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."

Comments

Air Force One replacement

[BWJones]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[v1]

I'm sure it receives a lot of special modifications. Here's what they do to protect a C130 from a heat seeking missile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmZDdvKAUOg
I'd imagine the onboard "electronic warfare" package is also substantial.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[ewanm89]

Well Air Force One is suppose to be the ultimate warfare command center in the sky. Able to control the whole of the US armed forces and override any media coverage if needed. I think flares are just the tip of the ice berg so to speak.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Doc Ruby]

"override any media coverage"

What does that mean?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[bdenton42]

"This is a test of the emergency broadcast system."

You're not going to get much media coverage once that particular button is pushed.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Ethanol-fueled]

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 ;)

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Firethorn]

Well Air Force One is suppose to be the ultimate warfare command center in the sky. Able to control the whole of the US armed forces and override any media coverage if needed. I think flares are just the tip of the ice berg so to speak.

Actually, while it's the top warfare command center when the president's on it, I'd hardly call it the ultimate, as AWACS planes have far more capability in that aspect.

There's a lot more than flares in there, but exactly what's in there is still classified. I imagine it has both commercial and military satellite communication methods, various air to ground radios, etc...

It's not designed to do hostile EW warfare. While I'm sure they can do telecasts from it, it can hardly 'override' ground broadcasts on it's own.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[BWJones]

I am not sure, but think the acronym POTUS was first used back in the 70s, possibly the 60s by the Secret Service and military circles. Certainly by the 1980s, it was in regular use by mainstream media or so I thought...

Re:Air Force One replacement

[eat here_get gas]

"It also saves space and effort when typing."


? nt jst drp th vwls?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Ethanol-fueled]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[tcgroat]

The presidential planes certainly have grown through he years! Eisenhower's plane was a Lockheed Constellation (on display at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson). It's downright cramped compared to even a B737 or A320. Perhaps bigger concerns in this era of globe-trotting politicians are range and the number of airports it can use. Both the B747-8 and the A380 have long cruising ranges, but both are also limited to the largest airports with the longest runways. It's time to forget about having the biggest and best, and think about the most practical replacement for Air Force One. On the bright side, they accumulate less flying hours and flight cycles than they would in airline service, so they're likely in better shape than age suggests.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Q-Hack!]

While you are correct in thinking that the term POTUS has a military background, it has been used in main stream media for years.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Teancum]

It's not designed to do hostile EW warfare. While I'm sure they can do telecasts from it, it can hardly 'override' ground broadcasts on it's own.

While I'm sure that Air Force One isn't designed for high powered RF broadcasts, its principle occupant has the authority to confiscate all FCC-licensed commercial broadcasting and force a broadcast message to be transmitted by all of those stations. The problem is, when was the last time any President had the balls to declare such a national emergency? G.W. Bush, as much as he is derided, didn't even call for such an emergency broadcast on of all days 9/11/2001.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Broadcast_System

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System

for more information

Re:Air Force One replacement

[WED Fan]

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.

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Firethorn]

By hostile EW I meant stuff like the PsyOPs missions - where you're trying to break or override the enemy's communication equipment, as opposed to simply trying to break their targeting locks and such.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[rockout]

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?"

Re:Air Force One replacement

[rockout]

Just because it's in use by mainstream media (at times, that is - it's certainly not the preferred term) doesn't mean the average layperson knows what it means.

Which is all that guy was pointing out, in fact - using POTUS in non-military circles makes you look like a guy that likes to use obscure acronyms for no reason other than to look like a guy that knows the obscure acronym. Granted, it's not THAT obscure, but next time, just say "the president", ya know?

I realize that assuming "the president" means "of the USA" is very USA-centric, but then again, would someone from Europe know what POTUS means? Most Americans have no idea, so I would have to agree that the original poster lives too close to Hill AFB (like maybe, ON it).

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Ethanol-fueled]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[LWATCDR]

A 777 would probably due. The thing is going with a brand new design will mean that parts available and life span will both be longer. The 747-8 range and payload would also be handy. A 380 never, not going to happen.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[SnowZero]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[GooberToo]

Here's what they do to protect a C130 from a heat seeking missile

Flares are not very effective against modern heat seeking weapons; and that was true at least one generation of seekers ago. Modern heat seeking missiles are actually pretty good at distinguishing between the sun and exhaust, and exhaust and flares. Modern anti-heat seeking counter defensive systems actually use lasers to destroy the uber sensitive sensors contained within this class of missiles. If you notice "disco balls" on aircraft, especially helicopters, this is what they are; a heat seeking counter measure. And even then, they tend to only be fairly effective against single missile threats from the rear. Modern anti-aircraft doctrine calls for multiple missile threats against a single target. This is true for air to air engagements too.

Modern heat seekers have somewhere between 60%-90% kill statistics against modern anti-missile counter measures. As such, two missiles, statistically yields a 100+% kill ratio against all modern, KNOWN, defensive systems. Very manoeuvrable (vectored exhaust) aircraft and aircraft which have reduced heat signatures have better odds. Aircraft which employ both strategies fair significantly better, but the point remains. Few modern aircraft fall into one of those two categories, let alone both. Aircraft which are engaged from above, allowing for background radiation to assist in ones defence, also have higher survivability statistics.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[lepidosteus]

Doesn't take a genius to figure it out ... President Of The United States

Re:Air Force One replacement

[KeithJM]

Why dont you fuckers tell me what "POTUS" means instead of bitching about it?

POTUS = President Of The United States

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Shadow Wrought]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Shadow Wrought]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Wyatt Earp]

The EC-130 Commando Solo operated by Pennsylvania Air Guard has the ability to override radio and TV signals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_EC-130

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Anonyme Connard]

President Of The United States.

I'm French and I know that!

Re:Air Force One replacement

[tompaulco]

G.W. Bush, as much as he is derided, didn't even call for such an emergency broadcast on of all days 9/11/2001.
9/11 sucked, but it wasn't a national emergency. It was an emergency in NYC, D.C. and a Pennsylvania field. Local authorities also have the authority to enact the Emergency Broadcast System, but I am not aware whether they enacted it or not. The only time I have ever heard the Emergency Broadcast System used in an actual crisis was during Hurricane Alicia, quite a long time ago.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Daniel Dvorkin]

it is quite appropriate for the dot

"I was in the 'Dot, man! You don't know what it was like! You weren't there!"

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Yeff]

"I'm sure it receives a lot of special modifications." One of those modifications is the ability for air-to-air refueling, a not insignificant mod.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[mabhatter654]

it's just a matter of having the official keys anyway. The FCC mandated a few years ago that all the EBS systems in radio and TV are able to be remotely activated, and I'd assume that channel can also upload broadcasts. The monthly test you see done is a firing of the remote key, not a test at the station, I'd assume any aircraft for the chief executive would have this capability built in.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[mabhatter654]

of course it was news and every news channel was lined up outside the president's office to hear what he had to say.

EBS is for things like Katrina, so that the station owners can leave their radio/TV stations running until they stop working, but the government can still use them to notify the public of emergency conditions, and what to do.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[v1]

Not sure how you get a "100+%" kill ratio

remember, 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Re:Air Force One replacement

[egcagrac0]

You are correct, good sir.

Henceforth, El Presidente it is.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[turbidostato]

"Not sure how you get a "100+%" kill ratio by firing multiple missiles"

It's obvious: they will kill you *twice*.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[mr_exit]

As a New Zealander I was able to work it out from the context of the first sentence. Pretty simple really

Re:Air Force One replacement

[wiresquire]

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 simpleton 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.

It is surprising how involved is the POTUS. Last time the POTUS was in town [utah.edu] there was a presence that travelled around with him and the One is a part of that traveling circus. While the current POTUS is starting to show his age, one does wonder just what sort of creep is involved. It used to be that simple would be acceptable and in actuality, it makes for a wonderful government. In fact the current design (though modified since) has been in place since 1990. In some ways it does simplify some systems, making maintenance easier and cheaper as well as more efficient, but just playing an opposing advocate, do we really need POTUS? 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.

ws

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know what capability Air Force One has? From what I've heard they have mini-nuclear reactors, alien technology, and Apollo command modules (for an emergency Presidential escape module or perhaps a brief lunar trip).

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

"..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!!!

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the bit where someone points out that while the US invented the underlying networking, the web was invented by a Brit working in Switzerland.

And then someone mentions that stupid Al Gore thing, and we argue about what he really said for a while, and then the whole thread goes off on a tangent about global warming.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Xest]

I'm kind of intrigued to know what features it has in place should the plane outright fail for some reason, such as a catastrophic airframe failure or if for some reason all engines failed or even a fire on board.

What are the evacuation features for a plane like this? Does it really have a kind of escape pod? does it just use parachutes?

Anyone any idea?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[JackieBrown]

I thought we were talking about the pope's plane?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Shadow Wrought]

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.

Well, now you do! See how helpful this /. thing is? One more piece of knowledge you'll never have to google again;-)

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Shadow Wrought]

"I was in the 'Dot, man! You don't know what it was like! You weren't there!"

"I had it again Doc. That dream. It started with Natalie Portman and a plate of hot grits. Then were in Russia and our base belonged to someone else. And then... And then..."
"Goatse Caverns?"
"Yeah. My screams woke my wife again."

Re:Air Force One replacement

[rantingkitten]

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?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[phlegmboy]

Well, at first my mind translated it as Plonker of the bUnited States but then I realised thay was only true until Jan 20

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Firethorn]

But that's a capability/requirement built into the broadcast systems. It's not like the president's plane can brute force override radio transmissions.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[MichaelSmith]

G.W. Bush, as much as he is derided, didn't even call for such an emergency broadcast on of all days 9/11/2001. 9/11 sucked, but it wasn't a national emergency.

They stopped all civilian air traffic over the whole country for two days. The people who did that clearly thought they had a national emergency on their hands.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[jman11]

statistically yields a 100+% kill ratio against all modern, KNOWN, defensive systems.

You're a liberal arts major aren't you?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[ScrewMaster]

While your post has enough buzzwords to garner the Insightful tag from clueless mods, your use of the term POTUS and the link with the 'in town' reference only earns you the Douche tag.

What? It's a legitimate acronym. Here, let me toss another your way ... SCOTUS. You figure it out.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[ScrewMaster]

The Aeolipile was a primitive steam turbine, not what we usually mean when we say "steam engine." The reciprocating steam engine was indeed invented in the UK (by Newcomen, and then improved/automated by Watt.)

Re:Air Force One replacement

[jcwayne]

Does the average layperson know what AFB stands for?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[jcwayne]

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.

"...but I repeat myself." -Mark Twain

<runs for cover>

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

Aircraft aren't vaporized by a hit. Air to air missiles have roughly the same amount of explosive as a grenade, and like a grenade they rely on a cloud of shrapnel hitting something vital. So it's possible for more than one missile to hit a target.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[truesaer]

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.

Uhhh...actually it's because they use that term on TV shows and in movies. Use in media is a pretty common way to popularize a term is it not? How does the use of an acronym make someone a gutless Fighting Keyboarder blah blah blah? I honestly don't understand the glee with which some members of the military denigrate civilians.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Killjoy_NL]

I got POTUS, but never knew what SCOTUS meant.
Supreme Court of the United States
Yay Google :D

(also not american, dutch guy here :)

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Hucko]

non-USA citizen frequent this site too. The idea and tech is interesting... the translation of a probable political insult not so much.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[turbidostato]

"So it's possible for more than one missile to hit a target."

Yes. But obviously that renders a less than 100% hit ratio for any single missil and "just" (supposedly) 100% kill ratio for multiple missiles. In order to have "100+%" kill ratio you must kill somebody at least twice.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Sj0]

Non-US citizen here. The acronym POTUS is used more than enough that anyone who wants to know what it means already does.

It's ironic that the amount of effort going into bitching back and forth about the term is about ten thousand times the amount of effort it takes to look it up.

President
Of
The
United
States

Ok, everyone knows what it means. Give it a rest.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Sj0]

If you'd ever seen the supreme court of the united states, you'd realise that's completely accurate.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Sj0]

Civilians are pussies.

I mean, no civilians can say "I killed a person with an 30 year old soviet-era assault rifle kept together with twine and duct tape from three miles away with the 30mm avenger cannon on my A10 flying armour bathtub which is impervious to small arms fire". They've never had to take that risk, to take that chance, make that sacrifice, for freedom.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[ewanm89]

Why couldn't he? All it requires is a powerful transmitter... But they have taps in all over the ground too. Places the media corporations don't know about probably. What happens if the TV stations all get bombed and he needs to get a message to all the citizens?

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Firethorn]

There's dedicated AF planes for that.

Besides, if you're talking about overriding a signal, you have to beat the signal strength of the transmitting station.

For 'full power' US terrestrial stations, this can be over 500 kilowatts of power. Basically, even though a plane has a favorable position when it comes to line of sight, it generally doesn't have the power budget to override.

In a situation dire enough for the president to want to transmit a TV broadcast regardless of terrestrial stations, he's going to be better off using the dedicated planes for the purpose.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[tehcyder]

And then someone mentions that stupid Al Gore thing, and we argue about what he really said for a while, and then the whole thread goes off on a tangent about global warming

Or gun control and/or anything to do with religion. They're always good ones.
The trouble with you cry-baby liberals is that you want to make it ILLEGAL for the POTUS's bodyguards to carry concealed weapons but COMPULSORY for the Bible to be burned outside mosques.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[tehcyder]

Modern heat seekers have somewhere between 60%-90% kill statistics against modern anti-missile counter measures. As such, two missiles, statistically yields a 100+% kill ratio against all modern, KNOWN, defensive systems.

I don't claim to be a weapons expert, but that's an unlikely looking statistic.

Re:Air Force One replacement

[Killjoy_NL]

And knowing is half the battle :D
G.I. MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
(cow soldier)

Re:Air Force One replacement

[craagz]

I know there is a small pod that barely fits the POTUS in it, to actually eject Mr. President!

I swear!! I saw it in a Hollywood Movie!!!!

I have to ask

[ShooterNeo]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[Samschnooks]

Why does the President need a bigger plane, anyway?

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.

Re:I have to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[ShooterNeo]

Be realistic. Why does the United States care about a third world, impoverished nation?

Re:I have to ask

[Stormwatch]

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.

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?

Re:I have to ask

[Detritus]

I think the problem is the huge amount of customization that they have to perform on any commercial aircraft to meet the requirements of Air Force One. Besides communications and emissions security, they have to be able to fly around in the middle of a nuclear war, without landing, for extended periods of time. Everything would have to be shielded against EMP. I read that the engines have extra oil tanks, so that they don't run out of lubricating oil during extended flights. They can refuel in air. They have countermeasures against surface-to-air missiles.

Re:I have to ask

[k_187]

Because Bono says we're supposed to.

Re:I have to ask

[Hawkeye05]

I'd say one of These actually if you want something that looks bad-ass. Maybe not as Air Force One, but as a shorter range transport perhaps a replacement for Marine One something that's faster and still has VTOL capability.

Re:I have to ask

[bds1986]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[Albanach]

Hence the reason they can't just buy one off of American Airlines and change the paint job.

Yet the Queen of the UK or the British Prime Minister can fly using scheduled air travel?

Re:I have to ask

[Anpheus]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[mad flyer]

Hey, it's illegal to make threats against the president of the USA...

Or did they finally fix the V22 ?

Re:I have to ask

[maxume]

If the president flies into a country, he does it on Air Force One. It doesn't matter if it is a freaking two-seater.

Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.

Re:I have to ask

[zippthorne]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[CarpetShark]

The aircraft may fly the President around, but it also has the job of being a flying command post.

And a get-away vehicle.

Re:I have to ask

[RulerOf]

weapons (in case they have to land in an unsecured location)

Unless this changed after 9/11, there is no secret gun locker on Air Force One. That gun locker was made up as a plot device for Air Force One.

Re:I have to ask

[NouberNou]

That thing is a deathtrap... Just because it looks cool doesn't mean its a good thing.

Also there is no way that thing could land at the White House.

Re:I have to ask

[bds1986]

The Queen and the PM aren't head of the largest superpower in the world, in charge of one of the largest nuclear weapons stockpiles (I'm aware of the Vanguard class subs but they pale in comparison to what the Americans have). In any case, Blair wanted an equivalent to Air Force One ("Blair Force One"), and there is an RAF squadron charged with moving PM and Queen around, although in an aircraft less flash than the VC-25. Last I heard Brown was thinking about axing both but hadn't decided. Source.

Re:I have to ask

[bds1986]

I'm aware of the plot device, but I'm sure I read somewhere else that there is a supply of weapons on board. Wikipedia claims:

All small arms and ammunition stores not under the physical possession of the Secret Service on board the VC-25s are stowed and secured in separate locked compartments each with a different locking mechanism by the Secret Service for added security.

So it sounds like there is some weapons storage. Unfortunately I can't find an original source though.

Re:I have to ask

[petes_PoV]

It's not one 747. Last time "W" visited the UK, it took 3 (yes three) jumbos to haul him and his entourage from the USA.

I'd say the number of people who go on the trip is mainly a function of ego. Apart from the staff and security, you really don't need to carry journalists around, too. They could easily fly themselves, however it is a nice treat to use to reward the people who write nice things about El Presidente.

I would hazard a guess and say that they had more waiting, on standby, just in case one of them broke or they needed to do something different in a hurry - such as deal with a medical emergency.

Re:I have to ask

[bds1986]

Grammatical error on my part, I'm not looking to start a junta. As the other AC poster mentioned, it should have been "military, and the civilian government".

Re:I have to ask

[HisMother]

Well, the queen doesn't actually do anything, does she? And the prime minister doesn't have anywhere near the authority or responsibilities that the POTUS does. The President is literally the Commander in Chief of the military; he goes incommunicado and before you know it you got Alexander Haig firing missles at Kazakhistan.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Because it is the source of unrest in this world. It breeds terrorism. Poor people fight more than rich people. Because they can incubate disease that can spread.

There are number of reason to not let fellow humans suffer, but the best reasons are selfish.

Re:I have to ask

[frdmfghtr]

It's not one 747. Last time "W" visited the UK, it took 3 (yes three) jumbos to haul him and his entourage from the USA.

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.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

The President is literally the Commander in Chief of the military; he goes incommunicado and before you know it you got Alexander Haig firing missles at Kazakhistan.

Exactly. People forget how fragile the chain of command really is. I know that people here had no idea what was going on when Reagen was shot, and Alexander "I am in control here" Haig only muddied the waters. I bet the Russians were shitting their pants. Air Force One, in its current form, is essential for preserving our nuclear deterrence. The office of The President of the United States is simply incomparable to any other.

Re:I have to ask

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[ion.simon.c]

How is the CoC fragile? 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 your chain is populated by nutters, you don't stand a chance of having a rational response when they get command control, now do you?

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[petermgreen]

The 747s being made at the moment are an old design which is not good for a plane they probablly want to maintain for a long time.

I bet they will end up going for a design based on the 747-8, it's not availible yet but should be availible by the time they have given for replacing theese planes and it's american.

At this stage though they have to at least pretend to look at multiple suppliers ;)

Re:I have to ask

[Anspen]

Well maybe not *all* live, but a hunderd or so British nuclear warheads sure could reduce the total population.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[Richard_at_work]

The British Prime Minister has the authority to launch Britains nuclear deterrant.

Re:I have to ask

[MadnessASAP]

Alright so were in agreement then, we shoot the president and abolish the position.

Re:I have to ask

[Firethorn]

Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.

Exactly. Just off the top of my head:
1. Should be able to take his family. 4 including the president.
2. Security detail. 4-8 Secret Service
3. Presidential staff. 3 aides
4. Be able to haul a Secretary along(like 'of state). 3 more people
5. Contain extensive communication abilities
6. Have transcontinental range
7. Mount defensive equipment normally seen on military craft
8. People to run the plane. 8 more people (dedicated EW and comm people bump it up some).

I get 26 people. While a 747 in most configurations can seat over 300, we don't really know how much space all the comm and defensive equipment take up. The 300 figure also doesn't figure in actual cooking areas, a medical facility, office space, etc... They added the ability to aerially refuel. Heh - the 26 people is just the crew, the actual plane has a 76 passenger capacity. They also upped the max speed a touch.

Re:I have to ask

[ZorbaTHut]

Having a meeting across multiple jets is much more difficult, especially if there's a storm of EM radiation thanks to the nuclear war going on underneath you.

Re:I have to ask

[MightyYar]

He's a rock singer, not an opera singer. I'm not the biggest U2 (much less Bono) fan, but he has a voice that is so distinctive that even my grandmother started buying U2 albums after he showed up on a Frank Sinatra "Duets" album.

Re:I have to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

No he/she does NOT.

The British Prime Minister has the authority to AUTHORISE the launch of Britains nuclear deterrent.

The British military would then be allowed to use the weapons if THEY deemed it appropriate.

This way, we have to have TWO outbreaks of insanity before we go nuclear.

(There is another circumstance when the military can launch without the authorisation of the UK PM, but that involves governmental decapitation)

Re:I have to ask

[Hal_Porter]

A Redundant Array of Inexpensive Jets?

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

If the VP had given orders in response to an attack, I doubt many people would be questioning him.

That's exactly my point. The VP could have given orders, and they probably would have been followed. But they shouldn't have been. He had no legal power or authority at that point. No one did.

Re:I have to ask

[frehe]

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.

The POTUS has neither the authority nor the capability to launch a nuclear strike all by himself. The reality is not the same thing as the world of TV and movies...

Re:I have to ask

[timster]

If it's really that necessary (nuclear attack level sort of situation) the VP can always shoot the President in the head.

Re:I have to ask

[encoderer]

Not to mention a fully functional ER, gym, press cabin, offices for WH Sr. Staff, a kitchen and enough food to last weeks without landing.

Re:I have to ask

[spaceyhackerlady]

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.

A new 747 is one of the options.

In Canada the Prime Minister flies around in a CC-150 Polaris, an Airbus A310 derivative. The Canadian Forces fly a fleet of such planes for VIPs, troop transport and similar functions.

...laura

Re:I have to ask

[Wyatt Earp]

Since when did the POTUS have the means and authority to single-handedly end human life on Earth?

All the nukes the US/Russians have can't do that, so...how can the POTUS do this?

Re:I have to ask

[Blakey Rat]

Yes, but on the other hand, they HAVE made those modifications to two 747s already, yes? So (in theory at least) all the major kinks are already worked-out?

Whereas with the A-380, they'd be starting the process from scratch.

I think the reason is more one of scope creep. They probably have a long wishlist of items they want to put in Air Force One but currently can't due to space or size restrictions. If the mission of the aircraft is different than it was 25 years ago, then yes they should buy a new aircraft capable of meeting that mission.

(But I'd much prefer it come from Boeing. I don't see why they have to wait for the Dreamliner when they can get a 777 now...)

Re:I have to ask

[Blakey Rat]

Please. I know from extended studies of Dr Who that the British don't even notice when their prime minister is abducted by blubbery, farting aliens.

Re:I have to ask

[Wyatt Earp]

There are two VC-25s. Support aircraft include KC-135, C-32A and C-40B, while heavy gear like the "war wagons" the Secret Service use and the Presidential limos are carried on C-17s.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

The POTUS has neither the authority nor the capability to launch a nuclear strike all by himself.

I guess I phrased that badly. The President is still the one with the final say-so about whether we launch our nukes, in most circumstances. It is still far more power than any other human possesses.

Re:I have to ask

[fast turtle]

Buzz

Wrong: According to the Chain of Command, when the President is incapacitated, the Vice President has the authority to authorize any military response short of a Nuclear Strike or Declaration of War. To order said strike, he must be Sworn in as President or it has to be in response to an existing nuclear strike and any military personal who fail to follow an order that does not violate the Constituion (except when Martial Law is in effect) can and will be charged under the UCMJ (Universal Code Military Justice).

It was due to the nuclear deterent issue that Johnson had to be sworn in as President, because he did not have the needed authority to authorize a first strike after the assassination of President Kennedy.

Re:I have to ask

[westlake]

Yet the Queen of the UK or the British Prime Minister can fly using scheduled air travel?

The President is both chief executive of the U.S. and its ceremonial head of state.

In many ways, he continues to take take on these essential roles for the West as a whole. I can't think of a PM since Churchill whose loss would have had any great significance on the international stage.

Re:I have to ask

[PsychosisBoy]

If it's secret, then how can you know it doesn't exist? =)

But seriously, I can't imagine that they would spend billions on this airplane, with all its missile countermeasures and million-dollar tables and all that, and not include a weapons cache "just in case". Considering the military bent of our government, it would seem counter to its nature.

Re:I have to ask

[jo_ham]

And the PM used to be carried around in a military jet for official visits - it was only recently the Government decided to lease two specialised planes (fitted out like AF1 with defences, security equipment, communications etc) at a similar annual cost to using the RAF to move them around.

It's not on the the scale of AF1, but it's a similar idea.

Re:I have to ask

[Z00L00K]

If they need a bigger aircraft they should go to Antonov and ask them to make a new AN225 custom-built for the US president.

If that ain't big enough they have problems.

But maybe they want something faster instead? Supersonic?

Re:I have to ask

[Raemond]

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.

I think Trident and its 258 nuclear warheads give him the responsibilty...

Re:I have to ask

[Carewolf]

It is the same power the prime minister of Britain has, or the president of Russia, or the president of France for that matter.

Re:I have to ask

[ozonepriest]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[JimBobJoe]

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.

Re:I have to ask

[saleenS281]

So take AF1 to a major airport in a nearby nation and take Marine1 to the smaller country.

Re:I have to ask

[UnknownSoldier]

> Please do not use phrases like "military and civilian government." There is one government, and the military is a component of it.

Bullshit. Go study Martial Law, Military Law, Judge Advocate General's Corps, etc.

Military Government over-rules Civilian Government on this backwards planet.

Re:I have to ask

[ion.simon.c]

Your leading questions seem to indicate that you think that you know the answer to your question.

So, who, at the time, could have responded to a Soviet nuclear strike? List your citations.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

So, who, at the time, could have responded to a Soviet nuclear strike?

I don't know. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anyone could have. I guess the VP has the best argument in his favor. And that's my point: no matter how detailed the procedures or well thought out the plans, there will always be cases you didn't account for.

Re:I have to ask

[ion.simon.c]

You seem to have performed no research to arrive at your conclusion. You have no credible position. Please stop spouting your disinformation.

Re:I have to ask

[Haeleth]

I'm not sure there's that much link between poverty and terrorism. For example, Osama bin Laden comes from a super-rich Saudi family.

Poor people generally don't want to destroy the USA; they want to move there and stop being so poor.

Terrorism is fed by ideology, not poverty, and the actions of the USA that are used by terrorist leaders to stir up anti-Americanism are generally related to military operations rather than trade or aid.

Re:I have to ask

[Dun Malg]

He's a rock singer, not an opera singer.

Thing is, he's not even good for a rock singer.

I'm not the biggest U2 (much less Bono) fan, but he has a voice that is so distinctive that even my grandmother started buying U2 albums

Exactly. He's not successful because he can sing, but because he's marketable. The Joshua Tree was an interesting album, but nothing since then has shown any particular degree of variety. It's like they took the three hits off that album and recreated the same theme over and over ever since: Bono's tuneless rasping and wailing, and The Edge (a fantastically talented musician) playing the same damn "dingly-ding-ding dingly-ding-ding" sound on every track. It's genius, but in a salesmanship sense rather than an artistic one.

after he showed up on a Frank Sinatra "Duets" album.

Yeah... don't get me started on Frank either. There's a truly talented singer who went from sounding great in the beginning, to developing a "style" that consisted of intentionally flatting some of his notes. This style only got worse as the years went on. At least Bono has the excuse of not having a good singing voice. Frank sang badly on purpose. Again, it was probably a classic case of marketing. His "style" set him apart from the crowd. It certainly wasn't his looks that made him famous.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

You have no credible position. Please stop spouting your disinformation.

So, who was in command in 1981 when Reagan was shot? Really, I'd like to know.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Historically speaking people who have nothing to loose are much easier to motivate to fight. I do not believe it is a coincidence that Afghanistan is the 4th poorest nation in the world. I agree leaders (wealthy or otherwise) can easily unite hungry people behind things like ideology, but it is very difficult to get those with food in their stomachs to risk their lives for a cause. When have two well fed populations fought each other?

Terrorism is fed by ideology, not poverty,

I would say, 'Terrorism is fed by poverty and focused by ideology.'

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Slight correction to my post. Change: 'When have two well fed populations fought each other?' to 'How often have two well fed populations fought each other?'. I would hate for the few exceptions in history to sidetrack my general statement.

Re:I have to ask

[MightyYar]

You got to the party late... Joshua Tree, or arguably Achtung Baby, were indeed the last really interesting album - but that was actually fairly late in their career. They had already been together 9 or 10 years by the time Joshua Tree came along... pretty long in the tooth for a rock band.

Bono's voice and vocal style are truly unique. Even if it's just dumb luck and not any special talent on his part, it doesn't make him any less entertaining.

Just curious, who do you consider a good rock singer? I always thought that was a bit of a contradiction in terms... Springsteen is a fantastic guy to see in concert, but he can barely carry a tune. The Pixies were wonderfully raw, but Frank Black did more screaming than singing. Etc, and so on... :)

Re:I have to ask

[konadelux]

Here in Canada it is common for the press to purchase tickets on the Department of Defense plane that the Prime Minister uses to travel internationally, saving them the trouble of trying to make commercial arrangements fit with a usually tight schedule. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this happens in the states as well.

In Canada that means probably another 40 or so passengers; I'm sure there would be even more media along for a trip with the President.

Re:I have to ask

[GreyWolf3000]

You obviously haven't taken vocal lessons for singing contemporary or pop music. Bono's voice is completely out of reach for even people who study voice all their lives. His range is huge, though I don't hear him on the low end as much as the high. You don't know what you're talking about.

Re:I have to ask

[konadelux]

Interestingly enough, when the queen came to visit Canada a few years ago, protocol dictated that the Canadian Government send a plane to pick her up and bring her here. I don't know if that is just a Canadian thing, or if it's a commonwealth country thing, but there it is.

Re:I have to ask

[stoolpigeon]

Yes. In the US there is a large pool of press that travel with the President. They are split between a smaller group in AF1 and a larger group in a second jet. They rotate members so that they all get a fair time in AF1. They pay a lot of money to ride in either. Just read about it in the latest issue of National Geographic.

Re:I have to ask

[Bam359]

9/11

Re:I have to ask

[scjohnno]

That's Change we can fly in.

Re:I have to ask

[ShooterNeo]

Untrue. Poor people can't do anything, because fighting takes organization and planning and hard work and faith in an organization. Religions and irrational thinking breed terrorism. The vast majority of terrorists think irrationally. They have no goal that makes any sense.

Re:I have to ask

[belmolis]

While the President clearly does need something bigger than a two-seater, as I understand it Air Force 1 usually carries a substantial number of journalists in addition to the crew and staff. I suspect that the main purpose of this is to allow the White House to ingratiate itself with journalists and punish those it doesn't like by excluding them, which is not something we need to pay for. On the other hand, I don't know that not bringing along the journalists would allow the plane to be smaller and cheaper.

Re:I have to ask

[rockout]

I think his point was that whatever fixed-wing aircraft the president is flying on, its designation is Air Force One, even if he happens to be flying in a Cessna two-seater. The 747 that we think of when people say "Air Force One" only has that designation when the president is on it.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Untrue. Poor people can't do anything,

A quick look at the every war in the 20th century begs to differ. Germany and Japan before WWII were both poor and suffering. So where are your examples of two rich countries fighting? You'd have to be pretty dense to not see the correlation between poverty and war.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Do a quick a search on Google for poverty and war and stop arguing against the obvious.

Re:I have to ask

[ion.simon.c]

So, who was in command in 1981 when Reagan was shot? Really, I'd like to know.

I don't have the documentation that tells me this.
You've mentioned an uncertain chain of command, but have not even attempted to prove that there is no documentation that defines it.

