• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:17 am

tmu101 wrote:
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?


I'm expecting full retirement to museums.
 
User avatar
Florianopolis
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:27 am

tmu101 wrote:
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?


The old 707s (26000 and 27000) did go back into regular SAM service before retiring to museums, but I doubt the 747s will. There's no fleet of VIP 747s to put them in (like there was with the 707s), and they're overkill for just about every mission but the White House. Modifying them to perform another mission - like the flying pentagon for the SecDef - would be prohibitively expensive, what with budgets these days.

Going slightly off-topic... It's not clear what the SecDef will fly when the E4Bs have to be retired. My guess is nothing special - because they're too expensive to directly replace. E4's are really relics of the cold war defense budgets, and really hard to pay for in today's environment. My guess is the airborne doomsday command post would devolve to whatever the E6 can do, and the SecDef would fly around on a regular SAM jet, maybe with an enhanced communications suite.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:18 pm

Florianopolis wrote:
Going slightly off-topic... It's not clear what the SecDef will fly when the E4Bs have to be retired. My guess is nothing special - because they're too expensive to directly replace. E4's are really relics of the cold war defense budgets, and really hard to pay for in today's environment. My guess is the airborne doomsday command post would devolve to whatever the E6 can do, and the SecDef would fly around on a regular SAM jet, maybe with an enhanced communications suite.


I expect with the current world environment that SecDef will get a "specialized" airframe, but I expect that airframe to be based on the 737-800ERX platform used for the P-8 as it's plenty large enough for them, their staff and the necessary communication suite.
 
User avatar
Florianopolis
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:20 pm

Stitch wrote:
I expect with the current world environment that SecDef will get a "specialized" airframe, but I expect that airframe to be based on the 737-800ERX platform used for the P-8 as it's plenty large enough for them, their staff and the necessary communication suite.


I guess I just disagree with the feasibility of that, both physically and budgetarily. It's true that the 737-900 is actually two feet longer than the original Looking Glass C-135, but I'm not convinced you can stuff an E4B into a 737. When you contemplate what a 737-based airborne pentagon command post could actually do - which I argue is severely less than a 747-based one - it doesn't strike me as compelling. Since I'm arguing the E4B's capability as a big airborne command post won't be replaced, because it's too expensive to do so, all you're replacing is the airplane for the SecDef, and all he needs is a fancy phone, which I don't believe would require a new dedicated airplane.

Unless of course you happen to work in the five-sided building, in which case I defer to you.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:05 pm

Florianopolis wrote:
Stitch wrote:
I expect with the current world environment that SecDef will get a "specialized" airframe, but I expect that airframe to be based on the 737-800ERX platform used for the P-8 as it's plenty large enough for them, their staff and the necessary communication suite.


I guess I just disagree with the feasibility of that, both physically and budgetarily. It's true that the 737-900 is actually two feet longer than the original Looking Glass C-135, but I'm not convinced you can stuff an E4B into a 737. When you contemplate what a 737-based airborne pentagon command post could actually do - which I argue is severely less than a 747-based one - it doesn't strike me as compelling. Since I'm arguing the E4B's capability as a big airborne command post won't be replaced, because it's too expensive to do so, all you're replacing is the airplane for the SecDef, and all he needs is a fancy phone, which I don't believe would require a new dedicated airplane.


I agree SecDef doesn't need a full-blown command post ala the EC-135 or E-4B, but I think they do need more than a "fancy phone" otherwise the E-4B fleet could have been retired a decade ago as the VC-25 has the survivability along with the communications and battle management capability built in that the VC-137 lacked (which was why the E-4 was commissioned). That they were not, IMO, was due to 9/11 and the belief that SecDef needed a platform capable of operating in a capacity beyond what a C-32B or C-40B allows.

Speaking of those, I could see SecDef going to a C-32B, but I expect those to eventually be retired, as well.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2651
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:26 am

They could always modify a KC-46 into the role at some point in the future, just as they did with the many modified KC-135 airframes.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1994
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: RE: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:22 pm

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 believe a KC-46 derivative will be considered. The 737MAX may not have the legs needed for some missions.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
Florianopolis
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:47 am

Stitch wrote:
the VC-25 has the survivability along with the communications and battle management capability built in that the VC-137 lacked (which was why the E-4 was commissioned).


