Slashdot Mirror
USAF Seeks Air Force One Replacement
Tyketto writes "The United States Air Force has taken the first public step in the search for a replacement of the Boeing VC-25, also known as Air Force One, saying it is no longer cost effective to operate and modernize the two 19-year-old VC-25s, which are converted Boeing 747-200s. Airbus has already submitted data for the A380, and while Boeing has had the Air Force One contract for nearly 50 years, delays with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Boeing 747-8, as well as the KC-X Tanker competition, may see the USAF looking to Europe for its next presidential aircraft."
It is actually surprising how much is involved in transporting the POTUS. Last time the POTUS was in town there was a considerable presence that travelled around with him and Air Force One is only a small part of that traveling circus. While the current VC-25 are starting to show their age, one does wonder just what sort of requirements creep are involved. It used to be that simple transport would be acceptable and in actuality, the 737 makes for a wonderful government transport in the C-40 and in fact the current 747 design (though modified since) has been in place since just 1990. In some ways the 747-8 does simplify some systems, making maintenance easier and cheaper as well as possessing more efficient engines, but just playing an opposing advocate, do we really need a 747-8 or an A380? My bias would be yes for a number of reasons, but I also think it is reasonable to ask some harder questions about what is actually required.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Oh please! No matter what the cost, no matter what the delay, no matter what they'll never look outside America to replace Air Force One.
I'm not the type to question the USAF, but the cost effectiveness thing seems odd to me. 19 years is middle-aged for most jet airliners, where it isn't beyond reasonable to find 35 year old airliners still in operation. And I expect that the VC-25s see quite a bit less operational time than your average airliner.
I guess it is true that at the speed the government moves, if they issue an RFP today, it won't go into operation for 5 years anyhow... :)
Technically, "Air Force One" is the call of any aircraft that has the US President onboard. He could get into a Cessna 172 and it would use that callsign.
The aircraft in TFA do not call themselves "Air Force One" when the prez is not aboard. I guess they just use their tail numbers then?
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.
Be realistic. Why does the United States care about a third world, impoverished nation?
Obama's giving us change alright. He buys a new plane, we get to keep the change.
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.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Because Bono says we're supposed to.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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.
You went to the Moon with Nazi technology, so why won't you put the POTUS on an Europear air craft?
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.
Yet the Queen of the UK or the British Prime Minister can fly using scheduled air travel?
Presidents tend to have pretty big egos, so maybe the space is needed.
On the other hand, the Senate scolded the American Big Three for their corporate jets. Maybe the Air Force should be a better role model, and go for something smaller.
I was thinking of something like this: http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/vehicles/little-nellie?id=002
The President could have some real fun with that, and it would add teeth to his domestic and foreign policy.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
Hey, it's illegal to make threats against the president of the USA...
Or did they finally fix the V22 ?
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!".
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.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
For anyone in the Dayton Ohio area, the Air Force One display at the Air Force Museum near Wright Patterson is recommended. They have all of the old planes their, complete with FDR's Sacred Cow, with custom wheelchair elevator, and Kennedy's plane.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
However, that's not a practical proposition and does contain some mutually contradictory requirements. The good news is that as aircraft get bigger, faster, more reliable and flexible the gap between the "do everything" that's being asked for is getting closer to what can be achieved.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
So long as there are message boards, there will be "First Post!!!" messages in second and third position on them.
I'm sure there's a name for this law, "Law of first moron" seems appropriate.
No sig today...
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
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".
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.
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
Since most of the important modifications for Air Force One have to do with armor, EMP shielding, extra fuel storage, etc., why not start with a military plane that's already got some of these features by design, and just retrofit it with couches and stuff?
One added benefit would be that it could transport the presidential limo/tank in case there is fear of sniper fire at the airport. The president could just be driven from the cargo bay of the plane.
The 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.
The Marine One replacement, the VH-71, saw its budget more than double and face enormous delays.
One can only image what will happen to the Air Force One budget.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
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.
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!
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
I've had it with these --ing Presidents on this --ing plane!
[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.
I thought I saw on the History Channel that two of them serve to scout ahead for actual on-scene weather or to serve as decoys or a backup in case the real Air Force One has a problem.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
19 years old is not exactly old in terms of aircraft. The previous aircraft, the VC-137 was used from 1962 all the way up to the 2001 (after 1988 it was used as an auxiliary aircraft for airports with runways too short for the VC-25)
The VC-25 is not a Boeing 747-200. Yes, it is based on the Boeing 747-200, but it is very very heavily modified with everything from midair refueling capabilities to antimissile counter measures to additional fuel tanks.
It took nearly ten years to develop the VC-25 and untold millions of dollars.
