Seems that the USAF are seeking an Air Force 2 aircraft, the C-32 or Boeing 757-200. The 767 seems to be the forerunner because of the large tanker order.



https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... -force-two

Would make sense to take a 767 or 737, as both types are operated already (in various guises), although the 767 would have the range required to reach all the required spots without a stop. How much use do the VC-32s have?

Perfect replacement should be ACJ321LR, maybe in a mix with ACJ330-800

Not saying it's not possible, but I would be extremely surprised if the US Gov went with an Airbus.

Honestly I think that is a waste of money, the 757 is not that old it is basically the same generation aircraft as the 767. It also shares the same type rating and many parts. Keep it flying for a couple of more years and buy a newer generation aircraft like the 787 or 797

trijetsonly wrote:

Perfect replacement should be ACJ321LR, maybe in a mix with ACJ330-800

What is it with some peoples obsession with replacing important AMERICAN military aircraft with something FOREIGN?

I can't imagine these aircraft have much more than 12,000 hours, or so. The 757 is a great airframe so one would think another ten to fifteen years would work just fine. After that maybe a 787-8, assuming they are still in production. Trump 757 is probably around 15,000, so if it works for him??

It would be nice to ditch the PATS tanks and get the needed range with the 767-200ER would do but at what price?

Calder wrote:

Not saying it's not possible, but I would be extremely surprised if the US Gov went with an Airbus.

I'd be more surprised if Airbus bothered to bid.

That being said, the A321-200 could be an option as it is produced in the US at Mobile, AL so any ITAR/Secret Service concerns would be covered during production.

That also being said, I agree that 767-2C's (the base for the KC-46A) are probably the most logical choice.

Stitch wrote:

I'd be more surprised if Airbus bothered to bid.

That being said, the A321-200 could be an option as it is produced in the US at Mobile, AL so any ITAR/Secret Service concerns would be covered during production.

That also being said, I agree that 767-2C's (the base for the KC-46A) are probably the most logical choice.

Since they have bought the 767 tanker which is also a commercial a/c why not achieve economies of scale and use the a/c for everything?
JSTARS, AWACS, VIP transports - do they really need 737 / 757 will just a 767 work and the rest go commercial?
Imagine the simplicity of one frame, one engine type, standard avionics, crew certification, maintenance...the mind boggles, that's probably why it would never work.

par13del wrote:

Since they have bought the 767 tanker which is also a commercial a/c why not achieve economies of scale and use the a/c for everything?

The cancelled E-10A would have been on the 767-400ER platform, but in the intervening decade electronics miniaturization has advanced to the point that narrowbodies can now handle the role. Boeing is pitching either the P-8 or a 737-700 while Gulfstream is pitching the G650 and Bombardier the Global 6000 are also being considered as platforms.

Stitch wrote:

par13del wrote:

Since they have bought the 767 tanker which is also a commercial a/c why not achieve economies of scale and use the a/c for everything?

The cancelled E-10A would have been on the 767-400ER platform, but in the intervening decade electronics miniaturization has advanced to the point that narrowbodies can now handle the role. Boeing is pitching either the P-8 or a 737-700 while Gulfstream is pitching the G650 and Bombardier the Global 6000 are also being considered as platforms.

The C46 Avionics has little in common with a 767-Anything. Not saying that is a show stopper, but it's not a plug and play consideration. Many other differences as well that would be cost prohibitive in it's basic delivery form, Probably easier to build a 767-200ER and go from there.

Stitch wrote:

par13del wrote:

Since they have bought the 767 tanker which is also a commercial a/c why not achieve economies of scale and use the a/c for everything?

The cancelled E-10A would have been on the 767-400ER platform, but in the intervening decade electronics miniaturization has advanced to the point that narrowbodies can now handle the role. Boeing is pitching either the P-8 or a 737-700 while Gulfstream is pitching the G650 and Bombardier the Global 6000 are also being considered as platforms.

Actually the JSTARS replacement and the Compass Call replacement are both proposed on a G550 (GV-SP) airframe, not a G650.

par13del wrote:

do they really need 737 / 757 will just a 767 work and the rest go commercial?

For some application, the extra mass of the 767 frame is a nimus. For example JSTARS.

BravoOne wrote:

The cancelled E-10A would have been on the 767-400ER platform, but in the intervening decade electronics miniaturization has advanced to the point that narrowbodies can now handle the role.

