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

intotheair · Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:55 pm

The following report says that the US Air Force may buy two 747-8 frames from Boeing that were built for Transaero but not taken up. This is supposedly a result of President Trump's complaints that the Air Force One order was too expensive:

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017 ... enseOneTCO

Russian scaremongering aside (Boeing owns these planes, not a "Russian firm"), this might actually be a smart deal seeing as probably very few other customers would have been interested in two 747-8 frames anyway.

Armodeen · Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:57 pm

Of course it makes sense. They are already built and can be taken up and put into rework whenever the air force likes. I don't buy the argument that they are bespoke aircraft from the ground up, all other nations manage with modifications of standard aircraft, why can't the USA?

kabq737 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:57 pm

This really seems like a good money saving move all politics set aside. If the aircraft are there and money can be saved it makes logical sense.

bigjku · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:04 pm

Armodeen wrote:
Of course it makes sense. They are already built and can be taken up and put into rework whenever the air force likes. I don't buy the argument that they are bespoke aircraft from the ground up, all other nations manage with modifications of standard aircraft, why can't the USA?

While I think conversion makes sense it's not correct to compare the US to any other nation except maybe Russia.

The US has a large nuclear arsenal that has specific rules for its use and serves effectively as the deterrent for the whole of Western civilization. The president of the United States is different because of that fact and has to be far more networked and secure than say the German Chancellor.

Just the nature of the beast really.

TWA772LR · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:09 pm

Cue Blacksoviet.

Wouldn't it be better to build a while new frame though because AF1 only really shares the look of a 747? They'd still have to go in and retrofit all of the equipment it needs.

Dalavia · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:25 pm

I was hoping that the rumour might be true that the new AF1 would be a conversion from the B-1 airframe. THAT would have certainly made an impact when it arrived at the world's airports!

CRHoward · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:27 pm

Most of the $4B was for the modifications which will still have to be made. I doubt that the USAF will save much but Boeing should be very happy.

SFOThinker · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:29 pm

This probably is at least in part a bargaining threat to get Boeing to back down on some of the customization costs on a brand new build. They can be compared to this option.
There may well be advantages to a brand new build that would be lost, but the question is whether they are worth the extra price.

Stitch · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:35 pm

I bet the cost to retrofit these birds in terms of system installation (especially wiring and EMP hardening) ends up being higher than choosing new build frames, but hey, it gets two birds off Boeing's books and the cost overruns can be buried easily enough.

RobertS975 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:43 pm

The two current Air Force One aircraft have inflight refueling capability, and retrofitting these already built aircraft for inflight refueling would take some real ripping and refitting to be sure.

citationjet · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:45 pm

That was how the current AF1 was completed; the current AF1 (747-200) required 18 months of retrofitting to achieve the final configuration. Two standard 747-200 new build planes were built on the line in Seattle, and flown to Boeing Wichita for modifications (inflight refueling, electronics, wiring, IRCM, EMP hardening, etc). I worked on the first AF1 747 project for Boeing in Wichita.

citationjet · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:55 pm

[code][/code]

RobertS975 wrote:
The two current Air Force One aircraft have inflight refueling capability, and retrofitting these already built aircraft for inflight refueling would take some real ripping and refitting to be sure.

The current AF1 (747-200) had to be retrofitted after it came off the production line to add inflight refueling capability.
There is an interesting story about why the current AF-1 has inflight refueling capability. During the bid proposal process, the 747-200 was competing with the DC-10 for AF-1. The DC-10 didn't meet the range requirement and the 747 did. In order to keep the DC-10 in the competition, the Air Force added inflight refueling to the RFP requirements, even though the 747 could meet the range requirement without IFR. After the 747 won the contract award, Boeing offered to eliminate the IFR capability from their aircraft and refund the cost of the system. The Air Force refused, and that is why IFR exists today on VC-25. I worked at Boeing Military Airplane Co in Wichita KS at the time, and worked on AF-1 in engineering. This story is documented in a book written by Chuck Fisher, the Boeing pilot who flew the B-52 that lost its tail over Colorado and landed in Arkansas. The book is titled "High, Low, Joker and the Game" by Charles Fisher and Steve Conway.