I'm not sure the VC-25 can do all that. The VC-25 is an ersatz flying White House, not a military command post. No doubt the President can order a nuclear launch from the airplane (he can order one up from a briefcase, for chrissakes), but the VC-25 is not equipped to turn the gears of the strategic forces. There are no trailing wires to talk to submarines, no milstar SHF antenna on the roof, and no battle staff (or management capability) to actually command and control nuclear forces. The E4 and the E6 can talk all the way down to a Minuteman missile in its silo.
.
.
Moose135 wrote:
They could always modify a KC-46 into the role at some point in the future, just as they did with the many modified KC-135 airframes.


That's probably the inevitable solution. That was the basic idea with the ill-fated E-10, right?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:35 pm

Florianopolis wrote:
Stitch wrote:
the VC-25 has the survivability along with the communications and battle management capability built in that the VC-137 lacked (which was why the E-4 was commissioned).


I'm not sure the VC-25 can do all that. The VC-25 is an ersatz flying White House, not a military command post. No doubt the President can order a nuclear launch from the airplane (he can order one up from a briefcase, for chrissakes), but the VC-25 is not equipped to turn the gears of the strategic forces. There are no trailing wires to talk to submarines, no milstar SHF antenna on the roof, and no battle staff (or management capability) to actually command and control nuclear forces. The E4 and the E6 can talk all the way down to a Minuteman missile in its silo.


And because the E-6 Mercury's can control the entire Triad (something the EC-135 Looking Glasses could not), the necessity of the VC-25 to have that capability is not there. Nor will it need to be there for it's replacement.

I expect the VC-25 replacement to have additional C3 capability built into it, but we're (thankfully) past the days of where we need a fully staffed airborne command post to prosecute an extended nuclear conflict that would last days, if not weeks.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:59 pm

Stitch wrote:
I expect the VC-25 replacement to have additional C3 capability built into it, but we're (thankfully) past the days of where we need a fully staffed airborne command post to prosecute an extended nuclear conflict that would last days, if not weeks.

The USAF is determined to ensure that only the most critical and worthwhile requirements make it onto the next VC-25.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ep-429953/

Quote:
"The US Air Force has awarded a third contract to Boeing under the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) programme aimed at preparing a process to convert the 747-8 into the next Air Force One.

The $16 million contract awarded on 28 September for 'classified requirements' comes after Boeing received a $127.3 million award in July and $25.8 million award in January.

All three contracts totaling $169 million are part of the air force’s risk reduction efforts.

The air force has selected the 747-8 to replace two VC-25As, which are derived from the 747-200.

But service officials are taking great care on PAR to avoid the delays and cost overruns that have plagued other programmes."



So it seems there's precious little scope for "goldplating" this time around.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: RE: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:24 am

PC12Fan wrote:

I believe a KC-46 derivative will be considered. The 737MAX may not have the legs needed for some missions.


Doubtful, the KC-46 carries around a lot of extra structural weight among other things.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:05 pm

Funnily enough, I've just been watching a couple of documentaries on the E-4 aircraft. One major issue with either replacing them or alternatively combining their mission with the VC-25 fleet is that the aircraft has a considerable amount of redundancy.

Whilst major communications equipment has increasingly been made more reliable and much smaller, the E-4 has backup systems which are old technology analog. In the situation of an EMP pulse attack many digital and minaturised systems are prone to being fried so those analog phone lines and teletype systems can be vital. It's shoehorning these and their power and heat issues into a single aircraft that will take some serious thought and testing. Sometimes old but reliable tech is what is needed when the new stuff goes pop.

There is no point saying that shielding will solve it all. Try telling that to the crewman sat at a dead console after that high altitude nuke goes off above them. Analog stuff has rudimentary wiring and often no processors or memory to be corrupted, and can be restarted or repaired quickly.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11029
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: RE: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:59 pm

LMP737 wrote:
PC12Fan wrote:

I believe a KC-46 derivative will be considered. The 737MAX may not have the legs needed for some missions.


Doubtful, the KC-46 carries around a lot of extra structural weight among other things.


Yes it does. But some of that extra weight on the KC-46A is devoted to EMP protection, and some to the armored cockpit, as well as the receiver air refueling system, all of which would be desirable. Additional weight is taken by the AN/ALR-69A(V) RWR system and the AN/AAQ-24(V) DIRCM system.