You're the one who's making baseless assertions. I'm not the one who has anything to prove in this conversation.

Re:I have to ask

[GodfatherofSoul]

Because it's not just the President who rides in it. Aides, secret service, and the press corp that travels with the President. And, Presidential visits are a touchy thing as diplomacy goes. There's the security concerns, scheduling (time is big money and Obama is going to have his hands full for 4 years), logistics for your entourage, as well as the message you send by legitimizing some of these 3rd world leaders.

Re:I have to ask

[Shakrai]

I would hate for the few exceptions in history to sidetrack my general statement.

The "few" exceptions? Western history is filled with examples of well fed populations fighting each other. Do you really want a list of the wars fought in Europe for the last 200 years?

Re:I have to ask

[Shakrai]

the VP can always shoot the President in the head.

When has a sitting Vice President ever got someone in th.... oh, never mind.....

Re:I have to ask

[Shakrai]

The American President doesn't have anywhere near that kind of power.

Thank god.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

You've mentioned an uncertain chain of command, but have not even attempted to prove that there is no documentation that defines it.

Here's a story about it: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/23/60II/main287292.shtml. But let me make it simple for you: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor, got together just after Reagan was shot. The Vice President was, more or less, unreachable while on a plane. So, those two Secretaries and the National Security Advisor, took control of the executive branch. Did they have the authority? Even they disagreed. But those three were giving orders to the military.

Let me make it clear. Even those three knew that they probably didn't have the power they were claiming. The problem was, no one else did either. So they took it. If the top cabinet officers and the National Security Advisor had no clear idea what the plan was in those circumstances, I don't think anyone else did either.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Most were fought during times of poverty. WWI and WWII were both started by impoverished nations.

The "few" exceptions? Western history is filled with examples of well fed populations fighting each other. Do you really want a list of the wars fought in Europe for the last 200 years?

Since you ask, I would like you to name at least 5 wars between two wealthy nations. You can use the history of mankind if it makes it any easier.

Re:I have to ask

[MartinSchou]

Why not just have him fly around in an SR-71? It's FAST, it has mid-air refueling capability, it's FAST, it can land pretty much every and did I mention that it's FAST?

Re:I have to ask

[ion.simon.c]

It sounds like they didn't have a plan at all. It seems like I was ignorant of the state of our CnC structure back then. Touche.

However, this seems to tie into my "You can't have a solid CoC that's populated by nutters" comment, even if the guy doesn't seem like that much of a nutter.

It also sounds like a plan would have been cooked post-haste. So, more topically, what do you know about the present day chain of command? (The only one that matters, really, as your comment about the present day CoC seems to have been informed by a twenty-year-old gaffe.)

Re:I have to ask

[ScrewMaster]

Untrue. Poor people can't do anything,

A quick look at the every war in the 20th century begs to differ. Germany and Japan before WWII were both poor and suffering. So where are your examples of two rich countries fighting? You'd have to be pretty dense to not see the correlation between poverty and war.

I'd go a step further and say that pretty much all wars are economic at the core. Somebody has something that somebody else wants ... and that somebody else decides to take it. Really, it's not much more complex than that. The converse is generally not true: rich countries (i.e., people who have something to lose) generally don't go after poor countries, because they don't have anything worth taking.

Re:I have to ask

[ScrewMaster]

Please. I know from extended studies of Dr Who that the British don't even notice when their prime minister is abducted by blubbery, farting aliens.

Yes, and they also fire beam weapons derived from alien technology at departing alien spacecraft.

Re:I have to ask

[ScrewMaster]

Not to mention a fully functional ER, gym, press cabin, offices for WH Sr. Staff, a kitchen and enough food to last weeks without landing.

I believe you meant "weeks without leaving the plane." Jet aircraft don't fly for weeks: it's not like they're atomic-powered or something. That would be cool though: I remember the Air Force was experimenting with that back in the fifties, I think.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

So, more topically, what do you know about the present day chain of command? (The only one that matters, really, as your comment about the present day CoC seems to have been informed by a twenty-year-old gaffe.)

Well its really hard to say how our succession plans differ from those in 1981. The last substantive legislation passed on this matter was the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. That sets out the basic continuity plan: President--Vice President--Speaker of the House-- President Pro Tem of the Senate--Cabinet Officers... After 9/11, congress looked into the continuity-of-government issue, set up the Continuity of Government Commission, but nothing really was done regarding Presidential succession. They seemed more worried about the case where the majority of the House of Representatives is wiped out--they have to hold a special election (no appointments, even to temporarily fill the seats until elections can be held). Which is problematic if the budget is about to run out.

Most of the real work done on the issue has been done by the executive branch itself. I know Clinton and G. W. Bush both have people working, almost exclusively, on continuity of government issues. Unfortunately for us, most of their work is classified. So, while I can say that there is probably a better plan in place, I have no idea what it is.

There is also the issue that the 1947 Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. There is debate about whether the Constitution allows congressmen into the line of Presidential succession. So, even if something horrible happens and the Speaker of the House assumes the role of the President, it could be challenged. I don't want to even think about that mess.

Because of the secrecy surrounding current work on Presidential succession plans, I really don't know the details of what would happen today, versus what happened in 1981. I have to imagine there is a better plan in place, what with Cheney spending half his time in an "undisclosed location". Technologically, we have come a long way since 1981. Now, there is almost no chance that the Vice President would be unreachable at any time. So, it would be hard to have a repeat.

However, this seems to tie into my "You can't have a solid CoC that's populated by nutters" comment, even if the guy doesn't seem like that much of a nutter.

I think that each of the men involved, during the time Reagan was shot, had the best interests of the country at heart. I don't think any of them were crazy or power-hungry. Its easy for us to look back at their actions and find fault. But they had no idea what they were dealing with. It could have been a Russian assassination attempt; an attempt to decapitate our chain of command. Someone had to act. The flaw in the system was not that these men acted how they did, but that they had no legal authority to do so.

Re:I have to ask

[MichaelSmith]

I wonder if it actually has an escape capsule? It'd be a great place to send the kids for time out.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

I would like you to name at least 5 wars between two wealthy nations.

1. USA vs Japan (WWII)
2. Germany vs France (Franco-Prussian War)
3. USA vs UK (War of 1812)
4. France vs UK (Napoleonic Wars)
5. France vs UK (Seven Years War)

I guess I didn't stay strictly in the 200 year time-frame, but there you go. I probably could have named five just between UK and France. Seriously, they must hate each other.

Re:I have to ask

[Phroggy]

If the VP had given orders in response to an attack, I doubt many people would be questioning him.

That's exactly my point. The VP could have given orders, and they probably would have been followed. But they shouldn't have been. He had no legal power or authority at that point. No one did.

According to Wikipedia, Vice-President Bush didn't have power only because he chose not to take power, which he had the authority to do (with support of a majority of the Cabinet) under the 25th Amendment.

Re:I have to ask

[master_p]

It's time to put some freakin' lasers on the AF1...

Re:I have to ask

[frdmfghtr]

Bad form to reply to oneself, but I watched the History Channel show again last night, and it's two planes, not three, that fly as Air Force One--one is Air Force One, and one backup. The rest of the entourage flies ahead in various Air Force transports, carrying along the advance team, presidential vehicles, etc.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

1. USA vs Japan (WWII)

The world was in a global Great Depression.

2. Germany vs France (Franco-Prussian War)

Check out this article written 20 days before the start of that war.

3. USA vs UK (War of 1812)

"Failing in peaceful efforts and facing an economic depression, some Americans began to argue for a declaration of war to redeem the national honor." source

4. France vs UK (Napoleonic Wars)

"It has been estimated that in France and Britain by the end of the [18th] century 10 percent of the people were dependent on charity or begging for food." source

5. France vs UK (Seven Years War)

See rebuke of number 4.

I probably could have named five just between UK and France. Seriously, they must hate each other.

Or they are just near each other and fight every time economic conditions drop.

Re:I have to ask

[johnsonav]

It seems like you are saying that wars always have an economic cause, not that rich nations never fight each other. If you want to argue that economics is a primary cause for virtually all wars, I'll whole-heartedly agree.

Yes, WWII took place during the great depression. But the USA and Japan were still relatively rich nations at the time. Economics was obviously a major cause of that war. But, my point is, economic problems can drive rich nations, as well as poor nations, to war.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Fair enough, the point of my OP was that poverty was a major component in war. It was oversimplified to ask for examples of two rich nations fighting. Perhaps I should have qualified it as rich nations during good times.

But, my point is, economic problems can drive rich nations, as well as poor nations, to war.

I agree.

Re:I have to ask

[Idarubicin]

...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.

Suitable runways actually aren't that hard to come by. Lightly loaded, the 747-8 and the A380 can both take off from a one-mile (1600 meter) runway. Fully-tricked out and at its maximum takeoff weight, the longest runway the 747-8 could require is a bit less than two miles (about 3000 meters).

Any nation that has now (or had in the last couple of decades) the ability to build a few miles of good highway could build a suitable runway. That includes virtually every country on earth, and nearly all of them did.

All of the colored-in countries on this map have at least one paved runway longer than 2400 meters; all could safely land and launch a new 747-8-based Air Force One. (Altogether, 119 countries are on that list, and the data are incomplete - for some reason several countries, including Sweden, South Africa, Spain, and the United States, have been omitted.)

The obstacles associated with Air Force One visits to developing countries are political and security-related, not primarily a technical inability to land.

Re:I have to ask

[drsquare]

They care enough about Palestine to bankroll its destruction.

Re:I have to ask

[drsquare]

Most were fought during times of poverty. WWI and WWII were both started by impoverished nations.

Germany was prosperous when they started the second world war. There's a reason they had such a powerful military infrastructure. Japan was also a powerhouse of its region.

Re:I have to ask

[drsquare]

Well, the queen doesn't actually do anything, does she? And the prime minister doesn't have anywhere near the authority or responsibilities that the POTUS does.

The Queen is commander in chief of the British military, and the prime minster requires Parliament to allow him to go to war, the same way that the President requires Congress to allow him to go to war.

The President is literally the Commander in Chief of the military; he goes incommunicado and before you know it you got Alexander Haig firing missles at Kazakhistan.

This reminds me of the Nazis losing the D-Day landings because they needed Hitler's permission to so much as move the tanks. Maybe there's a lesson there in deifying politicians. Every other country manages its defence without needing a head of state in communication 24/7, unable to so much as take a shit without fifty aides and cabinet members on duty in case the toilet paper runs out. Maybe this is good old fashioned American exceptionalism.

Obviously the Pentagon cannot function in an emergency without the benefit of Obama's vast military experience...

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Germany was prosperous when they started the second world war.

I don't even know how to respond to that, but I'll try by asking this question "What do you think Hitler was blaming the Jewish people for?" Hint: the answer is not bring prosperity to Germany.

Re:I have to ask

[Anpheus]

I have a different definition of government, one that precludes rule without representation and tyranny. I consider petty despots and warlords to not be "government," but exactly what they are. I don't care what name they call themselves or what the traditions are.

That's my definition though, I'm not going to force it on you. Given my definition, martial law isn't a form of government, it's an irrational response to crisis that strips the people of its natural government.

Re:I have to ask

[drsquare]

He blamed them for Germany's problems when he got into power. By the time he started the war, Germany had undergone a complete transformation.

Re:I have to ask

[ShooterNeo]

Ignorant, and false. Both countries developed military forces that rivaled any other nation. The Germans had the most technologically advanced tanks and guns, and the Japanese had considerable naval power, enough to match the United States. (yes, the U.S. soon surged ahead, due to our greater capacity to produce new equipment, but in 1941 this was not the case)

The truth is, both were relatively powerful and wealthy countries by the standards of the time. They were merely suffering an economic recession/depression.

Impoverished African villagers, or Arab religious zealots don't have the ability to develop this kind of military force.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

They were merely suffering an economic recession/depression.

That's my point! I'm not arguing that Germany had no military or technology. I'm arguing that there are almost always economic reasons behind war(i.e. a recession/depression) Economic failure is what makes it possible to consolidate people behind the idea of war, most of the time. People rarely fight when they feel they have something to loose.

Impoverished African villagers, or Arab religious zealots don't have the ability to develop this kind of military force.

And yet western governments consider those Arab religious zealots the single greatest threat to Western Civilization.

I'm curious, do you think the Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with WWII? Do you think it is a complete coincidence that Africa and the Middle East have so much violence and so much poverty? That Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world? That even on a micro level, poor neighborhoods have more violence that rich ones? It may not be the sole cause in all cases, but it is a huge factor, and definitely one used by leaders to mobilize people into war. What was Hitler blaming the Jewish people for after all? Too think poverty does not play a big role in war/violence is beyond ignorant.

Re:I have to ask

[ShooterNeo]

Uh, no, Western governments do not. Only attention seeking unpopular politicians do.

The fact is, 9/11 was minor damage. About as much destruction as a few hours during World War 2. The United States has the capacity to absorb thousands of times as much damage without any real negative effects.

The sensible move to make would have been to spend only as much money to prevent another 9/11 as would be cost effective.

The FAA agrees that a human life is worth about 3 million bucks, and other numbers put the value at 10 million. So, in order to prevent another 9/11 that killed about 3000 people, 30 billion bucks is the spending limit.

30 billion would pay for better airport security, and that's it. That's all we should have done. The rest of the money should have gone to helping prevent more common causes of death that affect MANY more people. Such as heart disease and traffic accidents.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

Uh, no, Western governments do not. Only attention seeking unpopular politicians do.

Uh, no what? What are you arguing here? Who do you think runs Western governments if not unpopular politicians?

The fact is, 9/11 was minor damage. About as much destruction as a few hours during World War 2. The United States has the capacity to absorb thousands of times as much damage without any real negative effects.

It was the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and Hawaii was just a territory at that.

The sensible move to make would have been to spend only as much money to prevent another 9/11 as would be cost effective.

Who said war was sensible?

The FAA agrees that a human life is worth about 3 million bucks, and other numbers put the value at 10 million. So, in order to prevent another 9/11 that killed about 3000 people, 30 billion bucks is the spending limit. 30 billion would pay for better airport security, and that's it. That's all we should have done.

Sure, but we've spent over 20 times that amount.

The rest of the money should have gone to helping prevent more common causes of death that affect MANY more people. Such as heart disease and traffic accidents.

What does this have to do with the link between economic failure and war?

Re:I have to ask

[ShooterNeo]

Ultimately, I am arguing this : we should barely give a shit what poor people, without any real access to serious weaponry, will do. If we were facing a competent enemy, they would have conducted a 9/11 scale assault, or at least attempted one, monthly. But we aren't.

Re:I have to ask

[similar_name]

At a cost of over $600 billion dollars and the erosion of my liberties one 9/11 was enough. I would feel much safer if Pakistan had a more stable economy. Just as a more economically stable China is a safer China. I don't care if you lack any sympathy for poor people, but to dismiss them the way you do seems similar to the confidence Bush had when he invaded IRAQ. Your profanity really says it all though and I'm done debating with you. I'd rather be learning something.

Buy European? No chance.

[Elanthius]

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.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I agree. I also don't think Obama is going to offend his union constituency by flying on a non-US-made aircraft.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

You're wrong. The helicopter replacing Marine One is European. Why wouldn't they do the same for Air Force One?

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides the general uproar it would cause for Air Force One not to be contracted to an American company, Boeing is masterful at compensating for its operational incompetence with its political cunning.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

What does the prime contractor have to do with it? Marine One is contracted to an American company, but the Aircraft is built by a European company.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[johannesg]

If Obama wants to send a strong signal that he is taking Europe serious again he might just do it. And besides, about half of the A380 is built in the US anyway...

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[UnknowingFool]

It probably won't be entirely foreign made given the state of things today. Airplanes these days are made by many people with one main contractor and lots of subcontractors even for the high end military ones. In the case of the KC-X, Northop Grumman was a subcontractor. If Airbus was chosen, I can see some concessions being made that parts of it will be made here in the US, maybe even finally assembly.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[TheAxeMaster]

Because people actually know that AF1 is a Boeing plane. No average american flies on helicopters so they don't know what they are but thousands fly on airliners every day.

