US Air Force One Replacement - President-Elect Trump's View
To be fair, he was already in office and that particular program had caught a dose of "requirements creep" -- but I digress. IMO, it was a calculated move to demonstrate that the President was "getting tough with that horrible acquisition system" while at the same time making a self sacrifice by not getting a new bird ... just a thought.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
TI, were you quick to criticize President Obama when he complained about the costs associated with the new Marine 1 helicopter?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
In some respects I think the USA have to get over the importance of one person.
Firstly, there is no one waiting for a momentary window to deliver a nuclear strike on the USA.
Secondly, according to the constitution, there is always a replacement.
Every other nuclear power seems to be able to manage to allow their heads of state to fly around without such a logistics tail.
To be perfectly honest, he is talking total sense, and being disparaged for doing so....
Firstly, there is no one waiting for a momentary window to deliver a nuclear strike on the USA.
Secondly, according to the constitution, there is always a replacement.
Every other nuclear power seems to be able to manage to allow their heads of state to fly around without such a logistics tail.
To be perfectly honest, he is talking total sense, and being disparaged for doing so....
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it the cost he doesn't like then? Or the timescale creep? I mean it does seem an excessive cost. Is he not elected on a ticket to cut US Govt. waste>?
Sticking my neck out but why couldn't he use a appropriately painted C17 nicely fitted out in-side (painted faux gold even in his private bit)?
Also what does Putin use, or the Chinese leader?
I mean Trump did say he was going to be different....
Sticking my neck out but why couldn't he use a appropriately painted C17 nicely fitted out in-side (painted faux gold even in his private bit)?
Also what does Putin use, or the Chinese leader?
I mean Trump did say he was going to be different....
Administrator
Hangarshuffle, it is wise to remember that American presidents serve temporarily, not for life. Comparing them to the Russian or Chinese head of state is not apples to apples.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T28 is that true? Putin wont be in forever. Surely it is apples for apples?
They're heads of state and need a set of wings to get about? That's it?
Trump thinks the cost is excessive and things POTUS should be setting an example, is that his point?
Also, isn't a 747 a bit er.. out dated now anyway? Why that particular aircraft?
They're heads of state and need a set of wings to get about? That's it?
Trump thinks the cost is excessive and things POTUS should be setting an example, is that his point?
Also, isn't a 747 a bit er.. out dated now anyway? Why that particular aircraft?
Why that particular aircraft?
It's US made, a requirement whether written or not. I stand to be corrected, but I believe I read the secret service balked at a two holer for lack of redundancy and electrical power capability. The C-17 line is shut down and may not be large and swanky enough. It sells aircraft to be seen flying the President. Shoot, the Chinese use a 747 for their executive transport.
I was directly involved in the current AF1 aircraft - and I know that Boeing lost hundreds of millions on those two 747s due to the fixed price nature of the contracts combined with less than elegant program management.
Shortly before I retired from Boeing last October, I was given a briefing on the upcoming replacement and how it was going to affect the engine package.
While nearly everything is proprietary/confidential (meaning I can't talk about it), I was quite frankly shocked at the level of 'gold plating' that was going into the requirements with little - if any - regard to the associated costs. Right now, it's looking very much like another 'cost is no object' program. $4 Billion doesn't sound out of line for what's being asked.
If nothing else, I think the USAF needs to go back and scrub the requirements with an eye on cost vs. benefit.
Shortly before I retired from Boeing last October, I was given a briefing on the upcoming replacement and how it was going to affect the engine package.
While nearly everything is proprietary/confidential (meaning I can't talk about it), I was quite frankly shocked at the level of 'gold plating' that was going into the requirements with little - if any - regard to the associated costs. Right now, it's looking very much like another 'cost is no object' program. $4 Billion doesn't sound out of line for what's being asked.
If nothing else, I think the USAF needs to go back and scrub the requirements with an eye on cost vs. benefit.
Administrator
What are Mr Putin's term limits? Suggest you look at his entire history at the top of government, to include the Medvedev interregnum. We know what the American ones are. The comparison is not apples to apples.
