Report: USAF to buy Transaero NTU 747-8s for Air Force One

ssteve · Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:22 pm

USAirKid wrote:
Aesma wrote:
40 years for these birds ? That's very optimistic.

I bet that in less than 20 the president would want to be flying something else, a spaceplane maybe ? I see the Shuttle has been mentioned in the thread already...

The 747-8 based Air Force One replacement is scheduled to go into service around 2024, at which date the current 747-200 based SAM 28000/29000 will be 34 years old.

Given the long development times for planes to fly the president, expecting the new planes to fly for 40 years isn't too much of a stretch.

SAM 26000, a 707, served 36 years. Granted, there was a certain ease of keeping a 707 around when the USAF flew so many others. The 742s probably won't be kept around as spare VIP transport long after the 748s are done teething. But that puts them right in their late 30s.

LMP737 · Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:05 pm

The analogy I would use is getting a real good deal on a fully furnished house. Then getting rid of all the furniture, ripping out and replacing all the drywall, insulation wiring and plumbing.

neutrino · Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:13 pm

Aesma wrote:
40 years for these birds ? That's very optimistic.

I bet that in less than 20 the president would want to be flying something else, a spaceplane maybe ? I see the Shuttle has been mentioned in the thread already...

The Shuttle is so yesteryear. The potus of 20 years hence could possibly be blasting around on Elon Musk's mature BFR?

bikerthai · Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:32 pm

LMP737 wrote:
The analogy I would use is getting a real good deal on a fully furnished house. Then getting rid of all the furniture, ripping out and replacing all the drywall, insulation wiring and plumbing.

Isn't that what they do when they set up a new Embassy or Consulate? That is if they do not built the compound up from scratch.

bt

Flighty · Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:29 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Stitch wrote:
ZEDZAG wrote:
Ive forgotten why A380 was discarded as a presidental transport(AF1). Can someone explain?

Airbus chose not to submit a bid. It would have required Airbus to set up an A380 FAL in the United States and ship all the major components by ship/rail/air to it. The costs involved for two airframes would have been tremendous and there would be no way they could offer a bid anywhere near what Boeing could have charged.

An interesting twist to all this is the USAF deciding to go with white-tails rather than new-builds for cost reasons. As such, I wonder if Airbus could have pitched the two Skymark NTUs if they had been available or whether their assembly in TLS would have invalidated them under the "must assemble in the USA" requirement for the new-builds.

Watching what happened with the tanker, there was no way at all the US would allow that contract to go to a foreign manufacturer, never mind what or how much Airbus (or any other ?) would have tried or done. Simply politics....

Correct. The tanker debacle and the Presidential Helicopter debacle proved how corrupt and thoroughly broken the US bidding process was, and is. Airbus decided to lodge a high profile protest by not bidding.

Stitch · Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:34 pm

Flighty wrote:
The tanker debacle and the Presidential Helicopter debacle proved how corrupt and thoroughly broken the US bidding process was, and is. Airbus decided to lodge a high profile protest by not bidding.

Let us not forget both the tanker debacle (NG/EADS) and the Presidential Helicopter debacle (LM/Agusta/Bell) were both involved European-sourced products so having had their hand caught in the cookie-jar once (KC-30B) and with the "guilt by association" of being an EU consortium (VH-71), perhaps Airbus decided to not risk getting into yet another debacle... :scratchchin:

747classic · Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:38 pm

A recent (October 05 2017) picture of both stored future Air Force One aircraft at Victorville (KVCV)

Original uploaded by Rainer Bexten, see : https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... n2/QtCYTIQ

Aesma · Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:35 pm

neutrino wrote:
Aesma wrote:
40 years for these birds ? That's very optimistic.

I bet that in less than 20 the president would want to be flying something else, a spaceplane maybe ? I see the Shuttle has been mentioned in the thread already...

The Shuttle is so yesteryear. The potus of 20 years hence could possibly be blasting around on Elon Musk's mature BFR?

