USAF Seeks Air Force One Replacement 640
Tyketto writes "The United States Air Force has taken the first public step in the search for a replacement of the Boeing VC-25, also known as Air Force One, saying it is no longer cost effective to operate and modernize the two 19-year-old VC-25s, which are converted Boeing 747-200s. Airbus has already submitted data for the A380, and while Boeing has had the Air Force One contract for nearly 50 years, delays with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Boeing 747-8, as well as the KC-X Tanker competition, may see the USAF looking to Europe for its next presidential aircraft."
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Informative)
What makes Air Force One (Score:3, Informative)
Technically, "Air Force One" is the call of any aircraft that has the US President onboard. He could get into a Cessna 172 and it would use that callsign.
The aircraft in TFA do not call themselves "Air Force One" when the prez is not aboard. I guess they just use their tail numbers then?
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:1, Informative)
Besides the general uproar it would cause for Air Force One not to be contracted to an American company, Boeing is masterful at compensating for its operational incompetence with its political cunning.
Re:What makes Air Force One (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure it receives a lot of special modifications. Here's what they do to protect a C130 from a heat seeking missile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmZDdvKAUOg [youtube.com]
I'd imagine the onboard "electronic warfare" package is also substantial.
Re:I have to ask (Score:3, Informative)
If the president flies into a country, he does it on Air Force One. It doesn't matter if it is a freaking two-seater.
Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:5, Informative)
It won't fit at most airports due to its dimensions. I suspect that would be too limiting for Air Force One.
The problem with A380s is with jetways for boarding and disembarking. As Air Force One doesn't use jetways - they use the tarmac stairs - that's not a problem.
Any runway that can take a 747 can take an A380, even if the terminal can't handle the dual deck.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Ground_operations [wikipedia.org]
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong. The helicopter replacing Marine One is European. Why wouldn't they do the same for Air Force One?
Incorrect. The VH-71 Kestrel is based on the US101 airframe, which is a derivative of the European EH101, but it's a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and AgustaWestland and it's being built here in the US by Bell Helicopter.
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:4, Informative)
The A380 can land and take off from any landing strip a 747 can use (this is by design). So it can land at any airport where the current presidential craft can land. It needs the dimensions of the runway a 747 needs, and even though it has a higher total weight, it also has more wheels so the pressure per wheel is less than a 747. The tarmac won't be damaged by the A380 if it can handle a 747.
What it can not do (and in case of Air Force One doesn't need) on all those airports is connecting to the gates. The presidential plane will always be parked on a safe location in the airport, not at a gate.
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:4, Informative)
Sure minor runway signage and lighting may need to be moved at some airports, but major issues such as the A380s size and weight (it's got more wheels so ground pressure is reduced) aren't as big a problem as was first made out.
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:2, Informative)
[The A380] won't fit at most airports due to its dimensions. I suspect that would be too limiting for Air Force One.
This is wrong. The A380 was specifically designed to fit into the standard 80mx80m box.
So it will fit every airport that can accept a 747.
Its weight can be a problem though, some taxiways are not designed for that high a load.
Most major airports have since long been upgraded however, and a lot are still following.
So, no, the size is no problem.
Re:Will not be the A380 (Score:3, Informative)
The A380 is too big and heavy for the vast majority of runways in the world.
Too "Heavy" is an unusual problem for a concrete runway
What you mean is that runways are too short for the A380, but of course it can take off and land in the same space as a 747, the only adaptations for the A380 are to the terminal buildings to handle the double decker. This isn't an issue for Air Force One as the president just walks down a set of stairs that are rolled up to the plane.
There are no technical challenges for AF1 being an A380 that wouldn't apply to the 747.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:3, Informative)
"This is a test of the emergency broadcast system."
You're not going to get much media coverage once that particular button is pushed.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Informative)
Well Air Force One is suppose to be the ultimate warfare command center in the sky. Able to control the whole of the US armed forces and override any media coverage if needed. I think flares are just the tip of the ice berg so to speak.
Actually, while it's the top warfare command center when the president's on it, I'd hardly call it the ultimate, as AWACS planes have far more capability in that aspect.
There's a lot more than flares in there, but exactly what's in there is still classified. I imagine it has both commercial and military satellite communication methods, various air to ground radios, etc...
It's not designed to do hostile EW warfare. While I'm sure they can do telecasts from it, it can hardly 'override' ground broadcasts on it's own.
Re:I have to ask (Score:4, Informative)
Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.
