SheikhDjibouti wrote:

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!

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.

I think it is safe to say he won't get much named after him. He will be out of office anyway when there are ready for EIS.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

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.

Any future nuclear exchange is likely to be limited in scope and duration. When the E-4B and VC-25 were developed during the coldest part of the Cold War, some war fighting plans projected nuclear exchanges to be carried out over a period of weeks so endurance was a critical requirement as there would be multiple follow-on strikes that could target a sitting airframe as each side had five figures worth of warheads to employ and that is no longer anywhere near the case today after multiple treaty reductions.

Stitch wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

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.

Any future nuclear exchange is likely to be limited in scope and duration. When the E-4B and VC-25 were developed during the coldest part of the Cold War, some war fighting plans projected nuclear exchanges to be carried out over a period of weeks so endurance was a critical requirement as there would be multiple follow-on strikes that could target a sitting airframe as each side had five figures worth of warheads to employ and that is no longer anywhere near the case today after multiple treaty reductions.

I don't expect a cold war type scenario, but it seems short sighted to not have the ability to refuel in flight.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

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.

It will cost a ton, it was only added as a requirement last time so that the DC-10 could compete as the 747 met the range requirement on internal fuel only, it will never get used.

There are several very good reasons to not have it. Even the VC-137 had no aerial refueling capability and that was used during the height of the Cold War and had tiny legs compared to a 747.

bigjku wrote:

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.

All that is really needed is several decoys; identically painted 747s complete with the Presidential seal and enough "noisy" electronics to make an attractive target. But where would we possibly find these donor aircraft? Oh wait; they are already parked all over the Arizona desert, available at minimal cost and just waiting for a paint job. Half of them don't even need to be airworthy; just hook them up to a ground tug and move them around from time-to time.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

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.

Because if there is a nuclear conflict and the whole world is going to die, it is absolutely vital that the President of the United States (& his entourage) survives to ensure a final counter-strike against anybody surviving the initial onslaught. After which we can look forward re-populating the whole planet with the best humanity has to offer, featuring POTUS and his entourage.......

There is barely a single politician anywhere that I would deem worthy of saving this way, and I would probably add in most religious leaders too.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Even the VC-137 had no aerial refueling capability and that was used during the height of the Cold War and had tiny legs compared to a 747.

Clearly the VC-137 that served for decades was a totally inadequate solution, and the guys who thought it up should be shot.
And if they are dead (which they surely are) their bodies should be dug up and shot again.

We must spend $billions on a white elephant (literally!); those are the rules. Anything less is just cheapskating.

Does anyone know what the major components of the estimated AF1 cost of USD 3.8 billion are?...it seems a mighty high figure all the same...


Faro

My understanding it's a combination of things. All the super secret squirrel comms gear and the like, custom interior, support equipment so it can operate without ground support equipment. And the staff cost, as basically anyone working on the aircraft will need a very thorough background check and probably some level of security clearance. It all adds up pretty quickly.

reltney wrote:

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.

VC-25B, not C. Apparently not so simple

Faro wrote:

Does anyone know what the major components of the estimated AF1 cost of USD 3.8 billion are?...it seems a mighty high figure all the same...


Faro

EMP shielding would be a big one.
All the secure communication equipment would be another.
Still $3.8B for 2 aircraft does seem extreme.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Firstly he's not "your" great negotiator; how very dare you!
The numbers are so simple, even a President with fat little fingers can do the math.
Although under the circumstances, a brand new designation such as T-8UMP might be ordered.

You can keep the political jabs to yourself and stick to the topic, the snarkiness is unwarranted. I didn't vote for him but reading an aviation discussion and seeing political sarcasm brought into it is just... tiresome.

Zkpilot wrote:

Faro wrote:

Does anyone know what the major components of the estimated AF1 cost of USD 3.8 billion are?...it seems a mighty high figure all the same...


Faro

EMP shielding would be a big one.
All the secure communication equipment would be another.
Still $3.8B for 2 aircraft does seem extreme.

Yes...even with EMP and secure comms (which really shouldn't amount to boatloads of money...today security resides mostly in the software the comms equipment runs...)...it's hard to see how that can all add up to a billion and a half per frame...unless there are some dark, funky mods which are kept very very quiet...


