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. 

 

[heliodoc]

Good work drcomm

I called McGraw Hill earlier this year.... said I was eligible but since I wqas receiving Business and Commercial Aviation also for NO charge, I thought it was a deal.

But it is still where I get my current events when I want to talk a little more intelligent than just C182 stuff

With Cessna laying off more folks, CAP may have tto start planning like the Army and start doing remods on their current C172 and C182 with current aging aircraft methods and do not think that won't happen.....

AND you won't find that anywhere in the CAP Volunteer..............

Its good to see others reading a quality aviation periodical!!

[N Harmon]

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 beg to differ. What we need is to buy the best tool for the job. If that's a cheaper european airframe, then so be it. The American economy is not served by having its products sold because they come from the right country instead of giving the best value.

[Sleepwalker]

  The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).  The Boeings do not have these issues.  For these reasons alone, I hope the government chooses Boeing for any orders.
 
  I work directly with maintenance with various types of aircraft from both manufactures and this is only my personal opinion, but it is based upon years of experience and observation.

[N Harmon]

The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).

I don't recall where I read this, but it is my understanding the Boeing airframes last much much longer than Airbus frames. Like, Airbus frames last 8-10 years where Boeing aircraft are barely broken in after 15. SAM 28000 and 29000 are what, 20 years old? And will be 30+ when they are replaced. I just don't think you're going to get that kind of longevity out of an Airbus.

[Timbo]

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 beg to differ. What we need is to buy the best tool for the job. If that's a cheaper European airframe, then so be it. The American economy is not served by having its products sold because they come from the right country instead of giving the best value.

You then run the risk of running into a major lag, during which time American companies have to retool to make previously  made foreign parts if we happen to stop trading with a particular country or continent.  What happens if a conflict starts between our supplying country and one of their "non-friends"??  Our machines eventually stop working until we can produce the supplies and parts ourselves to keep them running. 

Very interesting indeed.  Leading into WW2, The UK bought crap loads of Howitzers from our arsenals.  When Germany began sinking our ships that were taking tools and replacement parts from the US to the UK, they lost the capability to perform maintenance on the artillery pieces for almost 6 months. 

When it comes to military equipment.....we need American produced machines, and American companies with the molds at the ready to begin cranking out replacement parts.  It is absolutely a National Security Issue.  This is an area where it would make sense to buy the cheapest and save tax payer money, but you will eventually run out whatever amount you saved when you find yourself without the material to keep the item working.  So, Save now.......it may cost LIVES in the end. 

My Wife owns a company that has a new contract to begin making previously made foreign parts for missiles manufactured by a major weapons company based in Florida.  The Federal Government has said to the missile manufacturer that the parts that are imported from Japan and Mexico need to be produced by at least three manufacturers in the United States and the Molds for those parts will be stored  in a mine in Pennsylvania.  The DoD and it's contracting arm are not stupid, I believe in the end the airframe will be a product solely owned and produced in the States, with the replacement and maintenance items also produced here.     

Trust me here and the others that will also agree who happen to work in this field that if the United States Government finds an item that is chiefly better than anything produced in the United States, the US manufacturers will absolutely make the same item for the GOV.  They will incorporate the best technology and design, even if that means reverse engineering an Airbus.  Is it morally the right thing....most likely not, but it is what keeps everyone here from HAVING to speak German, Chinese or even with a British accent.        

[N Harmon]

I beg to differ. What we need is to buy the best tool for the job. If that's a cheaper European airframe, then so be it. The American economy is not served by having its products sold because they come from the right country instead of giving the best value.

Well, I find your national security argument a lot more convincing than the previous one where "buying foreign" is tantamount to not caring about the economy. But then, how critical is this when it comes to something as specialized as A1?

[arajca]

The basic airframe is not specialized. The insides are.

[N Harmon]

The basic airframe is not specialized. The insides are.

So, what do you gain by having a domestic airframe if it is in common use and the only specialized parts are custom made anyway because you're only building three of them? Contrast that with something not so widely used like say, a howitzer, and I think you see my point.

[arajca]

Where you source the components is the difference. By using a domestic airframe in common use, you can get the parts easier and cheaper than a completely custom airframe. Also, if the parts are manufactured here - or can be - the issue of supply chain management becomes more controlable.

[_]

I have the answer


It's has plenty of room, 4 engines, and is American made.

Air Force, you can thank me for doing your work by giving me a bunch of money.

[Timbo]

Contrast that with something not so widely used like say, a howitzer, and I think you see my point.

ya.....reverse that.  

Like arajca said, it is all about supply chain management.  Would you rather have the EU controlling where the US is placed on the supply list or would you rather know that parts are readily available in a moments notice.  

