USAF window shopping for VC-25A replacement..

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


... AKA Air Force One.

http://tinyurl.com/92jt9c

While Boeing has stated that keeping Air Force One a Boeing
product is its top priority, Airbus has confirmed that they've been
invited to this little party as well. Seeing that various royalty in
the Middle East have the equivalent of an Air Force One in an A380 and
B777, it's conceivable that a B772LR or B773 could also figure in the
mix.

I find it funny that Airbus would submit data for an A330 and
A340 for this, especially since the A340 is not near cost effective as
something more modern, even including the A345 and A346. Given that
the USAF wants a delivery in 2017 initially, the B747-8 comes into
play. But seeing that for a good 20something years, a B742 has been Air
Force One, is it conceivable that USAF would go back to a single level
aircraft for its flagship, even if it has better fuel efficiency than
the B742?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJZwhiyBkZmuMZ8L8RAphNAJ0bHx2bZkI9eHq3MxS5l1SmmYzwFwCg3fq/
b4K8TH1yyy1MBlb4U6Nz9Ak=
=TsRo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
... AKA Air Force One.
http://tinyurl.com/92jt9c

Air Force 1 is the pride of the USA, litterally flying the flag and
showing what the USA can do. I think that Boeing would have to do a LOT
of wrongs to force the USA to choose an Airbus aircraft for such a high
profile aircraft.

One must not forget that the 747 (380 is worse) cannot land at all of
the world's capitals. (Not sure if Canberra's runway was lenghetened yet
for instance).

Perhaps having a 787 for VP/sec of state and then having a 777 and 747
for president. The 777 would be usable for destinations where a 747 is
too big.

Note that one of the reasons for the AF1 being a big airraft is ability
to carry a significant amount of news media to accompany the president.
A 380 would be better for this.

If the documentary on Air Force 1 made with President Ford (Harrison)
was accurate, the small upper deck of the 747-200 is used for
communications. With the extended upper deck of the -800, it will be
intersting to see what they do with extra space, or if they move
communications eslewhere and use te upperdeck for private quarters etc.


One possibility however would be for the Air Force to buy a naked A380,
and have Boeing outfit it with all the secret re-enforcements and cabin
finishing. It is doubtful that the USA would allow a foreign country to
gain access to whatever technology is used to protect that aircraft.
Or Airbus could do something similar to the refueling aircraft: a joint
venture with Grunman.

Of course, there is no garantee that the overweight whale would be able
to take off once fitted with all the extra protection. (especially since
such non-metal parts of the aircraft would require additional metal
protection.

.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JF Mezei
Note that one of the reasons for the AF1 being a big airraft is ability
to carry a significant amount of news media to accompany the president.

Why does the American public see fit to subsidise the media in this way?
Do the news channels not already have correspondents in the places the
President flies to?

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JF Mezei
Note that one of the reasons for the AF1 being a big airraft is ability
to carry a significant amount of news media to accompany the president.

Why does the American public see fit to subsidise the media in this way?
Do the news channels not already have correspondents in the places the
President flies to?

And an expensive subsidy at that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031602936.html
"The Pentagon confirmed this month that the cost of the fleet of 28
new super-sophisticated helicopters has jumped from $6.1 billion when
the contract was signed in 2005 to $11.2 billion today.

To be fair, there's no mention of carrying journalists in those
helicopters.

[y***@yahoo.com]

Post by Roland Perry
To be fair, there's no mention of carrying journalists in those
helicopters.
--
Roland Perry
--

True. I doubt there is room for very many journalists on Marine One
after the necessary crew, security and staff unless some journalist is
on a very special assignment. I was just looking at the helicopter
program for a recent example of cost growth or presidential aircraft.

James
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Robin Johnson]

A couple of points to consider .
.
Payload for the VC-137 aircraft used as Air Force One is rarely
anywhere
near maximum for a 747-200. Many of its hops are nowhere near
maximum range, so operating weights are almost certainly below
most commercial 747s, and required runway lengths are thus not
particularly great. 8000 feet is completely adequate. for departures
up to transcontinental distances for any but particularly high-
altitude (eg Denver) or high temperatures (eg Phoenix).

White House correspondents mostly travel aboard other charter
flights (arranged by the White House Travel Office). and paid for
by their employers. I don't know how many passengers travel
aboard Air Force One - probably not as many as seen on _The
West Wing_, but150 including White House staff, cabinet officials
and the Press corps might be a reasonable figure, well under a
half of a usual long-range commercial 747 load. I can imagine
that right about now, the Press Corps is desperately trying to firm
up AF1 seats under the new administration.

The replacements are due at two-year intervals from 2017. VVIP
747s and 380s are, or are planned to be, delivered as _green_
airplanes to fit-out centres well before delivery Reiner Heim, a
fit-out centre in Germany has a lavish 380 design (presumably
for a Saudi Sheikh or similar) on show at
http://www.stephantimm.de/assets/assets_aviatio n/vvip_A380.jpg

Like others on this group I doubt that this contract would go to any
organisation other than Boeing. Unless they are a lot less
competent than even Boeing have seemed this last few years and
the 747-8 is a total failure, I would imagine that would be the basis
of the eventual AF1.

Meanwhile, 777s and/or 787s (much nearer to being off-the-shelf
items) are likely replacements for the 757s etc often used for the
carriage of other Cabinet members.


which has a remarkable range of inior fitments ter
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Robin Johnson
Payload for the VC-137 aircraft used as Air Force One is rarely
anywhere
near maximum for a 747-200.

But that aircraft is not an off-the-shelf 747-200. It has military
systems, and apparantly some unusual shielding. I suspect this adds
considerable weight to the aircraft. So just because it doesn't carry
many passengers doesn't mean that it isn't at/near capacity for its
wings/engines (and runway).