That aside, I think the biggest thing they need is a 787 or 777, which are big planes if you've been in one (I have been in both).

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Clueless Moron]

How about Russian? Nothing would say badass as showing up in an An-225 Mriya

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[plasmacutter]

Why wouldn't they look outside the US?

Most of the computer components in our freaking nuclear missiles come from japan and other east asian nations because nobody in the US has the facilities to produce them.

When you consider the national security implications should these nations decide to sever trade in a time of war, it makes air force one look petty.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

I would argue that the average American does not know or care what kind of plane it is.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Albanach]

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.

Oh but they will. They'll look to Airbus to provide a cheaper replacement. They'll leak or even announce that Airbus have won the contract.

Then Congress will investigate the procurement process, find a small flaw, little more will be said and Boeing will eventually build the aircraft.

Airbus are too convenient as away to keep the Boeing price in check. Of course it's unlikely they'll ever win the contract. It's like Toyota building the presidential limo.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[icebrain]

I doubt you'll see the President flying on any twin-engine aircraft outside North America, due to redundancy concerns. The chance of an engine failure on a modern twin is actually somewhat lower than that of a four-engine jet, but with the twin you have to divert to the nearest airport. The quad can keep going on three engines. This isn't a problem for airliners, but the potential security nightmare of AF1 making an unplanned diversion to a foreign airfield would pretty much rule out a twin for overseas flights. Remember, too, that there's a greater-than-normal chance this aircraft will be shot at; seems to me four engines might give it more survivability.

Also remember that this aircraft needs to have all of the C3I gear the President might possibly need, plus support staff and all that. It pretty much narrows it down to the A380 or 747-8. I'm thinking 747 myself; not due to "buy American" concerns (though that will certainly play a part) but rather airport accessibility. The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Dun Malg]

If Airbus was chosen, I can see some concessions being made that parts of it will be made here in the US, maybe even finally assembly.

Doubtful. The EU isn't going to allow a heavily subsidized project like the A380 to be summarily outsourced to the US to any degree simply to sell two of them to the US Air Force.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[LordNimon]

They would if Fox News made a big deal about it.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Hadlock]

On the flip side if it came out that the US is buying a European plane rather than a US made plane I'd be at least somewhat upset. The only way a European substitute would make sense is if the operating cost was at least 33% less than the Boeing equivalent.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Joce640k]

The little black bits inside missiles aren't supposed to be a symbol of Americanism. AF1 is.

When AF1 touches down you're supposed to think "America is in town!" (hurrah!)

So I'm with OP - Hell will freeze over before AF1 is non-Boeing.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Dun Malg]

You're wrong. The helicopter replacing Marine One is European. Why wouldn't they do the same for Air Force One?

Incorrect. The VH-71 Kestrel is based on the US101 airframe, which is a derivative of the European EH101, but it's a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and AgustaWestland and it's being built here in the US by Bell Helicopter.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Hadlock]

What parts of the A380 are made in the US? I was under the assumption that the airframe and engines were made in Europe, as well as being designed there. That's pretty much 100% of it.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Dun Malg]

Lockheed-Martin and Bell Helicopter aren't European companies. AgustaWestland builds the empty airframe and main rotor, but the remaining 64% of the helicopter is built by Bell and Lockheed-Martin.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[DustyShadow]

The airbus tanker was to be built in Alabama. In fact, the facility is either already built or currently under construction. So basically, the plane would have been just as American made as a boeing: all foreign parts and assembled in the US. The only difference is that northrop's plane was better, bigger, proven by use in other countries like Australia and created 25000 new jobs in the US. There was a lot of FUD spread by certain congressmen after northrop won that contract.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

I know that. My point is AgustaWestland is a European company, and is a subcontractor to LM (the prime). People raised a stink because of it, but LM still won the contract.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Dun Malg]

...besides, about half of the A380 is built in the US anyway...

Well.... sort of.... Half the parts and subsystems are from US suppliers, but none of the major assemblies are done here. None of the actual aircraft is built in the US.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.

Nope. One design goal was that the A380 would be able to use precisely the same runways (or shorter) than the 747 and the goal was met. The A380 is, however, considered too big to regularly visit some airports that the 747 can use but that is due to gates and how it will congest taxiing but when did you last see Air Force One docked at a gate or other aircraft permitted nearby? Now, I do think that it will be a cold day in hell when Air Force One is an A380 but that's only because it's such an important national symbol. However, I also think that the A380 is a better aircraft than the 747-8 and the sales figures show it (only one airline order and that was by Boeing's most loyal customer, Lufthansa, and the latest rumors are that they'll exercise their opt-out clause since nobody wants to be a sole operator). Boeing hasn't put that much effort into it either because they've never believed that there's a market for such a giant aircraft as the A380 (let alone two).

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[DustyShadow]

Actually northrop is the lead on that competition and airbus is one of many subcontractors. The ridiculous and money wasting outcry from congress not trusting the air force's decision on that competition leads me to believe there is no way the new air force one will be given to anyone other to boeing. I'd be surprised if airbus even competed for it.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

Again, I know that. Now you're just nitpicking. Besides, try telling Lockheed UK that they aren't a European company. LMSI in Owego, NY is the prime, but LM an International corporation.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Richard_at_work]

There is a real reason Congress had a shit fit with regard to the KC-X beign awarded to Airbus - the *original* tender was a very quick one thrown together in the wake of 9/11, in order to throw Boeing a bone with regard to pork barrel spending (airlines were getting a lot of money at hte same time, but none of them were buying planes with it - they needed the money to survive themselves). This tender fell apart when Boeing and the Pentagon procurement officer in charge of the tender were found guilty of unethical conduct (Darleen Druyun had told Boeing they could inflate their bid, and also gave them indepth information on the Airbus bid at the time). In reality, the KC-135 fleet doesn't need replacing, they just need extra money to refit them.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Richard_at_work]

The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.

Actually the A380 can operate out of as many airfields as the 747 can - the reason it isn't planned to is because of passenger offload and FOD issues (the outer engines overhang taxiways, causing a potential foreign object debris issue, but at these airports the A380 would simply taxi on the inner engines only).

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[frdmfghtr]

On the flip side if it came out that the US is buying a European plane rather than a US made plane I'd be at least somewhat upset. The only way a European substitute would make sense is if the operating cost was at least 33% less than the Boeing equivalent.

There may actually be a legal precedent for not buying a foreign-built plane. I can't recall the name of the law, but I heard there is some law that states that the US military cannot procure capital equipment (ships, aircraft, etc.) from foreign companies. As the planes used to transport the President are Air Force aircraft, I would presume that they must, by law, be procured from US companies.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[nurb432]

If true, that should change too.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[DustyShadow]

She went to prison so it was probably more than just unethical. I believe she was guaranteed a position at boeing before she even left the air force.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Richard_at_work]

Well, for a start there are two engine selections for the A380 - the Rolls Royce Trent 900s, which are made in the UK, and the GP7200, which are a join venture by Pratt & Whitney and GE, and are made in the US.

A lot of the internal components are built in the US, including much of the avionics (Honeywell), the safety systems (escape slides etc from Goodrich), GE and Smiths Aerospace build the main landing gear, Alcan supplies metalwork, Boeing supplies the wingtip fences (via Hawker de Havilland, a Boeing subsidiary), the hydraulic power systems are American (Eaton).... the list goes on and on.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Richard_at_work]

I guess you won't be flying on any 777 or 787 Boeing aircraft then - both are outsourced as much as Airbus aircraft are, and indeed the 787 even moreso.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anspen]

It *is* quote heavily outsourced (as have most Airbus types). A lot of the subcontractors are of course European, but there are plenty of American firms involved.

But a final assembly line is out of the question, not because of the 'subsidized' nature of the airbus (the loans get payed back no matter how Airbus makes its profit) but because it doesn't make economic sense. A second assembly line would only be practical if orders would rise to more than 60 or so per year.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anspen]

Or, alternatively, the combination could work because the language barrier means everything has to be checked extra thoroughly. Instead of yelling across the factory floor "hey bill, are these alright for the new plane?" and assuming the grunt from bill means an acknowledgment. (Yes the last part isn't very realistic, but considering Airbus has been building excellent planes for some thirty years and Boeing is currently making mistake after mistake with the 787 I find the xenophobic, stereotype view of Airbus rather silly).

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Chris Mattern]

But the point is, is that it's American-built. The chances are extremely slim that the Airbus bid will involve an Airbus being built in the US. The chances that the contract will be awarded to a craft not built in the US are nil.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[ThrowAwaySociety]

Incorrect. The VH-71 Kestrel is based on the US101 airframe, which is a derivative of the European EH101, but it's a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and AgustaWestland and it's being built here in the US by Bell Helicopter.

That's the marketing story, yes. Politics demand that any European defense contractor find a US "partner" for a major contract with the US military.

The patriotically-named "US 101" is an Augusta-Westland AW101 with some outsourced manufacturing (Bell & lockheed) and marketing (Lockheed.) The fuselage, rotors, and transmission (pretty much everything ordinary people think of when they hear "helicopter") is built by AW, in Europe. I think, by the ordinary man on the street's definition, that does indeed make it a european helicopter.

AW wins, because they get to sell their product; Bell wins, because their plants are utilized and their workers get paid; Lockheed wins, because they get to skim off the top.

Personally, I'd rather they just cut to the chase and buy the things from AW, but politics won't allow that.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[oiron]

Looking at the bulk of that thing, I think a good voice-over for the video would be Nikita Khrushchev saying "We will bury you"...

Unfortunately, it's not phallic enough to be Air Force One...

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

Not completely. The fuselage and blades are built in the UK. Other components are built in Italy.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[ozamosi]

I'm not so sure "xenophobic" is the right word here, since I've lived all my life (except for the last 4 months) in a Swedish city that's pretty much founded by SAAB Aerotech, and parts of the A380 were engineered in their offices in that city.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Mudd Guy]

My understanding is that a modern twin (777) is less likely to lose one engine than an older quad (747) is to lose three engines. The 777 was more or less required to meet this challenge in order to be certified for over water use.

A 777 certainly does not have to divert to the nearest airport if it loses one engine. After all, the things fly over the Pacific where there are no airports!

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[hcdejong]

The chances are extremely slim that the Airbus bid will involve an Airbus being built in the US.

There is a precedent: one of the two contenders for the USAF's next generation aerial tanker (KC-X project) is the Airbus A330, which would be assembled in the US in Northrop Grumman's factories. Airbus won the contract early in 2008, but Boeing (the other contender) has succeeded in torpedoing the procurement process so the USAF will have to make the decision again early this year.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[ozamosi]

While I don't know many German engineers, I've met plenty of German computer geeks at conferences. There are definitely some that don't speak English (or refuse to), and even more who've got... interesting pronunciation.

But I thought it would be obvious that I'm making fun of stereotypes in grandparent post. The last time I was in Germany, I kept trying to order food in German, but everyone just kept answering me in English when they heard my horrible German - I'm not dumb enough not to understand that if the immigrants who own pizza places speak English, engineers probably do too.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[aztektum]

American plane, European plane; all parts made in Taiwan!

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

LM is doing more than "skimming off the top." Integration, computers, and software are all being done by LM. Integration of a system is always a big job. LM has built a new plant at their Owego, NY site (LMSI), just for this job.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that a modern twin (777) is less likely to lose one engine than an older quad (747) is to lose three engines. The 777 was more or less required to meet this challenge in order to be certified for over water use.

Don't know about the likelihood since maintenance matters so much and the procedures are different for ETOPS flights than others (such as maintenance cycles and requirements that the same mechanics don't maintain both engines etc.).

A 777 certainly does not have to divert to the nearest airport if it loses one engine. After all, the things fly over the Pacific where there are no airports!

Yes, by regulations they do have to divert to the closest airport. Closest doesn't necessarily mean close. Besides, not all routes over the pacific can be flown with any ETOPS certified planes. The regulations are strict since diverting to an airport in the middle of nowhere is costly for airlines and thus one measure through which ETOPS minimizes risks to passengers, is that airlines aren't given any choice. In case of a failure the remaining engine is not only stressed more than usual but the range that the plane can fly is also reduced.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[amabbi]

The airbus tanker was to be built in Alabama. In fact, the facility is either already built or currently under construction. So basically, the plane would have been just as American made as a boeing: all foreign parts and assembled in the US. The only difference is that northrop's plane was better, bigger, proven by use in other countries like Australia and created 25000 new jobs in the US. There was a lot of FUD spread by certain congressmen after northrop won that contract.

The plane was bigger... (and not necessarily in good ways), but everything else in your comment was pretty much BS.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The little black bits inside missiles aren't supposed to be a symbol of Americanism. AF1 is.

When AF1 touches down you're supposed to think "America is in town!" (hurrah!)

Well, you know, that's what people are supposed to think when ICBM's touch down too. Er, without the "hurrah" part. For a very short time.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[amabbi]

The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.

Nope. One design goal was that the A380 would be able to use precisely the same runways (or shorter) than the 747 and the goal was met. The A380 is, however, considered too big to regularly visit some airports that the 747 can use but that is due to gates and how it will congest taxiing but when did you last see Air Force One docked at a gate or other aircraft permitted nearby? Now, I do think that it will be a cold day in hell when Air Force One is an A380 but that's only because it's such an important national symbol. However, I also think that the A380 is a better aircraft than the 747-8 and the sales figures show it (only one airline order and that was by Boeing's most loyal customer, Lufthansa, and the latest rumors are that they'll exercise their opt-out clause since nobody wants to be a sole operator). Boeing hasn't put that much effort into it either because they've never believed that there's a market for such a giant aircraft as the A380 (let alone two).

The grandparent said airfields, not runways. In terms of ground clearance, taxiway clearance, and operational capability, the A380 is limited to several hundred airports across the globe. For instance, the outboard engines on the A380 greatly increase the risk of foreign object debris ingestion and precludes the use of that aircraft in many airports that can safely operate the 747.

The A380 sales figures have been rather pathetic. The 747-8i has been more so, but the 748 freighter has been selling quite well. The sales figures say nothing about how good of an airplane it is, just says that the very large airliner market is limited. Of course, I bet Airbus wishes it knew that before it launched the A380...

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's always nice to be reminded that Europeans can be just as bigoted and nationalistic as Americans can.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Wyatt Earp]

Really? the 747 is pretty iconic as far as airliners go.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Wyatt Earp]

And its over weight, over budget and delayed. Its going to end up costing around a billion dollars a bird and the project is in trouble.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[UU7]

Totally wrong...
"The A380 can land or take off on any runway that can accommodate a Boeing 747. "

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[eclectro]

So the president can take his bowling alley and a hoop court with him??

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[ravenshrike]

Not that big a chance. There is no flipping way the engineers would have allowed a fully FBW system to be used in Air Force One.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[ravenshrike]

Most of the computer components aren't single source applications. They can be programmed to do different things, not just be used in guidance systems for nukes. Not to mention that while they may be produced elsewhere, you can bet your ass that the military has a bunch of CS engineering geeks randomly go over a chip or two to ensure a lack of hardwired rogue instruction sets in the batch.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[ravenshrike]

Yes, checked extra thouroughly.

CATIA debacle On 3 October 2006, Christian Streiff announced that the reason for delay of the Airbus A380 was the use of incompatible software used to design the aircraft. Primarily, the Toulouse assembly plant used the latest version 5 of CATIA (made by Dassault), while the design centre at the Hamburg factory used an older incompatible version 4. Parts of the plane were also designed using Parametric Technology Corporation software. The responsibility for the problem was put on the top management for not placing a high enough priority on forcing the compatible software through all parts of the organization.[25] The result was that the 530km of cables wiring throughout the aircraft had to be completely redesigned.[26] The cost of this debacle is expected to reach $6.1 billion over the next four years. Although none of the orders have been canceled, Airbus will have to pay millions in late-delivery penalties.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#BAE_sale_and_A380_controversy

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[DustyShadow]

Um not really. Maybe you should read up on the topic. There's a reason the air force chose the northrop team.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Solandri]

The A340 is also 4-engined, albeit smaller than a 747. It's a beautiful plane, but the 777 is mopping the floor with it in the market. 2 engines is more efficient than 4.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[INT_QRK]

Not so fast. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_One, which says that the new Marine One Presidential Helo replacement is the the VH-71 Kestrel, a derivative of the AgustaWestland EH101, a UK/IT product.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

The AF1 will certainly be a modified 777. The 787 is probably too small and too new. It would be easier to install extra equipment such as advanced radar, antennas, countermeasures etc in the 777-fuselage than inside the smaller 787-fuselage. The two engine issue is only an issue if an engine fails - which it won't - because it will receive ridiculously perfect care between flights.