My wife deals with this on a daily basis.  I understand the processes that goes on, and try to help when I can.  For every single part she manufacturers for either the US Government, Lockheed, Boeing etc, the molds and tooling are kept on site and she has to be able to switch the plant over within 12 hours of the call from the Defense Contract Agency.  She has done that twice since 9/11.  Once for the buildup for the ground invasion of Afghanistan and more recently for the "surge" in Iraq.  

Do you honestly think we can get parts for military equipment sent from overseas inside of a day?  Very unlikely.  

I know I seriously diverged this post.......but there are factors other than "cost" that play into where the contract will go.  I can say for some certainty that cost is relatively low on the overall scheme of things regarding military material.  The adage "government material is made by the lowest bidder" at one time was correct, but since 2001, the DoD has revised purchasing rules.  Cost falls below the items of "small business", "business owned by women and minorities" and "quality management certification" on the selection sheet.

[PHall]

The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).

I don't recall where I read this, but it is my understanding the Boeing airframes last much much longer than Airbus frames. Like, Airbus frames last 8-10 years where Boeing aircraft are barely broken in after 15. SAM 28000 and 29000 are what, 20 years old? And will be 30+ when they are replaced. I just don't think you're going to get that kind of longevity out of an Airbus.

Just look at how many 40+ year old KC-135's are still flying. Boeing builds a tuff airplane.

Airbus has a love affair with composites. This can be good, i.e. stronger and lower weight, and bad, i.e. easily damaged.

One of the reasons they brought 747-200's when they brought the VC-25's was that it was a mature design and that all of it's flaws and weaknesses were a known quantity.
Boeing had actually tried to sell the Air Force the 747-400, but it was a new design and hadn't had all of the bugs worked out of it yet.

The new "Air Force 1" will be a design that has been in service for at least 5 years.

[N Harmon]

Like arajca said, it is all about supply chain management.  Would you rather have the EU controlling where the US is placed on the supply list or would you rather know that parts are readily available in a moments notice.

I understand what you're saying, but we're talking about Air Force One here. The parts as they are needed are not going to be needed in bulk so I'm just not sure the reasoning is valid in this particular instance.

I think this one is going to be interesting to watch.

[stratoflyer]

The day the President flies around in an airbus is the day I fly fly Spirit Air.

[Gunner C]

With the chances of loosing two engines being very slim I think a 777ER or even a 787 could be a good choice.

I think that the US Airways crew hoping to fly from LGA to CLT yesterday would have loved just one more engine yesterday.  I'm with the others, four engines - only way to go on AF1.

Gunner

BTW - did the ELT go off in that A-320?  Just wondering.

[Timbo]

I think that the US Airways crew hoping to fly from LGA to CLT yesterday would have loved just one more engine yesterday.  I'm with the others, four engines - only way to go on AF1.

Well that pretty much sealed the deal for any Airbus platform getting the contract. 

[PHall]

I think that the US Airways crew hoping to fly from LGA to CLT yesterday would have loved just one more engine yesterday.  I'm with the others, four engines - only way to go on AF1.

Well that pretty much sealed the deal for any Airbus platform getting the contract. 

I guess you've never seen the Airbus A-340. It has four engines. As does the A-380.

[Timbo]

I guess you've never seen the Airbus A-340. It has four engines. As does the A-380.

Yes....but what everyone in the country knows is that a US AIRWAYS Airbus crashed.  That will last for about a year.  So can you think of the questions that would come from Capital Hill??

[SAR-EMT1]

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.     

As far as I'm concerned, the President flies in an American Bird or he doesn't fly at all. I am not in favor of the Marine One deal and think that the Marine Officer that OK'd that purchase order should resign his commission. AF One Must be an American Product. As should every item the first family (and our military)uses.

As to the civilian economy...
The USA should do exactly what it did in the Jack Ryan Series ( Debt of Honor) and mirror image foreign markets-- Only buy as much from them as they buy from us. The imbalance with China alone is enough to completely repair Social Security if we keep it here.

[SJFedor]

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!

Haha. Except that you'd burn your entire Wing's training and o-flight budget by the time you hit rotation speed.

[Pumbaa]

As far as I'm concerned, the President flies in an American Bird or he doesn't fly at all. I am not in favor of the Marine One deal and think that the Marine Officer that OK'd that purchase order should resign his commission.

Well there's 4500 people in Owego NY who will disagree with you.  Including myself.  First, the US-101 is superior (with its 3 GE engines) to the other offerings (Boeing and Sikorsky).  And due to this contract Lockheed got additional UK contracts for the Merlin and other helo's.  Chances are they will get the UK CSAR-x contract as well, bringing a lot more $$ and jobs into an already depressed area since other US companies decided to bail out of the area.  IBM being one (and this was the birthplace of IBM)  Endicott Johnson is the other.  Nearly 50,000 jobs lost!

