Quoting kanban (Reply 15): why don't we concentrate on how may of the normal 747-8i passenger windows will be blocked, or whether they will include a tarmac to mid deck elevator.. |
Don't forget the escape pod as well
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 17): but, in most cases designations are only skipped to avoid confusion with another type that is already in service or was recently retired. |
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21): |
Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 22): As is the case with the new B-21 - they decided to skip or not use the B-3 through B-20 designations. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 25): Boeing could be slotting in a USAF frame with the expectation that they will land a contract by the time that frame is ready to enter the FAL. |
Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 31): I wouldn't be surprised to see the extra space be turned into a war room or situation room of some sort. I'm even more intrigued to see if the "attic space" will be utilized. |
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 28): should they design to put a stateroom up there... |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 33): The word you're looking for is 'deign' |
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 34): As for the stateroom, I agree that the main deck is the best location - practicality, convenience, comfort and security wise. My idea of putting it in the stretched upper deck is purely an enthusiast's fantasy, hence the 'smiley'. |
Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 35): I suspect the interior will be very similiar to today's VC-25A's in order to save money on interior design and construction. |
Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 35): I suspect the interior will be very similar to today's VC-25A's in order to save money on interior design and construction. |
Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 37): Although I expect most of the comms gear could be transplanted which would save some serious money. |
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 34): I was not looking for it and typed 'design' on purpose. I knew that word and would have used 'opt' or 'decide' to simplify if that was my intent...instead of the medieval 'deign' which I last heard being uttered by Captain Barbossa in the Pirates of the Carribean. |
Quoting flyingcello (Reply 40): Likely much more capable, but consuming less space and energy. |
Quoting flyingcello (Reply 40): I think the communications platforms of today will be massively different from those on the VC-25. Likely much more capable, but consuming less space and energy...and possibly less people to operate too. |
Quoting tmu101 (Reply 48): On a similar topic any definitive plans to replace the E-4? Will the USAF acquire extra 748i's to replace the E-4s or will the E-4s just be retired? |
Stitch wrote:With the VC-25 and her eventual replacement able to handle the C3 functions that the E-4's originally did, plus the E-6 TACAMO, I don't believe we need an airborne command post anymore.
More likely is we might see a specialized version of a 737-800ERX (the base for the P-8) for SecDef to be able to be in constant contact with the National Command Authority when on the move.
Devilfish wrote:Stitch wrote:With the VC-25 and her eventual replacement able to handle the C3 functions that the E-4's originally did, plus the E-6 TACAMO, I don't believe we need an airborne command post anymore.
More likely is we might see a specialized version of a 737-800ERX (the base for the P-8) for SecDef to be able to be in constant contact with the National Command Authority when on the move.
Would a repurposed Global or Gulfstream be too small for said mission?
Stitch wrote:Devilfish wrote:Stitch wrote:With the VC-25 and her eventual replacement able to handle the C3 functions that the E-4's originally did, plus the E-6 TACAMO, I don't believe we need an airborne command post anymore.
More likely is we might see a specialized version of a 737-800ERX (the base for the P-8) for SecDef to be able to be in constant contact with the National Command Authority when on the move.
Would a repurposed Global or Gulfstream be too small for said mission?
They need something larger to allow for a conference room, full galleys and sufficient seating accommodations for his staff. As such, I continue to believe a 737-800ERX or 737-8MAX BBJ is the optimum solution (I do not believe something as large as a KC-46 would be necessary).
NBGSkyGod wrote:Stitch wrote:Devilfish wrote:Would a repurposed Global or Gulfstream be too small for said mission?
They need something larger to allow for a conference room, full galleys and sufficient seating accommodations for his staff. As such, I continue to believe a 737-800ERX or 737-8MAX BBJ is the optimum solution (I do not believe something as large as a KC-46 would be necessary).
You are forgetting the space for the White House Press Pool as well as the space for the requisite communications gear and personnel to function as a "Flying White House". The C-46 would likely be as small as it could get. There are already C-40 (737-700), C-32 (757-200), and C-37 (G-V/550) in the 89thAW fleet and do function as AF1 from time to time. However when POTUS makes State visits the -25 is required since it has the most functionality when away from home.
bmw123 wrote:Would it be anti-American to suggest an updated Presidential livery? Would a livery that is somewhat less noticible, be more appropriate in the environment of ever increasing higher tech threat? And not so high tech i.e. drones?