The commercial range of any of the possible airplanes is not a problem for the USAF. Receiver air refueling capability can be added, and some B-737s already have that capability. That capability will be added to the new AF-1 and any E-4 replacement.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: RE: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:20 pm

kc135topboom wrote:

Yes it does. But some of that extra weight on the KC-46A is devoted to EMP protection, and some to the armored cockpit, as well as the receiver air refueling system, all of which would be desirable. Additional weight is taken by the AN/ALR-69A(V) RWR system and the AN/AAQ-24(V) DIRCM system.

The commercial range of any of the possible airplanes is not a problem for the USAF. Receiver air refueling capability can be added, and some B-737s already have that capability. That capability will be added to the new AF-1 and any E-4 replacement.


It would make more sense to add air refueling and defensive systems to a standard commercial 767 airframe than it would be to use a KC-46 platform. By the time you removed all the structural weight, cargo door, add windows etc you would essentially have for all intents and purposes a different aircraft. Which would cost you a lot of money.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
GE9X
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:28 pm

Do we know what the aircraft designation will be yet or do we have educated guesses? According to Wikipedia, which doesn't cite any source for this particular information, the next number in line for the "C" series is 47. But that number is already used by a "C" series aircraft, the Douglas C-47 Skytrain / AC-47 Spooky. Could it be that they'd skip to VC-48 as a result? It would be appropriate for the 748. At what stage of a contract does the Air Force decide/unveil the designation of their aircraft?
 
tjh8402
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:50 pm

GE9X wrote:
Do we know what the aircraft designation will be yet or do we have educated guesses? According to Wikipedia, which doesn't cite any source for this particular information, the next number in line for the "C" series is 47. But that number is already used by a "C" series aircraft, the Douglas C-47 Skytrain / AC-47 Spooky. Could it be that they'd skip to VC-48 as a result? It would be appropriate for the 748. At what stage of a contract does the Air Force decide/unveil the designation of their aircraft?


There seems to be no clear answer. It could be called a VC-25B since it's an updated VC-25. Both the Gulfstream III and IV are labled C-20s despite the latter being a substantial update on the former. They just have different model letters. The GV and G550 are also the same way. OTOH, a proposed military version of the 747-400 was designated a C-33. Many designations have been reused. C-1 through C-46 all have multiple aircraft that have carried that designation. It appears they restarted at C-1 when the Navy joined the tri service designation system. OTOH, nothing requires them to go in order. The B-21 was noted as such because its a "21st century bomber" even though B-3 was next. F-24 though F-34 were skipped for the F-35. The F-117 came out of no where. As for when, I guess whenever they feel like it. The B-21 is already announced and we don't even know what that plane looks like.

Here's some fun reading on military aircraft designations if you want to lose an entire evening:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... l#_MDS_F35
 
User avatar
GE9X
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:51 pm

tjh8402 wrote:
Here's some fun reading on military aircraft designations if you want to lose an entire evening:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... l#_MDS_F35


Interesting! Thanks for the answer, I guess we won't know until we know.
 
User avatar
Florianopolis
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:17 am

tjh8402 wrote:
The B-21 was noted as such because its a "21st century bomber" even though B-3 was next.


It's because the B-3's already taken, Duh.

tjh8402 wrote:
The F-117 came out of no where


From what I understand, the F-111 was followed by a series of eastern-bloc-built test specimens that flew around the Nevada desert, and the F-117 was next in line.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:15 pm

LMP737 wrote:
It would make more sense to add air refueling and defensive systems to a standard commercial 767 airframe than it would be to use a KC-46 platform. By the time you removed all the structural weight, cargo door, add windows etc you would essentially have for all intents and purposes a different aircraft. Which would cost you a lot of money.


We are talking about the Sec of Def right? Why would the Sec Def needs windows?

And no, if you are looking for saving money, the KC-46 platform or the commercial precursor would be cheaper. The reason being the KC platform is an in-line production where all the systems are built in during the standard build process. Taking a commercial 767 and "modifying it" by attaching the required electronic hardware afterward would cost significantly more. Specially if they have to strip out all the wiring and re-installed shielded wiring etc.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2651
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:41 am

tjh8402 wrote:
Here's some fun reading on military aircraft designations if you want to lose an entire evening:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... l#_MDS_F35

Damn you for posting that! :D It's quite the rabbit hole you go down reading that...
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:28 am

bikerthai wrote:

We are talking about the Sec of Def right? Why would the Sec Def needs windows?

