VC-32 Replacement

[L1649A]

With Airbus having a production facility in Mobile, would a variant of the A321 (suitably adapted) be eligible to compete to replace the VC-32 ?

[BVRAAM]

I think security concerns were one of the problems with the A380 replacing the VC-25A, so I highly doubt it...

[madhon]

NIH syndrome will probably prevent airbus ever getting anything into the USAF

[kenparry]

How true. The answer is Boeing. Now, what was the question?

[SLXOwft]

The NEAT RFI was looking at replacing the E-6B (707) TAke Charge And Move Out /Airborne Command Post (ABNCP) C-32 (757) Executive Airlift and E-4B (747) National Airborne Operations Center possibly (I suspect preferably) with a single (widebody) platform. Expectation of long production run, sustained spares availability, and very high unrefueled range are criteria. Commonality with the KC-46 make a 767 airframe the front runner, possibly a re-run of the E-10 with NG?. Does Airbus have the requisite experience in converting civil aircraft to a military role with the requisite CBRN protection? Without a major US partner in the lead I suspect Airbus is a non-runner. Ojectively Anybody But Boeing would make strategic procurement sense to break its expectation of being the sole supplier of aircaft based on small commercial aircraft (737/319/320/321 size) and above to the DoD. But as ever Designed and Made in the US of A plus pork is likely to win. The C-32 is considered too cramped which suggests a narrow body is off the menu.

[Momoe]

Unless DoD have buried their collective heads in the sand very deeply, KC-46 association might make them look across the pond. European sanctions don't help but an expression of interest might help with the horse trading.
On the other hand, I'm not sure Airbus would be interested, not much chance of repeat business or volume offsets.

[Less Hair]

Wouldn't some 767 tanker with passenger or VIP cabin make the most sense?

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

Wouldn't some 767 tanker with passenger or VIP cabin make the most sense?

Yes it would. Plenty of square footage, good alternators, range, hardened, and miles of wiring would make a KC-46 a good place to start. Early KC-46's might make an attractive conversion to other roles, since it sounds like the entire remote vision system and boom are going to be ripped out.

[Less Hair]

It can't be long before some future AWACS airframe will be needed.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

Wouldn't some 767 tanker with passenger or VIP cabin make the most sense?

As I've mentioned on the KC-46 thread, there are numerous bumps and bulges and other changes on the KC-46 that have no apparent relationship to the aerial refueling missions (I won't elaborate for what should be obvious reasons). So I have little doubt the KC-46 already has provisions for additional roles.
So yes, the KC-46 would make a good starting point.

[chopper2004]

NEAT idea

Originally Posted by L1649A

With Airbus having a production facility in Mobile, would a variant of the A321 (suitably adapted) be eligible to compete to replace the VC-32 ?

I started this thread while back as replacement not just the 32 but, also E-6 and E-4 which is the requirement and a NEAT idea,

E4B/E6/C-32B replacement is a NEAT idea

cheers

[Una Due Tfc]

Would they buy up used 747-8i from say Lufthansa or would procuring used frames from a foreign entity be viewed as a security risk?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc

Would they buy up used 747-8i from say Lufthansa or would procuring used frames from a foreign entity be viewed as a security risk?

Given the level of rework that would be involved in converting a passenger 747 into a military one, I doubt there would be a significant security concern. Any surprises 'left behind' would almost certainly be discovered during the rework.
That being said, I think the demand for 747 P2F conversions will remain high enough that a military conversion would be better served by a big twin (especially since the 747 line will soon be shuttered)

[Less Hair]

Lufthansa is not intending to phase out their 747-8s for the time being.

[GlobalNav]

How old are the VC-32’s? How many many hours do they have? When I flew in the 89th we had 30 year old VC135’s and B707’s. They don’t accumulate that many hours per year, or at least they didn’t used to.

[unmanned_droid]

Perhaps a better question is 'what's the supply chain like for the 757 in general and also for the specific equipment fitted to the VC-32?'

[SLXOwft]

The C-32s are maintained under a contract awarded for C-32 and C-40 support in 2016 which lasts until 30JUN2023.

Boeing Aerospace Operations, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has been awarded a $319,007,670 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for C-32/C-40 contractor logistics support. Contractor will provide organizational and depot-level maintenance, data, contractor operated and maintained base supply, and modification design and installation support. The contractor will provide all support required to fulfill this requirement, including but not limited, to labor, materials, tools, equipment, parts and transportation. This effort includes additional support as over and above tasks, field team support (worldwide), deployments, aircraft crash investigations and damage repair. Work will be performed at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; Ramstein Air Base, Germany; and Joint Base Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and is expected to be complete by June 30, 2023. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with two offers received. Fiscal 2016 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $242,392 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, is the contracting activity (FA8106-16-D-0004).
Source: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Con...rticle/691728/

Additionally there have been contracts over the last few years to upgrade the interiors of individual aircraft at $16 million to $18 million a time.

The four C-32As are all 22+ years old. The 757 production line shut in 2004. As of October this year 569 757-200s are "still in service" however a significant number of these are "parked" or in storage.

The contract was awarded for the C-32 in August 1996. By using commercial, off-the-shelf acquisition practices, a new record was set from contract award to aircraft delivery – less than two years. The C-32 is the first military aircraft ever to be acquired in this manner. The 89th AW acquired the first of four aircraft in June 1998.
Source: www.af.mil

[GlobalNav]

They will need a deep-cleaning come January 20.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by SLXOwft

The four C-32As are all 22+ years old. The 757 production line shut in 2004. As of October this year 569 757-200s are "still in service" however a significant number of these are "parked" or in storage.

If you go back pre-Covid, there not many of those 'in service but parked' 757s. 757 spares support has been good due to the remaining popularity of the 757 (total production was a bit over 1,000 aircraft).
That being said, I suspect many of those 'in service but parked' aircraft will not return to service - replaced by new aircraft with better fuel burn which will be abundant...

[chopper2004]

Over the years I have seen C-32 at the ‘Hall so here are my photos from last 6 years including the conspicuous white um hmm rapid response 90001.












The white bird has popped into the local area quite recently the other month.

Slightly digressing the anyone watch the documentary on the former POTUS corporate 757. This was when he was running for office and followed one such flight to Aberdeen then London and the C inspection in between. I myself have seen his 757 during Heli Expo 2016 at the corner of,my eye at KSDF on the way back to digs from the first day of the event.

You Tube

cheers