AviationAddict wrote:NBGSkyGod wrote:Stitch wrote:
They need something larger to allow for a conference room, full galleys and sufficient seating accommodations for his staff. As such, I continue to believe a 737-800ERX or 737-8MAX BBJ is the optimum solution (I do not believe something as large as a KC-46 would be necessary).
You are forgetting the space for the White House Press Pool as well as the space for the requisite communications gear and personnel to function as a "Flying White House". The C-46 would likely be as small as it could get. There are already C-40 (737-700), C-32 (757-200), and C-37 (G-V/550) in the 89thAW fleet and do function as AF1 from time to time. However when POTUS makes State visits the -25 is required since it has the most functionality when away from home.
I don't think they are talking about an aircraft for POTUS but rather an aircraft for the SecDef as a replacement for the E-4's. The thinking is that the new AF1 might be able to handle the majority of the roles the E-4's once did but there will probably still be a requirement for sometime of flying military command post outside of the AF1 which the 737-800ERX platform may be able to fill.
flyDTW1992 wrote:In my opinion I think any E-4 replacement would have even more reason to have four engines than the VC-25 replacement. An aircraft specifically designed for wartime/crisis operations should be as survivable and reliable as possible.
That being said, I do think the E-4's role could conceivably be filled by a somewhat smaller airframe, but obviously not if four engines is considered to be the way to go. If USAF decides a twin is acceptable, looking at some of the interior specs of the E-4, I'd say something the size of the 777 would be ideal, maybe a 777-8 derivative. That would of course be highly expensive as there are no other military 777 variants, so the 748 would have an advantage in that regard.
Stitch wrote:And at the rate things are going, the VC-25 replacement will be one of the last commercial-frame 747s flying so soon enough it will be obvious who is aboard even if it was painted Generic White.
Devilfish wrote:Stitch wrote:And at the rate things are going, the VC-25 replacement will be one of the last commercial-frame 747s flying so soon enough it will be obvious who is aboard even if it was painted Generic White.
Not exclusively...if IR gets to buy the white-tails...
And now, the rather anti-climactic RFP is released... ...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-429275/
scbriml wrote:Devilfish wrote:Stitch wrote:And at the rate things are going, the VC-25 replacement will be one of the last commercial-frame 747s flying so soon enough it will be obvious who is aboard even if it was painted Generic White.
Not exclusively...if IR gets to buy the white-tails...
And now, the rather anti-climactic RFP is released... ...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-429275/
So the AF is looking for delivery in 2024. How long will the conversion take?
Sooner787 wrote:I'm guessing the green airframe will be delivered in 2019-20 and the conversion will take
3-4 years, so I'm thinking the new AF1's will go into service in FY24
scbriml wrote:Sooner787 wrote:I'm guessing the green airframe will be delivered in 2019-20 and the conversion will take 3-4 years, so I'm thinking the new AF1's will go into service in FY24
That's around how long I was thinking. The big question is, will the line still be open in 2019/20? Would Boeing just store two frame if the line had to close before then, or would the AF consider existing white-tails?
Stitch wrote:scbriml wrote:Sooner787 wrote:I'm guessing the green airframe will be delivered in 2019-20 and the conversion will take 3-4 years, so I'm thinking the new AF1's will go into service in FY24
That's around how long I was thinking. The big question is, will the line still be open in 2019/20? Would Boeing just store two frame if the line had to close before then, or would the AF consider existing white-tails?
It's been stated that there are some changes that need to be made during initial assembly so I imagine worst-case is if Boeing makes a decision to close the line prior to the USAF ready to take delivery, an initial appropriations bill to purchase the base airframes will be done and Boeing will build the last two frames to the USAF's specification. They can then be stored until ready for the next stage of outfitting to be performed.
Sooner787 wrote:I wonder what the AF would think if they inspected the
final airframe and found thousands of signatures in every nook and cranny of the aircraft?