official, new AF 1 selected.
 

No great shock to anyone I imagine.

Pentagon picks new Air Force One plane - CNN.com

Move along, nothing to see here, I guess.

Wonder if Airbus would like to offer an A380 for a similar role in the EU.

""NEW"


ROFL...

A380 far too big for many airports. POTUS wouldn't be able to drop in for a campaigning visit [sorry, meaningful discussions] using one of them.

Carry on, Boeing ... you know it makes some sense. The fleet of other aircraft that have to accompany Barry are built by you as well, aren't they?

MPN, not POTUS but POTEU or UEDuP or some such. :)

Haha .. POTEU will deffo have an A360 for the combination of range and flexibility. And demand an upper deck for the comms crew :cool:

I wonder who flies TB around these days? Does he succumb to commercial, or has some oily oerson lent him a large private jet? Or does he just sit at home(s) and 'work' by Skype?

MPN, the latter.

He uses a Bombadier.

Former prime minister Tony gets a £30m Blair Force One - Telegraph

The advantage of using a little jet is privacy. He can say there is no capacity for journalists from the gutter press such the Times, Telegraph, Garudian etc.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/29...-picks-b747-8/

Artist's rendition of what it may look like. It's a big bastard...

They probably would if the EU became the "Leader of The Free World" :cool:

Airbus declined to bid becausea condition of the contract was the aircraft had to be built in the USA

Gladrag, what exactly is amusing about that?

Turbine D, aren't we?

We certainly didn't vote for your leader.

Define Free World?

"Gladrag, what exactly is amusing about that?"

well in 40 years it will probably be still in service and attracting as many plane spotters as politician spotters as you don't see many 85 year old designs still in front line use (excepting, as always, the DC-3)

Bit the same as if Mrs Merkel turned up in a Ju-52/3m.............

quaint but not exactly cutting edge image

Airbus would not have bid even if it wasn't required to be built in the US. Who remembers the VH-71 and the KC-45? I'm sure they do.

HMMMMM. The B-52 is very much still in "front line use" and it's first flight was way back in 1952 and was (loosely) based on a 1946 design. The NEWEST B-52 was built back in 1962. The BUFF will still be flying well into the middle of this century. It's already a third generation bomber (3rd generation in that 3 generations of pilots have flown the same tail number aircraft.) and will likely be a fifth or sixth generation bomber before it is finally retired.

As for the 747-8 not providing a "cutting edge image", name ANY airliner that would provide a more "cutting edge image".

787?

Flew in one, loved it.

1. Too small & not enough engines. USAF demands 4 engines.

2. 95%+ of people would not know the difference between a 787 and any other widebody twin-jet.

And separately, the 747-8 has new wings, engines, avionics, flight controls, and lots more. The only thing not new and "cutting edge" is the familiar (and arguably iconic) humped shape of the fuselage. While most airliners all look alike, the 747 is immediately recognizable (OK, the DC-10/MD-11's shape is also kind of unique and easy to recognize.)

KenV, you said (your bold):
PN said 787. I would have added A350 to that too.

S-D

Best of luck, then...point of entry is 4/5 years before HMX-1 fully equipped with the VH-92?

Here is an excellent documentary on AF1 by National Geographic, best part is Bush Jnr#s Thanksgiving secret mission into Baghdad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdqIvFOKyGY

I did over 7khours in the 747 classic and the majority in the -400. (- not including time in the bunk). The best large aeroplane I was ever involved with and everyone I know involved with the 747-8 say it far better than the -400.
If its not Boeing then ............

Agreed - but then a DC-3 is a similar classic -

the B-52's are not used to land the president in front of the worlds press - it will look VERY old - they may well be the last two flying

Don't understand the 4 engine argument any more

and the maintenance costs will be ..... high

As it has to be FlyAmerica I'd have thought a 777 was a good bet - with newer, miniaturised electronics cp a 747 and they'll be building those for quite a while so you can go for an upgrade later.

Free World today are democracies, although there are some family run and dictator lead countries thrown into the mix.

There are two ways to look at "Leader of the Free World":
A. The leading democratic superpower
B. An individual "leader" of the superpower
As Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go on a regular basis, I tend to look at it from the democratic superpower viewpoint.