Ah ah I was just talking about the Shuttle because it was a kind of spaceplane, proving I wasn't that far off with the idea. Not that travelling with a Shuttle would make any sense !

Yes something like Elon latest musings, or one from a competitor.

When I was a kid French president François Mitterrand travelled several times on a privatized Concorde. If that became possible again in some form, how long before the US president would like to be in on it ?

itchief · Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:25 pm

Flighty wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Airbus chose not to submit a bid. It would have required Airbus to set up an A380 FAL in the United States and ship all the major components by ship/rail/air to it. The costs involved for two airframes would have been tremendous and there would be no way they could offer a bid anywhere near what Boeing could have charged.

An interesting twist to all this is the USAF deciding to go with white-tails rather than new-builds for cost reasons. As such, I wonder if Airbus could have pitched the two Skymark NTUs if they had been available or whether their assembly in TLS would have invalidated them under the "must assemble in the USA" requirement for the new-builds.

Watching what happened with the tanker, there was no way at all the US would allow that contract to go to a foreign manufacturer, never mind what or how much Airbus (or any other ?) would have tried or done. Simply politics....

Correct. The tanker debacle and the Presidential Helicopter debacle proved how corrupt and thoroughly broken the US bidding process was, and is. Airbus decided to lodge a high profile protest by not bidding.

And this from another part of this forum, "Airbus CEO warns of significant impact from corruption probes", because it only happens in the USA. :roll:

AirlineCritic · Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:44 pm

747classic wrote:

Wow, nice shot! Also, I can see that they already have the on-board wireless Internet pods installed. President can surf the net. Tweet even. All good.

Slash787 · Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:00 pm

2024 is so far away

747classic · Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:55 am

The actual ownership transfer from Boeing to a new entity with Boeing customer identification code "BAC" ( Boeing Air force Contract ??) seems to be at October 31 2017 for both 747-85M aircraft, destined to become Air Force One.

According several sources the customer ground checks at VCV are scheduled for October 26 2017, no Customer acceptance flights are performed.

Seabear · Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:16 pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43209962

So it's apparently a done deal...or not?

Slug71 · Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:11 pm

Seabear wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43209962

So it's apparently a done deal...or not?

It's a done deal. That article is going off a 2016 tweet. Fake News.

bikerthai · Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:19 pm

The hold up was the insistence on fix price contract. Boeing would be reluctant on fix price contract on things that they can not control . . . mission creep. The general agreement with Trump may be ground rules on what aspect of the aircraft mod is fixed and what aspect can be re-negotiated if the Air Forces/Secret Service changes their minds and requirements.

bt

Devilfish · Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:11 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Seabear wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43209962

So it's apparently a done deal...or not?

It's a done deal. That article is going off a 2016 tweet. Fake News.

This doesn't seem to be fake.....

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/02 ... am-at-39b/

Dutchy · Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:59 pm

So our great negotiator has worked out a deal which is going to save 100.000.000, well quite impressive you might think, but then again, the 4bn was for 3 aircraft if I am not mistaken and for new instead of refurbished, yeah the art of the deal. :lol:

Planeyguy · Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:00 am

The US Air Force has bought two 747-8s from Boeing at a price of 3.9 billion.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/the-whi ... -news.html

LupineChemist · Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:05 am

Will these still have the VC-25 designation?

afterburner33 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:13 am

LupineChemist wrote:
Will these still have the VC-25 designation?

Unlikely.

Revelation · Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:34 pm

afterburner33 wrote:
LupineChemist wrote:
Will these still have the VC-25 designation?

Unlikely.

Yet the article says:

The planes in the deal announced Tuesday are VC-25Bs, the military counterpart to the 747.

Polot · Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
afterburner33 wrote:
LupineChemist wrote:
Will these still have the VC-25 designation?

Unlikely.

Yet the article says:

The planes in the deal announced Tuesday are VC-25Bs, the military counterpart to the 747.

