Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force Selects Boeing 747-8 To Replace Air Force One
Tyketto writes Following up on a previous story about its replacement, the US Air Force has selected the Boeing 747-8 to replace the aging Presidential fleet of two VC-25s, which are converted B747-200s. With the only other suitable aircraft being the Airbus A380, the USAF cited Boeing's 50-year history of building presidential aircraft as their reason to skip competition and opt directly for the aircraft, which due to dwindling sales and prospects, may be the last 747s to be produced.
which due to dwindling sales and prospects, may be the last 747s to be produced.
the 747 has been around forever, with many upgrades over that time. it has a proven track record. Now, generally im against no bid contracts, but this one makes sense.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So...$1.65 billion to buy the planes from Boeing, and how many millions per year to have Boeing keep a tooling line up for spare parts?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
"Excuse me I need to check that bolt for a bomb"
Even if Boeing stopped building 747 variants tomorrow, they'd be around for ages. They're the mainstay for long-haul travel, and dwindling sales probably are more related to market saturation - as in, there are enough in the air now to meet current demand - than any inherent shortcoming in the design.
I suspect that there are more refinements to come - it's just too useful an airframe to discard. It may take Boeing a bit to roll in some of the working dreamliner tech but it seems reasonable that they'd try to do that when time and demand permit.
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
Yep. I wonder why Airbus even bothered...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4
news for nerds, stuff that no one care's about
So they could whine about all the protectionism in the US, to justify their own protectionism.
Learn to love Alaska
or Jeb (5-1)
Mitt (8-1)
Scott (12-1)
Joe (18-1)
etc.
Disclaimer: I just made up those numbers
Because Lockheed's C-130 is well known for being able to carry 70,000lbs of cargo but refusing to take off with 13 people on board?
The same is true for every other country with airplane manufacturing. Or less if you divide Airbus among its constituent countries.
Market saturation and economies of scale just don't favor that many participants in the market.
Yeah sure, so not country specific protectionism...
Sorry, they should have gone with the technologically superior aircraft (and that ain't that ancient boeing)
I think they should make the president and all of his staff fly coach like the rest of us. Then he would get an appreciation for what it feels like in the real world.
Tell your friend, POTUS, he's got a funny name. And he should learn how to ride a bicycle.
I would, but he's not my friend, he's my boss; and it's not his name, it's
his title.
POTUS?
President of the United States. I'll call you.
Because Lockheed's C-130 is well known for being able to carry 70,000lbs of cargo but refusing to take off with 13 people on board?
Comfortably? Yep 13 was past the limit.
The 777 - 2 engines - is cheaper to operate than the 747 and that is why quad engined planes are being replaced.
The 747-8 is the only four-engine commercial jet Boeing makes, providing an extra margin of flight safety over the more standard twin-engine planes.
That is debatable.
And, 2 engines are actually more reliable than 4 - less that can go wrong.
And if that is a reason, then make a B-52 with 8 engines Air Force One.
Personally, I think the POTUS should fly commercial and go through TSA like the rest of us.
Or what's wrong with a Gulfstream V?
It's an American company. It'll be cheaper. And folks will take the POTUS more seriously because people will think he's a billionaire.
and just why would you expect bitching? Just because people dont like the sitting president doesnt mean we dont want the president, any president to be safe. The current planes were built in the early 90s, its time to retire them.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I don't think any other country is unduly concerned about us not opening up bids on a project like AF1. It's one or two planes. The symbolic value of the plane is significant, and honestly, isn't really what is beggaring the country.
No foreign corporation is going to seriously complain that they didn't get to build the one plane for the head of state for another country over a local builder.
The symbolic requirement isn't good enough to force the rest of the government to buy all Boeing, but unless the 747-8 was a complete pile of shit or twice the price of the comparable Airbus model, that one plane is not really a big deal.
>the USAF cited Boeing's 50-year history of building aircraft *that don't fall out the sky* as their reason to skip competition and opt directly for the aircraft
Sadly, this is the first domestic order for the 747-8i, and could be the last one.