And no, if you are looking for saving money, the KC-46 platform or the commercial precursor would be cheaper. The reason being the KC platform is an in-line production where all the systems are built in during the standard build process. Taking a commercial 767 and "modifying it" by attaching the required electronic hardware afterward would cost significantly more. Specially if they have to strip out all the wiring and re-installed shielded wiring etc.

bt


Why does a Sec Def need an airplane of their own in the first place? The truth is he doesn't. So in a way the argument is academic.

Do you think redesigning the electrical, hydraulic, fuel system along with major changes in the structure is cheap? It is not.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
flyDTW1992
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:04 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:43 am

LMP737 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:

We are talking about the Sec of Def right? Why would the Sec Def needs windows?

And no, if you are looking for saving money, the KC-46 platform or the commercial precursor would be cheaper. The reason being the KC platform is an in-line production where all the systems are built in during the standard build process. Taking a commercial 767 and "modifying it" by attaching the required electronic hardware afterward would cost significantly more. Specially if they have to strip out all the wiring and re-installed shielded wiring etc.

bt


Why does a Sec Def need an airplane of their own in the first place? The truth is he doesn't. So in a way the argument is academic.

Do you think redesigning the electrical, hydraulic, fuel system along with major changes in the structure is cheap? It is not.


The chief executive of a half-trillion dollar, 2.8 million-employee organization that operates in an inherently global, fast-paced, and unpredictable environment (and that's a significant understatement) doesn't need an airplane? Right. Okay.
Now you're flying smart
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:11 am

flyDTW1992 wrote:


The chief executive of a half-trillion dollar, 2.8 million-employee organization that operates in an inherently global, fast-paced, and unpredictable environment (and that's a significant understatement) doesn't need an airplane? Right. Okay.


A CEO that has no authority to commit the forces he oversee's.

If the Secretary of Defense doesn't need an aircraft up until now I don't why has changed that would require him to have one.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:47 pm

LMP737 wrote:
flyDTW1992 wrote:


The chief executive of a half-trillion dollar, 2.8 million-employee organization that operates in an inherently global, fast-paced, and unpredictable environment (and that's a significant understatement) doesn't need an airplane? Right. Okay.


A CEO that has no authority to commit the forces he oversee's.

If the Secretary of Defense doesn't need an aircraft up until now I don't why has changed that would require him to have one.


he has had an airplane up until now, typically one of the E-4s. The reason this is being discussed is that the E-4 replacement was rumored to be a purchase grouped with the new AF1. The debate people have been having is not whether he needs a plane, but what sort of plane would work for him.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:58 pm

LMP737 wrote:
If the Secretary of Defense doesn't need an aircraft up until now I don't why has changed that would require him to have one.


Not on a full time basis. But now is a perfect example on why the Sec of Def needs to travel on such an aircraft. With the Mosul operation about to begin, you don't want him to be tied down to a command center until it is over. This way he can continue with his duties and stay fully involved in the operation.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:23 pm

bikerthai wrote:

Not on a full time basis. But now is a perfect example on why the Sec of Def needs to travel on such an aircraft. With the Mosul operation about to begin, you don't want him to be tied down to a command center until it is over. This way he can continue with his duties and stay fully involved in the operation.

bt


For what reason would the Secretary of Defense need to be in a flying command post for an operation where the majority of forces are not even American?
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:38 pm

LMP737 wrote:
For what reason would the Secretary of Defense need to be in a flying command post for an operation where the majority of forces are not even American?


Just because the majority of forces are not American, and most Americans are not following the battle, it would be a dereliction of duty for the Sec Def not to be in the loop. Specially if one those American airplanes mistakenly hit friendly force or a group of civilians trying to escape, or if one of the few American there gets killed.

So does the Sec Def need to be in the flying command post for the Mosul operation? Perhaps not, or not for the whole time, but perhaps at critical junctions.

bt.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:37 pm

bikerthai wrote:

So does the Sec Def need to be in the flying command post for the Mosul operation? Perhaps not, or not for the whole time, but perhaps at critical junctions.

bt.


Any input or information he might need for the operations in Mosul can be done safely from the comfort of his office.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:01 pm

LMP737 wrote:
Mosul can be done safely from the comfort of his office.