Faro

AAvgeek744 wrote:

It makes no sense to not retro fit these planes for air-to-air refueling.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

There are several very good reasons to not have it.

And perhaps this was one of the reason the price went down. The cost of air-to-air refueling is more than just the hardware to be put on board.
In fact, the cost of the hardware would be small compared to the following costs:

1) Engineering the design: The existing drawings used to install the AAR on the current 747 can not be used/re-used. Most of the interface would have been changed. The old system would have used old parts that are no longer built. Re-enginneering using CAD and Digital mock-up would reduce the cost of the mod but would still eat up significant amount of money.

2) Maintenance of the AAR would be pain. The system would have to be maintained even though it would never be used. Seals would have to be replaced periodically etc . . .

Faro wrote:

.it's hard to see how that can all add up to a billion and a half per frame

Not for the frame. But if consider each of the system that will be put on the aircraft, and say price each system 1 mil dollar for the specification development and certification alone (even before the purchasing of the hardware), then you can see how the price can add up. Just look at the cost of replacing the chillers on the existing planes.

bt

As a member of the US Air Force, and someone who cares about how the military spends their money, it’s frustrating to see them spend it on an air refueling system that will never be used real world. Most of our cargo aircraft only do it to train on too, which eats up so much money.

Buckeyetech wrote:

As a member of the US Air Force, and someone who cares about how the military spends their money, it’s frustrating to see them spend it on an air refueling system that will never be used real world. Most of our cargo aircraft only do it to train on too, which eats up so much money.

Ummmmmm, my understanding is that there will be no aerial refuelling system on the new ones. That it is one of the things that won't be added compared to the VC-25s

Faro wrote:

Does anyone know what the major components of the estimated AF1 cost of USD 3.8 billion are?...it seems a mighty high figure all the same...

Faro

I gave a high-level list of some of the things in ( viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1370105&start=150#p20210425) on the previous page along with some references.

Beyond that, I doubt you'll find an itemized list, but if you do, please share.

bikerthai wrote:

But if consider each of the system that will be put on the aircraft, and say price each system 1 mil dollar for the specification development and certification alone (even before the purchasing of the hardware), then you can see how the price can add up.bt

Does that mean that all systems sitting in the present AF1 will be replaced by new ones?

I very much doubt that...upgrades, yes...developments, yes...optimisations, yes...but wholesale replacement of all systems with new ones that require R&D, new specs, tendering, prototyping, development, testing, certification, etc?...I very much doubt it, not for all AF1 systems...still wonder where all that cost is coming from apart from EMP hardening...


Faro

Faro wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

But if consider each of the system that will be put on the aircraft, and say price each system 1 mil dollar for the specification development and certification alone (even before the purchasing of the hardware), then you can see how the price can add up.bt

Does that mean that all systems sitting in the present AF1 will be replaced by new ones?

I very much doubt that...upgrades, yes...developments, yes...optimisations, yes...but wholesale replacement of all systems with new ones that require R&D, new specs, tendering, prototyping, development, testing, certification, etc?...I very much doubt it, not for all AF1 systems...still wonder where all that cost is coming from apart from EMP hardening...


Faro

Given the timelines for the project there won't really be a point at which you will be able to cannibalize an existing VC-25 to provide parts to the new planes.That means new parts.

It's also worth mentioning a lot of the equipment will probably be close to life expired by the time the new aircraft come online anyways. So you could end up being a penny wise but a pound foolish if you then need to take a brand new aircraft out of service for a bit to replace items as they reach the end of their life.

New equipment, appropriately cleared aircraft workers, secure site, defensive systems, etc. It all adds up.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

It's also worth mentioning a lot of the equipment will probably be close to life expired by the time the new aircraft come online anyways.

This is so true. The P-8A program is already at a point where some of the electronic box built for the first block of aircrafts have been obsoleted for lack of components and had to be rolled to new boxes with updated components. And that program is just reaching the mid-point of the production life. While the upgrade does not cost as much of generating a new system from scratch, the paperwork alone can add up.

Again, things like the galley chillers design can probably be re-used (as they are upgrading the current aircraft now), and some of the communication boxes will be pretty much standard with current AF inventory, the whole computing system would probably have to spec from scratch. Some of the computing boxes may come from existing AF or Navy programs and if they are lucky, those boxes have the system architecture open enough to be able to re-use. Otherwise they would have to roll the part number with new hardware and firmware, even if the external chassis is basically of the shelf.

