ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

It's worth noting that after 9/11 the US discovered the comunication suite was actually lacking in the more mundane areas. Remember how Bush had to land to do a televised speech? That was all quickly fixed afterwards.

9/11 was the when Boeing started working the Wedgetail program (737 AEW&C). Other than some minor improvements, the communication suite used on the Wedgetail is basically what is used on the P-8A. The computing system however, has advanced quite a bit between the two aircrafts. The other improvement would probably be in the increase in capacity of bandwidth in digital communication among the assets.

The computation power and communication required on the P-8A or 737 AEW&C are probably more than what the Presidential aircraft may will need ( AF1 do not need to track 100 simultaneous targets while coordinating attack vectors off all the friendlies in the area). So I would suggest that all that communication and computing equipment for the presidential aircraft can fit in the back of the hump or in the attic space of a 747.

bt

7BOEING7 wrote:

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 7):Taking size out of the equation the differences between the B744 and B748 are similar to the differences between the G-III and G-IV (different engines, upgrades avionics, etc.) and both Gulfstream models were given the C-20 designation.
Remember, we're not talking about a B744 but a B742 and the differences between that and a B748 are a little more dramatic. The Japanese got the B744 for government VIP travel.

Japan has replaced the two Japan Air Force One (dubbed "Cygnus 1 and Cygnus 2") with B777-300 ERs in 2019. They look really elegant, yet with minimal decor from the pictures.

Elegant new livery for Japan's Air Force One Boeing 777

Japan's Air Force One jets will receive an elegant new-look livery when the VIP aircraft switch from two Boeing 747s to a pair of long-range Boeing 777-300ERs in 2019.

Air Force One is used for overseas trips by the Japanese prime minister, the Emperor and members of the imperial family, and other high-ranking government officials.

-50%
read more + pictures here:
http://www.ausbt.com.au/elegant-new-liv ... boeing-777

columba wrote:

Will be a nice upgrade for President Trump from his 757  

Even if he serves two terms which I doubt he will not get to use the new aircraft if they are put in service on time - at some point in 2024 - or only for a very little time. The POTUS who will be chosen in 2024 will be the one who will really get full use of the new aircraft.

Breaking News:
A Tweet from President Elect Trump about the new Air Force One:

Donald J. Trump – Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump

Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!
5:52 AM - 6 Dec 2016


https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... gr%5Etweet

Hello all,
Now that Donald trump is threatening to cancel the AF1 project, what are the alternatives? There are not so many 4 holers types to choose from.

Will they take the white tails in storage for a bargain price?
Will they buy a used 744 and convert it, similar to what they did to current AF1?
Will they refurbish current AF1's?

I assume that taking an Airbus to be the next AF1 is out of the question, even if it will cost 1$ per unit...

Thanks,

An225

An225 wrote:

Hello all,
Now that Donald trump is threatening to cancel the AF1 project, what are the alternatives? There are not so many 4 holers types to choose from.

Will they take the white tails in storage for a bargain price?
Will they buy a used 744 and convert it, similar to what they did to current AF1?
Will they refurbish current AF1's?

I assume that taking an Airbus to be the next AF1 is out of the question, even if it will cost 1$ per unit...

Thanks,

An225

The current VC-25's were new build 747-200B's with some of the 747-400 aerodynamic tweaks some glass cockpit upgrades, and GE 80C2B1 engines used in early 747-400's and late 747-200's and 300's.

Boeing issued the following statement in response to Trump:

We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States. We look forward to working with the U.S. Air Force on subsequent phases of the program allowing us to deliver the best planes for the President at the best value for the American taxpayer.

Source: Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2016/12/06/trump-puts-the-screws-to-boeing-over-air-force-one-contract-but-dont-trust-his-numbers/#493f3c559d80

Alternatives? maybe a balloon full of hot air.

This is a classic negotiation technique: claiming something is more than twice as expensive as it really is ($4B) and then signing a deal for half as much ($2B) despite the fact that the item was recently valued at less than that ($1.7B).

In this way he can make a shit deal and still claim he did a terrific deal.

The cost of Air Force 1 is not primarily due to the air frames, but due to the design and retrofitting of the modifications and extensive electronics upgrades.

If you do this to 777-300ER's instead of to 747's, it might change to a $3.9 billion program instead of a $4 billion program, or if you use 777-9's, into a $4.1 billion program (assuming $4 billion is accurate for the current program).

The two options that save a meaningful amount of money are to either radically reduce the scope of the modifications, or to extend the lives of the VC-25A's.

I'm unclear under what circumstances the president can cancel a Congressionally approved program. The one route I know of is his ability to veto appropriations bills, but vetoing a $600 billion defense bill over a single multi-year program is rare.

