What is the status of Saudi royal 748 BBJ? is anyone taking it?

Buying these frames would save some money as the previous buyer would have put money down (some of which is not-refundable) on the frame and that money would have off set some of the Air Force's up front cost.

The Air Force would have not gain anything buying a new frame from scratch. They would have to put money down for long lead procurement. That money could now be used to put a down payment on these frame (and store it for future mod).

The future mod would have been inevitable as the new PAR would have not had anything mission system capability done in-line (the way the KC-46 is being built). The upfront engineering required to make that happen for just 2 frames is prohibitively expensive.

Now with the frame secured, Boeing Engineering will now know exactly the configuration that they have to work with. Which would take some guess work out the equation. With the 747 line quickly coming to an end, I would wonder if the extra factory space would figure into the decision for the final assembly for the 797?

bt

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.

chrisair wrote:

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

I hear its going to go next to the pool table.

Fred

They once claimed there would be 3 Af1's. Is the 3rd a possibility in likelyhood?

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.

Well, I always thought the door could be open to this possibility if the price was right. The USAF has nothing but time.
I wouldn't be surprised if the USAF got these for next to nothing. Maybe in exchange for additional orders of KC-46s, P-8s or Super Hornets.

Boeing will also more than likely have the contract for the E-6, E-4, WC/OC/RC-135s, E-8, and E-3 replacements coming up in the not too distant future.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1367329

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Oh yeah. Since that one is not owned by Boeing, I tend to not follow it.

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.

Yeah, I get what you mean. May the guy rest in peace. I wonder what the royal household will do with it? Replace their current B747-3G1? Anyhow, back to topic on hand.

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?

For sure. New technology is much smaller and can do a lot more. The 747-8I is also nearly 6m (+/- 20ft) longer than the 747-200B with an upper deck roughly twice as long too.

This article (there is a separate thread for this discussion) mentions that the Navy is working with the Airforce on a E-6/E-4 replacement. And also mentions the WC/OC/RC-135, E-3, and E-8.

http://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/0 ... placement/

IIRC, Airforce aircrew accompanies Navy aircrew on the E-6. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the E-6 and E-4 are merged into a single multi-mission frame.

The C-32 (AF2) replacement could also be a common frame with the E-4/E-6 replacements.

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war ... source=dam

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.

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.

Which also makes sense that they are pairing down from 3 to 2 747 as in a pinch, the 767 E-4/E-6 replacement can serve as AF1 as it will have intercontinental range.

bt

Jayafe wrote:

It will end being more expensive than frames a-la-carte,

If you are saying buying these white tails would end up being more expensive than if they bought the airframe from scratch with no previous owner because you can get the new airframe with some AF1 modification already built in, then the statement is incorrect.

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.
2) Since there would be only 2 frames for AF1, the cost of Engineering to have "modification" built in-line would be prohibitive. You would need very, very, long lead time and, of up-front (non-recurring) money that can not spread over more frames.
3) For the 747-8i there is some customization that the airline do get. But those customization option most likely would be for galleys, lavs etc and would get replaced/modified in AF1 any way.

bt

bt, I think where the problem comes is whether the plane is repurposed or line built unique, the engineering costs to the AF1 specifications remains, however in a repurposed plane adding things like beefed up floor beams, integral air stairs (which may require new body skins with unique machined in doublers), and em wiring. all these come with removal engineering, oversize fasteners, and general rework authorization, so the costs will be higher. then add the unique requirements and hardware. granted todays computer design will make it easier, provided the drawings were followed initially.

Even with some advance requirements planning on the two existing planes, there were whole areas built by rejection tag and PRR. (of course many of the requirements came too late for production incorporation which added to the cost).

So we can take the possibility of a 3rd Af1 off at this point?

Idlewildspotter wrote:

So we can take the possibility of a 3rd Af1 off at this point?

Unless the USAF is also interested in LN 1435, then yes.

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,

I agree that the actually Engineering design hours would remain the same. It is how it would have been executed is where the cost and lead time would hit you. If you try to get the AF1 requirement in-line, you are driving a configuration change to the sub-tier supplier, that would involve BCA drawing change. As you know that means beau-coup lead time, contract negotiations and cost mark-ups by the supplier for unique items. Also it is inconceivable that the mission system configuration is mature enough right now to allow you roll the interface to the air frame structure in-line even if you wanted to. Heck, I would bet that many of the system architecture would not be finalized by the time the last 747 roll out the Everett factory.

bt

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.

Maybe prince Waleed could take it to replace his 744 or USAF buy it too.

It's Official:

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/ ... force-one/

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.”

New thread at: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1370429

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.

Conversion work is scheduled to begin in 2019, aircraft should be operational by 2024:

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.

Well there is the 747-8I that LH refused to take up.

If the USAF wanted three, the acquisition contract just signed would have been for three. I don't recall anything official from the USAF about the tender being for three or more frames (to replace the E-4B fleet), just speculation that because the USAF has seven 747s they would/could be replaced one-for-one.

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?

I personally made that argument many times, so I'm here to eat my crow.

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. Plus, it's not like anyone knew these frames would go to the USAF while they were being built for Transaero. I find it impossible that someone slipped listening devices or something onto a frame destined for a commercial airline on the off chance they might go bankrupt and re-purpose the frames for VIP use.

My argument for why the USAF wouldn't take these frames was simply related to the quality documentation. In the work my company does for the DOD, we have reams of extra documentation we must provide versus when we sell the exact same product to a commercial end user. They want to witness more inspection points. They want to be involved in scrap or rework decisions. They want raw test data not just certification of compliance. Yada yada yada. In many cases, you can't go back and re-do those things.

