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.
You're wrong. The helicopter replacing Marine One is European. Why wouldn't they do the same for Air Force One?
Anonymous Cowards suck.
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.
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
It doesn't carry that many people. The aircraft may fly the President around, but it also has the job of being a flying command post. It's full of communication equipment to keep in constant contact with the military and civilian government, conference rooms, living facilities, supplies, weapons (in case they have to land in an unsecured location), electronic defense measures, and other classified stuff we can only imagine. It's also hardened against EMP.
Hence the reason they can't just buy one off of American Airlines and change the paint job.
When Nixon left office, the plane he took off on was Air Force One. When he landed, the plane had the tail number call sign. The call sign changed when Ford was sworn in. The White House made special accommodations with the FAA ahead of time to change the call sign mid-flight.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
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.
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.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
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.
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
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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).
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?
I don't read AC A human right
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.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.