An225 wrote:

Now that Donald trump is threatening to cancel the AF1 project, what are the alternatives?

He can't directly cancel it as the appropriations bill that will purchase and outfit them come from the Congress. Now Congress might follow his lead and choose not to go forward with such a purchase, but depending on how many Congressional districts have a hand in the pie, there could be sufficient resistance to such a move. And Trump could veto the bill (though it would certainly be part of a larger defense package and that will likely prevent such a veto).

Worse case, the VC-25 fleet continues on as the planes can fly for decades longer if you're willing to pay for it.

KrustyTheKlown wrote:

Alternatives? maybe a balloon full of hot air.

This is a classic negotiation technique: claiming something is more than twice as expensive as it really is ($4B) and then signing a deal for half as much ($2B) despite the fact that the item was recently valued at less than that ($1.7B).

In this way he can make a shit deal and still claim he did a terrific deal.

I don't know what your source is, although I've seen an older, R&D-only estimate for about that amount. Unfortunately, the current GAO estimate is $3.2 billion for two aircraft. See page 158.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676281.pdf

Assuming the possible increase to three aircraft does not affect the R&D costs, and the rest is for procurement and modification, a third aircraft would bring the total to about $3.8 billion.

Given the direction that the president elect seems to be on, maybe order some new IL-96s?

They have 4 engines and everything, and I'm sure he could get them cheap...

iamlucky13 wrote:

KrustyTheKlown wrote:

Alternatives? maybe a balloon full of hot air.

This is a classic negotiation technique: claiming something is more than twice as expensive as it really is ($4B) and then signing a deal for half as much ($2B) despite the fact that the item was recently valued at less than that ($1.7B).

In this way he can make a shit deal and still claim he did a terrific deal.

I don't know what your source is, although I've seen an older, R&D-only estimate for about that amount. Unfortunately, the current GAO estimate is $3.2 billion for two aircraft. See page 158.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676281.pdf

Assuming the possible increase to three aircraft does not affect the R&D costs, and the rest is for procurement and modification, a third aircraft would bring the total to about $3.8 billion.

I was just parroting an amount I read somewhere.

This is the latest public estimate from the document you mentioned:

Estimated Program Cost and Quantity (fiscal year 2016 dollars):
Total program (fiscal years 2010-2020): $3,210.6 million
Research and development (fiscal years 2010-2020): $1,987.1 million
Procurement (fiscal years 2017-2020): $282.2million
Quantity: 2

Those numbers seem odd. If you add the R&D and procurement costs of other programs in that pdf file you get their total program cost. But if you add R&D and procurement for the AF1 replacement program you get $2,269.3 million.

Even so the $3.2 B number is a far cry from the $4+ B Trump is mentioning (unless he's taking into account the inflation expected from his economic plans).

The numbers may change, but I stand by my comment of that this is only a negotiating tactic but not aimed to save the Taxpayers money, but rather for Trump to buy some prestige for himself.

KrustyTheKlown wrote:

Even so the $3.2 B number is a far cry from the $4+ B Trump is mentioning (unless he's taking into account the inflation expected from his economic plans).

The inevitable cost over-runs will take it pretty close, if not over Trumps $4billion.

KrustyTheKlown wrote:

This is the latest public estimate from the document you mentioned:

Estimated Program Cost and Quantity (fiscal year 2016 dollars):
Total program (fiscal years 2010-2020): $3,210.6 million
Research and development (fiscal years 2010-2020): $1,987.1 million
Procurement (fiscal years 2017-2020): $282.2million
Quantity: 2

Those numbers seem odd. If you add the R&D and procurement costs of other programs in that pdf file you get their total program cost. But if you add R&D and procurement for the AF1 replacement program you get $2,269.3 million.

Even so the $3.2 B number is a far cry from the $4+ B Trump is mentioning (unless he's taking into account the inflation expected from his economic plans).

The numbers may change, but I stand by my comment of that this is only a negotiating tactic but not aimed to save the Taxpayers money, but rather for Trump to buy some prestige for himself.

It appears to me they did not include modification costs in either category, or as their own category, but still include an estimate for modification costs in the total. As I noted above, if that is the case, and the quantity is increased to three, the total is almost $4 billion. I presume prior to his comments, he had a briefing on the program that included the expected cost of third airframe option.

As for your last statement, I agree that it looks like an attempt to earn prestige as a budget hawk, but I'm skeptical it's even as thought out as a negotiating tactic.

As my post a couple lines up from the one you quoted argues, there are two credible alternatives to the $3.2-3.8 billion projection, and in my opinion Mr. Trump has not indicated by discussing these alternative that he has studied the matter well enough to have reasonable grounds for cancelling the current program. I get the sense he simply had a briefing about programs he'll be inheriting that included the VC-25A replacement and the cost of the third aircraft option and decided that was an easy program to criticize in 160 characters or less.

