USAF picks Boeing 747-8 to replace Air Force One

[Compton_effect]

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37765:us-air-force-picks-boeing-747-8-to-replace-air-force-one&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

Written by Reuters, Friday, 30 January 2015

Boeing again chosen as Air Force One
The US Air Force said this week it would use Boeing's commercial 747-8 airliner to replace its current fleet of two Air Force One presidential aircraft, one of the most visible symbols of the United States.

The decision comes a month after Boeing said it would slow production of the four-engine 747-8 aircraft to 1,3 a month from 1,5 a month because of declining orders.

"The Boeing 747-8 is the only aircraft manufactured in the United States that when fully missionised meets the necessary capabilities established to execute the presidential support mission," Air Force Secretary Deborah James said in a statement.

Boeing welcomed the Air Force's decision to skip a competition and opt for the 747-8, citing its 50-year history of building presidential aircraft.

The Air Force said it intended to award a sole source contract to Boeing, but they must still negotiate a contract and the modifications needed to adapt the jet for presidential use.

The Air Force now operates two VC-25s, specially configured Boeing 747-200Bs. Details about the new contract, including cost, were not released.

It said it planned to purchase enough of the technical baseline to permit competition for maintenance during the plane's planned 30-year life.

James said the Air Force One programme would use proven technologies and commercially certified equipment to keep it affordable.

The Air Force decision was widely expected since the only other suitable four-engine jet is the A380 built by Airbus in Toulouse, France.

The 747-8 is the only four-engine commercial jet Boeing makes, providing an extra margin of flight safety over the more standard twin-engine planes.

But the Air Force order for a few 747s might not extend the life of the 747 programme, which has failed to capture much business in recent years.

Boeing was clearly trying to preserve production so it could fill the Air Force order, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia.

Now that the firm order is there, he said, it might be an opportunity for the programme to end.

The double-decker plane entered service in 1970, undergoing a major overhaul in 2012, with new engines and a longer fuselage.

Last year Boeing did not get orders for 747s, despite booking a record 1,432 net orders for commercial aircraft. At the end of 2014, Boeing had 36 unfilled orders for the plane, which lists at about $370 million.

 

[sox63]

Could someone try to explain why the plane HAD to have four engines and not just the two that seem to be in favor with the air lines?

 

[mr_norris]

Could someone try to explain why the plane HAD to have four engines and not just the two that seem to be in favor with the air lines?

As Jeremy Clarkson would say...

POWERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[KillerX]

Could someone try to explain why the plane HAD to have four engines and not just the two that seem to be in favor with the air lines?

Probably if one gets hit or destroyed on one side, it can fall back on the 2nd engine?

 

[Compton_effect]

Could someone try to explain why the plane HAD to have four engines and not just the two that seem to be in favor with the air lines?

The 747-8 is the only four-engine commercial jet Boeing makes, providing an extra margin of flight safety over the more standard twin-engine planes.

2 engine plane with 1 engine out - not good. 4 engine plane with 1 engine out - meh.

 

[w1z4rd]

Could someone try to explain why the plane HAD to have four engines and not just the two that seem to be in favor with the air lines?

I dont think the point of that plane is to be as fuel efficient as possible.

 

[Ockie]

Could someone try to explain why the plane HAD to have four engines and not just the two that seem to be in favor with the air lines?

For extra safety. Dont think power is the issue here as the engine on the Boeing 777-300ER is the biggest and powerful. Think they are just worried that should a engine fail, then they have 3 others still operational. Twinjest have however proven that they are just as safe as the quads.

Even if the USAF opened this up to Airbus to put in their bid, Airbus would not have done so I think. I read somewhere that the condition would be that the two A380's be constructed in the USA and not in France. The logistics of doing this for two planes only would be insanely prohibitive and expensive.

 

[Compton_effect]

For extra safety. Dont think power is the issue here as the engine on the Boeing 777-300ER is the biggest and powerful. Think they are just worried that should a engine fail, then they have 3 others still operational. Twinjest have however proven that they are just as safe as the quads.

Even if the USAF opened this up to Airbus to put in their bid, Airbus would not have done so I think. I read somewhere that the condition would be that the two A380's be constructed in the USA and not in France. The logistics of doing this for two planes only would be insanely prohibitive and expensive.

Plus this way they don't have to make major changes to their support infrastructure and training. They are just swapping out two expertly maintained planes for a newer version. These guys have no margin of error.

 

[sox63]

For extra safety. Dont think power is the issue here as the engine on the Boeing 777-300ER is the biggest and powerful. Think they are just worried that should a engine fail, then they have 3 others still operational. Twinjets have however proven that they are just as safe as the quads.

Even if the USAF opened this up to Airbus to put in their bid, Airbus would not have done so I think. I read somewhere that the condition would be that the two A380's be constructed in the USA and not in France. The logistics of doing this for two planes only would be insanely prohibitive and expensive.

So a waste of money basically? Thats if the 777 is cheaper of course...

 

[Compton_effect]

So a waste of money basically? Thats if the 777 is cheaper of course...

This is not a passenger plane that flies point to point so VIP's can kiss babies. Its a mill-spec VIP Transport designed to ride out a major war or emergency.