The timing of the Mosul operation is not dependent on the schedule of the Sec Def or the US Election. Let's say the Sec Def had a previously scheduled trip to visit to another country. Would the local embacy or consulate have sufficient communication hardware so he can keep tab on the situation? Maybe in Japan, but maybe not in Hanoi

bt.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:49 pm

So, it appears that the first green airframe for AF1 would be available 3Q 2017 for systems integration and interior outfitting afterwards... :) ...

http://leehamnews.com/2016/10/31/ups-or ... line-2020/

Quote:
"The first of three 747-8s for the presidential fleet is now scheduled for delivery in October 2017, it’s believed."


Interesting that the Air Force is actually looking at 3 x 748Is for the mission...Boeing must be very pleased :!:

Now, in spite of opinions already expressed against a ready-made plane playing second fiddle in case the prime aircraft goes tech...is it at all thinkable that the ntu 748 BBJ could be picked up as the third frame and reconfigured to carry the rest of the entourage and the press...without adding all the sophisticated gizmos to save on costs :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:11 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Now, in spite of opinions already expressed against a ready-made plane playing second fiddle in case the prime aircraft goes tech...is it at all thinkable that the ntu 748 BBJ could be picked up as the third frame and reconfigured to carry the rest of the entourage and the press...without adding all the sophisticated gizmos to save on costs :?:


For that role, yes it could, but why? They don't send the extra staff now on a separate plane in concert with AF1 - they fly ahead on commercial, to my knowledge.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3711
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:29 am

a cattle car for press and administrative hangers-on doesn't need 4 engines.. a terrible teen 787 would be adequate
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:45 am

kanban wrote:
a cattle car for press and administrative hangers-on doesn't need 4 engines.. a terrible teen 787 would be adequate


All the teenagers are spoken for and I don't think the Air Force would want them anyway.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:55 am

kanban wrote:
a cattle car for press and administrative hangers-on doesn't need 4 engines.. a terrible teen 787 would be adequate

That's very laudable. But from the 787 P&D thread, it seems all the 'terrible teens' have been spoken for :?: .....

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwNCW6IVMAAeuhn.jpg

*purloined from Woody's Aero Images ;)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:20 pm

Stitch wrote:
For that role, yes it could, but why?


True, it would be cheaper just to put those seats pallets in a KC-46 and fly the press on it.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3711
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:03 pm

At least bikerthai got the concept.. the rest of you are too literal.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:20 pm

bikerthai wrote:

True, it would be cheaper just to put those seats pallets in a KC-46 and fly the press on it.

bt


That would be a waste of resources.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3711
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:32 am

LMP737 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:

True, it would be cheaper just to put those seats pallets in a KC-46 and fly the press on it.

bt


That would be a waste of resources.


Why????? it would be cheaper than another 747..
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:38 am

Stitch wrote:
They don't send the extra staff now on a separate plane in concert with AF1 - they fly ahead on commercial, to my knowledge.

kanban wrote:
a cattle car for press and administrative hangers-on doesn't need 4 engines...

LMP737 wrote:
That would be a waste of resources

In that case, hang nylon webbings in the C-17 and squeeze the lot in...the four engines are there to carry Marine One and the presidential limo... :D ...

Image
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 19b967e2d7
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:20 pm

Heck,

How may press personnel travel with the Pres anyway. Isn't the -8 larger than the current plane. With extra cargo hold space for electronic equipment and plenty of loft space for more equipment (and don't forget the hump), couldn't they squeeze in a few more seats for the entourage?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:54 am

kanban wrote:
Why????? it would be cheaper than another 747..


Neither is a good option and since it hasn't been needed up until now I doubt we will see it anytime soon.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:10 am

Maybe the E4 Role will be retired, and that is why they are looking at 3 VC-25 replacements in stead of 2. The extra cost of an extra VC-25 replacement should easily offset the cost of having to replace the E4 planes.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 772, 77W | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: RE: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:15 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
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.