E-10A imo was too ambitious . . . trying to do to many thing at one time. Since then, some of the function of E-10A has gone to a smaller plat form (JSTARS aquistion).

There is still one thing that miniaturization has not solve. Air search radar still require a lot of energy. Specially if they are to detect the new generation of Stealth. The 767 is still a strong candidate for AWACS recapitalization for this reason.

757 recap will probably be based on the MAX. Boeing has selected this frame as future military derivative development.

bt

gtae07 wrote:

Actually the JSTARS replacement and the Compass Call replacement are both proposed on a G550 (GV-SP) airframe, not a G650.

I thought the Compass Call was being replaced by the Comando Solo lll?

Either 737BBJ or 767 as both are in the US system anyway. A 737BBJ based on the 900 would look great.

Since the New Air-Force Tankers are based on the B767?? It would Seem "Cost Efficient" to base the new VIP's on the same airframe.
The C32 seems "Tight" in the Cabin (I've been on board the airplane.)
A B767 based transport would be a seemingly better fit and provide commonality for parts, Avionics, Pilot and Maintenance training, to have a more viable fleet. rather than a piece meal fleet.

"Tight' in the cabin? What do you expect for this kind of mission?. I to have been on these aircraft along the 747 and don't recall any cramped quarters.The C46 avionics suite is not like any existing 767, and doubt that the pilot and maintenance training would provide much cost savings either?

seahawk wrote:

Either 737BBJ or 767 as both are in the US system anyway. A 737BBJ based on the 900 would look great.

The -900 would never work out for any number of performance reasons. One of the big issues with so many of these aircrraft, other than the 767 is the need for aux tanks and they are problematic at best.

Usually on airliners.net flying a widebody on a narrowbody route is not considered cost effective. I guess when the taxpayer pays, it's no problem.

Aesma wrote:

Usually on airliners.net flying a widebody on a narrowbody route is not considered cost effective. I guess when the taxpayer pays, it's no problem.

different economics.

strfyr51 wrote:

Since the New Air-Force Tankers are based on the B767?? It would Seem "Cost Efficient" to base the new VIP's on the same airframe.

How many people are you typically transporting with a VIP aircraft? If less than 100, then the 737 frame is sufficient. A 767 would be carrying too much structural weight and the fuel to lug that weight. For longer legs, better to have the 737 land and re-fuel anyway.

bt

Given the proliferation of 737 based airframes in the US military, it seems feasible that they could take the place of the C-32. After all, a 737-7 or -8 equipped with supplemental tanks would likely give similar mission flexibility.

The C-32 is not dedicated to the VP the way the VC-25 is for the use of the President. Thus, I'm not sure exactly what capabilities the replacement will need in terms of passenger capacity, C3, etc... I could see it growing to a 767/KC-46 derivative. That would offer more space and added mission flexibility.

How many people are you typically transporting with a VIP aircraft? If less than 100, then the 737 frame is sufficient. A 767 would be carrying too much structural weight and the fuel to lug that weight. For longer legs, better to have the 737 land and re-fuel anyway.

Assuming a layout similar to the current plane (think domestic first with a small cabin carved out for the lead passenger) you probably would need a 767 to seat 100. That said, I'm not sure how often the current airplane is full, nor if there is any desire to increase capacity going forward. If I were the VIP, the only item on my wish list would be a slightly bigger lav in my stateroom that included a shower...

What is the "standard" mission profile for a VC-32? Does it favor the range of the 757 or the capacity?

Stitch wrote:

What is the "standard" mission profile for a VC-32? Does it favor the range of the 757 or the capacity?

There really isn't a single standard. The VC-32 is used for many VIPs, including the Secretary of State. The SecState's foreign trips often require both the range and the capacity for media and staff.

John Kerry traveled more than most Secretaries of State, but here's just one trip: https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/t ... /index.htm

Washington to Nairobi to Abuja to Jeddah to Geneva to Dhaka to New Dehli to Hangzhou... and back to DC. Surely with fuel stops in there.

So maybe they go NMA / MoM.

By the time they are ready to decide and fund, it should be in service.

BravoOne wrote:

"Tight' in the cabin? What do you expect for this kind of mission?. I to have been on these aircraft along the 747 and don't recall any cramped quarters.The C46 avionics suite is not like any existing 767, and doubt that the pilot and maintenance training would provide much cost savings either?