After all, they are expected to be flying for *another* 50 years....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The Airbus A-380 is about 20% less costly than the 747-8. They're wasting taxpayer money as usual.
So you think that flight time costs have much all to do with the total bill for shuttling the president of the United States around?
You need to get out more often.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
There is such hate from some on the extreme far right that they would bitch if he declared it Ayn Rand day.
will they have directv HD and 4K?
Was anyone really expecting anything else? They certainly wouldn't ever have considered Airbus, the GOP and the public would have slaughtered whomever made the decision to buy non-American, regardless of the benefits the alternatives might have had. That plane is as much an ambassador for the US, as the passengers flying on it.
Lots of limp-wristed, prissy, faggoty, sarcastic, womanish left-wing pissing and moaning, though.
He's the President of the US, why would you purchase a foreign plane? Use your own country's products and be proud of it!
The Airbus A-380 is about 20% less costly than the 747-8. They're wasting taxpayer money as usual.
Since the 747-8 is closely related to the older model 747s that they modified for the current AF1 fleet it should but much easier and less costly to make the modifications for the new ones. Modifications for the A-380 would be completely new designs.
This seems like an obvious question but why does one guy and his staff need a more than 400 passenger plane? Wouldn't something built for extended flight time, reliability, and speed that held closer to 75 or 100 passengers still be overkill? I certainly don't know a lot about airplanes so maybe a better alternative simply doesn't exist and this was the best option. Are there better 100 passenger options?
Saying "all faiths are equivalent" is akin to saying "all drugs are the same".
and by the time you get the extra avionics and other systems (missile defence, for one) adapted for the different airframe from a different manufacturer? Boeing customise the aircraft for purpose, which as a military contractor includes MDS and enhanced RADAR and electrical subsytems.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The simplified version: A couple of well-connected executives from a large American airline builder argued to the FAA that they were going to move to 2 engine planes for valid commercial reasons, and that if the FAA did not approve this, then the US Government would be responsible for halting one the the nation's largest exporters and de-railing one of the few industries where the US was still dominant. To bolster the argument, they brought along piles of statistics that showed that modern jet engines are now far more reliable than the older engines that were in use back when the FAA allowed long flights over water with passengers and 3 or 4 enginnes - thereby pointing out that a modern 2 engine plane would be as statistically safe (in the specific event of in-flight engine failures) as the old airframes with the old engines.
Confronted with this, the FAA approved the 2 engine arrangement as not being a net loss of safety. The comparison was to the previous generation 3 or 4 engine (L-1011, DC-10, 747 etc), rather than to a modern 4 engine (which would be even safer). After many years of operation of the 777 and similar 2 engine types, both the FAA and the public are comfortable with the safety and the statistics have proven right.
The Presidential 747-800 aircraft will, however, be modern airframes with modern engines (plus lots of classified upgrades) and will be safer than a modern airframe with 2 modern engines; this will be the comparison the FAA was NOT considering (becuase the vendor was cleverly and intentionally NOT presenting it) when it approved 2-engine over-ocean flights.
There's nothing BAD here... airliner safety WAS maintained and efficiency WAS increased by that vendor and the FAA... but the safety could have been encreased even further. The Presidential plane REQUIRES as much safety as possible, particularly because political leaders often need to fly in and out of places where they are hated by people with missiles (and four engines are four targets for IR sensors to fixate on rather than two... with two of them being quite far from the fuselage and the people aboard) and for other reasons that do not apply to typical airliners.
Your Beaver is NOT pressurized. Airliners have airframes whose service lives are based in part on the number of pressurizations/depressurizations. Every time the airliner ascends it inflates a bit like a balloon and when it descends it contracts again, and each of these cycles not only stresses the Aluminum skin generally but it specifically stresses any area around a hole (like around rivet holes and large holes like doors and windows).
