USAF starts public search for Air Force One Replecement

[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.