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.
Why does it make sense? Because America? Even with this token gesture, it will likely be the last Boeing plane used for the president's fleet.
No. It means they will be the last 747's in the president's fleet. Boeing isn't going out of business. They are just winding up construction of 747's. The next time around, they will have to choose a different airframe. But it may still be made a Boeing.
"Because America" is a legitimate requirement for a Presidential aircraft. The President and what he uses is a powerful statement about the strength of US industry. That's why Queen Elizabeth II has a Bentley, and the French President is driven around in a Peugeot or a Citroën.
It is legitimate for politicians to have political reasoning behind the selection of their conveyances. I'd be surprised that they'd even consider Airbus for AF1, even if it was cheaper or slightly better.
This is approximately the same arrangement "our" astronauts use at the moment.
Boeing makes a lot of passenger planes, and the US has really expensive new fighter jets, but apart from that the US aerospace establishment is kinda earning a C+ at the moment. The US doesn't make any of the current highest/fastest/heaviest aircraft, our military procurement system is completely sclerotic and over-managed, the best thing we have going for us is a PayPal billionaire who's building rockets effectively as a hobby...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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.
As a European, I agree. To the military I say: buy the best on the market, with a proven track record, with a slight bias for buying local. But for something as symbolic as Air Force 1, it makes sense to go for a domestic supplier. Especially as it's not a bad choice in this case.
I kind of wonder why my own country went for totally unproven foreign F35 JSFs (yay budget overruns), then decided to get totally proven "domestic" NH90 helos. Proven to be crappy rustbuckets.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Number of failures does not matter near as much as number of catastrophic faliures. If 'number of failures' was all that mattered nobody would ever use redundancy.
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.
And, 2 engines are actually more reliable than 4 - less that can go wrong.
Right, which is why nobody would ever buy a server with 2 power supplies when 1 will do. Nobody would ever build a cluster of low power systems rather than using a single high power machine, etc.
Takeoff is the absolute worst time for an engine failure.
They still made it from LAX to Manchester with a failed engine. That's pretty impressive.
A dual-engine aircraft would not have fared nearly as well. The best expected outcome would be an emergency landing at the nearest airport.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
There is such hate from some on the extreme far right that they would bitch if he declared it Ayn Rand day.
The issue is that the 3 planes being ordered would have to be built in the US, and it would not be cost-effective to build only 3 A380s in the US.
dom
The AC is sarcastic, but I'd point out that Elon Musk is a South African who got most of his education in Canada. As a matter of fact, of the five founders of PayPal listed on the Wiki page, only one of them is from the US...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
A four engine plane will land on no engines.
Yes it will, but the more engines you have still running, the more options you have about exactly WHERE you land.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101