Have you been in the C32 communications suite?? And that's not cramped? Please!!
The B767 based airframe could have a forward cabin communications suite configuration just aft of the cockpit where the Forward Galley might be on a commercial configuration and have access to the forward Cargo pit right behind the lower 41 Avionics bay. Which would allow the comm team to have access to the airframe communications gear. were they to have an in flight Technician on board. Since the airplane would be for VIP's like the Secretary of State and diplomatic level types.
and it could be compatible with the other VIP airplanes and the new C46 Tankers. The C32 already uses the IDG's for the B777 because it needs the power so there's no real disadvantage. The C32's could be passed along to lesser diplomats so they would NOT be going to waste by any means But since the B757 is out of production getting parts and it's reliability might come into question on occasion.

Yes I have been in both the 757 and 747. Have not sat at any seats in the comm area, just looked. Did sit in the left seat of the 747 is that carries any weight with you:)

A lot of things could be better, but waisting taxpayer money on some derivative of the C46 is not one of them.

Andre3K wrote:

trijetsonly wrote:

Perfect replacement should be ACJ321LR, maybe in a mix with ACJ330-800

What is it with some peoples obsession with replacing important AMERICAN military aircraft with something FOREIGN?

Because as partners it was agreed upon, that products of the other partners should be given the same consideration.

Real world example here:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/w ... qatar.html

Mr. Tillerson was forced to try to adjudicate the dispute in phone calls while flying back from a trip to Australia and New Zealand, a task made more difficult because of his decision to fly a small plane rather than the usual large plane flown by his predecessors. The smaller aircraft forced Mr. Tillerson to stop for 15 hours in Hawaii while his flight crew rested. If he had taken the larger plane, he would have had a second flight crew and could have flown home far quicker – as Mr. Mattis, who was with him in Australia, was able to do — making his mediation efforts with Middle East figures half a world away easier.

State Department officials have explained that the smaller plane costs less money to operate. The smaller plane also accommodates fewer reporters.

Sounds like Sec. Mattis was in a C-32, while Sec. Tillerson opted for a smaller C-37.

They could positioned a crew in HNL to take over for the last leg home. If I'm not mistaken the USAF has both 737 and Gulfstream crews stationed in HNL so they certainly have the support to handle each aircraft and its needs.

trijetsonly wrote:

Perfect replacement should be ACJ321LR, maybe in a mix with ACJ330-800

Agree that would be the most sensible way to go. But for a govt aircraft, its important to massage local ego's. And we know how fragile Orange Top's ego is! So no chance.

Perhaps a mix of 737-8's & 737-10's?

KC46 and BBJ MAX derivatives make a lot of sense.

BravoOne wrote:

They could positioned a crew in HNL to take over for the last leg home. If I'm not mistaken the USAF has both 737 and Gulfstream crews stationed in HNL so they certainly have the support to handle each aircraft and its needs.

They could... But they typically do not. They probably planned for Tillerson to have a night in HNL, I'm sure he didn't care too much (with the initial plan).

Now for the anecdote time:

Air Mobility Command used to 'stage' crews all the time and operate more like a conventional airline, or ad-hoc cargo carrier. That is, a crew would take a jet to Europe, go into rest and a new crew would take that jet into the middle east and come back to Europe. When that crew returned, the first crew that brought the jet to Europe would take the jet back to USA, or some version of this. The crew that flew to the middle east would remain in Europe for a few weeks flying like this. This ends up being an inefficient use of the flight crews (great for utilization of the airplanes and cargo/pax getting into theater quicker) because back at home station each flight crew member also has some other duties they must fill and if they are gone for 2-3 weeks who is going to do that?

Now it runs more like this:

Fly from base to some destination CONUS to pick up cargo, fly to Europe, rest 18 hrs, fly into theater and back to Europe, rest 18 hrs, back to CONUS. For a crew based on the east coast of the USA, this trip would take 4 days and your cargo would get to some place like Qatar. The only downside is, if you have pax they need to stay somewhere in Europe for a night and their journey takes 2 days instead of being on the aircraft for 16-18 hrs.

thegman wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

They could positioned a crew in HNL to take over for the last leg home. If I'm not mistaken the USAF has both 737 and Gulfstream crews stationed in HNL so they certainly have the support to handle each aircraft and its needs.