CNBC is just saying that because that is what the current planes are called. The new ones will likely be VC-25Cs if the past is any indication (707 was VC-25A, current 742s are the VC-25B).

hOMSaR · Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:29 pm

Polot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
afterburner33 wrote:

Unlikely.

Yet the article says:

The planes in the deal announced Tuesday are VC-25Bs, the military counterpart to the 747.

CNBC is just saying that because that is what the current planes are called. The new ones will likely be VC-25Cs if the past is any indication (707 was VC-25A, current 742s are the VC-25B).

Umm...the 707 was designated VC-137.

northstardc4m · Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:32 pm

Polot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
afterburner33 wrote:

Unlikely.

Yet the article says:

The planes in the deal announced Tuesday are VC-25Bs, the military counterpart to the 747.

CNBC is just saying that because that is what the current planes are called. The new ones will likely be VC-25Cs if the past is any indication (707 was VC-25A, current 742s are the VC-25B).

???

The 707s were VC-137s?

The current 747-2G4Bs are VC-25As.

Revelation · Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:36 pm

It's funny how uptight people are about anything to do with "Air Force 1".

Yet each and every time all kinds of chest pumping and fist pounding goes on.

When blood rushes to the groin it leaves the brain, so my friend's dad used to say.

Oh well, it's the way of the world, so it seems.

Polot · Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:41 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
Polot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Yet the article says:

CNBC is just saying that because that is what the current planes are called. The new ones will likely be VC-25Cs if the past is any indication (707 was VC-25A, current 742s are the VC-25B).

???

The 707s were VC-137s?

The current 747-2G4Bs are VC-25As.

Probably should not be reading things just after getting out of bed.

sassiciai · Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:26 pm

Planeyguy wrote:
The US Air Force has bought two 747-8s from Boeing at a price of 3.9 billion.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/the-whi ... -news.html

Since this is a world-wide site, perhaps you could clarify what currency is to be understood in the 3.9 billion figure

I would have normally assumed "US dollars", but how do 2 B747-8s cost that much? That's almost 2 billion a go, and that seems like it's an order of magnitude higher than regular 747-8s would go for

Maybe they are not "747-8s", but something reworked so extensively that the frame price goes up by an order of magnitude! In that case, it's wrong to call them 747-8s, IMHO!

Slug71 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:40 pm

sassiciai wrote:
Planeyguy wrote:
The US Air Force has bought two 747-8s from Boeing at a price of 3.9 billion.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/the-whi ... -news.html

Since this is a world-wide site, perhaps you could clarify what currency is to be understood in the 3.9 billion figure

I would have normally assumed "US dollars", but how do 2 B747-8s cost that much? That's almost 2 billion a go, and that seems like it's an order of magnitude higher than regular 747-8s would go for

Maybe they are not "747-8s", but something reworked so extensively that the frame price goes up by an order of magnitude! In that case, it's wrong to call them 747-8s, IMHO!

Includes the cost of the needed mods by Boeing.

Revelation · Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:45 pm

sassiciai wrote:
Planeyguy wrote:
The US Air Force has bought two 747-8s from Boeing at a price of 3.9 billion.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/the-whi ... -news.html

Since this is a world-wide site, perhaps you could clarify what currency is to be understood in the 3.9 billion figure

I would have normally assumed "US dollars", but how do 2 B747-8s cost that much? That's almost 2 billion a go, and that seems like it's an order of magnitude higher than regular 747-8s would go for

Maybe they are not "747-8s", but something reworked so extensively that the frame price goes up by an order of magnitude! In that case, it's wrong to call them 747-8s, IMHO!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ce-one-bo/ says:

Each basic plane costs about $380 million, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at the Teal Group Corporation, an aerospace and defense market analysis firm. Ultimately, Aboulafia said, the basic aircraft itself will account for just one-fifth of the entire project cost.

And it also says:

Of course, Air Force One is more than just a plane. It’s also a mobile command center, with state-of-the-art communications and safety features.