The aircraft can also be operated as a military command center in the event of an incident such as a nuclear attack. Operational modifications include aerial refueling capability and anti-aircraft missile countermeasures. The electronics on board are connected with approximately 238 miles (383 km) of wiring, twice that of a regular 747. All wiring is covered with heavy shielding for protection from an electromagnetic pulse in the event of a nuclear attack. The aircraft also has electronic countermeasures (ECMs) to jam enemy radar, flares to avoid heat-seeking missiles, and chaff to avoid radar-guided missiles. All small arms and ammunition stores not under the physical possession of the Secret Service on board the VC-25s are stowed and secured by the Secret Service in separate locked compartments, each with a different locking mechanism for added security. Many of the VC-25's other capabilities are classified for security reasons.

 

[ToxicBunny]

So a waste of money basically? Thats if the 777 is cheaper of course...

Nope, its an exercise in extreme risk management.

**EDIT**

Also you have to look at full life-cycle costs. They already have the skills and knowledge in terms of maintenance on the 747 range... to move to a new plane would entail re-tooling, and re-skilling of the maintenance teams.

 

[AthenianOwl]

Could someone try to explain why the plane HAD to have four engines and not just the two that seem to be in favor with the air lines?

Murica.

 

[Ockie]

2 engine plane with 1 engine out - not good. 4 engine plane with 1 engine out - meh.

A twin can fly fine with only one engine. Those engines are required to be strong enough so that should one fail during take off the other working engine needs to be strong enough to get that airliner into the air.

The chances of two engines failing is almost non existant I think. Only time that will happens is if fuel runs out.

 

[sox63]

This is not a passenger plane that flies point to point so VIP's can kiss babies. Its a mill-spec VIP Transport designed to ride out a major war or emergency.

The point I was trying to make is that the same role could be done more efficiently by another plane, we all know the role Air Force One plays in their military

 

[wetkit]

A twin engined aircraft might be able to cruise and land fully loaded, but not take off....
It would be easier to transfer all the existing equipment from the old to the new plane, including ground support staff.
Wish our political gravy train drivers can learn from this.

 

[garyc]

The design of the twin jets is specifically optimized to give maximum fuel efficient for the type of flight profiles that the target airlines will be using on their routes. Once unusual or military type flight profiles are adopted then the twin jets are outside of their optimized zone and the economics become different. An example of this is the B707, which was originally developed as a military aircraft. Airforces hung on to them because they were cheaper to operate on military type profiles than some of the later more fuel efficient airliners. The USAF still uses over 400 of them.

The B747 was also originally designed for military use for the CX-HLS cargo plane requirement. It was meant to have a high degree of versatility.

 

[Compton_effect]

The design of the twin jets is specifically optimized to give maximum fuel efficient for the type of flight profiles that the target airlines will be using on their routes. Once unusual or military type flight profiles are adopted then the twin jets are outside of their optimized zone and the economics become different. An example of this is the B707, which was originally developed as a military aircraft. Airforces hung on to them because they were cheaper to operate on military type profiles than some of the later more fuel efficient airliners. The USAF still uses over 400 of them.

The B747 was also originally designed for military use for the CX-HLS cargo plane requirement. It was meant to have a high degree of versatility.

Still a funny story that. Boeing lost out to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, so they redesigned it as a passenger plane. And made billions off the design, as well as their entire brand identity.
Number of C5 transports manufactured: 131
Number of 747 variants manufactured: 1 500+

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

Still a funny story that. Boeing lost out to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, so they redesigned it as a passenger plane. And made billions off the design, as well as their entire brand identity.
Number of C5 transports manufactured: 131
Number of 747 variants manufactured: 1 500+

isnt it also true they thought that the concorde would kill out the B747 and the rest of the B747 fleet would be used to carry cargo, and they wanted one that was easy to load and unload;

so they put the cockpit up high; so the forklift could load from the nose first;

I dont ever think the A380 was ever truly in the running for the next AF1, those yanks will only use American aircraft, even if there extinct in the rest of the world;

everybody who maintains; and pilots AF1 has to pass Yankee white; to prove there American enough; no foreign blood allowed anywhere near AF1,
thats why the president travels everywhere with his own limo, don't use hosting nations cars, their paranoid about some foreign power managing to sabotage AF1,

even though like everything else, its mostly made in china

 

[Stokstert]

A twin can fly fine with only one engine. Those engines are required to be strong enough so that should one fail during take off the other working engine needs to be strong enough to get that airliner into the air.

The chances of two engines failing is almost non existant I think. Only time that will happens is if fuel runs out.

Except if you get a double bird strike like the one which landed in the Hudson river.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

Except if you get a double bird strike like the one which landed in the Hudson river.

so rare that event; actually even rarer that he made it down in one piece; usually crash and break up, and people drowning because they open their life vest
and the debris traps them; but who has the foresight to keep their vest un-inflated when your about to crash......

actually wanted to know; is it possible to deflate those vest once opened?

its like all on board won the lotto 5 times in a row....... and the pilot was struck by lightning while playing the lotto the 6th time