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.
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.
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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Be realistic. Why does the United States care about a third world, impoverished nation?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
I've had it with these --ing Presidents on this --ing plane!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Because they were our nazis.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
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.