The plane must be able to refuel while flying, and the president and his staff need to have communications capabilities equivalent to what is in the Oval Office -- secure video conferences, classified computer access, and nuclear-strike controls. It also needs robust defensive systems such as missile evasion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38236404 says:

The current jet has three floors and a massive 4,000 sq ft (400 sq m) of floor space. That includes a private office for the president, a conference room - even a gym.

The two food galleys are staffed by a team of chefs, with a fully outfitted kitchen which can feed 100 people at once. Preparation is done by military chefs who seal all the ingredients for safety.

And:

The plane also holds a medical suite which can function as an operating room, and a doctor is always on board.

So, not your bog-standard 747.

Johnv707 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:04 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So our great negotiator has worked out a deal which is going to save 100.000.000, well quite impressive you might think, but then again, the 4bn was for 3 aircraft if I am not mistaken and for new instead of refurbished, yeah the art of the deal.

Sarcasm not needed!

reltney · Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
It's funny how uptight people are about anything to do with "Air Force 1".

Yet each and every time all kinds of chest pumping and fist pounding goes on.

When blood rushes to the groin it leaves the brain, so my friend's dad used to say.

Oh well, it's the way of the world, so it seems.

Uncalled for response. Are you trying to derail the thread?

The press made a mistake as usual and VC-25C is more likely the new designation.

Gee, that was simple.

Slug71 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:20 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So our great negotiator has worked out a deal which is going to save 100.000.000, well quite impressive you might think, but then again, the 4bn was for 3 aircraft if I am not mistaken and for new instead of refurbished, yeah the art of the deal.

Three aircraft was only speculated and these aircraft are new.

AAvgeek744 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:58 pm

I've never seen an answer to this. Are they 8's or 8i's? Would be cool so see the colors on an 8i. It would be a good place for the press to sit and keep the lower deck top president and various AF business.

VSMUT · Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:13 pm

AAvgeek744 wrote:
I've never seen an answer to this. Are they 8's or 8i's? Would be cool so see the colors on an 8i. It would be a good place for the press to sit and keep the lower deck top president and various AF business.

They are 8i's. Already built, originally ordered by Transaero. Never delivered, and have been in storage since Transaero went bust.

Revelation · Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:27 pm

reltney wrote:
The press made a mistake as usual and VC-25C is more likely the new designation.

Why would VC-25C be more likely than VC-25B?

VSMUT wrote:
They are 8is. Already built, originally ordered by Transaero. Never delivered, and have been in storage since Transaero went bust.

Quite true. Sadly the article repeatedly says they were "built for Russia". Might be true in a way, but would have been better to say "built for a Russian airline that went bankrupt" instead.

AAvgeek744 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:25 pm

VSMUT wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
I've never seen an answer to this. Are they 8's or 8i's? Would be cool so see the colors on an 8i. It would be a good place for the press to sit and keep the lower deck top president and various AF business.

They are 8i's. Already built, originally ordered by Transaero. Never delivered, and have been in storage since Transaero went bust.

Thanks. I was pretty sure those were the frames that were going to be used, but not certain. Makes sense. The retrofit will still be pricey.

Stitch · Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:51 pm

rj777 wrote:
Does anybody want to take a stab at how the plane will look in the Air Force 1 colors?

Plenty of artistic mockups on Google Images from folks.

rj777 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:52 pm

Does anybody want to take a stab at how the plane will look in the Air Force 1 colors?

bhill · Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:14 pm

So where are the refueling birds going to come from if the US is nuked?

Slug71 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:19 pm

bhill wrote:
So where are the refueling birds going to come from if the US is nuked?

A KC-135 already travels with the presidential fleet. Many allies would provide support too.

XAM2175 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:20 pm

AAvgeek744 wrote:
I've never seen an answer to this. Are they 8's or 8i's?

The reason you've never seen an answer probably has something to do with the fact that the 747-8 is only offered in two main variants - the passenger version, which has the marketing name "747-8 Intercontinental" (8i), and the Freighter (8F).

