in and out of some of those countries. I don't know if the operational envelope of the other planes in the POTUS entourage are better or worse than AF1 where a smaller AF1 would increase their options.
the PLANE!!
Yes we CAN!!
My Blog | Badsh