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."
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.
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.
Be realistic. Why does the United States care about a third world, impoverished nation?
I'd ask the opposite: why do they need a 747 in the first place? It sure looks impressive (maybe that's the answer), but does the president really have to take five hundred people along anywhere he goes?
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
Please do not use phrases like "military and civilian government." There is one government, and the military is a component of it.
Saying "military and civilian government" is the thin edge of a wedge, IMO, toward considering it acceptable that there would be a military not attached to the office of the executive. If you were so inclined, you should explore situations in history in which that has happened.
And we, the electorate who put into office the civilian government, are responsible for the military actions taken during their administration.
Oddly, most of the people come in on C-130s and a C-5 about a week ahead of time. The 747 is just for show (and media I guess, but seriously, they can't find their own transport?) It's all about the extra side-space that that the hump provides for displaying the presidential seal.
I would definitely support the president using a smaller, more agile plane. Especially as, as an added bonus, no self-important congress snobs would be able to credibly demand anything larger than what the president himself uses.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I guess I missed the meeting where the queen was given control of the military and nuclear weapons in case of a war.
Agree with it or not, and/or like it or not, at this stage in history the U.S. President has the greatest responsibility in world right now and assuring his safety in case of emergencies is pretty much a bigger deal than seeing if a purely ceremonial queen is flying on British Airways business class.
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
>"That's why you see commercial jets dump or burn off fuel before an emergency landing."
I thought it was because fuel burns with a hot flame and kills people...
No sig today...
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.
I thought I saw on the History Channel that two of them serve to scout ahead for actual on-scene weather or to serve as decoys or a backup in case the real Air Force One has a problem.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
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.
The British Primeminister is still the person who makes all the military decisions at the top level for the UK - in that role, he has precisely as much authority and responsibility as POTUS.
POTUS is the most retarded abbreviation I've seen this year, granted the lunacy that is the world will surely beat that soon enough. I'm from freaking Sweden and one pretty much automatically assumes we're talking about your president, especially when it comes too your desire to name your transportation.
You live too close to Hill AFB. The average layman dosen't know what POTUS means. You could have just said, "the president" which is only 4 syllables of smooth flow.
;)
Other than that, excellent FP. I understood it
Well maybe not *all* live, but a hunderd or so British nuclear warheads sure could reduce the total population.
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 understand the scolding in the context, but I still believe that after a certain point, a corporate or even personal plane makes sense. While a corporate plane might be a little slower in the air, it has the advantage that it can fly direct to anywhere in it's range, with extremely flexible takeoff times.
When somebody is that valuable, it makes sense. For the big three, a mid-point would have been if all three(and their assistants), had taken the same private plane.
For the president, he has to worry about presenting himself to 50 different states covering a quarter of the globe. He also has to represent the country to the world - adding in other areas. He's actually an active target for assassination, so security is very much a concern. He has to be contactable at all times for security and political reasons. You have to worry about the nuclear football.
This whole thing is that the current craft are 19 years old and pushing the uneconomical part of the maintenance spectrum; they have a lot of hours on them. Time to retire them and get new planes. Now they're doing the equivalent of new car shopping - which plane is the best for us?
I don't read AC A human right
If the top man is out of contact and presumed lost, or incapacitated, then command works its way down the chain. This is by design and is robust.
If its so robust, then who was in charge after Reagen was shot? He was in surgery, and incapacitated, for at least three hours. The President never formally gave up control; and the Cabinet never took it from him. Reagen wasn't dead, so power never passed automatically to the Vice President. So, who, at that time, could have responded to a Soviet nuclear strike? (Remember, no one knew at the time the assassination attempt was not part of a larger plot.)
I agree that we have a fairly robust system in place to maintain the chain of command. But, no system can ever take into account all the messy, real-world things that can happen. We're lucky that we haven't had too many unscripted transfers of power in this country.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hostile" EW. Interfering with broadcasts is more of a PsyOps kind of thing and I'm pretty sure that Air Force One will never have that ability.
I'm a former EW technician (F-15 TISS) and, while my knowledge is somewhat dated, I assume that AF1's EW will have the usual assortment of noise, RGPO and VGPO and PGPO jamming.
I call BULLSHIT!
Now, I'm not going to assume that all /.'ers are informed but there is enough use of the term POTUS, SCOTUS, DHS, FBI, etc. here to either flag you as a me-tooing-get-on-the-opposing-bandwagon type or seriously uninformed. Your choice.
Me thinks you were looking for something snappy to post that would put you somewhere near the top of the comment page and you chose this poor saps post.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I have to support the original response - I was in the military and I can tell you that's the ONLY reason I know what POTUS is on sight. If I said POTUS (or typed it in an email) to any of my lifelong-civilian friends most of them wouldn't have any clue what I was talking about.
Even if they figured it out, they would then say, "Why don't you just say 'The president', you jackass?"
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Settle down, sparky.
