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
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
Has the Cold War really ramped back up to the point where that system needs a replacement?
So they could whine about all the protectionism in the US, to justify their own protectionism.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Since the mission is just fly circles around North America they don't need 4 engines. The 777X should suffice.
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
no, when it comes to heads of state, you dont know with newest tech, you go with tried and true.
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.
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.
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.
And, 2 engines are actually more reliable than 4 - less that can go wrong.
No.
Let p be the probability of one engine failing during a typical flight. We can assume p is a very small number, because the engines are designed and maintained well.
The probability of both engines failing on a 2-engine aircraft is p^2, an even smaller number. The probability of all 4 engines failing on a 4-engine aircraft is p^4, a number that is even smaller still than p^2. So, having 4 engines instead of 2 reduces the probability of all engines failing, and makes the plane more reliable.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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!
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.
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".
because the 747 might be big and heavy but it's a glutton for punishment. It can land on just one engine. It can also carry a hell of a lot more payload than the Gulfstream (clears 150 tons against a ramp load of less than three tons for the GS-V?) a hell of a lot further, and can be fitted with advanced avoidance and defensive systems such as chaff, flares etc. Good luck getting all that crammed into a 3 ton payload then including the President and his entourage.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I say let's keep the dems in power. the R's messed it up big time.
apparently so, in the last couple days reports intended to scare us state that the RAF sent up fighter jets to warn off a Russian bomber that (was still in international airspace but) had "buzzed" the coast of Bournemouth, ostensibly to probe out air defences.
Not to worry, Comrade Putin, all you have to do is look at our online press which tells us that apart from all the equipment the MOD have left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan, the British Government under King Cameron is selling off what's left of our military prowess and having us instead rely on an agreement made with France in which they'll supply us with quality aircraft (that can't keep up with anything the Israeli Air Force have in service), an aircraft carrier (since the Government literally gave the ones we had, that we used to kick the Argies arses back in the 80s, to scrappers in Turkey(!!)), and small arms that are absolutely no use to us, in fact even more useless than the SA-80s currently being issued that jam when *dust* gets into the breech. Oh, should I mention that over the last few years the public advertising for recruitment into the armed forces has been heavily into promoting part time postings and even they have failed miserably in maintaining recruitment numbers? Really, Mr. Putin, you have nothing whatsoever to worry about from this sad old ex-empire, not least either because our nuclear capability is currently between bases since Scotland don't want them up there any more, they're now looking at building a base in the Bristol Channel. Go nuts, this information is all in the public domain.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
That's odd, that page says the E-4B flies as backup to the VC-25, I thought they used the second VC-25 as the shadow (perhaps if the second one is being worked on they use the E-4B, could be why the order for the VC-25 replacements is 3 instead of 2 airframes?)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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
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
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.
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.
Especially when p includes small arms fire. A bullet can only hit one engine at a time. If the president was taking off and an armed group shot out one engine during takeoff that would not be great with 2 engines. With 4 engines there are 4 discreet locations they have to hit.
The 777-x would make a great lower cost Airforce 1. Still, for all the wrong reasons and a few right ones, I am glad to see that the 747-8 was picked. The 747 is simply the best looking current production passenger jet in the sky.
Not the President. All congresspeople and their people, all CEOs, and all the 1%.
--PM
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.
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.
I say whatever you do, maintain gridlock. Look what both parties do when they have the power and gridlock DC. It's simply the best realistic option.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'