This is why a B-25, for example, can be kept flying forever but a pressurized airliner will eventually be scrapped. Again, this is not based on airfarme age in years, but rather in cycles. There are still 727's flying today - but they are ones that flew infrequent long flights rather than lots of short hops (those airframes becale razor blades long ago). These pressure cycles can lead to a relatively young (in years) airframe failing if that airframe makes lots of short hops, like between Hawaiian islands as with Aloha 243
Really why should I give a fuck with what kind of plane the puppet du jour of the USG flies around on any given day?? It's another probably 500 million to a billion turning the plane into a flying fortress. Go right ahead assholes and buy five planes like that maybe there is a discount.
On the one hand, it is a majestic airplane, with a good ride, and enough room in it to do whatever you want with it. Flying White House, Flying Pentagon, both been done forever. NEACP (Kneecap, or "Gordo") is another favorite 747 of mine.
On the other hand, the 747 was the airplane that killed Pan Am, and therefore I resent it a bit. True, Trippe went completely bonkers and bought too many too soon -- Pan Am would've been better served by updating its extensive fleet of 707 instead -- but the 747 was more airplane than the world needed then.. and maybe even now. 747 was Pan Am jumping the shark.
And that brings me to the point of this post: While the 747 in Air Force One colors is really nice, no airplane wears that paintjob better than the 707 did. Especially with the check in the tail, which the 747 lacks.
The new one better have a polished underbelly and a blue and silver check in the tail, just like the original Loewy design for Air Force One when it was a 707.
I can't think of a better airplane than the 747 for Air Force One. a 777 doesn't have the cubic footage, the 787 is even smaller. And a civilianized C5 would just be wrong, just plane wrong. As for Airbus, Air France 447 and the one that crashed during the Paris Air Show have left me with a bit of disdain for their particular style of fly-by-wire. I don't think Boeing's take on FBW is as demented. I'd rather fly in a beat-up smokey Super 80 than in any Airbus.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
First, the President frequently carries his family with him (so the forward main deck is presidential suite rather than a bunch of passenger seats) and he carries a lot of staffers (including sometimes cabinet secretaries and ambassadors and some of their staff), and the secret service also sends a bunch of agents. ALL of these people need more room than a cramped airliner seat because they need to arrive at their destinations and be "at the top of their game". Because the plane carries a president who is likely to be a target of assasination attempts, and who is also possibly going to be exposed to various basic health risks from being in lots of places and around lots of people in every place on Earth, it also has medical facilities on board. In addition, because he is the US President and our press has a Constitutional role in our society, the aircraft also usually carries a bunch of members of the press (in an airliner-like section).
It's not just a matter of flying range (AF-1 is equipped for mid-air refuelling anyway, and would be even with an airframe change) nor is it just about the number of seats (it's not a bulk-carrier of people). The choice of airframe for Air Force 1 is about both patriotism ("buy American, YEAH!", and also it being one of the most-recognized planes in the world - a symbol of the nation) and OVERALL capability.
I'm very firmly opposed to Obama on just about everything and think he is quite an appallingly anti-constitutional monster who ought to have been impeached long ago (The Supreme Court has UNANIMOUSLY spanked him 20+ times for violating the Constitution) BUT even I accept that he (since he currently holds the office) needs the current 747's and would be better served by the 747-800's. The next president, whether it's Hillary, Jeb, Ted, etc would also be better served with the '800 model; it's simply NOT a political matter. Like the White House, this is a matter of the OFFICE, not the man (or woman) who occupies the office at any given time. It's the enduring and very positive legacy of Geaorge Washington that we keep these two ideas separate. The 747's we have now were ordered by Reagan who knew future Presidents would need them, even though he himself never got to fly aboard them as President; they are getting old now.
The Airbus A-380 is about 20% less costly than the 747-8. They're wasting taxpayer money as usual.
So you think that flight time costs have much all to do with the total bill for shuttling the president of the United States around?
They would... You've got to be a fool to think they wouldn't be considering flight costs. But what the OP forgets is that the cost quoted is costs per passenger, the A380 fits more people in.
Airlines think of costs in per passenger terms, that's why the A380 is favoured over the 747-8. As a measure for an executive transport it doesn't make sense because you're only transporting a few dozen people at best (The BBJ and ACJ are based of their B737 and A320 offerings respectively because they're more economical in this configuration and can have longer ranges than the passenger varients).