The mentioning of A380 is nothing more than a call for a rebate from Boeing. Unless the top Boeing officials somehow insults the USAF officials in the most unimaginable and extreme ways, while the skies fill up from horizon to horizon with flying pigs, etc, etc.

But it will be a fun job for the Airbus folks that get to draw up the (mostly pointless) design proposal of a AF1-A380. Maybe they can sell one to the EU president. If the Lisbon agreement ever passes, that is.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anspen]

I wasn't trying to argue that Airbus was perfect, they make mistakes, just like Boeing. However this example does show why the combination of four different airplane builders works: strong compartmentalization and good software which combine different subprojects. The error was stupid (incompatible word documents happens often enough that they might have though about the possibility sooner). Still the fact remains that Airbus planes have been as safe as BOeing ones (safer if you unfairly add the pre-A300 boeing planes).

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[deniable]

I wouldn't call selection by the RAAF as being proven in use in Australia. Wait, you said countries like Australia. Which countries are those then?

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anspen]

Well, you were arguing that all French support was by definition awful. Unless you were actually French that seems quite xenophobic. Or anti non Swedish/American perhaps but there's a lack of a good descriptive for that.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[slashtivus]

The 747 was the "Queen of the Skies" for almost 40 years. It has a very recognizable profile. Every flight I have ever been on has always announced the make and model of aircraft we were on.

Some of the less produced or obscure aircraft may not be known, but the 747 is definitely an exception to that.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Anspen]

I wouldn't call the sales numbers on the A380 pathetic. There's a backlog of almost 200 planes, which means the soonest you can get one if you order it now is 2013. Furthermore to total market for a plane of this size is much smaller than for something like the A320 or even Boeing 777. It has been estimated at between 500 (Boeing trying to discourage Airbus) and 1000 (Airbus overestimating for PR purposes) aircraft. So it's doing fine so far.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[slashtivus]

Yep, If they just want a giant / spacious chopper for the president then they should just have ordered a pretty-painted Chinook :) Proven, developed (far cheaper) and reliable.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Wyatt Earp]

Yes, a CH-47 or why not a CH-53E Super Stallion variant?

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[T-Ranger]

"Built" means what, exactly? Components are built both in Italy and the UK; the airframe is assembled in Yeovil. Maybe the electronics suit is bolted on somewhere in the USA, but the bulk of it is European.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

Whether or not a 747 itself is recognizable, I won't argue, and isn't my point. Walk up to random person on the street and ask them what kind of plane is used as Air Force One, and I doubt many of them will know the answer.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[slashtivus]

Sweet, did not know about those. Seems like we agree though, an already developed military chopper would be a good choice to cart the President around. :)

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[slashtivus]

I might be unusual, but I do know some rather mundane people (mundane = common folk like myself), and Yes, they would actually know that the President is flying a 747. "Queen of the Sky" and all that ... Sorry, but I must disagree with you on this one.

Cheers.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Wyatt Earp]

Especially since they already use a VIP version of the H-3. I don't think the Kestrel will be a good fit to replace both the H-60 and H-3.

The fully operational VH-71B, won't be out till '17 at this timeline, why not just use a brand new H-60M till the CH-53K is out?

I trust United Technologies schedules more than LM's Kestrel schedule.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[slashtivus]

I would not be suprised to see the VH project canceled. Who knows what will happen after that. We seem to agree that already deployed aircraft are more that suitable for the task at hand. 11.7 billion for the VH program... and only 21 deliverables... yikes.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[HistoryNerd]

Actually the A380 can operate out of as many airfields as the 747 can - the reason it isn't planned to is because of passenger offload and FOD issues (the outer engines overhang taxiways, causing a potential foreign object debris issue, but at these airports the A380 would simply taxi on the inner engines only).

This is incorrect.

I don't know if the taxing on inner engines is really viable, but there are other problems at some airports. (The odd thing is enlarging taxiways appears to have been treated as mandatory for all airports getting the A380, and you think some would just resort to the alternative you suggested if it was really safe and perfectly viable without problems.)

However there are additional issues at some US airports for instance...

Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles.

Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050215/ai_n11501106/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1/

Basically reinforcing the tunnels to handle the A380s weight is something which certainly won't get done unless an airport is seeing regular A380 service. Similar situations exist at a variety of airports in which runways go over roads. However not being able to use various airports is a serious limitation for Air Force One which will regularly get used wherever the US President wants to fly somewhere. It also is a potential issue in that it limits the number of locations the aircraft can ultimately choose to land in an emergency situation.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Dun Malg]

You're completely wrong. We do it all the time.

No we don't. If it's anything bigger than a truck, we license the design and produce the majority of it using domestic subcontractors. The most you'll see of "foreign procured" weapons systems is something like the USMC IFAV, which is a militarized Mercedes Benz 290 built by Magna-Steyr.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Ozymandias_KoK]

It also quite clearly states them being built under license by Lockheed Martin, a US company.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[plasmacutter]

that's not the issue.

our smart weapons use these components.

in the event of a full scale war in which these nations break off diplomatic ties (japan in particular is very pacifist) and/or impose embargoes, we would end up positively screwed in our capacity to make war because we have no domestic production facilities for these chips.

This differs from, say, our "dependence" on foreign oil because we deliberately keep untapped strategic reserves in case of such an eventuality.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Richard_at_work]

This is incorrect.

I don't know if the taxing on inner engines is really viable, but there are other problems at some airports. (The odd thing is enlarging taxiways appears to have been treated as mandatory for all airports getting the A380, and you think some would just resort to the alternative you suggested if it was really safe and perfectly viable without problems.)

It is completely correct - the reason why widening the taxiway is preferred is because always taxiing on the inner engines would place extra wear and tear on those engines, which is uneconomical in the long term but would be perfectly acceptable in a diversion.

However there are additional issues at some US airports for instance...

Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles.

Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050215/ai_n11501106/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1/

Basically reinforcing the tunnels to handle the A380s weight is something which certainly won't get done unless an airport is seeing regular A380 service. Similar situations exist at a variety of airports in which runways go over roads. However not being able to use various airports is a serious limitation for Air Force One which will regularly get used wherever the US President wants to fly somewhere. It also is a potential issue in that it limits the number of locations the aircraft can ultimately choose to land in an emergency situation.

Randall Walker needs to look at his data - Las Vegas already takes 777-300ER aircraft and that aircraft has a higher weight footprint than the A380 does. If the tunnels can take the 777-300ER, then they can take the A380.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[rah1420]

I remember seeing a documentary called "First Flight" which detailed how they went about designing and building the 777. They were interviewing a Boeing engineer, ISTR, to talk about the whole number-of-engines versus ETOPS (Extended Twin Engine Ops) time, which had to be increased for the 777 to allow a greater 'envelope' of airports to divert to.) According to this source, the 777 is now at ETOPS-207, a very enviable range.

One of the (imperfectly remembered) memorable quotes from this engineer was in a response to an interviewer's question: "Why do we [sometimes] have four engines on the wing of a plane? Because there's no room to fit 5." The rationale being that more engines raise a comfort level for a pilot, but they also of course raise complexity and maintenance concerns.

For a commercial airliner, ETOPS-207 or even ETOPS-240 is satisfactory. For the plane carrying the President, it is probably not.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[HistoryNerd]

It is completely correct - the reason why widening the taxiway is preferred is because always taxiing on the inner engines would place extra wear and tear on those engines, which is uneconomical in the long term but would be perfectly acceptable in a diversion.

You appear to be missing a major reason this is a key problem in the case of a potential Air Force One. Air Force One is actually going to pretty regularly fly to various airports all around the world, only a few of which are actually likely to see A380 scheduled service. When he's not flying to a location such as Paris or London it becomes quite likely this issue will come up. The President also has a variety of reason including political campaigning which can lead him to fly to all sorts of airports in the US, of which only a quite small number will be seeing A380 service anytime soon. Even as simply a maintenance issue it would be a major liability, and an engine going out at the wrong time could be somewhat of a security issue. (Among other things you don't want to take off with only three functioning engines and there are potentially times in which it can be important for the President to be able ti get in the air quickly.) The airport accessibility concern in this case is about way more than just an exceptional diversion.

Randall Walker needs to look at his data - Las Vegas already takes 777-300ER aircraft and that aircraft has a higher weight footprint than the A380 does. If the tunnels can take the 777-300ER, then they can take the A380.

The problem is not the individual pound per square inch exerted per wheel which the A380 does effectively deal with, but the TOTAL weight and the strain it potentially puts on the tunnel structure. A tunnel can potentially take the pounds per square inch just fine, but collapse due to the substantially greater total weight placed by the A380. If you read the article I linked to, LAX didn't upgrade underground structures specifically to accommodate the A380 for the heck of it, they did so because they calculated it was necessary to do so due to the greater weight of the plane involved. (The 777-300ER has been flying into Los Angeles International Airport for awhile.)

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[Richard_at_work]

You appear to be missing a major reason this is a key problem in the case of a potential Air Force One. Air Force One is actually going to pretty regularly fly to various airports all around the world, only a few of which are actually likely to see A380 scheduled service.

I'm not ignoring that at all - my point is is that the reason it is not done in *commercial* service is because of uneconomical wear and tear. The usage of AF1 would never, ever see this as an issue, because its nowhere near the frequency that it would be in commercial service.

The problem is not the individual pound per square inch exerted per wheel which the A380 does effectively deal with, but the TOTAL weight and the strain it potentially puts on the tunnel structure. A tunnel can potentially take the pounds per square inch just fine, but collapse due to the substantially greater total weight placed by the A380. If you read the article I linked to, LAX didn't upgrade underground structures specifically to accommodate the A380 for the heck of it, they did so because they calculated it was necessary to do so due to the greater weight of the plane involved. (The 777-300ER has been flying into Los Angeles International Airport for awhile.)

The problem *is* the individual pound per square inch, not the overall weight on the structure - LAX updated their tunnels because they also removed the 'do not stop' restrictions on the taxiways above the tunnels for all aircraft, which allows them to stack more aircraft on taxiways and thus increase capacity.

If it can take the 777-300ER, it can take the A380-800.

Yes, I am heavily involved in the aviation scene.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[icebrain]

As someone pointed out elsewhere, just because the runway is large to handle the aircraft doesn't mean it's strong enough, or that the taxiways, facilities, and other parts can accommodate it. If the taxiways aren't wide enough or strong enough, the ramp not big enough... you're out of luck. Taxiway width is of a particular concern for the A380; the outboard engines are so far off centerline that they hang beyond the edges of most taxiways. You run a greater risk of sucking up dirt, rocks, trash, and other things than you do if the engines are over pavement.

There's precedent for this; the A340-600 is prohibited from some airports (or parts thereof) not due to weight, but because it's so long that it can't make the turns on taxiways and things.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[meringuoid]

Walk up to random person on the street and ask them what kind of plane is used as Air Force One, and I doubt many of them will know the answer.

But they'd probably guess, and guess correctly, since the 747 is likely to be the first one to come to mind when you ask someone to name an airliner.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drxenos]

Sure, if you gave them a nice hint like that ("name an airliner"). I didn't say "name an airliner." I said, "what kind of plane is used as Air Force One." I work in avionics, and I don't believe a lot of my colleagues know the answer.

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[drsquare]

Surely this depends on the engines rather than the plane?

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[amabbi]

The fact of the matter is, an A-330 sized airliner is far too big as a 1-to-1 replacement for the KC-135. Hell, the KC-45 is far too big as a *KC-10* replacement, much less a KC-135. The GAO upheld Boeing's claim that the USAF did not judge the competition based on its own rules, and decided suddenly that they DID want an aircraft the size of the A-330 only after the proposals were submitted by Boeing and Northrup. In which case, the 777 kinda kicks both airplanes out of the water...

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[afidel]

Aren't the GP7200's the more efficient (better) engine for the A380?

Re:Buy European? No chance.

[bjb]

This has bothered me for a while. Sikorsky Helicopter has been producing the presidential helicopter (Marine One) for the last 50 years or so. Under the Bush presidency, he made a deal to switch to a British model (Airbus? Can't quite remember). There is no advantage to the UK model over the Sikorsky S-92 that has been used over the last several years other than a 3rd engine (instead of two), however, engineers agree that the 3rd engine is unnecessarily redundant since the S-92 can run perfectly well with only a single engine.

Technical details aside, I'm really more disappointed in the fact that this is a vehicle used by the president of the USA and it is NOT American. I don't mind if Joe Consumer drives a Toyota, but the President? C'mon, you better show your American Pride and drive/fly/buy American, especially when it comes to the vehicle that has our presidential seal on it!

I would imagine that it must have been purely political to get some kind of deal with a foreign party. Who knows.

19 isn't THAT old

[Leebert]

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... :)

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[couchslug]

I suspect that, as with fighters, the electronics and defensive systems are what is driving the replacement. Being able to fly the old bird until the new one is built eliminates the downtime of rebuilding the old aircraft.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[thesandbender]

Air Force one isn't flown like a normal passenger jet. One key difference is they always land with enough fuel to take off and get to a safe location (preferably a US or friendly military base). Landing overweight like this is extremely stressful on the plane's airframe. That's why you see commercial jets dump or burn off fuel before an emergency landing. Another problem is that, since there are only 2 and both have to be available 24-7, upgrading them is really not possible. For example, if they were to re-engine them they would have to pull one off the line and spend months doing the refit and testing.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[bds1986]

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... :)

The RFP from USAF Material Command requested an in-service date of 2017. And that's assuming it goes smoothly.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[TubeSteak]

Another problem is that, since there are only 2 and both have to be available 24-7, upgrading them is really not possible. For example, if they were to re-engine them they would have to pull one off the line and spend months doing the refit and testing.

The expression 'why buy one when you can buy two for twice the price' led me to cynically think:
"Well the solution to that problem is simple, buy three."

Then I RTFA

The USAF posted a request for information for market sources that can provide three widebody aircraft to replace two, 19-year-old VC-25s, which are converted Boeing 747-200s.

::facepalm::

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[Joce640k]

>"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...

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[Richard_at_work]

Ahem, no - all aircraft have a Maximum Landing Weight (MLW), which is why you see aircraft dumping fuel in emergencies. The VC-25s do not land at anywhere near their MLW weight, so they have absolutely no more stress placed on them than any other airliner in the world.

Also, commercial airliners are operated at a much higher frequency than the VC-25s are, usually two or three times a day - commercial airliners have a lot more stress placed on their airframes than the VC-25s do.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[encoderer]

Also, doesn't it make more sense to think that they dump their fuel on emergency landings so it doesn't, you know, blow up?

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[Wyatt Earp]

They are announcing the RFP now, for a 2017 replacement. At which time the VC-25s will be 27 years old.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[Solandri]

I'll add that the primary form of stress on airframes is the cabin pressurization each time it flies at altitude. Unlike steel, aluminum does not have a regime where it does not suffer metal fatigue. That is, with steel, if you make it a certain strength, you can subject it to cyclical stress loads an infinite amount of times and it will still hold. But with aluminum, each cycle weakens it (fatigues the metal) no matter how strong you make it, and it eventually fails.

Each time you pressurize the cabin, that subjects the aluminum skin to one cycle. Enough cycles and the aluminum will fail. Modern passenger aircraft are typically designed to last several tens of thousands of such pressurization cycles. Once they reach the design limit, the airframes are retired and chopped up to discourage anyone who might get the not-so-bright idea of returning one of these airframes into service.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[Richard_at_work]

Each time you pressurize the cabin, that subjects the aluminum skin to one cycle. Enough cycles and the aluminum will fail. Modern passenger aircraft are typically designed to last several tens of thousands of such pressurization cycles. Once they reach the design limit, the airframes are retired and chopped up to discourage anyone who might get the not-so-bright idea of returning one of these airframes into service.