Have you ever heard any newscaster say "Poe-tuss"? No, they say "president of the United States" or "president of the yew-ess" or simply "the president". A surprising number of people aren't watching the news everytime the letters "POTUS" are displayed on the screen. Is there a misunderstanding here? Because everybody knows what "president of the United States" is but some folks don't know what a POTUS is.
I'm not saying AF1 isn't important, but it just seems like such government waste. It pisses me off that the president, OUR employee, can't make do with "adequate," that he's got to have a flying mansion with more amenities than most people will ever even see in their lifetimes.
I want the President to have his every need taken care of. I don't want him to have to worry about anything other than the business of the nation. Its why we give him servants, chefs, a $300 million house, and a state-of-the-art plane. The President's time is easily worth a million dollars an hour. True government waste would be for him to spend his time worried about any of the concerns which are now taken care of for him.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
You live too close to Hill AFB. The average layman dosen't know what POTUS means. You could have just said, "the president" which is only 4 syllables of smooth flow.
Sure, but then you'd have someone from Europe talking about how ignorant Americans/USians are for just saying "the president" and not being specific, since after all, other nations have presidents too. Then someone from the US would point out this is primarily a US discussion site, so people should just assume the US when not specified. Then someone from another country would say that slashdot isn't under ".us", and is thus global, and is globally accessible at any rate, so it is wrong to assume an original TLD is US-centric, and ICANN is evil. Then someone from the US will point out that the internet was invented by the US. Then someone else will point out that most of the internet is now outside the US, so it shouldn't matter, it's not like people respect the steam engine being from the UK originally.
So, in comparison, POTUS generated a pretty minimal debate.
The average layman dosen't know what POTUS means.
This is slashdot. It is not an audience of average laymen, and POTUS, along with SCOTUS, has been used regularly in posts for years. Blame Tom Clancy as much as anyone, but it is quite appropriate for the dot.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
If I said POTUS (or typed it in an email) to any of my lifelong-civilian friends most of them wouldn't have any clue what I was talking about.
I don't doubt that at all, however, he was posting to slashdot and the term POTUS, as well as SCOTUS, has been thrown around these parts for years. Slashdot is not really a gathering for average Americans. It does tend to attract geeks, nerds, and others with a multitude of esoteric knowledge. So while it wouldn't have been appropriate in the Christmas card to Aunt Bertha, it makes total sense here.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
The President is a manager, not a monarch. I'd argue that the nigh-royal treatment whoever is currently occupying the White House receives has a been a big part of the rise of the "Imperial Presidency" -- the isolation of the President from public opinion, the autocratic decisions without regard to the law, etc. I'm not saying he should live rough, but neither should we have to cradle him in luxury that Louis XIV would have envied.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
It's my understanding that it's the abbreviation the Secret Service uses, which is fine; government agencies are famous for their love of alphabet soup. Then it was picked up by the 101st Fighting Keyboarders military-porn crowd, who love using acronyms like that because it makes them feel tough and macho, and spread from there.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Yeah, I've noticed that those of us who were actually in the military don't generally throw around acronyms like that at the drop of a hat. It's the Tom-Clancy-reading, FPS-playing, mil-porn 101st Fighting Keyboarders who never had the guts to get their hands dirty themselves trying to make themselves sound (they think) all tough and macho who have popularized the term.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The President is a manager, not a monarch.
I think he's a little bit of both (I'm not just referring to W. but to all Presidents). The President is not only the leader of our government, but also the head of state. Like it or not, he is the personification of The United States, both domestically and abroad.
I don't think the, relative, luxury the President enjoys has anything to do with the recent rise of the "Imperial Presidency". The reasons you state, I think, have a lot more to do with it: "the isolation of the President from public opinion, the autocratic decisions without regard to the law".
I simply don't want my President wasting time cooking meals, ironing shirts, or worrying about wrinkling his suit when flying coach.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
It is the same power the prime minister of Britain has, or the president of Russia, or the president of France for that matter.
"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.
Funny, but it's a long time between ordering one of these planes and having it come into service. The current 747s used as Air Force One were ordered early in Reagan's term. They didn't enter service until the middle of Bush41's term. Obama is unlikely to ever fly in this new plane.
I disagree... I think the president needs to be constantly reminded of the people he's working for, not isolated and treated like royalty.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Back when the Big three were profitable companies, and the CEO functioned much like the president, it made sense. Even now, assuming the CEOs operated like they're supposed to, they should/would be quite valuable.
The CEOs time would be, much like the president's, be spent in high level analysis to plot the future course of the company, also auditing and motivation. Time on the factory floor, for a manufacturing company like GM/Ford, should be expected.
For that matter - Consider this. You can expect about 250 days of work out of an employee a year. Traveling commercially, for the most part, you can figure on losing two days of work whenever you fly him, due to connections, air port security, lack of direct flights to many locations, etc...