I'm glad the government can embrace more commercial-style procurement, but it was personally unexpected from my experience.

I wonder if they're going to modify both planes simultaneously

The 747-8I has been built in two variants according two different (digital) master drawings.

1) The airline variant : Built according the reserved basicnumber block R8001- R8400. This variant has structural provisions for additional IFE cable bundles, multiple lavatories, standard pantry positions, etc.
Examples : L/N1435 is the first airline variant and has been constructed according master drawing R8001, L/N 1480 is the tenth airline variant and constructed according master drawing R8010.

2) The BBJ variant : built according the reserved basic number block R8401 and further. This variant has structural provisions for Aeroloft and Aero lift installation and other BBJ specific requirements.
Examples ; L/N1434 is the first BBJ variant and has been constructed according master drawing R8401, L/N1449 is the fifth BBJ built and conseq constucted according master drawing R8405.

Note : all 747-8F aircraft are built according reserved master drawing block R8901 and on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two Transaero aircraft are built according master drawing R8030 and R8031, with the Transaero specific variable number RC076 and RC077.

A third aircraft (if needed) must be an airline variant to keep the engineering costs of the AF1 modification in limits. The best would be a new airline variant frame according variable number RC078, to create 3 identical starting points, before the start of the AF1 modification.

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.

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.

L/N1435, LH NTU, has been built according master drawing R8001, this aircraft was the first built airline variant and special provisions were made for test equipment. (extra orange wire bundles !)
It's also overweight. Later built aircraft are built according an improved (lighter) standard, so master drawing R8001 is not identical to R8030. After certain blocknumbers the standard is changed to implement product improvement program (PIP) items.

This particular frame has been rejected by Lufthansa, because it differs to much from the other LH 747-830 aircraft, despite it has been refurbished to full airline status by Boeing.
Rumours have been that L/N1435 could be used for (flight)testing of some of the AF1 mods.

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.

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.

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.

Wasn't this done on a Chinese Government aircraft?

bt

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.

Is that available public anywhere?

Well, if I knew Transaero is going bankcrupt and was their government, I'd tell them to stay alive and bit longer so that I can bug their airplanes on the off chance that Boeing then offers them to USAF...

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.

Sure, that may all be true. Unfortunately the Transaero 747s had a cabin installed, so there's a lot of equipement that needs to be stripped. Right now it is a customized airframe.

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. The aircraft was eventually refitted and assigned to Air China as a regular passenger aircraft as B-2499, which was for the longest time, the only GE CF6 powered Boeing 767 in Air China's fleet. This was the bird in question:

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.

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.

bt

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.

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.

Yes, Boeing installed the interior. And they're probably going to have to rip that interior out to the airframe itself (so not just the panels, but also the insulation blankets) in order to run all the wiring and such. So it will become a "green" airplane when they're ready to start the modifications to the VC-X configuration.

Now it seems official.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... tr-440052/

Quote:
"The US Air Force has awarded Boeing a contract for two commercial 747-8 aircraft to replace an aging fleet of 747-200s serving as presidential transports.

The latest contract modifies an existing deal with Boeing awarded in 2016 to analyse options for reducing the risk of technical glitches in development of the new Air Force One fleet, as well assess classified requirements.

[.....]

Following modifications, the presidential aircraft replacement will begin flying in 2024.

[.....]

In March, a series of requirements reviews outlined the minimum set of requirements for the platform, including incorporating a mission communications system, electrical power upgrades, a medical facility, an executive interior, a self-defence system and autonomous ground operations."


This would free Boeing of two hard-to-sell airframes. But how many here think a complete strip and refit would be more expensive than new-builds in the end

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

Well the savings on the airframe purchase will hopefully offset the additional labor costs.

Maybe someone can convert LN 1435 into a fire bomber...

Now that the USAF has purchased the two Transaero NTUs, is there any point in using LN-1435 as a USAF testbed?
Maybe a new engine testbed?

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.)

I was told by an E-4 pilot on boom interphone, late one night somewhere over the Atlantic, that "new" VC-25 pilots fly with them for AR training, then return periodically for AR proficiency flights. They do not use the VC-25s for routine AR flights. He was unsure whether the VC-25s have ever even had AR contacts, since the E-4 was already a qualified AR receiver and the UARRSI installation is similar between the two (the paint job is the only real difference, with respect to air refueling). The E-4 and VC-25 are grouped together in the USAF publications for AR receiver specific information.

NOLAWildcat wrote:

[As far as I know the E-4s also have inflight refueling capabilities.

Correct. I got multiple AR contacts, and offloaded several hundred thousand pounds of fuel, to E-4s during my time as a KC-10 boom operator. Interesting receiver; I enjoyed the challenge.

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

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

Are they guarded in any way, since they now become destined as AF1 birds? Or will they be flown to an Air Force base?

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.

Well yeah, if you want to blow a hell of a lot more money than a 747, go for it.

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.

What I got out of earlier discussions is that the AF1 frames were inundated with a range of ( still being pre EIS ) 747-300 modifications already.

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.(...)

Somehow, I was both shocked and not at all surprised by that.

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.

I always wondered why the USAF just didn't buy a couple of white tails a few years ago, seeing that typically, a frame would start out life on a commercial line anyway and have to be torn down and rebuilt to US government specifications in the long run.
Now that these two 748s are USAF owned and future Air Force Ones (VC-25Bs???), how long will they be stored in the desert? Maybe flown to a much more secure facility while awaiting modification?
I'm looking forward to seeing these two aircraft in the beautiful Air Force One livery!