Just to expand on this - you can extend the number of cycles an airframe is allowed, but the process essentially strips the aircraft down completely and rebuilds it, so its very expensive.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[salimma]

I'm surprised they didn't already have three planes. They procured the current VC-20s, what, during the height of the Cold War? The extra spending would not be that significant.

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[r00t]

top up before landing

Re:19 isn't THAT old

[MtViewGuy]

In fact, the VC-25A's are kept in far better mechanical condition than any 747 ever in service, mostly because of lower takeoff and landing cycles (takeoffs and landings put a huge load of stress on an airframe) and the fact the VC-25A gets far more mechanical inspections and service than what even a good airline like Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific Airways does with their 747's.

A far more likely project would be to re-wing the VC-25A with essentially the 747-400 wing (including winglets) and replace the GE F103 (aka. GE CF6-80C2B1) engines with the GENx engine, both of which will substantially cut fuel consumption and may allow the VC-25A to fly over 8,000 nautical miles (still air range) unrefuelled.

What makes Air Force One

[Clueless Moron]

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?

Re:What makes Air Force One

[jschen]

Actually, Air Force One is the call sign only if the aircraft is an Air Force aircraft. Other potential names include Navy One (for example, when Bush landed on an aircraft carrier), Marine One, and Army One (for obvious reasons). If not flown by the armed services, the call sign would be Executive One. And yes, when not flying the president or the vice president (Air Force Two in that case), the planes would be referred to simply by tail numbers.

Re:What makes Air Force One

[SoundGuyNoise]

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.

Re:What makes Air Force One

[HungWeiLo]

So what was Marilyn Monroe's callsign during the Kennedy administration?

Re:What makes Air Force One

[TBoon]

Too long. "Target One" will have to do.

Re:What makes Air Force One

[istartedi]

Indeed, "Marine One" is referred to quite frequently. It's the president's helicopter. There are at least 3 of them in service, AFAIK. I learned this when GWB landed at the White House one day while I was walking by. Three choppers were flying around, and at the last minute the decoys pealed away and the real one landed. They all had the proper paint job though.

I moved away from DC; but I do miss it sometimes. The funniest thing in recent memory was when one of the Marine One choppers was flying east along U st., away from the White House. A guy on the street, a total stranger, said "You're going the wrong way!". Several other strangers laughed.

Re:What makes Air Force One

[SteveFoerster]

Indeed, which is why when President Bill Pullman gets into a F-15 to help fight the aliens in Independence Day its call sign becomes Air Force One.

Re:What makes Air Force One

[toddestan]

Depends on who owns the Cessna 172. The US Air force and Army both operate 172's, though the militarized version is called the T-41 Mescalero. They are typically used as trainers.

Re:What makes Air Force One

[MichaelSmith]

ATC systems in my experience can identify an aircraft both by aircraft ID (ACID) or registration. Normally the registration will be the tail number. For an airliner the ACID may be the flight number.

I am sure a change of ACID can be accommodated as long as the registration remains the same.

We're Americans, for gods sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

You went to the Moon with Nazi technology, so why won't you put the POTUS on an Europear air craft?

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[jo_ham]

Well, he didn't get a Concorde because, while it can fly faster and higher than a 747, it is *very* small compared to the jumbo, so has no room for all the advisors, radars, communication equipment, etc etc, and also requires considerably more fuel stops than a 747, so it is either hobbled anyway by having to fly near to (or between) tanker aircraft, or it has to keep landing.

No, there's far more sensible reasons not to use a Concorde as a flying command station that doubles as an airtaxi, and none of them are "it's not made by America!".

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[Detritus]

I've heard rumors that many government procurement managers are really pissed off at Boeing, and are more than willing to consider alternatives.

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[mike260]

What would it say about the US aircraft industry if he travelled in a foreign airliner?

It would say that Airbus met their needs better than Boeing, by a big margin.

But yeah, this is clearly meant to light a fire under Boeing.

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[Alinabi]

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 would say that he is the head of a responsible government who does not like to waste taxpayer money on obsolete technology.

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[thethibs]

Because they were our nazis.

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[Shag]

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."

Re:We're Americans, for gods sake...

[Moofie]

What obsolete technology is that?

Change

[danwesnor]

Obama's giving us change alright. He buys a new plane, we get to keep the change.

Re:Change

[MightyYar]

You realize this request has gone out during the BUSH administration, right? For all we know, Obama's very first act could be to scuttle plans for a new plane.

Re:Change

[Firethorn]

You do realize that even if it goes forward as planned it's not going to enter service until Obama is on his way out, even assuming he's a two term president? (Delivery of first craft in 2017). Well, he might get to fly on it for his last presidential flight. ;)

Assuming all goes well.

Re:Change

[MightyYar]

That's an even better reason for the parent poster to STFU :)

I'm so sick of the "blame Bush for everything" posts after 8 years, and here he goes and starts blaming Obama before he's even done anything! Partisans tend to piss me off, I guess.

Re:Change

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Change

[danwesnor]

Above, please find a list of people who can't either can't recognize a joke, or can't take one.

A380?

[johannesg]

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 ;-)

A380 is not likely

[stox]

It won't fit at most airports due to its dimensions. I suspect that would be too limiting for Air Force One.

Re:A380 is not likely

[vally_manea]

Judging by what you are saying nobody should buy the A380 because it cannot land on most airports yet to quote from the wikipedia page

The A380 can land or take off on any runway that can accommodate a Boeing 747

Re:A380 is not likely

[ceejayoz]

It won't fit at most airports due to its dimensions. I suspect that would be too limiting for Air Force One.

The problem with A380s is with jetways for boarding and disembarking. As Air Force One doesn't use jetways - they use the tarmac stairs - that's not a problem.

Any runway that can take a 747 can take an A380, even if the terminal can't handle the dual deck.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Ground_operations

Re:A380 is not likely

[wvmarle]

The A380 can land and take off from any landing strip a 747 can use (this is by design). So it can land at any airport where the current presidential craft can land. It needs the dimensions of the runway a 747 needs, and even though it has a higher total weight, it also has more wheels so the pressure per wheel is less than a 747. The tarmac won't be damaged by the A380 if it can handle a 747.

What it can not do (and in case of Air Force One doesn't need) on all those airports is connecting to the gates. The presidential plane will always be parked on a safe location in the airport, not at a gate.

Re:A380 is not likely

[Aphrika]

That's not actually true as of mid-2007. An A380 can land at any airport that can take a 747 - the restrictions in force were FAA and EASA regulations which have since been lifted.

Sure minor runway signage and lighting may need to be moved at some airports, but major issues such as the A380s size and weight (it's got more wheels so ground pressure is reduced) aren't as big a problem as was first made out.

Re:A380 is not likely

[the_other_chewey]

[The A380] won't fit at most airports due to its dimensions. I suspect that would be too limiting for Air Force One.

This is wrong. The A380 was specifically designed to fit into the standard 80mx80m box.
So it will fit every airport that can accept a 747.

Its weight can be a problem though, some taxiways are not designed for that high a load.
Most major airports have since long been upgraded however, and a lot are still following.

So, no, the size is no problem.

Re:A380 is not likely

[stox]

The issue is not runway length, but the size from wingtip to wingtip. Many airports do not have the necessary clearance to allow the plane to taxi off the runway. I don't think people would be too happy if a runway had to be shut down so Air Force One could park on it.

Re:A380 is not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

And since it was on Wikipedia it must be true.

I work for a US airport that sees Boeing 747s on a regular basis but cannot handle Airbus A380s due to signage/lighting clearance issues as well as taxiway width issues. The cost to update our infrastructure (not including terminal/jetway modifications) is comfortably in the 8 figure range.

Re:A380 is not likely

[syousef]

Please explain then why the airport in Sydney Australia had to be lengthened specifically to accomodate the A380. Whereas we've had 747s landing here for decades.

Re:A380 is not likely

[ceejayoz]

The BBC says Sydney had to strengthen a tunnel under a runway and realign a few taxiways. I can't find anything on runway expansion specifically for A380s at Sydney.

Wikipedia lists the A380's max-weight takeoff roll as being shorter than a 747-400 (by more than a thousand feet for a 747-400ER).

Even if it's second best, buy American!

[afc_wimbledon]

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.

Re:Even if it's second best, buy American!

[lee1026]

quite frankly, one plane every 20 or so years is not going permit any company to be lazy.

Re:Even if it's second best, buy American!

[Anonymous Coward]

...but if you protect your industries from competition like this, you will end up with inferior products and services...

A good example of this would be giving taxpayer-backed loans to a domestic aerospace company, which only have to be repaid if the product they are designing makes money: you end up with an over-priced monstrosity that not many airlines want to buy because it does not fit with the emerging business model for airline transport (more, smaller direct flights). That's how the A380 was produced.

...and failing domestic industries.

This part doesn't really happen, though. As I mentioned above, Airbus doesn't have to pay back those government loans because the A380 was a flop (even after all currently projected units are sold, it will lose money). So, the European "domestic" aerospace industry isn't failing, but rather European taxpayers are taking the hit. For a similar scenario, this time with the "loans" given after the fact, see "Big Three."

Re:Even if it's second best, buy American!

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

European replacement a possibility

[hachete]

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.

Re:European replacement a possibility

[PortWineBoy]

They lost that deal as soon as they made it. It's effectively dead.

Gee, what are the odds?

[koelpien]

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...

Is an A380 big enough?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

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?

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[johnsonav]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Enderandrew]

I had a buddy in the Air Force stationed on Offutt who (previous to 9-11) took me on base and showed me the 4 VC-25's they had, each a working replica of Air Force One. They had to be ready to be mobile command centers if there was ever a major attack on American soil. He said it was SOP that in the event of an attack on American soil, top military brass that could make it, along with the President, would converge at these plans, take off, and then spread to the four corners. They would run the country from the air.

Sure enough, on 9/11, the President "disappeared" for a while, but us locals in Omaha just went down to Offutt, watched Air Force One come in, and then the other four VC-25's took off.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Wyatt Earp]

Offutt has E-4s, a 747 command post, which are not VC-25s

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[SnowZero]

Obama would get a big +1 from me if he pressures them to figure out how to make a 737 suffice instead of a 747, or even bigger 380. He could say something like "I will make due with my closest 20 advisors, rather than 50". The best part is, it'd mostly be the next president that would have to deal with it, so it's a win-win for him. If change and efficiency are real, let's start showing it.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[johnsonav]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[CheeseTroll]

I found it interesting that the president is actually charged (a lot) for meals provided by the white house staff, except for state-dinners.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[mabhatter654]

Considering CEOs of GM and Ford are in charge of companies that rank above the populace and wealth of many nations in the UN private air travel isn't that big a deal. They're time to the company is worth tens of thousands of dollars...more than any congresscritter's waiting at a public airport is a real waste of financial resources.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Henry V .009]

I think that the Presidential transportation should be a garbage truck. He'd have to ride in the back, of course. And we'd have it make pickups as it carts him around. That would give everybody the right idea.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[johnsonav]

Are you suggesting that POTUS's time is worth 8.7 TRILLION dollars a year?

$1,000,000 per hour * 8760 hr/year = 8.7 billion.

Yeah, I do. When a guy, with the stroke of a pen, can authorize (or veto) $700 billion in new spending, start wars which cost tens of billions a month, and negotiate trade deals (like NAFTA) worth trillions; then, yeah, I would say his time is worth a million dollars an hour.

Having basic amenities taken care of is not the same thing as hedonistic perks like a bowling alley in your basement.

The bowling alley, and most of the other perks in the White House, was not paid for with taxpayer money.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[vidarh]

Just because I feel like being a pedant: The US covers less than 7% of the worlds land mass and less than 2% of the globe. Don't know where you got "a quarter of the globe" from unless you're envisaging an occupation of Russia and Canada or something.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

I was thinking about how far somebody would have to travel to visit any point of the USA. Hawaii increases the travel distance substantially.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[gfxguy]

I disagree... I think the president needs to be constantly reminded of the people he's working for, not isolated and treated like royalty.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[oliderid]

Well being European I would find it quite laughable to see the US president using an European plane for his official travels.

What truly matters IMHO is the symbol. A politician has to promote his national industry, European are already in charged of their own products and they don't need any help :-)

Why can't they wait a little bit more for the next Boeing dreamliner or if they need so much space why can't they use the last 747 (upgraded) version?

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[westlake]

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 President has always been both chief executive and the ceremonial head of state. The "royal treatment" begins with Washington. But no President has ever lived on the scale of The Sun King.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[symbolic]

Kudos for a well-reasoned, well-written response. My whole thing is that I think they're paid far too much as it is. However, based on your argument, even if it's only $1 million, it might still make sense to maximize the productive use of their time- which sounds very reasonable.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

Whether or not the current CEOs are worth the money paid to them is something of a different argument. In many cases, just like for the POTUS, you never now the complete ramifications of any given president until well after they've left office.

For example, I believe that most of the union deals/labor contracts predate the current CEOs of the big three. You also have unhealthy amounts of 'good ol'boy' and 'star pitcher' syndrome. By that I mean that they select people they know, but also go after 'the best', paying in competition whatever they have to to get 'the best'. Note: The best is subjective and hard to measure. It inflates costs.

Of course, I'm at the point that the Big three executive boards could walk onto a used car lot and end up paying the new car retail price for a used one. Horrible, horrible, bargaining skills.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[gfxguy]

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."

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Shakrai]

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......

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

Heh, good point about the employers. I misread it as 'employees' first, and started to say 'more like 300 million employers'. Ah well... Doesn't change the fact that he's responsible to and for all US citizens.

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."

Great, fine, dandy, but not many cultures think this way. In many cultures the president, as the head of government, is seen as the representative of his people - and what people couldn't afford to nicely appoint their representative, their head of government?

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[ScrewMaster]

There's also the security angle. If you assume that the CEO is actually important to the survival of a corporation (I know, that's not necessarily a given) you certainly don't want him flying coach, or driving somewhere by himself. He's a target, for ransoming if not worse.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[juan2074]

Speaking of Canada, why not get the next president a Bombardier Global Express XRS?

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[drsquare]

Maybe then the problem is putting so much power and responsibility into one single person. I'm not sure what the president does that is worth a million dollars an hour, that couldn't be done by someone worth a thousand dollars an hour.

There's an argument to be made that politicians who have every whim catered for and who live in a bubble surrounded by thousands of servants, aides and sycophants cannot possibly understand the real world, and end up making all sorts of ridiculous decisions influenced by lobbyists (the only people who get to regularly interact with them), simply because they know no better.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[smithmc]

When somebody is that valuable, it makes sense.

How valuable are these guys when they're busy running their companies into the ground? Given the state of the US auto industry, they should make these guys walk instead of flying.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Sj0]

Explain the benefit of the aforementioned top-end table. How will the president be better served by this table than a 100 dollar office table commonly found in meeting rooms?

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Sj0]

If you think that George W. Bush aged 16-24 years, you're living in a dream world.

The man was 55 when he became president, and now he's around 62. Have you ever actually seen someone age, or are you just completely ignorant of the fact that people look older after a long period of time has passed?

If you think Bush looks 70 or 80, I think you need to meet some 70 or 80 year olds.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[johnsonav]

How will the president be better served by this table than a 100 dollar office table commonly found in meeting rooms?

Having a top end table, and all the other luxurious items on Air Force One, allows the plane to be used as a mobile meeting room for heads of state. AF1, as it is currently appointed, is fit for any world leader, from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, to the Pope, to the British PM. The President never has to waste a moment's thought on finding an appropriate place to meet; he's always riding in it. Air Force One projects our political and economic power around the globe, much as an aircraft carrier projects our military power.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Sj0]

Great. So why not give everyone in America such a table? Then America's kitchens and meeting rooms would display such a majestic grace that any head of state could be used as a meeting room with heads of state, displaying our awesome economic might (except that wed be poor from the high table taxes)

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[WindBourne]

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/

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Golddess]

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.