It's not the 747 that he is objecting to, but the over $1.5 billion per aircraft for the VVIP modification. That price won't change much with a 787-9 or 777W or a used 744. My guess is he will pursue a change in scope and a FREEZE in scope and some cost concessions.

ikramerica wrote:

It's not the 747 that he is objecting to, but the over $1.5 billion per aircraft for the VVIP modification. That price won't change much with a 787-9 or 777W or a used 744.

Nor indeed with a B-21, as some sectors suggest... ...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/preside ... -force-one

Quote:
"A panel of aerospace and defense analysts has proposed ditching the U.S. Air Force’s Boeing 747-8-based Air Force One in favor of the Northrop Grumman B-21 stealth bomber, or a less-costly militarized Boeing 737 ..."



http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... omber1.jpg


Now it's understandable why Northrop Grumman is willing to forgo the T-X competition. Looks way cool. Just one question though...do the staff and press sit in the wings or the ordnance bay

Devilfish wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

It's not the 747 that he is objecting to, but the over $1.5 billion per aircraft for the VVIP modification. That price won't change much with a 787-9 or 777W or a used 744.

Nor indeed with a B-21, as some sectors suggest... ...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/preside ... -force-one

Quote:
"A panel of aerospace and defense analysts has proposed ditching the U.S. Air Force’s Boeing 747-8-based Air Force One in favor of the Northrop Grumman B-21 stealth bomber, or a less-costly militarized Boeing 737 ..."

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... omber1.jpg


Now it's understandable why Northrop Grumman is willing to forgo the T-X competition. Looks way cool. Just one question though...do the staff and press sit in the wings or the ordnance bay

They would fly separate in support vessels.

As a reference I dug up an old thread with dozens of AF1 interior pictures. It ends with Obama's first trip 8 years ago. It strikes me as a total different atmosphere compared to today. A skilled nice black president, optimist, change, energy. What a quality drop https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1013951&start=50

Well at least we will get to see the B-21 (V-21? VC-21?) in daylight in places like Europe if that far fetched scenario ends up being the case.

ikramerica wrote:

It's not the 747 that he is objecting to, but the over $1.5 billion per aircraft for the VVIP modification. That price won't change much with a 787-9 or 777W or a used 744. My guess is he will pursue a change in scope and a FREEZE in scope and some cost concessions.

As long as DoD and MIA are cozy scope and cost will be out of control. As long as your buddy at DoD approving change controls and additional funding, one line code change costs few millions and few months to a year.

Shut the revolving door and no additional funding for fixes.

VH71 was the worst example, even after $4.4B development cost they couldn't freeze the specs.

VSMUT wrote:

Well at least we will get to see the B-21 (V-21? VC-21?) in daylight in places like Europe if that far fetched scenario ends up being the case.

VC-21, yeah, that would be a good idea. And affordable.

That would be a VIP conversion of the present day C-21A (Learjet 35).

Some 60 copies were bought some 30 years ago, and if I'm not mistaken, then about half of them are stored somewhere at a hot and dry place.

Pull a couple from storage, install wifi and a satellite phone, and there you have an affordable VC-21B.

[quote="keesje"

As a reference I dug up an old thread with dozens of AF1 interior pictures. It ends with Obama's first trip 8 years ago. It strikes me as a total different atmosphere compared to today. A skilled nice black president, optimist, change, energy. What a quality drop https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1013951&start=50

[/quote]

Could we save the political fawning and commentary for the non-av thread? Really inappropriate for this one. Thank you.

Obama was a very skilled president, it was an optimistic time and for good reason, very happy days full of hope that was fulfilled.


Completely different to the epically dark days we now have.

prebennorholm wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Well at least we will get to see the B-21 (V-21? VC-21?) in daylight in places like Europe if that far fetched scenario ends up being the case.

VC-21, yeah, that would be a good idea. And affordable.

That would be a VIP conversion of the present day C-21A (Learjet 35).

Some 60 copies were bought some 30 years ago, and if I'm not mistaken, then about half of them are stored somewhere at a hot and dry place.

Pull a couple from storage, install wifi and a satellite phone, and there you have an affordable VC-21B.

In that case, just get the Learjet 85 prototype(s?). Nobody is using them anyway.

B2 seems like a bad idea. Meeting room, bedroom, badroom & stuff.. 2 for AF1 would mean 10% reduction of the B2 fleet so probably an issue.

B52's though ... however the AF1's are newer and more comfortable, even equipped and have many hours on them left.