Stitch · Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:21 pm

bhill wrote:
So where are the refueling birds going to come from if the US is nuked?

I imagine there is some contingency to use KC-135 or KC-46 birds as fuel tanks to refuel VC-X on the ground somewhere.

AAvgeek744 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:03 pm

XAM2175 wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
I've never seen an answer to this. Are they 8's or 8i's?

The reason you've never seen an answer probably has something to do with the fact that the 747-8 is only offered in two main variants - the passenger version, which has the marketing name "747-8 Intercontinental" (8i), and the Freighter (8F).

Of this I have always been aware. My point was to learn which model. I was hoping it would be the 8i with the stretched upper deck as opposed th the F version which does not.

bigjku · Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:04 pm

bhill wrote:
So where are the refueling birds going to come from if the US is nuked?

The US is quite large and has many large runways all over the place. Dispersal plans for planes have existed since the 1950’s. If things escalated such plans would be implemented.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:07 pm

And I imagine the 747-8i could probably fly halfway round the world on a single tank. I could've sworn this was covered earlier in the thread.

Dutchy · Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:14 pm

AAvgeek744 wrote:
XAM2175 wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
I've never seen an answer to this. Are they 8's or 8i's?

The reason you've never seen an answer probably has something to do with the fact that the 747-8 is only offered in two main variants - the passenger version, which has the marketing name "747-8 Intercontinental" (8i), and the Freighter (8F).

Of this I have always been aware. My point was to learn which model. I was hoping it would be the 8i with the stretched upper deck as opposed th the F version which does not.

A pair of Boeing 747-8i Intercontinental

dennisho115 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:22 pm

rj777 wrote:
Does anybody want to take a stab at how the plane will look in the Air Force 1 colors?

http://www.boeing.com/defense/air-force-one/index.page

SheikhDjibouti · Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:57 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So our great negotiator has worked out a deal which is going to save 100.000.000, well quite impressive you might think, but then again, the 4bn was for 3 aircraft if I am not mistaken and for new instead of refurbished, yeah the art of the deal.

Firstly he's not "your" great negotiator; how very dare you!

And secondly the amount he saved was a whopping $1.4billion (a White House spokesman said so, so it must be true).
The numbers are so simple, even a President with fat little fingers can do the math.

Here he is way back in 2016 before he even took office, sticking it to Boeing and making sure that the project costs of $5.3billion were cut back to less than $4billion.
Unfortunately neither Boeing, Trump's own Twitter account, or the fake news from CNBC, made any mention of the $5.3billion figure, so you will just have to take his word for it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/22/trump-e ... costs.html

But on the upside, he also negotiated the construction of a new hangar to house the aircraft. Oh yeah! :yes:

Designation wise, it does appear that VC-25B gets the vote, which seems a lot more sensible than the confusion brought about with the variety of Boeing 707 types.
i.e. C-135, C-137, C-18, E-3, E-6, E-8 and even T-49

Although under the circumstances, a brand new designation such as T-8UMP might be ordered.

AAvgeek744 · Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:26 am

Dutchy wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
XAM2175 wrote:

The reason you've never seen an answer probably has something to do with the fact that the 747-8 is only offered in two main variants - the passenger version, which has the marketing name "747-8 Intercontinental" (8i), and the Freighter (8F).

Of this I have always been aware. My point was to learn which model. I was hoping it would be the 8i with the stretched upper deck as opposed th the F version which does not.

A pair of Boeing 747-8i Intercontinental

Yes, I got it.

AAvgeek744 · Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:29 am

bigjku wrote:
bhill wrote:
So where are the refueling birds going to come from if the US is nuked?

The US is quite large and has many large runways all over the place. Dispersal plans for planes have existed since the 1950’s. If things escalated such plans would be implemented.

It makes no sense to not retro fit these planes for air-to-air refueling. In the possibility of some catastrophic, nuclear conflict, the plane should stay aloft as long as possible.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net