Jimmy Carter once declared that he'd close Camp David, as it was an excess or a luxury. Once he got into office, the light went on and Camp David remains open to this day. Perhaps once in the job Donald Trump will likewise see things differently.
Your point on the 747 being outdated: perhaps, but the other face of the same coin is that it is mature technology and has 4 donks. There are some stringent rules on how reliable, how mature, and how well proven a particular plane can be to be eligible for Presidential service. Others probably know the details, and will hopefully elaborate.
Jimmy Carter once declared that he'd close Camp David, as it was an excess or a luxury. Once he got into office, the light went on and Camp David remains open to this day. Perhaps once in the job Donald Trump will likewise see things differently.
Your point on the 747 being outdated: perhaps, but the other face of the same coin is that it is mature technology and has 4 donks. There are some stringent rules on how reliable, how mature, and how well proven a particular plane can be to be eligible for Presidential service. Others probably know the details, and will hopefully elaborate.
For HS:
I will offer that Air Force 1 is not just transport. It is also an airborne C2 node. That particular feature of the big aircraft informed the previously mentioned requirements creep on the Merlin variant (that was cancelled, as noted above) in terms of how much more C2 equipment they tried to pile onto that aircraft.
I will offer that Air Force 1 is not just transport. It is also an airborne C2 node. That particular feature of the big aircraft informed the previously mentioned requirements creep on the Merlin variant (that was cancelled, as noted above) in terms of how much more C2 equipment they tried to pile onto that aircraft.
Trump's Tantrum
Being reported that his tweet was after the Boeing CEO was quoted on how important free trade is to Boeing. This made Trump look stupid and he retaliated. A petty little man.
The Sultan
The Sultan
The requirement was for a 4 engine large jet leaving a choice of just two and it was never going to be A380.... The 747-8I is, I would imagine, a pretty modern jet.
Re obsession with one person, doesn't the VP have his own (smaller) kite as well?
Re obsession with one person, doesn't the VP have his own (smaller) kite as well?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All aircraft purchases - especially military end up costing more than any 'deal price'. But the quoted price does seem a tad steep - usual 'let's rip a Government off' scenario.
Any unwanted new A380's going cheap I wonder? ;-)
Any unwanted new A380's going cheap I wonder? ;-)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Firstly, there is no one waiting for a momentary window to deliver a nuclear strike on the USA.
Secondly, according to the constitution, there is always a replacement."
You are totally correct ORAC - the only problem is that the (long) list of succesors are almost always sitting together in D.C
I think there was a suggestion to add someone like the State Governors to the end of the list just in case
Secondly, according to the constitution, there is always a replacement."
You are totally correct ORAC - the only problem is that the (long) list of succesors are almost always sitting together in D.C
I think there was a suggestion to add someone like the State Governors to the end of the list just in case
To be fair, he was already in office and that particular program had caught a dose of "requirements creep" -- but I digress. IMO, it was a calculated move to demonstrate that the President was "getting tough with that horrible acquisition system" while at the same time making a self sacrifice by not getting a new bird ... just a thought.
I'm just bemused that some people seem to think a C-17 based solution would cheaper than a 747-based one. Never mind the detail that a C-17 would need a waiver for the ditching-at-sea case.
PDR
PDR
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's sending messages - $ 2Bn for a couple of aircraft looks obscene to his supporters plus he's putting the frighteners on Mr B etc and basically saying the great days are over - if you come in with big estimates expect to be dragged through the media
I'm sure the USAF will still get the aircarft but times are a changin' for sure
I'm sure the USAF will still get the aircarft but times are a changin' for sure
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are number of inaccuracies in Trump's Tweet.
“Boeing is building . . . ”
Earlier in 2016, Boeing received a $170 million contract to design a replacement for the aging pair of Air Force Ones used by the president. Boeing is not actually building the jet, though logically it is the only U.S. manufacturer with the capability to build such an aircraft.
“ … a brand new 747 Air Force One … ”
At a minimum, there would be two Air Force Ones. You need a spare in case there is a problem with one. The jets generally have a life cycle of 30 years.
