Air Force One Replacement Thread

Sooner787 · Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:56 pm

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

kanban · Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:46 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 18):
Don't forget the escape pod as well

That's a military secret.. what they are worried about is some hacker deploying it to get rid of a president of differing politics.

Moose135 · Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:11 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 15):
is it a duller week in the sticks than usual... what they will number it is years away and probably the least important item available for discussion..

This is A.net - without idle speculation on unimportant topics, the boards would have 6 threads with two posts each...

bikerthai · Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:10 pm

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.

So much for that theory . . . see the bomber thread:

US Bomber Contract Awarded Oct 27th (by metalinyoni Oct 26 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight).

bt

AviationAddict · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:32 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

The military skips unused numbers (or maybe a better way of saying it is "chooses not to use") all the time for reasons only the decision makes can say. As is the case with the new B-21 - they decided to skip or not use the B-3 through B-20 designations.

What I meant before was if they were to skip over the C-47 designation for any future cargo/transport aircraft it would most likely be to avoid confusion with the CH-47 Chinook which would probably still be in service that the time.

bikerthai · Mon Feb 29, 2016 3:38 pm

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.

The point was that they do skip numbers for esoteric reasons . . . because it sounds good.
So the reason for not using C-47 for historical reason would be just as sound, or of better reason than selecting the B-21 designation to symbolize a "21 st" century bomber (which is also funny because in my part of the world the 777 was labeled a 21st century jet by Boeing. Wonder how many out there remember that

bt

Devilfish · Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:25 pm

From the 747-8 FT/P thread.....

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 128):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 127):
L/N 1544 - 747-8XX , RC459 USAF ?

Interesting, thank you for the update.

Guess the derisking contracts have started the ball rolling?

[Edited 2016-03-01 14:49:59]

Stitch · Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:29 pm

It's a Firing Order allocation so it's subject to change.

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. If they don't have the contract, they can assign a different customer to it or move it to unallocated (ala L/N 1543).

Devilfish · Tue May 10, 2016 10:47 pm

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.

That has just become a little more definite.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...l-design-of-next-air-force-425180/

Sooner787 · Wed May 11, 2016 2:51 pm

Those are going to be 2 beautiful birds when they're finished

Devilfish · Fri May 13, 2016 7:16 pm

There's a larger space available upstairs compared to the current AF1 upper deck should they design to put a stateroom up there...

...

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/wp-conte...t/uploads/2016/02/AF1-1024x768.jpg

Alas, the winner of the oncoming election may not get to enjoy the new bird even if he/she got a second term except maybe to fly back to civilian life...

...

http://www.defensenews.com/story/mil...ce-one-trump-clinton-way/84225802/

Quote:
Correction: This story, originally published May 11, 2016, listed an incorrect date for when the new aircraft will begin operations. The new Air Force One is expected to be up and running in 2024.

"The Air Force on Tuesday gave Boeing the green light to start submitting design proposals for the new presidential aircraft that, by 2024, will shuttle a future president around the world."

Stitch · Fri May 13, 2016 7:59 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 28):
There's a larger space available upstairs compared to the current AF1 upper deck should they design to put a stateroom up there...

They'll use it for a larger Communications Suite, I am sure.

Sooner787 · Fri May 13, 2016 9:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
They'll use it for a larger Communications Suite, I am sure.

I'm sure the "Comms Team" would appreciate that. I've seen a couple
documentaries on the current VC-25A'a and it look a little tight upstairs

PC12Fan · Sat May 14, 2016 2:43 pm

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.

Stitch · Sat May 14, 2016 3:24 pm

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.

On the VC-25, the Conference Room is abreast of Door 3. The 747-8 has a 1.5m plug aft of Door 3, so they could use that area to make it a bit larger. There is also a 4.1m plug between Door 2 and Door 3 and this area is used as small meeting rooms and the galley, so they could extend the conference room forward into that area, as well.

If I had to guess, they'll use the space aft of Door 3 to provide additional seating for the media and move everything related to the President and their staff forward of Door 3, using Door 3 as a natural divide between the two areas (official staff / media).

Max Q · Tue May 17, 2016 2:24 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 28):
should they design to put a stateroom up there...

The word you're looking for is 'deign'

The best place for the principal stateroom on any 747 is lower deck in the nose, spacious and extremely quiet, upstairs is a lot noisier.

It will be great to see the 747-8 as AF1, the mightiest, best looking aircraft made carrying the President is only fitting.

Devilfish · Tue May 17, 2016 4:37 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 33):
The word you're looking for is 'deign'

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.

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'.

Sooner787 · Tue May 17, 2016 2:59 pm

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'.

I suspect the interior will be very similiar to today's VC-25A's in order to save money
on interior design and construction. A others have mentioned, the fuselage plugs
could give the galley area some more room and well as more room for the comms
team in the upper deck and perhaps a longer conference room.