ILNFlyer · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:04 pm

RobertS975 wrote:
The two current Air Force One aircraft have inflight refueling capability, and retrofitting these already built aircraft for inflight refueling would take some real ripping and refitting to be sure.

I'm sure that alone would be enormously expensive. Will this really save the taxpayer anything, or will this just benefit Boeing? I guess time will tell. And for heavens sakes, the cost of the other mods is going to be sky high.

ILNFlyer · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:05 pm

citationjet wrote:
That was how the current AF1 was completed; the current AF1 (747-200) required 18 months of retrofitting to achieve the final configuration. Two standard 747-200 new build planes were built on the line in Seattle, and flown to Boeing Wichita for modifications (inflight refueling, electronics, wiring, IRCM, EMP hardening, etc). I worked on the first AF1 747 project for Boeing in Wichita.

I bet that was an interesting project to be involved in. Knowing this, maybe they cost will be slightly lower since the process is already established and these two birds aren't really in all that different of a starting point.

KICT · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:07 pm

This is a smart move from a variety of angles. Of course, the media is reporting it with the Russia slant with headlines such as "Trump to buy planes from bankrupt Russian airline for Air Force One", which is, of course, by definition, fake news. I'm anything but a Trump supporter but the media hurts itself by clinging to the hysteria and this is a good example of when facts take a back seat to politics.

StTim · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:15 pm

I suspect it will start out cheaper but end up more expensive by the time they are delivered.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:25 pm

I don't think they ever used the AAR capability on the VC-25s, either.

GF

diverdave · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:28 pm

citationjet wrote:
That was how the current AF1 was completed; the current AF1 (747-200) required 18 months of retrofitting to achieve the final configuration. Two standard 747-200 new build planes were built on the line in Seattle, and flown to Boeing Wichita for modifications (inflight refueling, electronics, wiring, IRCM, EMP hardening, etc). I worked on the first AF1 747 project for Boeing in Wichita.

Were they built under the watchful of government security? I somewhat suspect they were.

David

texl1649 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:29 pm

So, the 742 AF1 aircraft had to have IFR built/retrofitted in after standard construction, though range was sufficient for the spec (and the 707 didn't have IFR). One could possibly surmise/deduct that this capability is even less needed in a 748i, which has a range (albeit, just comparing standard spec sheets) over 2000 miles greater (8000 miles give or take).

I get wanting to stay aloft in event of a mutual assured destruction scenario with Russia in the cold war, but I really doubt the President/USAF needs indefinite loitering capabilities or 10K+ mile range (the aircraft, despite all the extra gear, won't be close to a MTOW/loaded cargo/passenger 748i.)

If I had to guess it's probably never even flown a mission with POTUS gassed up more than 2/3 of capacity, and has never refuel in flight (except for testing/pilot proficiency.)

Jayafe · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:29 pm

It will end being more expensive than frames a-la-carte, but hey, this guy is PR and will baffle how much he saved to the country :shame:

capitalflyer · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:32 pm

AF1 needs inflight refueling not for range but in case of emergency so it can remain airborne indefinitely. Bush43 stayed up for quite some time on 9/11 (8 hours I believe) until it was determined that going back to WH was safe. In the case of nuclear emergency, that could be more like 8 days.

Boeing778X · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:36 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
AF1 needs inflight refueling not for range but in case of emergency so it can remain airborne indefinitely. Bush43 stayed up for quite some time on 9/11 (8 hours I believe) until it was determined that going back to WH was safe. In the case of nuclear emergency, that could be more like 8 days.

Bush 43 stopped at Barksdale AFB and Offutt AFB before returning to Andrews.

In the case of a Nuclear situation, while the current VC-25s are resistant to EMPs, the ideal aircraft for POTUS and the WH staff would be the E-6B, which is always at the ready.

sw733 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:42 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I don't think they ever used the AAR capability on the VC-25s, either.

GF

Sure they did, during the Harrison Ford Administration

maortega15 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:44 pm

sw733 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I don't think they ever used the AAR capability on the VC-25s, either.

GF

Sure they did, during the Harrison Ford Administration

What a coincidence, it was hijacked by Russians! :duck:

citationjet · Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:58 pm

diverdave wrote:
Were they built under the watchful of government security? I somewhat suspect they were.

Yes, they were modified in a special hanger built for the program in Wichita, KS. Even though I worked on the AF1 program for a few months, I was never allowed access to the hanger that housed the planes. I didn't have sufficient clearance. I never saw the plane, except when it flew over my house during flight testing.

Seabear · Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:01 pm

sw733 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I don't think they ever used the AAR capability on the VC-25s, either.

GF

Sure they did, during the Harrison Ford Administration

And of course, the Presidential Escape Pod...

Sooner787 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:06 pm

I hope these whitetails get a new lease on life.

Otherwise, they're destined to rot away in the desert
before quietly being scrapped.

NOLAWildcat · Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:14 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:
AF1 needs inflight refueling not for range but in case of emergency so it can remain airborne indefinitely. Bush43 stayed up for quite some time on 9/11 (8 hours I believe) until it was determined that going back to WH was safe. In the case of nuclear emergency, that could be more like 8 days.

Bush 43 stopped at Barksdale AFB and Offutt AFB before returning to Andrews.

In the case of a Nuclear situation, while the current VC-25s are resistant to EMPs, the ideal aircraft for POTUS and the WH staff would be the E-6B, which is always at the ready.

Actually, my understanding is that POTUS and the Cabinet would be on one of the USAF's E-4Bs (another 747-200 variant) rather than the E-6Bs during a nuclear war scenario. The E-4Bs are the birds equipped for coordinating a nuclear response to an attack on the US. The E-6B is a Navy-operated variant of the 707 which is tasked with distributing the launch codes from the President (presumably on an E-4 in this scenario) to both USN Boomers and USAF missile bases. It took over the Looking Glass role from the USAF's EC-135s in the 90's. As far as I know the E-4s also have inflight refueling capabilities. I believe the SecDef often uses one as his ride on his trips abroad.

As long as the AF1 film is being mentioned, the E-4B was actually shown as the plane the President boards in "The Sum of All Fears" after Baltimore eats a nuke. Whatever that film's faults were, I was pleased they showed that detail rather than the more familiar VC-25.

kitplane01 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:16 pm

Dalavia wrote:
I was hoping that the rumour might be true that the new AF1 would be a conversion from the B-1 airframe. THAT would have certainly made an impact when it arrived at the world's airports!

Actually, there was design sketches for a passenger version of the XB-70. That's a statement. Your B-1 is weak. :-)

kanban · Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:27 pm

citationjet wrote:
That was how the current AF1 was completed; the current AF1 (747-200) required 18 months of retrofitting to achieve the final configuration. Two standard 747-200 new build planes were built on the line in Seattle, and flown to Boeing Wichita for modifications (inflight refueling, electronics, wiring, IRCM, EMP hardening, etc). I worked on the first AF1 747 project for Boeing in Wichita.

Having worked on them in Everett they definitely were not two standard 747-200s, there were structural changes from day one. among various things are the integrated air stairs, different engines and struts, beefed up floor beams, and I've heard a different wing. They were bastards to begin with. some of the stuff done in Wichita was mainly due to requirements arriving too late for inclusion in Everett.

dcaviation · Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:28 pm

citationjet wrote:
Yes, they were modified in a special hanger built for the program in Wichita, KS. Even though I worked on the AF1 program for a few months, I was never allowed access to the hanger that housed the planes. I didn't have sufficient clearance. I never saw the plane, except when it flew over my house during flight testing.

By any chance, was there Boeing 787-900 hanging on that hanger where you were not allowed to access?

WPvsMW · Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:27 pm

Behind a paywall.. but the WSJ says it's a done deal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-jet ... 1501623697

Dutchy · Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:29 pm

So two fewer planes to be built, and two worries of Boeing's chest. That leaves only one more B748i to be made, is that right?

Stitch · Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:54 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So two fewer planes to be built, and two worries of Boeing's chest. That leaves only one more B748i to be made, is that right?

To my knowledge there are no 747-8 Intercontinentals in the firing order.

The VIP NTU was purchased a couple of weeks back and the two Transaero NTUs are now going to the USAF. So that just leaves LN 1435 (the LH NTU) which will likely go back into storage, but I expect Boeing will now be seriously motivated to get her sold as a BBJ.

maortega15 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:03 pm

Stitch wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So two fewer planes to be built, and two worries of Boeing's chest. That leaves only one more B748i to be made, is that right?

To my knowledge there are no 747-8 Intercontinentals in the firing order.

The VIP NTU was purchased a couple of weeks back and the two Transaero NTUs are now going to the USAF. So that just leaves LN 1435 (the LH NTU) which will likely go back into storage, but I expect Boeing will now be seriously motivated to get her sold as a BBJ.

Can't that be used as a replacement for the E-4?

Speaking of the E-4, what happens with the current 4 frames? Is there still even a need for an a/c with such capability?

KrustyTheKlown · Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:10 pm

I'm guessing they are going to save money by scrapping the escape pod, but any money they save is surely going to be used for extra tacky interiors :duck:

Stitch · Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:11 pm

maortega15 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
So that just leaves LN 1435 (the LH NTU) which will likely go back into storage, but I expect Boeing will now be seriously motivated to get her sold as a BBJ.

Can't that be used as a replacement for the E-4? Speaking of the E-4, what happens with the current 4 frames? Is there still even a need for an a/c with such capability?

Speculation is that the E-4B will be replaced with something using the 767-2C / KC-46A platform - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1367329

fraspotter · Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:52 pm

Weren't they talking about picking up 4 aircraft as AF1 replacements? Where are the other 2 coming from or have the plans been scrapped for the other 2?

Stitch wrote:
maortega15 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
So that just leaves LN 1435 (the LH NTU) which will likely go back into storage, but I expect Boeing will now be seriously motivated to get her sold as a BBJ.

Can't that be used as a replacement for the E-4? Speaking of the E-4, what happens with the current 4 frames? Is there still even a need for an a/c with such capability?

Speculation is that the E-4B will be replaced with something using the 767-2C / KC-46A platform - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1367329

Were the E-4B aircraft bigger than needed from the start or can everything be effectively done on a 767-2C body? Seems like a bit of a size downgrade to me.

mnik101 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:03 am

Now if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the contract originally for 4 747-8's for new AF1's not 2? I know the current fleet is 2, but didn't the Air Force's replacement RFQ state 4 planes for that role?

Boeing778X · Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:07 am

NOLAWildcat wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:
AF1 needs inflight refueling not for range but in case of emergency so it can remain airborne indefinitely. Bush43 stayed up for quite some time on 9/11 (8 hours I believe) until it was determined that going back to WH was safe. In the case of nuclear emergency, that could be more like 8 days.

Bush 43 stopped at Barksdale AFB and Offutt AFB before returning to Andrews.

In the case of a Nuclear situation, while the current VC-25s are resistant to EMPs, the ideal aircraft for POTUS and the WH staff would be the E-6B, which is always at the ready.

Actually, my understanding is that POTUS and the Cabinet would be on one of the USAF's E-4Bs (another 747-200 variant) rather than the E-6Bs during a nuclear war scenario. The E-4Bs are the birds equipped for coordinating a nuclear response to an attack on the US. The E-6B is a Navy-operated variant of the 707 which is tasked with distributing the launch codes from the President (presumably on an E-4 in this scenario) to both USN Boomers and USAF missile bases. It took over the Looking Glass role from the USAF's EC-135s in the 90's. As far as I know the E-4s also have inflight refueling capabilities. I believe the SecDef often uses one as his ride on his trips abroad.

As long as the AF1 film is being mentioned, the E-4B was actually shown as the plane the President boards in "The Sum of All Fears" after Baltimore eats a nuke. Whatever that film's faults were, I was pleased they showed that detail rather than the more familiar VC-25.

Correction, I meant to say E-4B, not the E-6 Mercury, my mistake! So embarrassing!

Stitch · Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:20 am

fraspotter wrote:
Weren't they talking about picking up 4 aircraft as AF1 replacements? Where are the other 2 coming from or have the plans been scrapped for the other 2?
mnik101 wrote:
Now if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the contract originally for 4 747-8's for new AF1's not 2? I know the current fleet is 2, but didn't the Air Force's replacement RFQ state 4 planes for that role?

Speculation was that the RFP would be for three frames. Once the USAF moved to actually defining the RFP, it was for two frames.

fraspotter wrote:
Stitch wrote:
maortega15 wrote:
Can't that be used as a replacement for the E-4? Speaking of the E-4, what happens with the current 4 frames? Is there still even a need for an a/c with such capability?

Speculation is that the E-4B will be replaced with something using the 767-2C / KC-46A platform - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1367329

Were the E-4B aircraft bigger than needed from the start or can everything be effectively done on a 767-2C body? Seems like a bit of a size downgrade to me.

At the time, the E-4B was the only appropriately-sized platform. With modern equipment, a 767-2C should have sufficient space for the equipment suites and the Battle Staff.

AvroLanc · Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:41 am

Were the E-4B aircraft bigger than needed from the start or can everything be effectively done on a 767-2C body? Seems like a bit of a size downgrade to me.[/quote]

Maybe, just think my cell phone 30 years ago was a 10lb monster and now I basically carry a computer in my back pocket weighing 5.5oz. Overall may not save money but may expedite the program.

smithbs · Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:54 am

kanban wrote:
Having worked on them in Everett they definitely were not two standard 747-200s, there were structural changes from day one. among various things are the integrated air stairs, different engines and struts, beefed up floor beams, and I've heard a different wing. They were bastards to begin with. some of the stuff done in Wichita was mainly due to requirements arriving too late for inclusion in Everett.

Weren't the two AF1 742's a half-stage toward the 744 design? I thought the engines, wing and weights were more 744-ish.

flee · Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:47 am

By the time the new plane comes into service (is it 2025?), the engines will be pretty old tech. Would GE be able to offer something more efficient (based on developments of the latest B787 engines) so that the endurance of AF1 is improved?

727200 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:51 am

What would be the cost of retrofit on these 2 birds? Knowing how government works, and the fact that what program saves money in the history of this country, these will not be cheap by any stretch. I would think to re-work the planes alone with the modifications is gonna be one serious cost; about the size of a phone book.

fraspotter · Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:51 am

flee wrote:
By the time the new plane comes into service (is it 2025?), the engines will be pretty old tech. Would GE be able to offer something more efficient (based on developments of the latest B787 engines) so that the endurance of AF1 is improved?

I'm sure they can work out a deal for new engines. Don't the current AF1 aircraft have -400 engines on a -200 body? Seem to remember reading that several places.

ltbewr · Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:38 am

Interesting situation, but may be the most reasonable in terms of costs to Boeing and the US Government, allows Boeing to end production of the 747 sooner, maybe a faster delivery. The questions arise as to if major structural mods need to be done.

Stitch · Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:14 am

fraspotter wrote:
flee wrote:
By the time the new plane comes into service (is it 2025?), the engines will be pretty old tech. Would GE be able to offer something more efficient (based on developments of the latest B787 engines) so that the endurance of AF1 is improved?

I'm sure they can work out a deal for new engines. Don't the current AF1 aircraft have -400 engines on a -200 body? Seem to remember reading that several places.

The USAF likes "tried and true" so I expect they might take any future PiPs GE develops for the GEnx1B, but that would be it. They did not push for a new engine for KC-X, after all.

chrisair · Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:44 am

I sure hope they can add the downstairs bowling alley to these new planes.

USAirKid · Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:52 am

WPvsMW wrote:
Behind a paywall.. but the WSJ says it's a done deal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-jet ... 1501623697

This link should get you around the paywall

https://twitter.com/mikojay/status/892600594392694784

(why this one works and the others don't... I dunno..)

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net