Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Force One -800

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
    You're saying every C-17 is EMP hardened ?
    I said I assume it is, being a mission critical military asset designed for the nuclearized theatre of battle during the cold war. I assume all the critical electronic equipment meets the MIL-STD requirements for EMP. That means EMP 'hardened': that they have reduced susceptibility to radiation effects, not entirely EMP 'proof', which is probably not achievable on most aircraft systems.

    The issue however was in equaling the level of EMP hardening in a FBW jet that is currently in place on the VC-25's or E-4B's. elaw questioned the likelihood of achieving this in a FBW aircraft. I assume the C-17 would have that level of 'hardening' but I don't know this for fact.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      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.
      Show me all that existing technology existing in a 777. Or do you think that taking the refuel system of an F-35 and putting it in a 777 (or 747) is like taking the radio from a Focus and put it in a Corolla?

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        The C-17 is FBW. Thats a $225M aircraft last I checked. I assume it's all EMP hardened.
        For a military operation, there will be certain risks that would be acceptable, but not for taking the POTUS.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          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).
          The POTUS can die or be killed and that will not be the end of the world or the USA, as USA itself has demonstrated more than any other country in the world.

          The thing is to keep him alive in the middle of a DEFCON-5 crisis. In such an event, he will not be directing the operations from a Sikorsky or a Gulfstream.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Show me all that existing technology existing in a 777. Or do you think that taking the refuel system of an F-35 and putting it in a 777 (or 747) is like taking the radio from a Focus and put it in a Corolla?
            Well, that depends of whether I think it would require less than $900M to replace the radio of a Focus with that of a Corolla.

            I realize there are expenses in building a mission-specific variant like the VC-25. When it adds $900M to the price tag (assuming there are three this time), I have to raise my hand.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Well, that depends of whether I think it would require less than $900M to replace the radio of a Focus with that of a Corolla.

              I realize there are expenses in building a mission-specific variant like the VC-25. When it adds $900M to the price tag (assuming there are three this time), I have to raise my hand.
              Outta curiosity, up to what threshold does your hand stay down? $300M? $400M? $20M?

              Comment


              • #22
                I can't recall exactly where I heard or read it, but if memory serves me, federal regulations require that the POTUS use a four-engine aircraft as AF-1.
                The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
                  I can't recall exactly where I heard or read it, but if memory serves me, federal regulations require that the POTUS use a four-engine aircraft as AF-1.
                  so what happens when boeing kills the 4 engine line? it's likely that airbus will kill the 380 first, so when boeing does, will have to see how long it takes congress to change the reg or watch them put it out for bid.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
                    I can't recall exactly where I heard or read it, but if memory serves me, federal regulations require that the POTUS use a four-engine aircraft as AF-1.
                    That's what I'm assuming as well. It does raise the question about why ETOPS is good for the public but not for the President. I suppose one factor is the need for sustained flight in the event of the unthinkable. There is no ETOPS 6000.

                    But the 74-8 is a lot of airplane with an obsolete (though still famously reliable) flight control system. It doesn't represent the state-of-the-art today. The next VC-25's will probably be in service until 2040. How is it going to look when the US President is flying around in a plane that, like all quads aside from the A380, was mostly retired from passenger service by 2020?

                    Cant we just paste a couple extra mills on the 787? We have $3B to play with...

                    There's so many insanely rich industrialists and pampered heads-of-state these days, I'm surprised Boeing hasn't built an airframe just for this purpose (think: the next -SP).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post

                      ...But the 74-8 is a lot of airplane with an obsolete (though still famously reliable) flight control system...
                      Maybe we should pause and ponder this statement.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Ladies and Germs, I give you the 787-800 SP/VIP:

                        Pretty nice huh? What more does the modern despot need?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Maybe we should pause and ponder this statement.
                          Krueger flaps. Need I say more?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            Krueger flaps. Need I say more?
                            Last I knew, they improved airflow over the wing, reduced stall spèed, increased drag, allowed slower landing speeds, and increased speed and altitude control...

                            Has that changed or is there a problem with that?

                            We're supposed to respect Boeing Bobby...should we not also respect his plane and its engineers?
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              Last I knew, they improved airflow over the wing, reduced stall spèed, and increased drag, allowed slower landing speeds, and increased speed control...

                              Has that changed or is there a problem with that?

                              We're supposed to respect Boeing Bobby...should we not also respect his plane and its engineers?
                              AFAIK, there hasn't been a Boeing or Airbus or McD or Embraer or etc. civilian airliner design with Krueger flaps since the sixties. Slat's baby!

                              I do respect the thing tremendously. Just like I respect the DC-3. Do I want the POTUS buzzing around in a DC-3? I think by 2040, the 748 will be the DC-3 of that age.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                AFAIK, there hasn't been a Boeing or Airbus or McD or Embraer or etc. civilian airliner design with Krueger flaps since the sixties. Slat's baby!

                                I do respect the thing tremedously. Just like I respect the DC-3. Do I want the POTUS buzzing around in a DC-3? I think by 2040, the 748 will be the DC-3 of that age.
                                What do we think about the 737 and its 60's era components?
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X