My guess is that any keen aircraft observer who has seen an 747-200s
take offs might be able to judge the true weight of the AF1 aircraft by
watching it take off.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=131

It lists 26 crewmembers and 76 passengers (102 total). As "capacity".

It makes no mention of special systems in it.

If they need another aircraft to carry media anyways, then perhaps they
could do without media seats on the real AF1 and downsize it to a 777.
This way, they'd have a 777 dedicated to media and a 777 dedicated to
the president and his staff.

Note that the current 747-200s were delivered in late 1990. According to
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/background.html


According to the Boeing site:

1985-Oct: Boeing launches 747-400
1986-June: Air Force orders the 2 747-200s for AF-1 service
1989-Feb: Boeing delivers first 747-400 to NWA.
1990-Aug: Boeing delivers first 747-200 for use as AF-1

(I recall the second one delivered in 1991).

So, they ordered the 747-200 at a time when the -400 was already
launched. ( Anyone know if the VC25s have 2 or 3 person cockpit crew ?)


Based on that past experience, it would not be unusual for the AF to
order some 747-400s for presidential use. Or order some 777s even though
by the time they are to be delivered, they may be considered ancient
technology.

On the other hand, if the aircraft are ordered by an
environment-friendly president, fuel efficiency might be a consideration
which might thwart the "pride" of flying a huge plane as status symbol,
and as such, buying a new generation aircraft may have some priority.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Roland Perry
Why does the American public see fit to subsidise the media in this way?
Do the news channels not already have correspondents in the places the
President flies to?

It is my understanding that the media pay normal air fare to whoever to
be carried in AF1. (not sure if they use standard business class or
first class fares).

The idea behind having the press is that you get better coverage, and
you also have better control of the press. Pampering the press also
results in nicer coverage about the president.

It will be interesting to see whether that new aircraft will be equipped
with internet capabilities to allow the media to file their stories
while in flight. (or perhaps even live TV coverage). Of course, this can
be shut off whenever they feel it is necessary to do so.

The USA TV/press networks no longer have such extensive network of intl
correspondants, so having AF-1 help many of the media outlets continue
to cover the president during his trips. And they get preferential
treatment when they get at destination, and essentially can travel to
the same schedule as the president. This is important in multiple city
trips where the media would not be able to follow the president if they
flew commercially.

The USA is fairly unique in having such a dedicated large aircraft. Most
other countries use more regular aircraft (either leased from commercial
airline, or from their air force) with conventional interior arrangements.

Remember that AF1 is meant to act as a backup white-house fully capable
of running the country from the air. So it has amenities not found on a
conventional aircraft.

Not sure if the RFC for this would be public. But I wonder if the specs
on the number of media reps will be changed from the current config.
There is some serious re-organisation happening in the media with high
degree of concentration in TV and radio, and many newspapers disapearing
or just using reuters material, but there is also the addition of new
media which is internet based (hoffington post and other similar ones
which often break the news first)



.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JF Mezei
Remember that AF1 is meant to act as a backup white-house fully capable
of running the country from the air.

This is another aspect of the "business model" that worries me. Surely
there could be a better way of solving this problem - like having a
fully qualified Vice-President in charge at such times as the President
is travelling?

[y***@yahoo.com]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JF Mezei
Note that one of the reasons for the AF1 being a big airraft is ability
to carry a significant amount of news media to accompany the president.

Why does the American public see fit to subsidise the media in this way?
Do the news channels not already have correspondents in the places the
President flies to?
--
Roland Perry
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to

And an expensive subsidy at that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031602936.html

"The Pentagon confirmed this month that the cost of the fleet of 28
new super-sophisticated helicopters has jumped from $6.1 billion when
the contract was signed in 2005 to $11.2 billion today. Outfitted with
cutting-edge communications equipment, antimissile defenses and
hardened hulls, each of the VH-71 helicopters, to be dubbed Marine One
whenever the president is onboard, will cost $400 million -- more than
the most recent Boeing 747 jetliner outfitted to serve as Air Force
One when it was delivered in 1990, even when adjusted for inflation. "

If 28 copies of Marine One plus contract support etc. are to cost
$11.2 billion, how many tens of billions for a new set of VC-25A plus
contract support?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[y***@yahoo.com]

Post by JF Mezei
One must not forget that the 747 (380 is worse) cannot land at all of
the world's capitals. (Not sure if Canberra's runway was lenghetened yet
for instance).

Maximum field length is at maximum weight. Less weight would need less
field length. Also landing takes less field length than taking off.
Taxiways are another question. For a rare visit of a VC380 it should
be able to go where ever it physically fits since it does not need to
pull up to a gate. It seems likely that the plane can simply land at
the closest airport which can fit the plane and the President can
shuttle wherever he or she needs to go.

Post by JF Mezei
One possibility however would be for the Air Force to buy a naked A380,
and have Boeing outfit it with all the secret re-enforcements and cabin
finishing. It is doubtful that the USA would allow a foreign country to
gain access to whatever technology is used to protect that aircraft.
Or Airbus could do something similar to the refueling aircraft: a joint
venture with Grunman.

L-3 in Waco also does VIP and state aircraft. They should be able to
arrange an Airbus without having to disclose too much or even any
sensitive information.

Post by JF Mezei
Of course, there is no garantee that the overweight whale would be able
to take off once fitted with all the extra protection. (especially since
such non-metal parts of the aircraft would require additional metal
protection.

ISTM a VC-25A payload should be well below maximum. The aircraft may
only reach maximum with the fuel tanks are full.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.