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.
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... :)
I would say he needs the smallest plane that can fly over the Pacific. Or the plane that can land on the shortest runway possible. I think, especially with this new President coming in to office ten days from now, there will be more trips to developing countries. Countries that do not have the runway, airport, and infrastructure that the Western world has. Sure, other arrangements can be made, but there would be nothing like having Air Force One fly into their country. Think of the PR. I think it shows more respect, too; which is something our Government needs to do.
Well, the 747 they have now is no longer being build.
If they want to stay in the same size category, they either need to get an A380, or go for the new 747-8 model, which, however, is currently subject to delays, too. It was supposed to be in the air this year, I think, but it's not likely to fly before mid-2010, so first deliveries are still further off.
That said - they're putting out a RFP now, they want to get their planes in 2017 or so, so the 747-8 should be fine. I prefer the A380 but I agree - A380 as Air Force One: no way.
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. "
It doesn't carry that many people. The aircraft may fly the President around, but it also has the job of being a flying command post. It's full of communication equipment to keep in constant contact with the military and civilian government, conference rooms, living facilities, supplies, weapons (in case they have to land in an unsecured location), electronic defense measures, and other classified stuff we can only imagine. It's also hardened against EMP.
Hence the reason they can't just buy one off of American Airlines and change the paint job.
When Nixon left office, the plane he took off on was Air Force One. When he landed, the plane had the tail number call sign. The call sign changed when Ford was sworn in. The White House made special accommodations with the FAA ahead of time to change the call sign mid-flight.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
Yet the Queen of the UK or the British Prime Minister can fly using scheduled air travel?
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.
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
in that role, he has precisely as much authority and responsibility as POTUS.
Until the UK Prime Minister has the means and authority to, single-handedly, end human life on earth, I don't think he has quite the same level of responsibility as the President.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Because nobody's ever heard of Marine One, while everybody knows about Airforce One.
There MIGHT have been a very small chance they would've gone with Airbus if nobody had cared about the whole thing, but the moment the media started discussing it, it was clear that it'd be a US-American company getting the contract in the end.
Which also makes me wonder why Airbus doesn't just say "this is all a sham, we're not gonna bother submitting a bid in the first place". And I do say that as a European.
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?
Meh, the heads of state of just about every other country (except maybe France and Russia) travel in foreign-built airliners all the time. We'd get over it.
That said, the A380 feels like overkill. I had one in factory grey taxiing behind the F70/F100 I was on in Lyon, and the difference in scale, yeeesh. It was like "OMG it's gonna EAT us."
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
...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.***
Totally off topic point here. You're not wrong that the American President has more power than a prime minister in a parliamentary system in absolute terms. However the prime minister of Canada (for instance) has in relative terms way more capability to get things done than the American President does. For example, if the Canadian PM has a majority government and wants a piece of legislation passed, he or she goes to the cabinet, solicits advice, gets the Department of Justice to write a bill, and 99% of the time that draft is made law within a year. The American President doesn't have anywhere near that kind of power.
The queen does not fly by scheduled air travel. She has access to Royal Air Force aircraft for any purpose she desires.
The Royal family can fly by RAF jets for state purposes (at the queen's discretion. This was discussed in the movie The Queen. Prince Charles obtained his mother's permission to use an RAF jet to fly to Paris and pick up the body of Lady Diana.)
Sometimes though they will charter an aircraft for state purposes (Prince Charle's most recent trip to the US was on a chartered British Airways 777.)
The younger and "lesser" Royals choose to fly commercial for vacations and such.
The Prime Minister flies commercial when he's going on vacation, and is not performing a state duty. Otherwise, he gets an RAF jet or a chartered jet (typically a British Airways one.)
This topic has been the source of significant debate. Many in Parliament believe that the Prime Minister should have his own jet. I suspect that in time they will approve one.
By the time you finish adding the required countermeasures, refueling capabilities, distinguished visitor quarters, etc... The larger the plane, the longer the range, on average. You might as well go with the larger plane. It'd probably cost more to shoehorn everything into the smaller plane anyways.
Remember, impressing foreign delegates and heads of state(like oil sheiks) is still part of the president's job. Impressions of luxury is part of that.
Not to mention I agree with the argument that the president, as much as possible, should be free to concentrate on the duties of being the president. He's effectively the CEO of the largest company of the planet. He has well over a million employees, is responsible for over 300 million citizens, life and death.
I don't read AC A human right
There is reason to believe that there were other buildings targeted in other cities, including the Seattle Space Needle and downtown Los Angeles. Supposedly, the other Al-Queida teams forgot to account for differences between time zones from one end of the USA to the next and the west coast groups never got into the air, or at least never were able to take over the cockpits like what happened on the east coast.
The rationale for not invoking the EAS on 9/11 was mostly one of the fact that all of the major news outlets had already interrupted programming on that day and were doing 24-hour coverage of the attack anyway. The primary message to the general public, don't bother going to the airport as your flight has been canceled, certainly was transmitted to nearly everybody that it impacted.
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
I really cannot understand how the US can say with a straight face that other countries need to open up their trade, while at the same time advocate stuff like this at home (and it is not just this one case).
The problem with your assessment is that it's totally backwards... he doesn't have a million employees, he has 300 million employers, and he damn well shouldn't forget it.
I don't care about impressing anybody else; I'd be more impressed if a visiting dignitary said "Such meager conditions for such a powerful man!" and our president said "I work for the American people and refuse to waste their money for my pleasure."
Stupid sexy Flanders.