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.
The entire point in using a massively successful commercial platform for this kind of thing is that spare parts will continue to be in production for decades to support the huge customer base. Even if the -8 has a limited run compared to other 747s, it's not like they've dropped support for the SP even though it too was only built in limited numbers.
As for why the 747 could be discontinued, at least for awhile; there's an upper limit on the number of superjumbos needed on the planet, and I expect that we're probably not far from that point. So long as the current fleet continues to operate safely then there's simply no need to produce more planes. As the current fleet wears though, eventually new replacements will be needed for those routes where moving this many passengers makes sense, especially if the manufacturers can get the efficiency up. That's part of what's eating into the superjumbos; the ability for multiple flights a day with smaller planes to get equal fuel economy per passenger and at the same time offer more flexibility (ie more than one flight per day) due to the use of smaller planes.
My wife used to fly fifteen times a year. There was one city that she flew to the most, and she chose the airline with the most daily flights because airlines will often move one up to an earlier flight or two that same day if there's empty space, because they can sell the seats on the later flights to last-minute purchasers. She could come home four or eight hours early if she was done early and didn't need to be there anymore. An airline flying two or three 777s or A320s per day offers her more flexibility than one flying one 747 or one A380, and that's worth something.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Correct, but the 4-engine requirement is actually for power and survivability.
It really has nothing to do with all the other reasons, in this situation.
There will be hundreds of 747s flying for the next three to four decades, so parts are not an issue - Boeing makes the majority of its money on aftermarket care and parts, they won't close those lines down fast.
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?
Since airlines were still ordering new 747-8s (the platform on which the new Air Force One(s) would be built) in 2014 - and might still continue to do so - this isn't exactly an obsolete aircraft. I mean, the first 747-8s weren't delivered to customers until 2011. There are still-flying 747-variant fuselages in commercial (passenger and freight) service that have been in the air since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Based on that history, it seems likely that Boeing will need to support its commercial customers through to at least 2045 or so.
~Idarubicin
true, but with a 4 engine plane, if 1 fails, you are still good, if 2 fail, chances are you are still good. Ive even heard of 3 engines going down and a plane landing safely with 1 of 3 engines.
your head of state needs safety and redundancy, not fuel economy
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.
Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated, and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land in Manchester, England, the airline said.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
and of course i misread the article when trying to hurry up and post, that was about someone only losing one. Here is a forum of people discussing the issue however. mod my previous post down if you must http://www.airliners.net/aviat...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Fully aware of the KC-X contest, NG was the prime contractor but it was actually Airbus that did all the work.
The KC-X contest was only ran because Boeing got caught firstly trying to lease replacement tankers to the USAF at a rate which was several times more than they cost to buy, and then Boeing got caught in the first round buying the Airbus bid details from the US DOD procurement officer in charge of the bids.
Even with a US prime contractor and a US assembly line, there was massive uproar over the fact that Airbus had won the second round of bidding, before it got out back out to tender and Boeing magically found a way to make the 767 offering several billion dollars less than their previous bid...
There is no way the US political arena would accept a non-American plane as AF1. Which raises an interesting problem when the next replacement comes round...
Based on Wikipedia, the freighter variant of the 747-8 is unexpectedly popular. The 747 already dominates the civilian air freighter market so it's a good bet the 747-8 will be around for a very long time, if only due to the numerous freighter versions being operated around the world.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
true, but with a 4 engine plane, if 1 fails, you are still good, if 2 fail, chances are you are still good. Ive even heard of 3 engines going down and a plane landing safely with 1 of 3 engines.
So true. if 3 engines fail on a 2 engine plane, it pretty much destroys everything and resets the universe. a 4 engine plane is just the sane choice.
the Bentley Jubilee 2002 was built and furnished entirely in England. The engine is a Rolls Royce TT 6.75l V8 purpose-built in Derby. Coachwork and chassis assembled by hand in Crewe, and the furniture by Hield in West Yorkshire. It might be *owned* by Volkswagen but the manufacturing is entirely still British labour.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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
Why would you want to adopt a rifle that was in many ways already outdated when it was adopted into service, and is so outdated by now that even Russians themselves seek to replace it?
And what allies use AK 74?
The Soviet Union adopted with the AK-74 in 1974
He was speaking about AK-74M, which was adopted in early 1990s.
But anyway, even if you look at AK-74, it was already in many ways outdated back when it was introduced. Only two locking lugs, and not in a barrel extension, craptastic safety, slow iron sights, a large open gap in the receiver when bolt is closed permitting dust and dirt in, very inconvenient optics quick mount on the side rail (on AK-74M with its folding stock, if you use the rail, you can't fold the stock - WTF?) etc. Also pretty heavy in its basic configuration, and even heavier with optics because of that aforementioned side rail necessitating heavy mounts.
A good example of a modern AK-derived design is SIG SG 550. Same basic action, but it uses modern layout, modern ergonomics, and is much more accurate and flexible while being every bit as reliable.
and most Eastern European and former Soviet Republics use it today.
Most Soviet republics - true, but which of them are "allies"?
Most Eastern European states - not really true anymore, and wasn't really true even when USSR was still there. The only two I can think of that still use AK chambered in 5.45 round are Bulgaria and Romania (and for Romania it's not AK-74, but their own independently developed variant), and both are looking at options to migrate to, generally in 5.56 for NATO conformance. Poland uses the 5.56 Beryl, also not derived from AK-74, and significantly improved compared to the latter. All ex-Yugoslavian states either still use the original AK chambered in 7.62, or else have migrated to something in 5.56 (e.g. FN F2000 for Slovenia or VHS in Croatia). Czechs and Slovaks have both used their indigenous Vz.58 until recently, and are now switching to CZ-805. Hungarians use their own FEG AK variant, also in 7.62. Albanians use the original AKM. Did I forget anyone?
The only nation states I know of that still use the old AK-47 are in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia (including, I think, India). The big advantage of the AK-47 is that it is cheap enough to hand out like candy to guerrilla fighters, and it's reliable enough to still work after years of little to no maintenance (though it's effectiveness drops quite a lot when doing so).
Well, you kinda lump them together - it's not like there are a few nations in Middle East or Africa, and a great many of them use AK. But, as noted, in Europe, you're looking at least at Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania and Hungary. And if you look at who else uses AK-derived guns chambered in 7.62x39, you'll have to also add Czech Republic and Slovakia (tho not for long) and Finland.
FWIW, I don't see the point of differentiation. AK-74 is only marginally different from AKM in matters other than caliber (and muzzle brake, but that can be easily retrofitted). All ergos are the same, reliability is the same, and all deficiencies are also the same.
In any case, I don't see why anyone in a sane mind would adopt AK-74M as a new service rifle in 2015. There are far better options available for anyone not sorely short on cash and not running a guerrilla army.
I mean, sure, you could take AK-74 and modernize it - make the receiver cover non-detachable so that a rail can be put on top, replace handguards with rails or something else allowing different mounts, replace leaf sight with a peep, replace the safety with a switch that can be manipulated by a thumb, replace the stock with folding and length-adjustable one that also has a cheek riser for better weld.
Russians did just that in their own modernization program, and the result is now known as AK-12 and is undergoing trials. Though it has a bunch of other changes (like lightened bolt) that are suspect wrt reliability, especially given the results of the trials so far.
But then again, unless you're short on cash, you could just get SG 551, which was designed with all those things in mind from ground up.
Yes, but they had to come to the US to realize their potential. Why is that?
Oh, and if theyre citizens, theyre American, no matter where they were born.