Air Force One -800

[Evan]

Apparently the USAF is seeking to replace the current Air Force One VC-25's with the 747-800 by 2023.

Just wondering why they wouldn't go with the 777X instead. It's a more advanced FBW airframe with a greater range and better fuel efficiency. The 748, despite its modernization, is a bit of a dinosaur in comparison.

Or is ETOPS not good enough for the POTUS?

Also wondering what the $3B price tag is for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/us/politics/air-force-one-a-cherished-perk-awaiting-an-upgrade.html

[Gabriel]

Apparently the USAF is seeking to replace the current Air Force One VC-25's with the 747-800 by 2023.

Just wondering why they wouldn't go with the 777X instead. It's a more advanced FBW airframe with a greater range and better fuel efficiency. The 748, despite its modernization, is a bit of a dinosaur in comparison.

Or is ETOPS not good enough for the POTUS?

Also wondering what the $3B price tag is for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/us...n-upgrade.html

When you have to spread development costs over a production series of 2, the cost skyrockets.

[Highkeas]

......................
Also wondering what the $3B price tag is for.
.............................

As I recall Boeing lost a lot of money on the current VC-25 aircraft.

The replacement aircraft (747-800) has to be fitted with secure satellite communication systems, air-to-air refueling equipment, countermeasures, the forward portion of the cargo bay converted to a lobby with passenger door and stairway, and I'm sure a bunch of other stuff.

[B757300]

The military by its nature is extremely conservative. They would rather go with a proven design, especially one with four engines for the added level of safety. Four engines might cost more to operate, but for the safety of the President, the USAF isn't going to care.

As for the cost, remember it isn't just for the aircraft. They have to harden it against EMP, added all of the electronics, communication systems, defensive systems, and basically build it into a flying hotel, conference room, war room, along with its primary role as a passenger jet.

Besides, the 747 is still the most recognizable American built airliner in the world, and part of the job of Air Force One is to show the flag and convey American power.

Also, IIRC, they're going to build 3 this time.

[Gabriel]

As I recall Boeing lost a lot of money on the current VC-25 aircraft.

The replacement aircraft (747-800) has to be fitted with secure satellite communication systems, air-to-air refueling equipment, countermeasures, the forward portion of the cargo bay converted to a lobby with passenger door and stairway, and I'm sure a bunch of other stuff.

Each of the things that you mention involve much much more than it sounds.

Imagine "countermeasures" It is not just a chaff and flares dispenser in the tail. It is the myriad of sensors, cables, actuators, switches, controls, circuit breakers and instruments. Not only that. Routing the cables is a big issue itself. Or remember the big problem in the A380 to make the routing for the STANDARD plane.

Now imagine what it takes to put a fuel port on the ceiling on the cockpit that can receive fuel from another plane at high speed and high altitude, and route the fuel from there to the fuel tank.

All that requires design, prototyping, testing, and implementation in only 2 units. Just imagine the cost of a few hundreds of hours of flight test when you have to split it in such a small series.

This is not just a 747 BBJ. It's not making a new plane, but it is not just adding minor options either.

[Evan]

The military by its nature is extremely conservative. They would rather go with a proven design, especially one with four engines for the added level of safety. Four engines might cost more to operate, but for the safety of the President, the USAF isn't going to care.

Hello... the 777 not a proven design? I think by now the verdict is in. The 777X should be exceptionally efficient and reliable. I think the idea that four engines are needed for security is anachronistic. Meanwhile FBW offers further safety measures and the greater range/loiter time should be a major decisive factor.

I think you are right though, It's all about image, and the 747 is the iconic big, fat American aircraft even if the 777 is more advanced. But we should be a nation concerned with government excess in these times. Not to mention the carbon emissions. There is no reason I can think of of for flying the POTUS around in a mammoth 747-800 while budgets are getting cut for public transportation infrastructure, education, and health and human services. The B777-9X would be opulent enough and is a far more successful design as well. It represents American innovation in the 21st century. It's also a bit more expensive to begin with (but cheaper to operate and maintain, which should be the primary concern).

As for $3B, I hope that includes operational expenses. If there are three this time, that's still a billion each! The rack price for a 748 is $378M. Even if they paid Boeing that much for the base airframe, that leaves well over $600M for the candy. For $1B, this thing better have phasers and a transporter room.

[Gabriel]

Hello... the 777 not a proven design? I think by now the verdict is in. The 777X should be exceptionally efficient and reliable.