They could... But they typically do not. They probably planned for Tillerson to have a night in HNL, I'm sure he didn't care too much (with the initial plan).

Now for the anecdote time:

Air Mobility Command used to 'stage' crews all the time and operate more like a conventional airline, or ad-hoc cargo carrier. That is, a crew would take a jet to Europe, go into rest and a new crew would take that jet into the middle east and come back to Europe. When that crew returned, the first crew that brought the jet to Europe would take the jet back to USA, or some version of this. The crew that flew to the middle east would remain in Europe for a few weeks flying like this. This ends up being an inefficient use of the flight crews (great for utilization of the airplanes and cargo/pax getting into theater quicker) because back at home station each flight crew member also has some other duties they must fill and if they are gone for 2-3 weeks who is going to do that?

Now it runs more like this:

Fly from base to some destination CONUS to pick up cargo, fly to Europe, rest 18 hrs, fly into theater and back to Europe, rest 18 hrs, back to CONUS. For a crew based on the east coast of the USA, this trip would take 4 days and your cargo would get to some place like Qatar. The only downside is, if you have pax they need to stay somewhere in Europe for a night and their journey takes 2 days instead of being on the aircraft for 16-18 hrs.

Thats all well and good but we are discussing the 89th and there requirements and operational protocol are significantly different than those you have described. Hmmm a night in HNL would be okay:)

columba wrote:

Honestly I think that is a waste of money, the 757 is not that old it is basically the same generation aircraft as the 767. It also shares the same type rating and many parts. Keep it flying for a couple of more years and buy a newer generation aircraft like the 787 or 797

I coulds really see the B767 or B787. After the VC32 was bought a lot of Senators were skeptical because of it's narrow cabin.
BUT! They downgraded the airframe to spite the WH at the time. Not sure if they'd make that mistake again
That airplane has one BIG communications Suite that takes up a LOT of the mid cabin. I was shocked at how much when the Airplane was in our Hangar at SFO.
We were doing some Avionics troubleshooting on it and an engine change. That airplane was a mishmosh of work arounds to get it where it needed to be.
Integrated Drive Generators from the B777, the APU from the B767 because of the massive dual APU Generators.
The Communications suite alone is as much as AF1's and there's a quarter of the room available. (I've seen both )
The New AF-1 will be a totally superior airplane because they know so much more and this will not be new to te Air Force or the Diplomatic corps.

The USAF already has VIP B-737s, they are the C-40B/C. There would be no need to buy more to replace the C-32s (which are only slightly older than the C-32s).
A VIP C-46 makes sense because the USAF has already paid the R&D. The C/VC-46 could retain the receiver air refueling receptacle of the KC-46 (the C-32Bs have this), and maybe the body fuel tanks if the cargo compartments are not needed for baggage. The C-46 is big enough for WH level communications, yet small enough to go to airports the VC-25 or new B-747-8s cannot go to. The C-46 could also be equipped with GEnx-67 engines with thrust reversers, instead of the non-thrust reverser PW-4062s of the KC-46A.

kc135topboom wrote:

The USAF already has VIP B-737s, they are the C-40B/C. There would be no need to buy more to replace the C-32s (which are only slightly older than the C-32s).
A VIP C-46 makes sense because the USAF has already paid the R&D. The C/VC-46 could retain the receiver air refueling receptacle of the KC-46 (the C-32Bs have this), and maybe the body fuel tanks if the cargo compartments are not needed for baggage. The C-46 is big enough for WH level communications, yet small enough to go to airports the VC-25 or new B-747-8s cannot go to. The C-46 could also be equipped with GEnx-67 engines with thrust reversers, instead of the non-thrust reverser PW-4062s of the KC-46A.

C-40Bs are newer than than C-32s, but don't have the legs nor passenger accommodations of the C32.

Next - run a 767 re-engine program to replace 6 C-32As. You have got to be kidding. Boeing is having enough trouble delivering the first KC-46.

The USAF could have had a new engine with the KC-30B or the KC-46A and decided to go with existing A330 and 767 power plants because they were known quantities with extensive spares support. So should the USAF procure a C-46 to replace the C-32, it will not have new engines.

A C-46 would offer about a third more floorspace than the C-32 so if the C-32 cabin is an issue, then a C-46 should address that.