If I remember some of the story, Bell helicopter (TX) was going to originally to build the airframe, but there was some Bravo Sierra on their part so the design and manufacturing of the airframe went back to the UK.  Other than that the aircraft is shipped to the US, tested in MD, then shipped to NY for integration and missionization.  All the design and engineering was also done in NY too.

My job depends on the US-101 as I am low man on the totem pole here.  So, I'll be the first one to say that your xenophobic comments are not rooted in reality.

The US exports a TON of military hardware to foreign countries.  All built in the US.  If we adopt an isolationist view towards contracts, those will dry up and you'll see our allies flying MIGs...

FYI: The engines used in the UK's AH64 Apache are Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM322 turboshafts, so here they buy a Boeing product (which also has Lockheed products and also uses UK engines)

[wuzafuzz]

Air Force One is an ambassador for the United States all by itself.  I submit we want our President flying in an aircraft that "says" USA.  Granted, other world leaders don't always have a domestic product in which they can fly.  If they did, I bet they would.

[CAPLAW]

Buy American and British!!!!!!!!        Let other nations buy MIGS, we will just shoot them down

[jeders]

I guess you've never seen the Airbus A-340. It has four engines. As does the A-380.

Yes....but what everyone in the country knows is that a US AIRWAYS Airbus crashed.  That will last for about a year.  So can you think of the questions that would come from Capital Hill??

Yes, because no American built aircraft has ever crashed.

As to the civilian economy...
The USA should do exactly what it did in the Jack Ryan Series ( Debt of Honor) and mirror image foreign markets-- Only buy as much from them as they buy from us. The imbalance with China alone is enough to completely repair Social Security if we keep it here.

That wouldn't work. It has been proven time and time and time again that isolationism doesn't work. We aren't going to be able to sell Big Macs to the Chinese if we don't also buy things from them, and others. And actually, if you look at the numbers, there have been many times in recent history where we have had a major net trade imbalance in our favor, so your plan of equal trade just killed a few thousand American jobs.

[MikeD]

  The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).  The Boeings do not have these issues.  For these reasons alone, I hope the government chooses Boeing for any orders.
 
  I work directly with maintenance with various types of aircraft from both manufactures and this is only my personal opinion, but it is based upon years of experience and observation.

The A380 is a deathtrap.  Among other issues, they went RoHS/Lead Free solder on all their electronics, and they have a mix of copper and aluminum wiring. A coworker of mine was in DC for work, and met the lead guy working on A380 US certification, and the part that bothers me the most is that they don't even consider it a possible problem. 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I guess you've never seen the Airbus A-340. It has four engines. As does the A-380.

Yes....but what everyone in the country knows is that a US AIRWAYS Airbus crashed.  That will last for about a year.  So can you think of the questions that would come from Capital Hill??

Yes, because no American built aircraft has ever crashed.

As to the civilian economy...
The USA should do exactly what it did in the Jack Ryan Series ( Debt of Honor) and mirror image foreign markets-- Only buy as much from them as they buy from us. The imbalance with China alone is enough to completely repair Social Security if we keep it here.

That wouldn't work. It has been proven time and time and time again that isolationism doesn't work. We aren't going to be able to sell Big Macs to the Chinese if we don't also buy things from them, and others. And actually, if you look at the numbers, there have been many times in recent history where we have had a major net trade imbalance in our favor, so your plan of equal trade just killed a few thousand American jobs.

It might be that way in the short run, but it would likely force foreign-owned multinational companies to build more factories in the States and employ more people. Or they'd pull up stakes and leave -- and while there would be short-term pain, in the long term, Americans would go back to work as more capacity is needed.

[PHall]

  The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).  The Boeings do not have these issues.  For these reasons alone, I hope the government chooses Boeing for any orders.
 
  I work directly with maintenance with various types of aircraft from both manufactures and this is only my personal opinion, but it is based upon years of experience and observation.

The A380 is a deathtrap.  Among other issues, they went RoHS/Lead Free solder on all their electronics, and they have a mix of copper and aluminum wiring. A coworker of mine was in DC for work, and met the lead guy working on A380 US certification, and the part that bothers me the most is that they don't even consider it a possible problem. 

Why is it a problem? Because I'm not seeing it either.

[jeders]

  The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).  The Boeings do not have these issues.  For these reasons alone, I hope the government chooses Boeing for any orders.
 
  I work directly with maintenance with various types of aircraft from both manufactures and this is only my personal opinion, but it is based upon years of experience and observation.