Exactly. Just off the top of my head:
1. Should be able to take his family. 4 including the president.
2. Security detail. 4-8 Secret Service
3. Presidential staff. 3 aides
4. Be able to haul a Secretary along(like 'of state). 3 more people
5. Contain extensive communication abilities
6. Have transcontinental range
7. Mount defensive equipment normally seen on military craft
8. People to run the plane. 8 more people (dedicated EW and comm people bump it up some).
I get 26 people. While a 747 in most configurations can seat over 300, we don't really know how much space all the comm and defensive equipment take up. The 300 figure also doesn't figure in actual cooking areas, a medical facility, office space, etc... They added the ability to aerially refuel. Heh - the 26 people is just the crew, the actual plane has a 76 passenger capacity. They also upped the max speed a touch.
Re:380 Needs Special Airports? (Score:3, Informative)
The A380 can land anywhere a 747 can. The double-decker has problems with airport gates, but the President doesn't use gates, he uses tarmac stairs.
Re:I have to ask (Score:2, Informative)
No he/she does NOT.
The British Prime Minister has the authority to AUTHORISE the launch of Britains nuclear deterrent.
The British military would then be allowed to use the weapons if THEY deemed it appropriate.
This way, we have to have TWO outbreaks of insanity before we go nuclear.
(There is another circumstance when the military can launch without the authorisation of the UK PM, but that involves governmental decapitation)
Not Russian, Ukrainian (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:3, Informative)
That's the marketing story, yes. Politics demand that any European defense contractor find a US "partner" for a major contract with the US military.
The patriotically-named "US 101" is an Augusta-Westland AW101 with some outsourced manufacturing (Bell & lockheed) and marketing (Lockheed.) The fuselage, rotors, and transmission (pretty much everything ordinary people think of when they hear "helicopter") is built by AW, in Europe. I think, by the ordinary man on the street's definition, that does indeed make it a european helicopter.
AW wins, because they get to sell their product; Bell wins, because their plants are utilized and their workers get paid; Lockheed wins, because they get to skim off the top.
Personally, I'd rather they just cut to the chase and buy the things from AW, but politics won't allow that.
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:4, Informative)
The chances are extremely slim that the Airbus bid will involve an Airbus being built in the US.
There is a precedent: one of the two contenders for the USAF's next generation aerial tanker (KC-X project) is the Airbus A330, which would be assembled in the US in Northrop Grumman's factories. Airbus won the contract early in 2008, but Boeing (the other contender) has succeeded in torpedoing the procurement process so the USAF will have to make the decision again early this year.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:3, Informative)
A 777 would probably due. The thing is going with a brand new design will mean that parts available and life span will both be longer. The 747-8 range and payload would also be handy. A 380 never, not going to happen.
Where to see Air Force One (Score:5, Informative)
To visit the aircraft, you have to arrive early at the museum and ask your way to the folks who dispense base tickets, as you'll need to take a bus from the museum to the base. Bring good ID, it's a military base and security is serious.
The museum is a great side-trip before or after the Dayton Hamvention. Definitely worth a day, you will find it difficult to see everything in that long.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what they do to protect a C130 from a heat seeking missile
Flares are not very effective against modern heat seeking weapons; and that was true at least one generation of seekers ago. Modern heat seeking missiles are actually pretty good at distinguishing between the sun and exhaust, and exhaust and flares. Modern anti-heat seeking counter defensive systems actually use lasers to destroy the uber sensitive sensors contained within this class of missiles. If you notice "disco balls" on aircraft, especially helicopters, this is what they are; a heat seeking counter measure. And even then, they tend to only be fairly effective against single missile threats from the rear. Modern anti-aircraft doctrine calls for multiple missile threats against a single target. This is true for air to air engagements too.
Modern heat seekers have somewhere between 60%-90% kill statistics against modern anti-missile counter measures. As such, two missiles, statistically yields a 100+% kill ratio against all modern, KNOWN, defensive systems. Very manoeuvrable (vectored exhaust) aircraft and aircraft which have reduced heat signatures have better odds. Aircraft which employ both strategies fair significantly better, but the point remains. Few modern aircraft fall into one of those two categories, let alone both. Aircraft which are engaged from above, allowing for background radiation to assist in ones defence, also have higher survivability statistics.
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:2, Informative)
The EC-130 Commando Solo operated by Pennsylvania Air Guard has the ability to override radio and TV signals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_EC-130 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:3, Informative)
Offutt has E-4s, a 747 command post, which are not VC-25s
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:1, Informative)
My understanding is that a modern twin (777) is less likely to lose one engine than an older quad (747) is to lose three engines. The 777 was more or less required to meet this challenge in order to be certified for over water use.
Don't know about the likelihood since maintenance matters so much and the procedures are different for ETOPS flights than others (such as maintenance cycles and requirements that the same mechanics don't maintain both engines etc.).
A 777 certainly does not have to divert to the nearest airport if it loses one engine. After all, the things fly over the Pacific where there are no airports!
Yes, by regulations they do have to divert to the closest airport. Closest doesn't necessarily mean close. Besides, not all routes over the pacific can be flown with any ETOPS certified planes. The regulations are strict since diverting to an airport in the middle of nowhere is costly for airlines and thus one measure through which ETOPS minimizes risks to passengers, is that airlines aren't given any choice. In case of a failure the remaining engine is not only stressed more than usual but the range that the plane can fly is also reduced.
Re:I have to ask (Score:2, Informative)
There are two VC-25s. Support aircraft include KC-135, C-32A and C-40B, while heavy gear like the "war wagons" the Secret Service use and the Presidential limos are carried on C-17s.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where to see Air Force One (Score:3, Informative)
You only needed your passport.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/questions/topic.asp?id=180 [af.mil]
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:3, Informative)
Are you suggesting that POTUS's time is worth 8.7 TRILLION dollars a year?
$1,000,000 per hour * 8760 hr/year = 8.7 billion.
Yeah, I do. When a guy, with the stroke of a pen, can authorize (or veto) $700 billion in new spending, start wars which cost tens of billions a month, and negotiate trade deals (like NAFTA) worth trillions; then, yeah, I would say his time is worth a million dollars an hour.
Having basic amenities taken care of is not the same thing as hedonistic perks like a bowling alley in your basement.
The bowling alley, and most of the other perks in the White House, was not paid for with taxpayer money.
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Emergency landings and fuel dumps (Score:3, Informative)
"That's why you see commercial jets dump or burn off fuel before an emergency landing."
Landing weight is a concern. However, they also dump fuel so there's less fuel to burn if the fuel tanks are breached in the landing attempt. In emergency landings that actually make it to the "landing" stage, fire and smoke kill more people than blunt force trauma due to impacts. In emergencies, aircraft without fuel dumping systems will prefer to circle, to burn up fuel with the engines. Only if they must land immediately will they skip that. (Contrary to expectations, not all emergencies require immediate landing. Stuck landing gear, for example.)
Sources:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping [wikipedia.org]
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0054a.shtml [aerospaceweb.org]
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml [aerospaceweb.org]
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245a.shtml [aerospaceweb.org]
Re:19 isn't THAT old (Score:3, Informative)
I'll add that the primary form of stress on airframes is the cabin pressurization each time it flies at altitude. Unlike steel, aluminum does not have a regime where it does not suffer metal fatigue. That is, with steel, if you make it a certain strength, you can subject it to cyclical stress loads an infinite amount of times and it will still hold. But with aluminum, each cycle weakens it (fatigues the metal) no matter how strong you make it, and it eventually fails.
Each time you pressurize the cabin, that subjects the aluminum skin to one cycle. Enough cycles and the aluminum [wikipedia.org] will [wikipedia.org] fail [wikipedia.org]. Modern passenger aircraft are typically designed to last several tens of thousands of such pressurization cycles. Once they reach the design limit, the airframes are retired and chopped up to discourage anyone who might get the not-so-bright idea of returning one of these airframes into service.
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I have to ask (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:1, Informative)
And since it was on Wikipedia it must be true.
I work for a US airport that sees Boeing 747s on a regular basis but cannot handle Airbus A380s due to signage/lighting clearance issues as well as taxiway width issues. The cost to update our infrastructure (not including terminal/jetway modifications) is comfortably in the 8 figure range.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:1, Informative)
Aircraft aren't vaporized by a hit. Air to air missiles have roughly the same amount of explosive as a grenade, and like a grenade they rely on a cloud of shrapnel hitting something vital. So it's possible for more than one missile to hit a target.
Re:EAS on 11 Sep 2001 (Score:2, Informative)
*citation needed*
I read the 9/11 comission report and don't remember seeing anything about other teams.
Now I wish I knew where my copy was...I remember the minute by minute accounts of what took place in terms of the different responding agencies (NYPD, FDNY and Port Authority) being really interesting reading.
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:3, Informative)
They were paid for by the POTUS, right?
No, the bowling alley was donated. Most of the expensive or historic furnishings of the White House are given by foreign dignitaries or wealthy Americans.