USAF starts public search for Air Force One Replecement

[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.