And there is one hidden cost that rarely gets talk about, and that is the political calculation of spreading the work across the various states that have strong congressional delegations. Selecting subcontractor for political support can increase your risk of driving up cost.

bt

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

There are several very good reasons to not have it. Even the VC-137 had no aerial refueling capability and that was used during the height of the Cold War and had tiny legs compared to a 747.

I'd hardly call it "tiny" in comparison.

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.

You've probably already sorted this out but right up this page is an aerial photo of them sitting on the ground at Victorville. They are indeed 747-8i.

bikerthai wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

It makes no sense to not retro fit these planes for air-to-air refueling.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

There are several very good reasons to not have it.

And perhaps this was one of the reason the price went down. The cost of air-to-air refueling is more than just the hardware to be put on board.
In fact, the cost of the hardware would be small compared to the following costs:

1) Engineering the design: The existing drawings used to install the AAR on the current 747 can not be used/re-used. Most of the interface would have been changed. The old system would have used old parts that are no longer built. Re-enginneering using CAD and Digital mock-up would reduce the cost of the mod but would still eat up significant amount of money.

2) Maintenance of the AAR would be pain. The system would have to be maintained even though it would never be used. Seals would have to be replaced periodically etc . . .

Faro wrote:

.it's hard to see how that can all add up to a billion and a half per frame

Not for the frame. But if consider each of the system that will be put on the aircraft, and say price each system 1 mil dollar for the specification development and certification alone (even before the purchasing of the hardware), then you can see how the price can add up. Just look at the cost of replacing the chillers on the existing planes.

bt

You are talking like you have real facts but you are just guessing.

How much different is the plumbing in the 742 and that of the 748 that it will be changing to. As for the AAR you do know that Boeing installs this in every P-8 that comes down the line and the P-8 come down the same line that SW and AA 738's are built on. Using the hardware from the P-8 adapted for the AAR to the 748 and the old config from AF1 is not a show stopper. This also shows that Boeing is still building and installing the hardware on other aircraft.

So your number 1 statement on parts is not true. You have no idea of the maintenance cost and it is not like the Air Force does not do maintenance on hundred and hundreds of aircraft that have AAR.

itchief wrote:

You are talking like you have real facts but you are just guessing.

How much different is the plumbing in the 742 and that of the 748 that it will be changing to. As for the AAR you do know that Boeing installs this in every P-8 that comes down the line and the P-8 come down the same line that SW and AA 738's are built on.

Educated guesses my friend. I may not know the AAR plumbing system of the current VC-25. But I understand the some of the design requirement of the AAR system and am aware that the P-8 AAR system and the 737 AEW&C system had some teething problem before they finally worked it out (at some cost and delays). I also have some clues to how Boeing engineering process works that would lead me to guess on why the VC-25 design might not be as easily adaptable to the 747-8I as one may believe.

True I have no clue on how much cost in maintaining the AAR system in the US Air force. I will let other comment on the true cost, but I suspect it would not be insignificant.

bt

2025 retirement for the VC-25s.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/lawma ... t-end-2025

In the article, the pair of Boeing 747-8i's are referred to as VC-25B. Are they officially called that way?

Dutchy wrote:

In the article, the pair of Boeing 747-8i's are referred to as VC-25B. Are they officially called that way?

Yes. The designation was assigned in October 2017 and the USAF uses that designation when referring to the frames in press releases and official statements to news media.

Stitch wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In the article, the pair of Boeing 747-8i's are referred to as VC-25B. Are they officially called that way?

Yes. The designation was assigned in October 2017 and the USAF uses that designation when referring to the frames in press releases and official statements to news media.

ok, thanks.

bikerthai wrote:

And there is one hidden cost that rarely gets talk about, and that is the political calculation of spreading the work across the various states that have strong congressional delegations. Selecting subcontractor for political support can increase your risk of driving up cost.
bt

that pork barrel costs the government billions.. but Congress persists to stay elected. I have seen programs where that contracted hardware is pulled out after installation and some half assed equivalent installed only to be removed later for failure to meet specs and the original reinstalled .. however that's politics and the American greed