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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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.

[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.

[Clueless Moron]

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

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]

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.

[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.

[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: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: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: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: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

[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: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: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.

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: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?

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?

[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]

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: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.

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.

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: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: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.

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.

Obligatory

[Arancaytar]

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

I have to ask-more than meets the eye.

[Ostracus]

You left out it's also a transformer.

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.

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: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.

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!"?