If it was originally added just to pretend to make the previous competition kinda competing then it makes perfect sense to delete the surplus requirement now. Especially with an aircraft that's even longer legged than the long legged aircraft it replaces.
Sure it's nice to have. But if things have gone so pear shaped that you can't find a safe refueling stop or handover point in 12 hours you've got bigger problems.
If aloft time is truly that important throw even more money at solar and build a solar powered 747 sized plane that can stay airborne as long as the food and water holds out.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Inflight Refueling Deleted from AF-1 Replacement
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:it makes sense to delete the surplus requirement now. Especially with an aircraft that's even longer legged than the long legged aircraft it replaces. Sure it's nice to have. But if things have gone so pear shaped that you can't find a safe refueling stop or handover point in 12 hours you've got bigger problems.
Again - but the 6000nm and 12+ hours behind you doesn't mean squat if it hits the fan near the end of a trip when you have no choice but to stay airborne.
It's there for THE worst case scenario.
Slug71 wrote:
The requirement was removed under the Obama administration! The new administration just continued with it.
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/air ... ng-update/
I was not aware of that - thanks.
Re: Inflight Refueling Deleted from AF-1 Replacement
You know, if the worst case scenario does occur, then fine with me that the plane does not have the refueling capability. If there is still a government left, there would be a chain of succession. If the government is in bad enough shape that the chain of command is no longer viable, then command will fall to the individual governors and there would be no need for a Federal government. The specification for the new Presidential aircraft should account for many of the apocalyptic scenarios. But if the case is such that the plane can not find a safe place to land after 10 odds hours, then the rest of the US have other things to worry about than the safety of the President.
bt
bt
Re: Inflight Refueling Deleted from AF-1 Replacement
ExMilitaryEng wrote:citationjet: "Since the 747, with fuel capacity of 312,000 lb, can easily fly 12,000 miles without refueling, the requirement for the IFR system should have been removed from the contract"
Even with IFR, those engine bearings will eventually need lubrication... What's the maximum range then?
I read the max fuel load of the 747-200 as
361000lbs
Re: Inflight Refueling Deleted from AF-1 Replacement
PC12Fan wrote:Again - but the 6000nm and 12+ hours behind you doesn't mean squat if it hits the fan near the end of a trip when you have no choice but to stay airborne.
It's there for THE worst case scenario.
There are a few claims around the net that the VC-25's range is closer to 8000nm. Keep in mind those specs are all classified. The specs won't be the same as a standard -200. The -8i will add even more range.
Re: Inflight Refueling Deleted from AF-1 Replacement
PC12Fan wrote:Again - but the 6000nm and 12+ hours behind you doesn't mean squat if it hits the fan near the end of a trip when you have no choice but to stay airborne.
It's there for THE worst case scenario.
But the worse case scenario today is different than it was 30 years ago when the VC-25 RFP was issued. Three decades ago, the worst case scenario was a surprise nuclear first strike launched against all of CONUS and Western Europe. That threat is gone and will never come back. One, the Russians and the Chinese don't have the weapons to pull it off and second the march to such an event would be something that will be foreseen - no "Bolt from the Blue" due to the general sense of distrust that existed during the Cold War between both sides.
The worst case scenario today is realistically a radiological device ("dirty bomb") with a far less-likely option being a stolen low-yield device detonated in a major population center. In such a scenario, VC-X can land probably even at the target city (most airports are far enough away from the CBD that the weapon's effects would not reach it) much less anywhere else in the country.
Re: Inflight Refueling Deleted from AF-1 Replacement
PC12Fan wrote:It's there for THE worst case scenario.
Except the truth is that there is no surviving "the worst case scenario". The worst case scenario for AF1 has as a solution a separate path of leadership continuity.
You say "worst case" but what case are you actually talking about? One where, as I noted, there is no safe harbor anywhere in the world for AF1 and whoever is on board? And the leadership succession is destroyed? Seriously, what worst case are you speaking of? Of course you can probably engineer one where in flight refueling is the only solution but I bet there is a simple worst addition that obviates that option.
As I said, in any case that the President cannot set down somewhere "friendly" (friends change of course as situations change) the situation will be so bad that the integrity of the nation is lost and refueling would likely only extend the existence of the USA a few hours at best. So its need is limited at best.
Refueling tankers will still fly with AF1 even without inflight refueling capability.
Tugg
-
- AirlineCritic
- Posts: 1815
- Joined:
Re: Inflight Refueling Deleted from AF-1 Replacement
There is only one realistic scenario where in-flight refueling would potentially be needed: the Zaphod Beeblebrox approach to presidency. Take the plane and refuel ships and run...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests