USAF starts public search for Air Force One Replecement

[Eclipse]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/09/320824/usaf-starts-public-search-for-air-force-one-replacement.html


Air Force One A380 Gareth Burgess/Flight International  © Gareth Burgess/Flight International

The US Air Force yesterday took the first public step in the search for a replacement of the Boeing VC-25 Air Force One, the presidential aircraft fleet.

The USAF posted a request for information for market sources that can provide three widebody aircraft to replace two, 19-year-old VC-25s, which are converted Boeing 747-200s.

An analysis of alternatives performed in 2007, which identified the Airbus A380 as a candidate, found that it would be more cost-effective to buy new aircraft rather than modernize the VC-25s, the acquisition document says.

The first "presidential aircraft replacement" must be delivered in 2017, followed by a second and third aircraft in 2019 and 2021.

[SAR-EMT1]

How likely is it that we will see the number of engines drop from 4 to 2 on the replacement ?

I know that's what modern wide-bodies are coming to... its just, I didn't know if the USAF would want more then 2 as a measure of ensuring airframe survivability.

[JAFO78]

My question as a tax payer is why find a new plane? We are still flying B52's and KC135R's that are how old? I say keep the 747's and upgrade them.

[nesagsar]

How likely is it that we will see the number of engines drop from 4 to 2 on the replacement ?

I know that's what modern wide-bodies are coming to... its just, I didn't know if the USAF would want more then 2 as a measure of ensuring airframe survivability.

I would prefer 4 engines. The contents of Air Force One are too important to risk total disaster when one engine blows out, having the safety buffer just makes sense.

I also think it would be a good idea to produce the aircraft domesticlly.

[Sleepwalker]

nesagsar is exactly correct on these two points:

1) It will be a Boeing (US Made)

2) It will have 4 engines.

[jimmydeanno]

My question as a tax payer is why find a new plane? We are still flying B52's and KC135R's that are how old? I say keep the 747's and upgrade them.

An analysis of alternatives performed in 2007, which identified the Airbus A380 as a candidate, found that it would be more cost-effective to buy new aircraft rather than modernize the VC-25s, the acquisition document says.

[Smithsonia]

My Squadron needs to replace one of our C-182s. We'd gladly accept the donation of a 747. The Presidents left-overs are just fine for us and truly all we deserve. If it's not too much trouble please take this matter up with President Obama no later than Mid-Feb and get back to us. After that we may wind up with a glass-cockpit Cessna as consolation.
Thanks!

[_]

The power of modern engines make it so having four engines is not as necessary.  I read an article a couple years ago that talked about how there was a test done with a 747 and a new engine.  They replaced one of the existing engines with the new one.  They were able to fly the plane with just the one engine.  With the chances of loosing two engines being very slim I think a 777ER or even a 787 could be a good choice.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

My Squadron needs to replace one of our C-182s. We'd gladly accept the donation of a 747. The Presidents left-overs are just fine for us and truly all we deserve. If it's not too much trouble please take this matter up with President Obama no later than Mid-Feb and get back to us. After that we may wind up with a glass-cockpit Cessna as consolation.
Thanks!

It's hard to fly SAR in a jumbo jet. You can't really even see out the window.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The power of modern engines make it so having four engines is not as necessary.  I read an article a couple years ago that talked about how there was a test done with a 747 and a new engine.  They replaced one of the existing engines with the new one.  They were able to fly the plane with just the one engine.  With the chances of loosing two engines being very slim I think a 777ER or even a 787 could be a good choice.

Maybe so, but the presidential security folks will have a lot of influence on this purchase. At least three engines, likely four. And don't get your hopes up for a non-Boeing airplane, unless Lockheed Martin or Grumman step in all of a sudden with an American-designed and American-built airframe -- and that's not likely. There's no way the President will fly on a foreign-sourced airplane.

[davidsinn]

It's more than just how many engines the aircraft has; The President needs a very large volume. The VC-25 has two and a half decks. The 777 wouldn't have the same space. When you get right down to it only the 787 and the A380 have enough volume to do the job. Having said that: Death to Airbus! 

[arajca]

My Squadron needs to replace one of our C-182s. We'd gladly accept the donation of a 747. The Presidents left-overs are just fine for us and truly all we deserve. If it's not too much trouble please take this matter up with President Obama no later than Mid-Feb and get back to us. After that we may wind up with a glass-cockpit Cessna as consolation.
Thanks!

It's hard to fly SAR in a jumbo jet. You can't really even see out the window.

But it'd make one heck of a High Bird. :angel:

[nesagsar]

My Squadron needs to replace one of our C-182s. We'd gladly accept the donation of a 747. The Presidents left-overs are just fine for us and truly all we deserve. If it's not too much trouble please take this matter up with President Obama no later than Mid-Feb and get back to us. After that we may wind up with a glass-cockpit Cessna as consolation.
Thanks!

It's hard to fly SAR in a jumbo jet. You can't really even see out the window.

But it'd make one heck of a High Bird. :angel:

Cadet O-flights?

[Pumbaa]

Oh for Pete's sake.... more fun around the corner... Gaurantee there will be a protest that will hold up the contract start.

We are still waiting on the Tanker deal...  Boeing lost...

My facility is still waiting on the CSAR-X rebid, (Boeing Won, 2 protests upheld)

We are waiting on increment 2 changes on the US 101 presidential helo (The first production helo flew in Friday for integration for Increment 1)  Navy added 800 changes and 2k lbs before the ink even dried so cost over runs happened.

Let's see we are in the middle of a protest on the Tactical Wheel vehicle where we won the down select, so we are on a stop work order.

And why only Boeing or Airbus for AF ONE?  Lockheed has a few babies up it's sleeve too!  I would love to see the C-5 made into AF One   How's that for space!?!?!

There's no way the President will fly on a foreign-sourced airplane.

Wrong-o!!!  The US101 (VH-71A) - Better known as Marine One, or the Presidential Helicopter is built on the AgustaWestland  air frame built in the UK. Integration and missionization is being done in Owego NY Lockheed facility.

Now with the issue of going new vs. remod.  With all the new wiz bang electronics (ESM, counter measures.. etc.. etc..) that the presidential team wants, plus add in the defense measures added etc, you have a lot more weight, power and size requirements. Perhaps a 747 would work.  But maybe the 800 model.  But based on what I know happened with the US101, (Increment 2 needs a longer tail boom, bigger blades and more powerful engines 3 of them!) the requirements are so ungodly and you will need a heavy lift airframe, that might exceed that of the 747.

[heliodoc]

+1 for Pumbaa

You folks out there saying stuff about foreign sourced aircraft might want to start reading Aviation Week and Space Technology

103.00 /yr will get you a subscrip... an excellent Aero ed pub

Gotta start realizing more and more that 100% pure American contract is not really on every aircraft...sorry to say

Hell, Airbus is a consortium of most of Europe

[Pumbaa]

Just so you know, my office window overlooks the US101 facility on campus.  What I say is industry knowledge and first hand info that comes from the horses mouth upstairs from the execs. 

And yes, more and more with the "Global Economy" you will see more consortium's and work agreements between US and EU (or other) countries.  The sad fact is, if the US wants to sell it's military or other equipment overseas, we are going to have to grease a few wheels, that is striking agreements in manufacturing/ outsourcing, etc...

For example how could we sell our search and rescue Helo to the UK, if we refuse to give them access to the US market?  Thus the VH-72 CSAR-X deal came about.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/us101/

[drcomm]

You folks out there saying stuff about foreign sourced aircraft might want to start reading Aviation Week and Space Technology

103.00 /yr will get you a subscrip... an excellent Aero ed pub

Actually, as a CAP member AW&ST magazine is $69.00 per year.  See this link:   http://www.mcgraw-hill-sales.com/civil.htm

[Timbo]

China will introduce its Cars to the US Market in early 2010.  How soon do you think they will want to sell other transportation vehicles. 

Honestly, we need to buy American when it comes to things like this.  If we buy a European product, that is the Federal Government saying "we don't care about the American Economy".

I am off to Florida next month so the family business can start the process of manufacturing plastic parts for American missiles.  Right now, Lockheed buys most of the plastic junk for weapons from suppliers in Mexico and Japan.  That is so sad.

As far as a plane goes, if I have my tax dollars go toward paying an American worker for another month, instead of a European, my vote is USA....all the way.  Why is Europe building airframes anyway??  We need to smarten our manufacturing in this country so that American made everything is cheaper than European made anything.     

[jeders]

Personally, I say build it wherever you get the best product for the lowest price. I'd rather my tax dollars go to buy a $100 million plane from a European company than $500 million plane from an American company.

Why is Europe building airframes anyway??  We need to smarten our manufacturing in this country so that American made everything is cheaper than European made anything.     

As far as that statement is concerned, it's not the manufacturing processes that are at fault. It's the labor unions and the environmental lobby that make manufacturing so expensive in this country. It's also why European countries are outsourcing to India and China.

[Timbo]

As far as that statement is concerned, it's not the manufacturing processes that are at fault. It's the labor unions and the environmental lobby that make manufacturing so expensive in this country...

True......that is where much of the Automaker bailout is going.  To pay retired workers contract obligations for outrageous retirement benefits that would never be considered in this day and age.  GM is a huge failure.  They let the unions take and take so much that we (the Taxpayers) are forced to pay for health care and pensions that are unheard of.  In fact they are unheard of.  They don't want the taxpayers to know that the bailout is going to pay contract agreements that were made some 25 years ago. 

As far as the next airframe that is used......I think we would see an upset just like what happened due to the last AF screwup in contracts that was expressed by the American populace.  The DoD and AF learned their lessons.  No matter what airframe they choose, I strongly believe it will be one solely manufactured and owned by an American company.