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.

That doesn't mean I think the POTUS should live a live of poverty. I agree that as an ambassador, certain excessive ceremonies need to be on display. But it just seemed like you were trying to give the executive branch more power than it should have with that statement.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Golddess]

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."

Except that in that scenario, would it really be a waste of money? The visiting dignitary is a guest of our nation after all. Is it not customary where you come from to "break out the good china" as I believe the saying goes, when you invite guests over?

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

I'll point to another of my posts for this one.

No matter what, much like Obama when he takes office, the current batch of big 3 CEOs took over their companies when most of the bad decisions, like the selling of past benefits at the expense of future income, for example, already made.

If they'd done things correctly, they wouldn't have the current huge legacy cost problem because they'd have paid the money for retirement benefits into a fund when the workers were working.

Same deal as with Social Security - you're okay as long as the worker pool paying in keeps expanding and your revenue stream stays up.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[johnsonav]

They were paid for by the POTUS, right?

No, the bowling alley was donated. Most of the expensive or historic furnishings of the White House are given by foreign dignitaries or wealthy Americans.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[johnsonav]

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.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your post had any intelligent thought behind it?

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Sj0]

My post correctly pointed out that Bush doesn't look 70 or 80. This easily derails this idea that he's aged faster than a normal person. He looks to be in his 60s, and frankly, he looks good for someone that age. Probably thanks to all the vacation time he took.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[stephanruby]

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.

Actually at my company, the rule was that no critical personnel could share the same jet/airplane. This policy was created after an airplane crash killed all the key employees of a major public company. This usually meant that if our CEO, VPs, and Executive Assistants, were going to the same location, the CEO would get the Jet, and may be one other non-essential person would fly with him, but the rest would have to book flights on different airplanes at different times.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Firethorn]

Yes, but we're talking about the top 3 executives of three different companies. Not 100% of senior leadership for any one of them.

We lump them together so much today it's sometimes difficult to remember that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are different companies.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[gfxguy]

I didn't say he shouldn't be protected, but be whine that our politicians are too distant from the average person because they've been treated like "royalty" their entire lives, and then we proceed to treat them like royalty.

Re:Is an A380 big enough?

[Golddess]

Flamebait? Really?? I know now that my joke was based on miss-information, for which I apologize, but I would hardly say that it qualifies as Flamebait.

More practical reasons against it...

[voss]

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.

Re:More practical reasons against it...

[Hadlock]

In any event, Its not likely the airforce would use an unproven state of the art aircraft.
 
What's that? That's the sound of a state of the art F-22 navigation system failing and crashing the plane. Right now we have something like 250 of them.

Re:More practical reasons against it...

[Richard_at_work]

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

No they can't - the 747-400 line has closed, and is being converted to 747-8 standard. Boeing will not be producing the -400 for anyone.

Re:More practical reasons against it...

[ravenshrike]

Yes, piloted by AF jocks. They DON'T carry the POTUS.

Re:More practical reasons against it...

[tcolberg]

Not unless aliens have been blowing up all of our major cities and the USAF runs low on pilots before our last ditch attack.

Re:More practical reasons against it...

[voss]

Not for Anyone?

The president of the United States, the leader of the free world and the person whos gonna give your company billions in contracts asks you for a 747-400ER your gonna say no?

BTW: The passenger ones are not in production, the freighter ones are...the chairman of boeing can very easily do a special order.

 

Re:More practical reasons against it...

[Haeleth]

To the best of my knowledge, fighter pilots -- for all their rare skills and expensive training -- are considered more expendable than the President.

Re:More practical reasons against it...

[Richard_at_work]

Not for Anyone?

The president of the United States, the leader of the free world and the person whos gonna give your company billions in contracts asks you for a 747-400ER your gonna say no?

BTW: The passenger ones are not in production, the freighter ones are...the chairman of boeing can very easily do a special order.

Not even for POTUS - there is no way Congress is going to pass the funding it would cost for Boeing to reestablish the supply chain for the 747-400 in order to deliver two or three new aircraft. Boeing did not continue all their supplier relationships with the 747-8, so its not a simple case of asking the current suppliers to produce -400 parts - and long lead items such as keel beams or major structural load items stopped production a few years back, and those jigs were either converted to -8 standard or scrapped (depending on what happened to the supplier contract).

And there is no way Boeing is going to eat the cost to do all that either.

As for your comment regarding the freighter still being in production - no it isnt, the final one is undergoing final assembly at the moment, but thats a far cry from the type still being in production, because there is no way in hell you are going to get the parts for another one, and the final assembly line is being converted to -8 standard as each position becomes free. The line is, in Boeing terminology, closed. There are no more planes of that type entering production on that line.

So I stand by my previous comment - you cannot order a 747-400 new from Boeing. Nada. Nope. Can't be done.

Europe? Don't be ridiculous

[Nimey]

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.

See display of all of the old Air Force One planes

[daves]

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.

No longer cost effective?

[MSTCrow5429]

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.

Re:No longer cost effective?

[jjohnson]

If the current operating budget for flying your current plane is X, and the operating budget and amortized costs of switching to a new plane is Y, and X is greater than Y, then continuing to fly the X plane incurs an ongoing opportunity cost of X-Y. If the plane you're flying has an opportunity cost associated with it, it's no longer the most cost effective plane to fly, is it?

Re:No longer cost effective?

[MSTCrow5429]

That could be calculated in a free-market enterprise, but how do you properly define a budget or amortize costs in government? Calculating opportunity cost should be impossible, you can't even do TVM calculations, as there's no profit-loss function.

Re:No longer cost effective?

[u38cg]

For a while, it's cheaper to maintain a plane than buy a new one. After a while, it's cheaper and easier to start over and buy a new one, even with the cost of fitting it out.

Re:No longer cost effective?

[jjohnson]

So your issue with discussing the cost effectiveness of Air Force One is really that government, existing outside the free market, has no profit-loss function by which cost effectiveness can be calculated?

That's fine as a point of dogma, but it's still not that hard to create a reasonably accurate spreadsheet saying "we spend this much right now, and if we upgrade the plane, that'll go down to this much, saving us some money." At the end of the day, there's still fuel costs, part costs, and labor costs that can be added up.

Re:No longer cost effective?

[retchdog]

Whatever your opinion is of the legitimacy of tax revenue, you can treat them as "gross revenue" just like any corporation and the computations all work out. It's not like economic models are perfect for non-state corporations anyway.

not scope creep - capability creep

[petes_PoV]

The scope hasn't changed. It's always been to transport the absolute maximum possible with absolute safety, total reliability, highest possible speed and lowest cost.

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.

Re:not scope creep - capability creep

[timeOday]

Fortunately "lowest cost" isn't actually a consideration, just something they said to make people feel a little better about throwing billions of dollars into an airplane for the king, oops I mean president. The fleet of next-generation Presidential helicopters , which he rides for a few minutes at a time, have been under development for years and years at a cost of $11.2 billion dollars. And then there's the new presidential limo. It is totally out of hand. (Nothing personal, Obama).

Re:not scope creep - capability creep

[craagz]

I want to know, if Mr. President is subjected to the Routine Safety Instructions about seat belts and oxygen masks and emergency exits.

Or being president, is he subjected to a more stringent "Don't look out the window!", "Know how to activate the ejection pod" etc lectures?

Re:Sold as preowned?

[Dun Malg]

Didn't they just go in to service barely seven years ago for Shrub?

No, they went into service under Bush41 in 1990. Didn't you bother to read the summary at least? "19-year-old VC-25s". 2009 - 19 = 1990.

Re:First Post!

[Joce640k]

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.

Re:Europe? Don't be ridiculous

[PortWineBoy]

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.

Why not? The helos are european

[petes_PoV]

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.

Re:Why not? The helos are european

[ravenshrike]

Um, the airframes and engines are Euro. All the little fiddly bits inside the plane and would be much more subject to sabotage are done in the US.

Re:Why not? The helos are european

[slashtivus]

None of those have even been delivered. They are way over budget and in serious trouble. They are still using the old SeaKings based on designs from the 60's. (Nothing to be proud of, but still true as of today). The AW project is under serious consideration of being canceled, as each one of them will end up costing more than a new 747!

yebbut, he/she won't fly to most airports

[petes_PoV]

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.

Re:yebbut, he/she won't fly to most airports

[Wyatt Earp]

The POTUS only visits major capital cities?

Huh, I've seen AFO in Portland back in '96 after the floods, then again in September '96 during the campaign. Also saw AFO in Phoenix AZ.

Those airports are not being adapted to A380.

Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[Dr. Spork]

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.

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[Toveling]

Wiki always has the answer: "The C-5 is also known as "FRED" (Fucking Ridiculous Economic/Environmental Disaster) by its crews due to its maintenance/reliability issues and large consumption of fuel. The C-5 requires an average of 16 hours of maintenance for each flight hour based on 1996 data."

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[DerekLyons]

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?

Because the military aircraft that have all those features by design are fighters and bombers - both noticeably lacking in room to refit passenger facilities. (Not to mention room for all the communications gear, etc. required by the President.)

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[Darth_brooks]

No chance. The C-5 Fleet is as old or older than the 747-200's air force one is built around now, same issues too. Plus, ground handling an aircraft of that magnitude at many airports is simply more hassle than it'd be worth. Extra fuel isn't an issue, as Air Force One can and does refuel in flight.

(I've worked as ramp crew, and the largest aircraft I've handled are a C-130 and a DC-6. I also handle a B-17 on a semi regular basis. None of which are in the category of an Airbus or a 747, but are a handful in their own right.)

The A380 doesn't have a chance. There are a limited number of airfields in the world that can support a loaded A380 now, and air force one spends a great deal of its time shuffling the president around the US. There are thousands of fields that regularly have, currently do, or were built with handling a 747 in mind.

The "newness" of the airbus works against it more that anything else. The 747-200's that are still in service are almost exclusively commercial at this point, so it's nice to see that they're thinking of upgrading the fleet. Anyone betting against Boeing is fooling themselves, the new air force one will almost certainly be a 747-8, which will be in service. No sense in re-inventing the wheel.

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[letsief]

Actually, for the most part, the A380 can takeoff and land on any runway that can handle the 747. The A380 is a bit heavier than the 747, but its weight is spread out more. The bigger problem is maneuvering around the runways and fitting next to airport gates. Neither of those should really a problem. Some airports might not be able to handle several A380s at once safely, but they could handle a single A380. And, Air Force One doesn't pull up to airport gates, so that won't be a problem either.

I strongly suspect they'll go with a Boeing aircraft, but I don't think the A380 is completely out of the question.

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[KeithJM]

The 747-200's that are still in service are almost exclusively commercial at this point

I seriously don't mean this as a sarcastic question -- but what were the others that weren't commercial? I assume they were governmental? Surely corporations and individuals don't require a plane that size to get form point A to point B? Were non-US governments using them, or were they used for other purposes in the US government at some time?

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[darkmeridian]

Not all airfields can accommodate the C-5, which is a huge plane. It needs a relatively long runway and the fueling requirements might be hard for civilian airfields to meet. For the same reason, I don't think it's likely the A-380 will win the competition. The President needs accessibility to as many airfields as possible in case of emergency, so being in a plane that can only land in huge airfields is inappropriate.

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[Shag]

The 747-200's that are still in service are almost exclusively commercial at this point, so it's nice to see that they're thinking of upgrading the fleet.

When you say "commercial" are you trying to say "cargo" or "charter" or some other C-word? US-registered 742s would tend to be in one of those categories (more cargo than charter).

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[Darth_brooks]

I meant commercial in terms of cargo. I neglected to engage brain before operating keyboard...

I've been hearing that the -400's are starting to make their way into the cargo ranks as well now. Kalitta replaced at least one of his recent 747 losses with a 400

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[Solandri]

The U.S. already catches enough flak for its military spending. I think the President would want to arrive on a distinctly civilian-looking plane just for the PR.

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[pcolaman]

You don't want the president of the USA flying in a military transport, however it might be repainted, just as you don't want the CEO of a major company driving to meet with a potential merger companies' office in a Honda Civic. He's the ambassador for America when he flies to other countries and as such, we want him to look classy when he arrives. The 747 is much more suitable to for this than, say, a C-5. Yeah, having a military transport might seem more practical, but Air Force One isn't supposed to be a cargo plane. Also keep in mind we do not want other countries to associate the president with being a military commander but a civilian one, hence he flies in what appears to be a commercial jet, rather than military one (even if the "commercial" jet has more sophisticated electronics than most military aircraft).

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[The Warlock]

Well, hey, if we're going for refurbed military hardware, why not go for the SR-71? The two-seat trainer version, of course. For when you absolutely, positively need to get from DC to LA in under 70 minutes, accept no substitutes.

At least, that's what I'd want if I was President, but that's also probably why I'd never get elected.

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[juan2074]

As soon as the next Congress decertifies California statehood, and the President signs it, he'll never have to go there again.

Re:Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane?

[Dr. Spork]

Then we should call it something less militaristic than "Air Force One" - don't you think?

Hope it is nothing like the Marine One replacement

[singularity]

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.

Re:Thought...

[freedom_india]

Oh you dumbass, you are talking logic and rational thinking in a GOVERNMENT project!
The government, especially the military doesn't work like that. Here, let me guide you:
1) First of all some lame clerk comes up with a simple cheap way to build a new AF1.
2) His superior, afraid of budget cuts, pads it up by 300% to include laser-guided TV remotes.
3) The senate committee adds more pork by adding a military base and hands it for signature
4) The military invites closed bids for the same and awards it to the HIGHEST bidder.
5) The contractor burns through the money in 3 weeks and comes back to military with a 2-feet model.
6) Military approves it and goes back to congress for more money stating security.
7) Congress grants it and adds more pork to it.
8) The military deducts 10% from the amount and gives remaining to contractor.
9) Years pass and a new president comes in.
10) The new president is delivered a plane that has half the functionality at thrice the cost
11) President enthusiastically declares the project was completed in 4 months (his time as prez).
12) Contractor given more projects!

Obligatory

[Arancaytar]

I've had it with these --ing Presidents on this --ing plane!

Re:Obligatory

[EnsilZah]

Dashing?

What exactly is wrong with the VC-25

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What exactly is wrong with the VC-25

[istartedi]

Nothing's wrong with it now. It's just that this is the government we're talking about. If they haven't started the project yet, the VC-25 will be 30 yo by the time they finish.

Re:What exactly is wrong with the VC-25

[MtViewGuy]

Because the VC-25A has way lower takeoff and landing cycles and way more maintenance work done per flying hour than any commercial service 747, these planes are probably in vastly better mechanical condition than any 747 serviced and flown by a high-quality airline line Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific Airways.

As such, I see a more likely program being a rewing program (essentially installing the 747-400 wing complete with winglets) and replacing the original GE F103 engines with the GE GENx engines. This would allow the plane to cut fuel burn as much as 17-20% compared to the current model on very long flights, and it could mean the updated VC-25 could fly over 8,000 nautical miles (still air range) before needing refuelling.

Re:What exactly is wrong with the VC-25

[MrCreosote]

According to The Register

The US Air Force, in charge of the commander-in-chief's longhaul transport, has issued a request for information under the banner "Presidential Aircraft Recapitalisation". As the airmen note, the existing VC-25 planes are modified Boeing 747-200s, a type which has now ceased service with airlines. This has made spare parts and tech support much more expensive than formerly.

According to the USAF, this means the time has come to get some new planes:

        The Air Force conducted an Analysis of Alternatives to examine if it would be more cost effective to maintain the current Air Force One, or to buy a new aircraft. Given the diminishing parts supplier base, increasing maintenance time, and system upgrades that would be necessary to meet future air traffic control requirements, it was found that replacing the VC-25 was the most cost effective option.

Re:Will not be the A380

[MosesJones]

The A380 is too big and heavy for the vast majority of runways in the world.

Too "Heavy" is an unusual problem for a concrete runway

What you mean is that runways are too short for the A380, but of course it can take off and land in the same space as a 747, the only adaptations for the A380 are to the terminal buildings to handle the double decker. This isn't an issue for Air Force One as the president just walks down a set of stairs that are rolled up to the plane.