Now figure we have an extremely well paid employee - $1M a year. Not shabby, but not 'overblown CEO' level. Each If a (rental) private plane costs $2k but cuts this in half, it makes sense to rent a plane to ship him around when you have to. Why? You're effectively paying him $4k a DAY. The plane's cheap in comparison. Scale down if you have to send a team, scale up as the employee gets paid more(more valuable). Then consider that the Big three are global companies, with holdings all over the planet, including Asia, Europe, and South America. Even more time & effort can be saved when the CEO has to visit a foreign facility.
I also figure that while they might be dropping the CEO plane, they're keeping a number of their corporate jets in a 'pool' - normally used by troubleshooters, managers and such. For a company that large and spread around, having a few planes makes sense.
The driving stunt was more about making the CEOs bow down before congress to get their money than saving actual money.
I don't read AC A human right
"..it's not like people respect the steam engine being from the UK originally..."
The steam engine is orginally from Greece.
And while the internet is US, the Web was invented by a Brit working in Switzerland....
but at least we invented the airplane!!!
I am a slashdot reader. I have no fucking idea what POTUS or SCOTUS means, not because I am stupid, but because I am not American.
WHile I agree that no man should be treated like royality, the issue here is how rough is the job of POTUS. Well, look at all the presidents who have held the job (WHILE BEING PAMPERED). Each of them are aged 2-3 years PER year. Look at how haggard W is coming out. And the man was a drunk, coke head (even coke seller if you believe ppl from Austin), and a failed business man prior to being gov of texas (a relatively easy job since it is has little power). IOW, 3 items that normally age a person does not compare to what W went through with this. Then think in terms of Clinton, Poppa Bush, reagan, Carter, etc.
I agree with the parent to you; Pamper the man; we need him making the BEST choices possible. After all, we have seen the results of bad choices of what is still today, the most powerful nation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
not isolated and treated like royalty.
The isolation might have something to do with the fact that virtually every President of the 20th century had somebody try and take a shot at him......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
you'd have someone from Europe talking about how ignorant Americans/USians are for just saying "the president" and not being specific
Regardless of whether Slashdot is primarily a US-oriented discussion site, this particular story is about the American president. The only ignorance would be in not being able to derive, from context, which president is being discussed if someone were to say "the president". In a discussion about Russia's president, we'd all understand which presiednt was being discussed and I doubt you'd see any Americans whinging that we should say "POTRF" because it's too confusing or Russia-centric otherwise.
I realise you, specifically, didn't do this, but claiming that one must specify "of the United States" with every bloody reference to "the president" is absurd. Humans are allegedly good at contextual clues. Let's act like it.
When seeing acronyms in print, some people have a tendancy to read them as words, whether they should be read as such or not -- especially when the acronym is pronouncable, like "POTUS". Say it out loud and understand how silly it sounds. Beyond that, it just looks pretentious to use acronyms that are both non-standard and add nothing to the meaning. Using the ol' standby argument "it saves time" is just absurd -- we're talking about a few extra letters. If you can take the time to post you can certainly spare the additional milliseconds it takes to type an actual word, rather than barely-comprehensible acronyms, and come out looking a little more intelligent.
People who defend silliness like this are also some of the quickest to gripe about "txt speak", and really, what's the difference? Where do you draw the line?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Are you suggesting that POTUS's time is worth 8.7 TRILLION dollars a year?
Having basic amenities taken care of is not the same thing as hedonistic perks like a bowling alley in your basement.
_AC
Perhaps ... but then again, no President (or ex-President) will likely ever be allowed to go to a regular bowling alley. Too risky, they know too much. Being the most powerful man in the world does not mean you are the most free. In fact, it's quite the opposite. That applies to all people who have achieved a certain level of wealth, a certain degree of power. They become targets, have no choice but to isolate themselves. Why do you think so many of the rich and powerful (take Bill Gates, for example) have HUGE estates and gigantic homes? It's not just because they have money and like big things ... it's to provide an illusion of freedom.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well, I am now 49. W was between my father's and my age when he went into office, though closer to my fathers. He did look younger than my father, but that was expected. NOW, W looks MUCH older than my father. Yes, W DOES look old.
Disregarding your inability to figure out age: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/06/presidential.health.aging/
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In times of war, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. In times of peace, an ambassador to other nations. And at all times, a check/balance on the power of the other two branches. Those are the only roles the POTUS should be playing.
It is naive to think that the President plays only those roles. You are correct that those are the only ones spelled out in the Constitution; and we can debate whether his role should be expanded. But, it is undeniable that the President is so much more.
The President, and his office, is a symbol of the US as a whole. As the only nationally elected office holder, he is in the unique position to represent all Americans. The President has become a national father-figure, beginning with FDR, and his fireside chats. He is the one we look to in times of crisis, like natural disasters and financial meltdowns. Like it or not (and I don't), the President is the United States government to most people.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
And your post had any intelligent thought behind it?