Devilfish · Tue May 17, 2016 5:49 pm

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.

While this may not be the official concept design for AF1, it does offer a glimpse of what the interior might look like...

...

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-boeing-jet-air-force-one-2016-2

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue May 17, 2016 6:48 pm

I imagine to save a few dollars much of the interior would be reused. However that could be difficult as I would expect a lot of it is very specific to the airframe of the VC-25.

Although I expect most of the comms gear could be transplanted which would save some serious money.

bikerthai · Tue May 17, 2016 8:11 pm

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.

Advances in design in manufacturing techniques would warrant a new design as it may cost more than you think to make those parts the way they make them 20 odd years ago. This is specially true when all the chairs and tables on the plane will now need power, USB and network connections.

bt

ssteve · Tue May 17, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
it may cost more than you think to make those parts the way they make them 20 odd years ago.

30 year design interrval, when it comes down to it... Doesn't seem like a lot of presidents have flown the current birds, but the years add up.

[Edited 2016-05-17 13:36:35]

flyingcello · Tue May 17, 2016 10:45 pm

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 37):
Although I expect most of the comms gear could be transplanted which would save some serious money.

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.

Max Q · Wed May 18, 2016 3:49 am

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.

Your sentence still makes no sense, a simple addition would fix your error, suggestion:

'Should they design IT to put a stateroom up there'

Devilfish · Wed May 18, 2016 5:40 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 41):
Your sentence still makes no sense, a simple addition would fix your error, suggestion:

'Should they design IT to put a stateroom up there'

That's even more awkward. I leave it to others to judge which of our statements makes no sense and who is in error.

columba · Wed May 18, 2016 12:16 pm

Will be a nice upgrade for President Trump from his 757

bikerthai · Wed May 18, 2016 1:23 pm

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 40):
Likely much more capable, but consuming less space and energy.

More capable but not less energy. They always seems to take up all the available space and energy by adding more capabilities.

bt

Stitch · Wed May 18, 2016 2:51 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 44):
More capable but not less energy. They always seems to take up all the available space and energy by adding more capabilities.

MILCOM equipment isn't Energy Star certified?

ZaphodHarkonnen · Wed May 18, 2016 7:24 pm

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.

I'm assuming the radios and such have been updated since it first went into service. I could be totally wrong and I expect that sort of stuff is very carefully kept secret so doubt there's anything public about it or any upgrades.

PC12Fan · Wed May 18, 2016 10:06 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 43):
Will be a nice upgrade for President Trump from his 757

Most likely, the first thing he'll use will be the pod.

tmu101 · Sat May 21, 2016 5:25 am

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 · Sat May 21, 2016 2:29 pm

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?

While there were rumors they would be replaced with 747-8s along with the VC-25s, I tend to think that they are not going to be. 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.

kanban · Sat May 21, 2016 7:27 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
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.

or maybe a KC-46 derivative..

Devilfish · Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:25 pm

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?.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... th-427426/

Meanwhile, Boeing gets a new $127M contract to develop specifications for the next AF1's interior, power and electronic systems.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rk-427531/

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=65661

Stitch · Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:06 pm

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 · Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:56 am

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).

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.

AviationAddict · Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:10 am

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.

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 some type of flying military command post outside of the AF1 which the 737-800ERX platform may be able to fill.

bmw123 · Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:25 pm

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?

Stitch · Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:57 pm

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?

When the President travels, it's not a secret when and where he will be arriving so a more "low key" livery isn't really going to make a difference, IMO.

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. :mrgreen:

flyDTW1992 · Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:58 am

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.

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 · Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:15 am

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.

The E-4 existed because the VC-135s that served as Air Force One did not have the necessary communications suite nor Battle Staff area to prosecute a major nuclear exchange. As I understand it, the VC-25's do, so if the Balloon ever went up, the President could execute the SIOP from the VC-25 as well as they could from the E-4.

Devilfish · Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:09 pm

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 · Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:57 pm

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 · Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:00 pm

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?

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 · Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:25 pm

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 · Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:10 pm

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 · Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:42 pm

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.

I'm convinced the last 748's to be produced will be the 2 or 4 AF1 frames.

Interesting question, I assume as the parts for the final airframe make their way thru the factory,
the workers might autograph the parts. 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?

bikerthai · Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:09 pm

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?

A few maybe, if well hidden. Thousands? probably not. Each components and sub components goes through receiving inspection each time the parts/assembly changes hands, so things will be discovered. Stuff that are not discovered are typically hidden by assemblies, sealant or paint, so AF personnel will probably never see it.

bt

Sooner787 · Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:02 pm

I kinda hope the AF1 frames are the last 748's off the line.
That would almost guarantee that once they're retired in 2050-60
time frame, they'll enjoy retirement in an museum somewhere

tmu101 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:43 am

Will the VC-25As be fully retired or will they be relegated to other VIP flying duty such as SecDef or any other cabinet member?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net