There is no doubt about that. But even today there are some commercial routes that can be only legally flown in airplane with more than 2 engines. AF1 should be ready to fly any route and you would not want to do it in conditions that you don't even allow commercial operations to happen.

Meanwhile FBW offers further safety measures

That if the USA cares about its president more than the Polish cared about theirs, you will never need. I guess that that the USA will put the top of the top at the controls of the AF1, they will not fly impossible approaches under minimums (in times of peace anyway), they will monitor airspeed in final, and they will not pull relentlessly up if they loss airspeed indication (case in which the FBW will not be very helpful anyway).

and the greater range/loiter time should be a major decisive factor.

No wonder, and here the 747 probably wins again.

The extra special equipment required for the AF1 weights the same in a 747 or in a 777. The payload will be the same in both. And the 747 has much more difference between MTOW and empty weight. Whatever is left (if any) after putting the fixed equipment weight and fixed payload, is available for fuel in extra tanks. It could very well happen that in the 777 you would not be able to fill the tanks while in the 747 you would have room (in terms of weight) for extra full tanks with its extra fuel and all.

As for $3B, I hope that includes operational expenses. If there are three this time, that's still a billion each! The rack price for a 748 is $378M. Even if they paid Boeing that much for the base airframe, that leaves well over $600M for the candy. For $1B, this thing better have phasers and a transporter room.

Evan, how do you count the cost of the candy, please? It is not the variable cost of the additional things that you will put in the plane, that you need to pay for no matter of you build one or one thousand. It is the fixed cost of developing your extra stuff that will have the same cost if you will build one or one thousand, but then it will be one thousands of the cost per plane if you build one thousand vs one. Put it in this way: we have 600M extra per plane. Say that half of that is the actual cost of the candy in each unit, that leaves with 300M per unit, which gives you 900M for development costs. make 10 instead of 3, and the candy will still be 300 but the development will be 90M per unit, a saving of 210M per unit.

Do an 8 years project to develop and build a candy-making machine and a candy factory, make only 3 units of this candy, and tell me how much would the candy need to cost just to break even.

[Evan]

There is no doubt about that. But even today there are some commercial routes that can be only legally flown in airplane with more than 2 engines. AF1 should be ready to fly any route and you would not want to do it in conditions that you don't even allow commercial operations to happen.

The 777 is already up to ETOPS 330. Certainly it would be that in the VC-25 role. Factor in mid-air refueling capability, so range is not the issue. What routes could it not fly?

Do an 8 years project to develop and build a candy-making machine and a candy factory, make only 3 units of this candy, and tell me how much would the candy need to cost just to break even.

Give me two 777X airframes. Add all the existing, sophisticated, cutting-edge coms, the EMP hardening, some existing countermeasures, a nice bit of furnishing (no gold-plated faucets), a media room using existing technology... what more do I need to fly the President around? Do I need $900M to do that to two aircraft? Please.

If that figure includes operational support, that's a different story. But I think this is just development and procurement. And I smell bacon...

[elaw]

Also wondering what the $3B price tag is for.

Baggage fees, paid in advance?

[elaw]

...the EMP hardening...

I'm sure this doesn't account for the entire cost, but EMP hardening hydraulic control systems isn't a thing as far as I know. EMP hardening a FBW system = very difficult.

[ATLcrew]

While I'm sure image is a part of it, I wouldn't be too surprised that considering the mind-boggling amount of equipment of every kind that airplane carries, the 777 actually turns out to be too small.

I guess this is just another thing Evan is going to have to live with.

[Evan]

I'm sure this doesn't account for the entire cost, but EMP hardening hydraulic control systems isn't a thing as far as I know. EMP hardening a FBW system = very difficult.

The C-17 is FBW. Thats a $225M aircraft last I checked. I assume it's all EMP hardened.

Maybe that's not a bad idea. Extend the forward fuselage of the C-17, add some windows, paint it all stars and stripes and there you go. You can even bring the POTUS-mobile onboard.

[ATLcrew]

The C-17 is FBW. Thats a $225M aircraft last I checked. I assume it's all EMP hardened.

We all know what happens when you assume, Evan.

[3WE]

More interesting than comparing a 777 with a 747 is that El Presidente flies those God-Forsaken helicopters! (as well as occasional smaller jet aircraft).

I am acquainted with one airline pilot who says he won't get on a helicopter- and this dude flies a damn Airbus too!

[HalcyonDays]

The C-17 is FBW. Thats a $225M aircraft last I checked. I assume it's all EMP hardened.

You're saying every C-17 is EMP hardened ?