Something that also isn't considered by the GP is that the A380 needs a larger gate and runway than a 747. It's an airliner meant for shuttling people between hubs, as an executive transport it leaves a lot to be desired.
All things considered, the B748 is the right choice if they aren't considering downsizing to a 787. Its the no-bid part that people dont like, they at least want the illusion of fairness.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not the President. All congresspeople and their people, all CEOs, and all the 1%.
--PM
has 4 engines, could convert bomb bay into a bedroom, is supersonic...
On a per-seat mile basis, yes the A380 is cheaper than any 747, there wouldn't really have been any purpose the A380 if this weren't the case. But Air Force One only has a single seat that matters in determining where it goes, a 747 with a lower total per-hour operating cost would be the cheaper option. And the American made option. And much more importantly, even the slightly bloated 747-8 can operate out of airports that an A380 simply cannot.
Why not convert a C17 - its more manoueverable, and can use smaller airfields
Yep. I wonder why Airbus even bothered.../quote.
Airbus didn't bother. Part of the requirement is the aircraft must be built on US soil by US employees. Airbus was not willing to setup a production line in the US just to manufacture 3 aircraft.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
it's all about the leg room
tone
Metric bolts. If it broke down, they'd have to ship the tools in from Yoorp.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Surely the 747-8F has a use. Apart from a few specialised planes designed for unusual shaped loads (like the Beluga and Guppy) there aren't any larger cargo planes yet, and there doesn't seem to be huge demand for the freight variant of the 380.
Even if demand does pick up, a lot of people like the front loading option.
> Congratulations to Boeing for being America's aircraft builder. The President has never flown on a foreign built aircraft, and Lord hope, he never will!
Fully agree, except USA should also not expect european countries to fly american made planes. Yet, somehow the Pentagon is pressuring Europe to adopt the much delayed and insanely expensive F-35 JSF. The norwegian scandal, where it was leaked that US embassy had instructed Norwegian Air Force to falsify costs and declare SAAB Gripen expensive, while F-35 JSF impossibly cheap, left european taxpayers with a sour taste of mouth. The same thing happened in Denmark, Italy, Britain: cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate new build or refurbished warrplanes were tossed aside to buy the never ready money-burning pit F-35 on US and zionist orders.
5th generation US fighters don't come cheap, but neither does freedom. Netanyahu knows that, bless him!
I'm confused and frightened!
the same was true when bush was in office by some on the far left. There are always going to be nut jobs out there.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Why does your president need such? Cameron popped over to the States the other week, he flew back in business on BA, not even in first (my wife would not be impressed if I sent her in business). He has his finger on 180 nuclear warheads, but seems to be able to do that from a civilian plane just as well.
Too bad by the time he leaves office (thank god) - he won't have a chance to pimp it out - no spinning chrome hubs on the landing gear, fake cell phone antenna, BASS BASS BASS, ObamaGrafitti on the fuselage, his private cabin looking like Dick Hallorann's bedroom from The Shining, deep fryers for all that chicken, etc...
1. When Bush was in office, lefties made a movie about his assasination. Right-wingers have NEVER done that to a sitting Democrat president.
2. EVERY SINGLE ASSASSIN or would-be assassin in US History has been an a-political insane person or a leftist:
2a. John Wilkes Booth (Democrat) shot Lincoln (Republican).
2b. Leon Czolgosz (Anarchist) shot McKinley (Republican).
2c. Lee Harvey Oswald (Democrat-turned-Communist) shot Kennedy (Traditional Democrat - would be hated as whacko conservative by modern Progressives)
2d. Lynette Fromme (hippie Manson follower and eco-activist) tried to shoot Ford (Republican).
2e. John Hinckley, Jr. (madman) shot Reagan (Republican).
Right-wing, Republican, end/or Conservatives have FAR MORE to fear from violent hate-filled leftists and Democrats that the left has EVER had valid reason to fear the right... as in everything else: OBJECTIVE FACTS MATTER