There are no technical challenges for AF1 being an A380 that wouldn't apply to the 747.

380 Needs Special Airports?

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

Re:380 Needs Special Airports?

[FishWithAHammer]

The A380 can land anywhere a 747 can. The double-decker has problems with airport gates, but the President doesn't use gates, he uses tarmac stairs.

I have to ask-more than meets the eye.

[Ostracus]

You left out it's also a transformer.

Re:See display of all of the old Air Force One pla

[DerekLyons]

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.)

Buy American

[nurb432]

Please reconsider the purchase of a foreign product.

Thanks.

Re:380 Needs Special Airports? NO NO NO!

[AGMW]

... isn't there the very practical issue that a lot of airports aren't equipped to handle the 380's bulk?

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.

... let's move on now shall we and consider other issues surrounding this topic ...

Re:Will not be the A380

[Richard_at_work]

The A380 is too big and heavy for the vast majority of runways in the world.

No it isn't - it has a lower footprint than the 777-300ER does, due to the fact that it spreads its weight over more wheels (10 MLG for the A380 verses 6 for the 777).

Re:See display of all of the old Air Force One pla

[FishWithAHammer]

Isn't SAM 27000 at the Reagan Library?

Re:European or not the new plane wont be brand new

[FishWithAHammer]

Erm. You can't quite just refit an old plane with the kind of setup that AF1 requires.

Not Russian, Ukrainian

[gblackwo]

That ship was built, and is registered and maintained in the Ukraine. They only claim it is soviet.

Re:Not Russian, Ukrainian

[Chris Mattern]

Russian /= Soviet. If it's Ukrainian, it's true that it's not Russian, but while Soviet existed, Ukrainian was Soviet.

Re:European or not the new plane wont be brand new

[gatkinso]

Pray tell why not?

The current VC-25's were bought used. IIRC one of them was an Air India 747.

If only we'd elected Ron Paul...

[osu-neko]

...we could have the presidential blimp. :D

Save jobs

[Nethead]

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.

Where to see Air Force One

[Bruce Perens]

Most of the Air Force One aircraft of the past are at the On-base annex of the Air Force Museum in Dayton. One thing that's evident is that every one is larger than the last. You can stand in the plane where they swore in LBJ after Kennedy was killed.

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.

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[Wyatt Earp]

Theres the VC-37 that JFK used to 1962 at the Museum of Flight south of Seattle.

http://www.museumofflight.org/air-force-one

Very cramped inside.

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[jo_ham]

I desperately wanted to see the base at Dayton, but I'm a British citizen so I assumed I probably wouldn't get past the gates (beyond the civilian-safe public areas), and I kept putting it off since I just thought "oh I'll go at some point", and of course now I'm not likely to be back in Ohio full time ever again (back living in the UK).

Dayton has the B2 prototype/mockup aircraft that I really wanted to see too.

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

I went there as a kid, and saw the annex. Doe they still have the AC-130 in the annex? Now that would make a bold statement as airforce one...

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[Live_in_Dayton]

I went there as a kid, and saw the annex. Doe they still have the AC-130 in the annex? Now that would make a bold statement as airforce one...

yes, and a B-2

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[monkeySauce]

You only needed your passport.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/questions/topic.asp?id=180

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[jo_ham]

Then that settles it - I'll be going back to visit that museum next time I'm in the US in that area.

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[BWJones]

The Air Force Museum in Dayton has been on my list of places to visit for a few years now. I need to figure out how to get out there... possibly worth a plane ticket and a couple nights lodging just to see the museum. Although, there may be some new photographic requests coming in the new year and Wright Patterson may be in the mix...

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[CapsaicinBoy]

It doesn't have AF One, but the American Hanger at the Imperial War Museum Duxford is truly impressive. No B2, but a blackbird, a U2 and a B52 all under one roof is still amazing.

      North American AT-6D Texan (s)
      Consolidated B-24M Liberator
      North American P-51D Mustang (r)
      Douglas C-47 Skytrain (s)
      Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress
      Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
      Grumman TBM-3 Avenger (s)
      Boeing B-29A Superfortress
      North American B-25J Mitchell (s)
      Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird
      Boeing B-52D Stratofortress
      Lockheed U2-C (s)
      North American F-100D Super Sabre (s)
      Bell UH-1 Huey
      McDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom II
      General Dynamics F-111E
      Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (s)

http://aam.iwm.org.uk/

Re:Where to see Air Force One

[jo_ham]

Oh I remember - I went to Duxford when I was a child and I stood under the wing of the B52 and marvelled at just how enormous it was.

I didn't have that reaction again until I saw the inside of a Globemaster - it doesn't look very big from the outside, until you peer in through the cargo doors and see people standing in the hold. Hmm, strategic airlift role... check!

4 Engines

[dillbilly]

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.

OK, I don't get it.

[wonkavader]

"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?)

Re:OK, I don't get it.

[petermgreen]

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 perforeming well in 2015, THEN make a decision?
Because getting all the special features adapted for whatever base aircraft they select will almost certainly take years. Government bidding processes aren't exactly fast either.

The bidding process is probablly a sham anyway so they may as well get it out of the way sooner rather than later.

The KC-X circus

[Savage-Rabbit]

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.

Airbus need not apply

[mbone]

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.)

Re:Airbus need not apply

[freedom_india]

Pigs can fly, as was demonstrated in many cases.
The AF1 has its TV's made in China, silverware from Singapore, switches and tyres made in Taiwan and China.
Hell, even Boeing itself has said many times some of its parts are made in China.
AF1 is as american as the t-shirt which is made in mexico and finished in USA to get the Made in U.S.A label.

In this day and age....

[XB-70]

...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.

How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[cyn1c77]

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.

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[mikelieman]

How about shutting down the USAF, giving their forward air support hardware to the Army, and letting the POTUS fly commercial air and deal with the TSA like ***ANY OTHER AMERICAN***?

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[cyn1c77]

Screw that. I don't want to sit next to Bush on a flight. Come to think of it, I don't want to sit next to Obama either. He's so tall, his feet would spill into my legroom.

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[mikelieman]

I'm sure they'd stick us for the price of a first class ticket for The Pres and a couple of bodyguards, no doubt.

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[Shakrai]

and letting the POTUS fly commercial air and deal with the TSA like ***ANY OTHER AMERICAN***?

Maybe because the airfone offered to commercial air passengers doesn't meet the needs of the Commander-in-Chief should the United States be attacked by a hostile power while he is in transit?

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[raind]

I like that idea, put him in a stealth bomber.

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[mikelieman]

So? He can carry his own satellite phone and/or let the Vice President deal with it until he lands.

People act like "The President" is a King or something.

He ain't.

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[MLease]

While it's a pleasant thought, the reality is that the President is a target of many kooks and enemies of the US. If we put him on a commercial flight, the odds are good that the flight wouldn't make it to its destination. Do you really want to put a plane load of passengers at such risk, just to satisfy your fantasy of bringing the President down to our level?

-Mike

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[mikelieman]

"bringing the President down to our level"

This is a Constitutional Republic. The President IS on our level.

We have no Royalty here.

What do we have a Vice President and a plan of Succession for?

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[MLease]

Way to pick on a few words and totally miss the point. I wasn't addressing the President's security and safety there, although those are important considerations too. I was saying that what you're proposing amounts to putting a plane load of innocent bystanders in harm's way because you're so focused on making the point that the President is just another US citizen (a point with which I agree, BTW, although with reservations). It is impossible to secure a commercial plane in the same way as Air Force One.

Simply by being President, the holder of that office attracts the attention of people who disagree with his (or her, should we one day elect a woman) policies, and are willing to use violence to express that disagreement. There is a reason there is so much security surrounding the President; nearly 10% of our Presidents to date have died at the hands of an assassin, and there have been a few unsuccessful attempts on the lives of Presidents as well.

We have a Vice President and the laws of succession in place because, despite our best efforts, there is no way to guarantee that a President will live to serve a full term. This doesn't make it okay to disregard the safety of the President, and it certainly doesn't make it okay to say, "Well, he's just another citizen, so we're going to make him take commercial flights so he remembers that, and if someone happens to shoot down the plane he's on, the passengers can die knowing that their President shared their fate".

-Mike

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[mikelieman]

I still can't get past the question, "Why is the President's safety more important than yours?"

I know that now it's assumed that it is, but there's no real reason for it, aside from the Ego Boost, is there?

Re:How about replacing it with a USAF aircraft?

[MLease]

Even if the President's safety isn't more important than mine, the fact is that simply by being President, the holder of that office is subject to much greater risk from people wishing to harm him for whatever reason than I am. We've lost 4 of our 43 Presidents to assassins in our history, and that number could have been higher had circumstances of other attempts been slightly different. Greater occupational risk entitles someone to greater protection from that risk. Police get guns and bullet-proof vests, fire fighters get fire-retardant equipment and breathing masks, etc.

Yes, we have procedures in place to replace the President if necessary. But it's prudent to prevent it from being necessary in the first place. The election of a President is the reflection of the will of the people of the US. If we fail to protect him, that will can easily be overridden by the actions of a single individual or small group of individuals who choose to do so. If they manage to get both the President and Vice President, we end up with someone who wasn't elected to the office at all, and who could take us in a completely unexpected direction. It is the office that's important, not necessarily the current holder of it. But we do owe that person protection commensurate with the level of risk that has already been demonstrated to exist.

In any case, the real problem I have with making the President take commercial flights isn't so much the risk to the President (though that's clearly a consideration), as it is the risk to everyone else on board. Someone determined to take out the President wouldn't care about the collateral damage.

-Mike

How about if we get Pres. Obama

[crovira]

an F-22 Raptor?

That would one bad-ass mo-fo ride.

I would NOT want to mess with him in that.

EAS on 11 Sep 2001

[DragonHawk]

"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!"?

Re:EAS on 11 Sep 2001

[Teancum]

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.

Re:EAS on 11 Sep 2001

[IWannaBeAnAC]

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.

Really? If there was another team active in LA, then why didn't we hear about the arrests?

Re:EAS on 11 Sep 2001

[Hucko]

The CIA followed them back to Iraq? I mean Afghanistan?

Re:EAS on 11 Sep 2001

[thatnerdguy]

*citation needed*

I read the 9/11 comission report and don't remember seeing anything about other teams.

Now I wish I knew where my copy was...I remember the minute by minute accounts of what took place in terms of the different responding agencies (NYPD, FDNY and Port Authority) being really interesting reading.

Re:EAS on 11 Sep 2001

[Teancum]

I guess this shows I don't get onto /. more... or that I actually have a life outside of this forum in terms of responding in a quick fashion.

I should point out that the Seattle Space Needle was a target by Al Queida on January 1st, 2000 for the millennial events that caused all of the worry with Y2K issues. The group that tried to take out the Space Needle back then was arrested at the U.S./Canadian border by suspicious border patrol agents. This is one of the better known terrorist incident foils that has ever happened in the USA.

The 9/11 commission report, while extensive, certainly isn't complete nor does it contain all of the evidence/intelligence that was available that day. It mainly covers what happened in NYC and DC... which is where the damage was done.

There have been successful actions by law enforcement to stop terrorist incidents in the past decade, not just confined to what happened on 9/11/2001 as well. Unfortunately (in terms of press reporting), the law enforcement community has set a deliberate policy of not informing the general public when this happens even if folks are caught red-handed with explosives or other equipment and clearly demonstrated intention to carry forth terrorist actions. The assumption that simply because nothing is getting publicized is the same as if nothing is happening is a fallacy.

It's a one-seater

[Goonie]

Unfortunately, Obama is not Matt Santos, and (to the best of my knowledge) hasn't learned to fly anything bigger than a paper plane.

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? :)

Re:It's a one-seater

[drew]

Flying a plane is easy. Piece of cake. Even a fighter plane. (I imagine*)

Now landing... That's the trick.

* Admittedly, the only real basis I have for saying this is the many hours I spent playing "Chuck Yaeger's Advanced Flight Trainer" and "Mig-29" on a 386 and P-90 respectively.

Emergency landings and fuel dumps

[DragonHawk]

"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

Air Force One should be US Designed and Built

[SmoothTom]

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

Europe

[kvap]

> "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.

V22 Osprey, before the Bush bails

[mnemotronic]

The best transport for any recent president from Texas would be the delightful Bell/Boeing V22 Osprey.

777-200LR is best because of range

[r00t]

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.

Re:777-200LR is best because of range

[jcwayne]

I thinks it's more a safety concern than a logistics issue. Despite how often the maneuver is performed by military pilots, midair refueling is still an inherently dangerous operation. AFAIK it has never been done with the president on board.

KFC

[muftak]

New Air Force One needs a KFC onboard.

Just trying to nail down requirements...

[Firethorn]

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.

President Bush's Flights

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:President Bush's Flights

[belmolis]

I think that carrying journalists is routine. Here's one source that mentions this. Apparently the number of journalists that assigned to the President is too large to fit on Air Force One so a chartered plane usually follows Air Force One around.

Re:President Bush's Flights

[Firethorn]

Given that it quotes the plane as 'over six feet high', and carrying 53,611 gallons of 'gas'. I think the article is a tad over simplified.

The article does mention where the journalists are boarded - but doesn't mention whether this is regular.

Re:I dunno

[dyslexicbunny]

I wouldn't. Here are a couple of reasons so.

1) B787 is 210-330pax. A380 is 500-800pax. The current AF1 is a B747, 400-525pax. B787 is already smaller than the current AF1. Undesirable based on the current trend of growing AF1. I would assume this is due to a combination of required equipment, addition of countermeasures, etc.
2) B787 is a two engine aircraft. AF1/B747/A380 are four engine aircraft. From a reliability, four engines are better as in the case of one engine out, you will fly further. Additional difficulties arise from suggesting that the B787 add two extra engines - results in a complete vehicle redesign.

Additionally, better fuel economy isn't a very descriptive metric. Total fuel burn? MPG? TSFC? LB/pax-NM? Granted I haven't really looked at comparisons of the two since they are intended to be used in different seat classes. Same goes for higher tech. You might want to specify that too.

It will be interesting to see what Boeing puts up on the board. It would be foolish for them not to. I think the 747-8 will be interesting (and their bid) as it shares some of the same 787 tech and similar parts to the 747. And with those considerations, I have a strong feeling that the 747-8 will likely win the competition. But I'll keep my eyes on the competition. Both companies will want this contract.

bulldoze a bit, and you can land a C-5

[r00t]

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!)

of course...she's the Queen of Canada

[JimBobJoe]

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.

Marine One vs Air Force One

[SmoothTom]

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)

Re:4 Enginesat

[o'reor]

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...

That's it.

[rantingkitten]

I've had it with these motherfucking Presidents on these motherfucking planes!

AWACS is not a command center.

[Nowhere.Men]

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.

Re: A lot of hours on them?

[colinnwn]

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.

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.

Still limited by the 4 engine requirement?

[joelja]

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.

Probability

[SoopahCell]

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%.

Re:Will not be the A380

[Moofie]

"Too "Heavy" is an unusual problem for a concrete runway"

Not true at all. Runways all over the world were reinforced to support the 747 40 years ago.

The A380 has well-understood challenges with respect to ground handling. There is more to functioning in an air transport system than having a long enough runway.

Are any of these problems insurmountable? Absolutely not. But they aren't non-existant.

Re: A lot of hours on them?

[Firethorn]

.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.

Re:European or not the new plane wont be brand new

[Moofie]

As a matter of fact, you can. And they did.

Re: A lot of hours on them?

[colinnwn]

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.

Change..

[craagz]

the PLANE!!

Yes we CAN!!

Re:Will not be the A380

[Guysmiley777]

No, I don't. Airport runways and taxiways have maximum weight restrictions. There are many, many airfields that a 747 can operate at that the A380 will not be able to operate from.

Re:Will not be the A380

[Guysmiley777]

And compared to the 747 introduction, how many A380s will be in service (use total seats if it makes you feel better.)

Re:Will not be the A380

[Moofie]

Not really sure what you're getting at here...