The airframes are still extremely low in flight hours and have been overhauled a couple of times already.
What exactly is the point of getting a new aircraft? The 747-200 is not even an obsolete aircraft. Plenty of airlines continue to use them. The 747-400 is basically the same aircraft with a slightly stretched upper deck and a few minor changes. It's a perfectly modern aircraft for which parts are readily avaliable. The advantage of the A380 would be that it's somewhat larger. It's not like the current VC-25 is lacking space. The 747-8 would only add marginally more space.
One of the reasons for choosing the 747-200 is that it was a tried and true design that world airports could handle without trouble. The A380 would be far more limited as many regional aircraft can't accommodate it.
The 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.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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.
You left out it's also a transformer.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Well maybe not *all* live, but a hunderd or so British nuclear warheads sure could reduce the total population.
If the top man is out of contact and presumed lost, or incapacitated, then command works its way down the chain. This is by design and is robust.
If its so robust, then who was in charge after Reagen was shot? He was in surgery, and incapacitated, for at least three hours. The President never formally gave up control; and the Cabinet never took it from him. Reagen wasn't dead, so power never passed automatically to the Vice President. So, who, at that time, could have responded to a Soviet nuclear strike? (Remember, no one knew at the time the assassination attempt was not part of a larger plot.)
I agree that we have a fairly robust system in place to maintain the chain of command. But, no system can ever take into account all the messy, real-world things that can happen. We're lucky that we haven't had too many unscripted transfers of power in this country.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
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.
I don't read AC A human right
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.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
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)
A Redundant Array of Inexpensive Jets?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
That ship was built, and is registered and maintained in the Ukraine. They only claim it is soviet.
...we could have the presidential blimp. :D
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
To visit the aircraft, you have to arrive early at the museum and ask your way to the folks who dispense base tickets, as you'll need to take a bus from the museum to the base. Bring good ID, it's a military base and security is serious.
The museum is a great side-trip before or after the Dayton Hamvention. Definitely worth a day, you will find it difficult to see everything in that long.
Bruce Perens.
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.
Comment of the year
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.
Because they were our nazis.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
When the head of state travels, he represents the country. What would it say about the US aircraft industry if he travelled in a foreign airliner?
Meh, the heads of state of just about every other country (except maybe France and Russia) travel in foreign-built airliners all the time. We'd get over it.
That said, the A380 feels like overkill. I had one in factory grey taxiing behind the F70/F100 I was on in Lyon, and the difference in scale, yeeesh. It was like "OMG it's gonna EAT us."
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
...the fucking thing should at least be supersonic. If his time is so valuable, then get him there faster. Also, less time in the air means less time in danger etc. and less cost of bloated staff because an SST would HAVE to be smaller and more stops could be fitted in to a typical itinerary.
*** Don't be dull.***
It is the same power the prime minister of Britain has, or the president of Russia, or the president of France for that matter.
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.
an F-22 Raptor?
That would one bad-ass mo-fo ride.
I would NOT want to mess with him in that.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"9/11 sucked, but it wasn't a national emergency. It was an emergency in NYC, D.C. and a Pennsylvania field."
We know that now. But at the time, I don't think it was especially obvious, especially given that the ultimate target of the UAL 93 hijackers presumably wasn't a field in PA. The government shut down all public US air traffic for three days, remember?
I think it's more likely that there was simply no useful message that could be put out on the EAS. Broadcast operators had already independently preempted practically every civilian broadcast channel for news programming. More to the point, there wasn't much individuals could do about it. In, say, a biological attack, you can give instructions like "boil water; avoid fresh food". What could have been said on 11 Sep 2001? "Planes are flying into buildings -- everybody duck!"?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
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.
"That's why you see commercial jets dump or burn off fuel before an emergency landing."
Landing weight is a concern. However, they also dump fuel so there's less fuel to burn if the fuel tanks are breached in the landing attempt. In emergency landings that actually make it to the "landing" stage, fire and smoke kill more people than blunt force trauma due to impacts. In emergencies, aircraft without fuel dumping systems will prefer to circle, to burn up fuel with the engines. Only if they must land immediately will they skip that. (Contrary to expectations, not all emergencies require immediate landing. Stuck landing gear, for example.)
Sources:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0054a.shtml
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245a.shtml
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
As a US Citizen and an ex-USAF NCO I firmly believe that an aircraft "Representing the United States of America to the World" as Air Force One does, should be designed and built in the US, not some foreign aircraft with "United States of America" slapped on the sides...
My personal preference would be something from Boeing, but my requirement would at least be something from the US.
(This is above and beyond the security aspects of any aircraft systems designed or manufactured by a potential enemy - and ANY country other than us is a potential enemy...)
--
Tomas
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.