The A380 is a deathtrap.  Among other issues, they went RoHS/Lead Free solder on all their electronics, and they have a mix of copper and aluminum wiring. A coworker of mine was in DC for work, and met the lead guy working on A380 US certification, and the part that bothers me the most is that they don't even consider it a possible problem. 

Why is it a problem? Because I'm not seeing it either.

Aluminum wiring degrades faster/more easily than copper. Cadillac (I think) used to use some aluminum wiring and it would fail very easily. When it needed to be fixed, they would strip it out and use copper.

[PHall]

  The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).  The Boeings do not have these issues.  For these reasons alone, I hope the government chooses Boeing for any orders.
 
  I work directly with maintenance with various types of aircraft from both manufactures and this is only my personal opinion, but it is based upon years of experience and observation.

The A380 is a deathtrap.  Among other issues, they went RoHS/Lead Free solder on all their electronics, and they have a mix of copper and aluminum wiring. A coworker of mine was in DC for work, and met the lead guy working on A380 US certification, and the part that bothers me the most is that they don't even consider it a possible problem. 

Why is it a problem? Because I'm not seeing it either.

Aluminum wiring degrades faster/more easily than copper. Cadillac (I think) used to use some aluminum wiring and it would fail very easily. When it needed to be fixed, they would strip it out and use copper.

I suggest you not look inside a Boeing then, because you'll see lots and lots of aluminium wiring.

They use aluminium wiring for one reason, weight reduction.

That's not important on a Cadillac but it is on a Boeing or an Airbus.

[JayT]

  The Airbus is a huge maintenance headache, the costs of the parts are more expensive (and there are alot more of them),  there are problems with supply chain, and the Airbus people can sometimes be difficult to work with (to put it politely).  The Boeings do not have these issues.  For these reasons alone, I hope the government chooses Boeing for any orders.
 
  I work directly with maintenance with various types of aircraft from both manufactures and this is only my personal opinion, but it is based upon years of experience and observation.

The A380 is a deathtrap.  Among other issues, they went RoHS/Lead Free solder on all their electronics, and they have a mix of copper and aluminum wiring. A coworker of mine was in DC for work, and met the lead guy working on A380 US certification, and the part that bothers me the most is that they don't even consider it a possible problem. 

Why is it a problem? Because I'm not seeing it either.

Aluminum wiring degrades faster/more easily than copper. Cadillac (I think) used to use some aluminum wiring and it would fail very easily. When it needed to be fixed, they would strip it out and use copper.

That's only true to a point. My father is a Master Electrician, and I've been working with him since I was about eleven years hold.

There's still millions of homes in American with aluminum wiring, and it works fine. We still install it as the main feeder cable if it's a partically long run from the pole, or if the customer wants to save a few bucks.

The problem with aluminum is that it's softer then copper. The main place where it fails is at the point of attachment, ie, the installer nicks it when they attach it to a device or switch or what not. The nick, over time, as the wire expands and contracts due to the power moving through it, breaks. Of course, copper does the same thing, except it's a harder metal so that phemominal isn't as pronounced.

But to say that aluminum wiring "degrades faster/more easily" is simply false. It doesn't just fall apart and burst into flames, but if it's installed wrong, it has a slightly increased chance of falling at the point of attachment over copper.

Also, attaching aluminum to copper can cause some problems, but they make specialized connectors for that to.

[Cadet Dan]

Why not a supersonic? Boeing 2707 sst. Wasn't produced,  but its never too late.
Concept was studied untill 70's ( 2 prototypes made )but cancelled due to cost and unclear markets.

PIC-http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/concorde/boeing-sst.jpg

[JayT]

Why not a supersonic? Boeing 2707 sst. Wasn't produced,  but its never too late.
Concept was studied untill 70's ( 2 prototypes made )but cancelled due to cost and unclear markets.

PIC-http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/concorde/boeing-sst.jpg

The economy of scale dictates it would be impractical and expensive.

More complicated, more stuff to break, more possibility of failure of systems.

Put's the President at risk.

Noise restrictions in many areas.

[ZigZag911]

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.

I have to agree with the initial poster; replacement AF1 will be manufactured by US company. Political considerations will prevail; AF1 quite simply is much bigger than Marine 1, gets more attention in media....White House would never hear the end of it if they chose  (or permitted choice) non-US aircraft.

[PHall]

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.

I have to agree with the initial poster; replacement AF1 will be manufactured by US company. Political considerations will prevail; AF1 quite simply is much bigger than Marine 1, gets more attention in media....White House would never hear the end of it if they chose  (or permitted choice) non-US aircraft.

Well, since EADS has taken themselves out of the competition, problem solved.

Unless Antronov wants to get in the game.