A plane only receives the call sign “Air Force One” when the president is on board. This is actually a highly modified version of the Boeing 747-8 jet.
“Costs are out of control, more than $4 billion”
Cost have actually not been set. The Defense Department’s five-year plan indicates a cost of $2.9 billion over the next five years for design and development. It’s logical to assume at least another $1 billion in additional expenses to complete and procure the aircraft.
So an estimate of $4 billion — for design, testing and manufacture of at least two jets — is not completely out of line. But the budget is subject to approval by Congress and the actual design of the aircraft. Boeing literally needs to re-engineer the plane from the ground up, so there are many one-time expenses.
Air Force One needs to be designed to survive a nuclear war. It requires all sorts of undisclosed security upgrades and countermeasures. It can refuel in flight. The actual cost of the plane will depend on the equipment that goes into it. There also needs to be extensive testing, probably lasting two years, before the plane is deemed ready for presidential travel.
Congress obviously would have a say in the final price tag.
Boeing says it made no money making the last set of Air Force One jets and does not expect to make money on this order, as it is more a matter of prestige.
“Cancel the order!”
Nothing has been ordered yet. But the program could be eliminated. This may not be a problem for Trump, but certainly would affect his successors. The current aircraft were delivered in 1990, and as noted, the life cycle is about 30 years. The Pentagon says the current fleet “faces capability gaps, rising maintenance costs, and parts obsolescence as it reaches the end of its planned 30-year life-cycle.”
Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said “the program is very new and hardly had a chance to get started yet.” So, in effect, there are no real cost overruns yet. He added that the estimated $4 billion cost is reasonable given the requirements of the project.
More of the costs are associated with the sophisticated and highly classified communication and other classified electronic equipment than with the actual aircraft cost.
I sometimes think Trump suffers from ADS based on his Tweets.
“Boeing is building . . . ”
Earlier in 2016, Boeing received a $170 million contract to design a replacement for the aging pair of Air Force Ones used by the president. Boeing is not actually building the jet, though logically it is the only U.S. manufacturer with the capability to build such an aircraft.
“ … a brand new 747 Air Force One … ”
At a minimum, there would be two Air Force Ones. You need a spare in case there is a problem with one. The jets generally have a life cycle of 30 years.
A plane only receives the call sign “Air Force One” when the president is on board. This is actually a highly modified version of the Boeing 747-8 jet.
“Costs are out of control, more than $4 billion”
Cost have actually not been set. The Defense Department’s five-year plan indicates a cost of $2.9 billion over the next five years for design and development. It’s logical to assume at least another $1 billion in additional expenses to complete and procure the aircraft.
So an estimate of $4 billion — for design, testing and manufacture of at least two jets — is not completely out of line. But the budget is subject to approval by Congress and the actual design of the aircraft. Boeing literally needs to re-engineer the plane from the ground up, so there are many one-time expenses.
Air Force One needs to be designed to survive a nuclear war. It requires all sorts of undisclosed security upgrades and countermeasures. It can refuel in flight. The actual cost of the plane will depend on the equipment that goes into it. There also needs to be extensive testing, probably lasting two years, before the plane is deemed ready for presidential travel.
Congress obviously would have a say in the final price tag.
Boeing says it made no money making the last set of Air Force One jets and does not expect to make money on this order, as it is more a matter of prestige.
“Cancel the order!”
Nothing has been ordered yet. But the program could be eliminated. This may not be a problem for Trump, but certainly would affect his successors. The current aircraft were delivered in 1990, and as noted, the life cycle is about 30 years. The Pentagon says the current fleet “faces capability gaps, rising maintenance costs, and parts obsolescence as it reaches the end of its planned 30-year life-cycle.”
Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said “the program is very new and hardly had a chance to get started yet.” So, in effect, there are no real cost overruns yet. He added that the estimated $4 billion cost is reasonable given the requirements of the project.
More of the costs are associated with the sophisticated and highly classified communication and other classified electronic equipment than with the actual aircraft cost.
I sometimes think Trump suffers from ADS based on his Tweets.