Saving dollars is, I am sure, the lowest priority. Also, the old AF1's will be in use while the new ones are being built and tested. That makes transplanting items very difficult. None of the comm gear will be reused; it is hopelessly outdated. Everything on the new planes will be new. And as for needing more space for the comm gear, I doubt it. Newer gear will be much more compact, and even though there will be far more capability I expect it will fit in a smaller space. So there still will be room for something else upstairs, I expect. Perhaps a doghouse for people the President is mad at?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:14 pm

SEPilot wrote:
Everything on the new planes will be new. And as for needing more space for the comm gear, I doubt it. Newer gear will be much more compact, and even though there will be far more capability I expect it will fit in a smaller space.


Not necessarily. It would probably be incorrect to assume that the Communication and computing gear on the existing planes are old and obsolete. It would be a dereliction of duty for the Secret Service and the Air Force to not have the existing planes up to date with the necessary electronic gear.

Communication gear by them selves did not change much in the size of the boxes. They still used the ARC 210 type radio for UHF and slightly larger boxes for the high powered UHF/VHF. The advances in computing is what will you can take advantage in terms of size and capacity.

Depending on who win the electronic suite contract, I suspect the hardware would be very similar to one currently used on the P-8.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:13 am

kanban wrote:
a cattle car for press and administrative hangers-on doesn't need 4 engines.. a terrible teen 787 would be adequate


Or a C-32 or C-40, which we already have in service.

Or assuming we're talking about actual administrative staff and not simply a free bus ride for the press (who can make their own arrangements, in my opinion) a commercial charter, which would almost certainly be a lot cheaper when a security-cleared crew and the extra communications gear the Air Force VIP planes have are not needed.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:27 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
kanban wrote:
a cattle car for press and administrative hangers-on doesn't need 4 engines.. a terrible teen 787 would be adequate


Or a C-32 or C-40, which we already have in service.

Or assuming we're talking about actual administrative staff and not simply a free bus ride for the press (who can make their own arrangements, in my opinion) a commercial charter, which would almost certainly be a lot cheaper when a security-cleared crew and the extra communications gear the Air Force VIP planes have are not needed.


When the media travel with the president, I'm pretty sure they reimburse the USAF the equivalent of a commercial ticket. When the President travels, they already take the second VC-25 with them so we're flying two 747s on each trip as it is. There's already plenty of room to bring the press and staff along, especially with the extra space the -8 provides. My guess is that they would want a third plane to allow for them to continue to have a plane down for maintenance while continuing to have two frames available for trips. It's best for the President to have the media with him at all times on major trips, especially in todays right now instant information world. Plus, having the press travel with him probably makes it easier for the President and his staff to build relationships with reporters.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:33 am

tjh8402 wrote:
Plus, having the press travel with him probably makes it easier for the President and his staff to build relationships with reporters.


Ha Ha, I don't think the President elect follow your line of thinking. Get rid of the press and talk directly to the people via Twitter :hissyfit:

But yes, the typical US president do have reason to talk to the press.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3711
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:59 pm

tjh8402 wrote:

When the President travels, they already take the second VC-25 with them so we're flying two 747s on each trip as it is.


As I understand it the second standby plane seldom lands at the same airport as AF1 and is held in reserve nearby in case AF1 has a problem.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2651
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:17 pm

kanban wrote:
As I understand it the second standby plane seldom lands at the same airport as AF1 and is held in reserve nearby in case AF1 has a problem.

Correct, and from what I know, they don't necessarily do that domestically either.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: Air Force One Replacement Thread Pt2

Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:52 pm

bikerthai wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
Everything on the new planes will be new. And as for needing more space for the comm gear, I doubt it. Newer gear will be much more compact, and even though there will be far more capability I expect it will fit in a smaller space.


Not necessarily. It would probably be incorrect to assume that the Communication and computing gear on the existing planes are old and obsolete. It would be a dereliction of duty for the Secret Service and the Air Force to not have the existing planes up to date with the necessary electronic gear.

Communication gear by them selves did not change much in the size of the boxes. They still used the ARC 210 type radio for UHF and slightly larger boxes for the high powered UHF/VHF. The advances in computing is what will you can take advantage in terms of size and capacity.

Depending on who win the electronic suite contract, I suspect the hardware would be very similar to one currently used on the P-8.

bt


^^

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. I would expect the comms gear on AF1 to be amongest the best in the USAF when it comes to the strategic stuff. And as bikerthai points out, that sort of stuff does not evolve quickly compared to many other bits of wireless we're used to. So it should be simple enough to transfer a lot of the equipment across, especially stuff like the LRUs.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos