Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Armodeen wrote:Of course it makes sense.
Stitch wrote: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.
chrisair wrote:I hear its going to go next to the pool table.I sure hope they can add the downstairs bowling alley to these new planes.
CanadaFair wrote:What is the status of Saudi royal 748 BBJ? is anyone taking it?
Idlewildspotter wrote:They once claimed there would be 3 Af1's. Is the 3rd a possibility in likelyhood?
Slug71 wrote:As mentioned in the linked thread, i've read somewhere (this forum I think), that the E-4 capabilities could be merged into the new AF-1 frames too.
Stitch wrote:CanadaFair wrote:What is the status of Saudi royal 748 BBJ? is anyone taking it?
Yes, it was purchased last month (belief is by Qatar Amiri Flight).Idlewildspotter wrote:They once claimed there would be 3 Af1's. Is the 3rd a possibility in likelyhood?
Unlikely, otherwise we'd expect LN 1435 (LH's NTU) to be part of the deal and everything points to it only being the two Transaero NTUs.
juliuswong wrote:Stitch wrote:CanadaFair wrote:What is the status of Saudi royal 748 BBJ? is anyone taking it?
Yes, it was purchased last month (belief is by Qatar Amiri Flight).
If I am not mistaken, Qatar Amiri Flight bought the frame meant for Abu Dhabi Amiri Flight (LN 1495). The latter was supposed to get two, but took only one (LN 1440).
The Royal Saudi Arabia LN 1446 is still looking for buyer. Empty shell sitting in desert.
Stitch wrote:juliuswong wrote:Stitch wrote:Yes, it was purchased last month (belief is by Qatar Amiri Flight).
If I am not mistaken, Qatar Amiri Flight bought the frame meant for Abu Dhabi Amiri Flight (LN 1495). The latter was supposed to get two, but took only one (LN 1440).
The Royal Saudi Arabia LN 1446 is still looking for buyer. Empty shell sitting in desert.[j/quote]
Oh yeah. Since that one is not owned by Boeing, I tend to not follow it.
bmacleod wrote:Slug71 wrote:As mentioned in the linked thread, i've read somewhere (this forum I think), that the E-4 capabilities could be merged into the new AF-1 frames too.
Good point. USAF technology is likely much more integrated than in 1980s when E-4B came online.
Is there still a need for the E-4B?
If so can it be integrated in smaller frames like E-6?
LightningZ71 wrote:In another thread, I mentioned that another forum had a post from someone that's seen the initial paperwork on the E-4/E-6 et al procurement project and it's tightly tailored around the 767/kc-46 platform specs.
Jayafe wrote:It will end being more expensive than frames a-la-carte,
Idlewildspotter wrote:So we can take the possibility of a 3rd Af1 off at this point?
kanban wrote:I think where the problem comes is whether the plane is repurposed or line built unique, the engineering costs to the AF1 specifications remains,
juliuswong wrote:Stitch wrote:CanadaFair wrote:What is the status of Saudi royal 748 BBJ? is anyone taking it?
The Royal Saudi Arabia LN 1446 is still looking for buyer. Empty shell sitting in desert.
Boeing spokeswoman Caroline Hutcheson said in a statement that the two commercial planes were sold to the Air Force “at a substantial discount from the company’s existing inventory.”
Idlewildspotter wrote:So we can take the possibility of a 3rd Af1 off at this point?
This contract modification follows a set of awards in 2016 for risk reduction activities. The Air Force has already requested Boeing to provide proposals to design, modify, test and field two Presidential mission-ready aircraft. These efforts will be awarded via future contract modifications. The program expects to begin aircraft modifications in 2019 and reach initial operational capability in 2024.
N328KF wrote:Idlewildspotter wrote:So we can take the possibility of a 3rd Af1 off at this point?
They were already going to build three more. They could just as easily build one more if the program is for three.
KarelXWB wrote:One of the arguments used on this forum is that the US Air Force prefers new build aircraft because they want to follow the entire assembly process to make sure nothing suspicious goes into the aircraft. How will they deal with that?
Dutchy wrote:Thanks for the explanation. There is the LH 748i, not taken, that must be an R80XX variant, if they wanted to add a 3rd one.
bikerthai wrote:1) It is unlikely that the 747-8i has very much option for customization, so the white tail bought would almost have the same structural configuration as any new air frame to be built for AF1.
KarelXWB wrote:Boeing has a 160-page customization catalogus that customer can chose from.
DfwRevolution wrote:I expect the USAF can satisfy themselves with the security of the aircraft during their outfitting process. There's no doubt they will be stripped apart and inspected from nose to tail.
KarelXWB wrote:bikerthai wrote:1) It is unlikely that the 747-8i has very much option for customization, so the white tail bought would almost have the same structural configuration as any new air frame to be built for AF1.
Boeing has a 160-page customization catalogus that customer can chose from.
bikerthai wrote:KarelXWB wrote:Boeing has a 160-page customization catalogus that customer can chose from.
Only 160 pages? Strip away all the interiors options and flight system options then you'll probably find the differences in structure hardware is pretty small from these frame to any of the other frames.
bikerthai wrote:
Wasn't this done on a Chinese Government aircraft?
bt
KarelXWB wrote:
Sure, that may all be true. Unfortunately the Transaero 747s had a cabin installed, so there's a lot of equipment that needs to be stripped. Right now it is a customized airframe.
bikerthai wrote:Ugh, now I WILL put my tin foil hat on! Was the interior installed by Boeing? If yes, then there is still hope. If it was installed by a secondary outfit, then I may have to give Vladimir credit for executing such a clever plan with much foresight.
Devilfish wrote:This would free Boeing of two hard-to-sell airframes. But how many think a complete strip and refit would be more expensive than new-builds in the end
GalaxyFlyer wrote:I don't think they ever used the AAR capability on the VC-25s, either.
texl1649 wrote: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.)
NOLAWildcat wrote:[As far as I know the E-4s also have inflight refueling capabilities.
747classic wrote:A rare picture of the two future AF 1 aircraft stored at Victorville (VCV)
Original uploaded by Captain Dave's twitter, see : http://twitter.com/DaveWallsworth/statu ... 4882733056
frmrCapCadet wrote:The mission of "AF One" likely has greatly expanded over the years. Any real saving surely must come from reducing that mission. And like an aircraft carrier ship much of that mission could be moved to accompanying airplanes. A 'destroyer and Cruiser" escort probably would be cheaper and possibly better.
kanban wrote: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.
ThePointblank wrote:bikerthai wrote:
Wasn't this done on a Chinese Government aircraft?
bt
It was on one Boeing 767-300 that the Chinese government, through China United Airlines bought directly as a VIP bird. The aircraft was fitted out with VIP features in Texas, and when the Chinese took delivery, they discovered 27 electronic bugs installed in the aircraft's interior.(...)
KarelXWB wrote:How ironic that the US Air Force would end up with 747s that have been built for a Russian airline They will have to change the aircraft specification.Armodeen wrote:Of course it makes sense.
One of the arguments used on this forum is that the US Air Force prefers new build aircraft because they want to follow the entire assembly process to make sure nothing suspicious goes into the aircraft. How will they deal with that?Stitch wrote: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.
Yes I can imagine retrofitting exiting frames can end up being more expensive. Being a military project the costs may exceed the budget. But I suppose that's something the next president will have to deal with.