So to be the leading democratic superpower, it takes significant resources, money, defensive and offensive weaponry and a large standing military force.

So, at the moment we, in the U.S., are going to spend 22% of our total Federal budget on Defense spending for fiscal year 2015. That translates into $840 Billion that would roughly equal £559 Billion. It does take a lot of money to keep those 10 aircraft carriers circulating, those 10,000 plus fixed wing aircraft flying, not counting the helicopters or drones along with the U.S. troops stationed in "hot-spots" around the world, including 28,500 in Korea alone. Isn't the total defense spending in the UK about £45.5 Billion for 2015?

"leader" - as in every small country politician is willing to commit murder to be photographed with you... (see T Bliar, G Brown, E Milliband, Dave......)

TD and HH, I was waiting for the bite. :)

Democratic is another flexible word.

Deutsches Democratic Republic being one.

The I can think of many allies of the USA where democratic is probably a flogging offense alongside adultery or driving a car.

Then there are other democracies who would consider themselves free but in no way beholden to the US of A.

Leading, most powerful and arguably only superpower is true, but with the might to impose its will on any other power, by definition, means no other power is free.

I am only arguing, from an intellectual point of view, on the use of the words rather than the real politik.

It could even be argued that the USA isn't even a true democracy, seeing as the person who gets the most votes regularly isn't elected president.

The U.K. first passed the post system is similarly flawed

I was wondering how long the likes of HH would take to turn this into a US bashing thread.

Not long.

Apologies, that's not the direction I was trying to take things. No offence intended.

Back on topic. An article I read in the spectators balcony forum states that 3 aircraft will be purchased? Surely a mistake? The CNN article linked by the OP states 2

Not really. Most of the public will have a hard time telling that apart from a TriStar. You're not doing your "unique looking" argument a lot of favours with that point.

Hmm, there have been 55 U.S. Presidential elections since the beginning of the country. Only 4 Presidents to be elected had less than the majority of votes cast. Three of those elections occurred in the 1800s. Only the 2000 election involving G.W. Bush and A. Gore is a recent example of a loser receiving more popular votes than a winner. So in summation, we've come a long way baby!:ok:

What's the big deal? It will be much easier to install the various bells and whistles the spooks need to include in Air Force One if the aircraft is an American product.

The VH-71 saga is clear evidence of that.

747-8 seems the obvious solution.

I guess it'll even have windows and decent seats, unlike the rendition-class interior of the KC-46A.

How do you work that out? I can't see how installing bespoke equipment would be any different, regardless of who manufactured the airframe. It seems to me that the requirement that it be an american manufactured airframe is purely a political one.

"I was wondering how long the likes of HH would take to turn this into a US bashing thread.

Not long."

the trouble with Americans is their lack of a sense of irony - it was the "small country politicians" I was taking a pot shot at. They can only think of a photo-opportunity with the Pres. and how well it plays back home. God knows what the President thinks about it but I'm sure a consummate politican he recognises the need in others.........

POTUS IS the leader of the "Free World" - a hackneyed but useful term - and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot

"It seems to me that the requirement that it be an american manufactured airframe is purely a political one."

Normally I don't like the of "Buy American" or "Buy British" but in the case of your Head of State it probably is best if they use the best homegrown kit as long as it is approximately competitive

As Mr Boeing employs thousands of Americans it would be really weird to see the President get off an Airbus........................ Airbus would run the pictures non-stop

Avionker, not unreasonably the US is unwilling to disclose much information about the 'special equipment' needed for Air Force One's mission even to the airframe OEM.

If you look at the problems that caused to the VH-71 programme, it will probably become clearer.

And what information would the OEM require? They certainly wouldn't need to know any specifics. Perhaps the approximate weight of components when approving structural changes, for example equipment racks installation, antenna mounting provisions, countermeasure mounting etc. Electrically , all the OEM needs to know is power draw on each bus, and perhaps provisions for load shedding. Also the aircraft are on the military register I believe, so the FAA type approval is not an issue is it?

As I understand it the main problem with the the VH-71 was the continuous moving of the goal posts, adding more and more to the requirement.

The problem with you Harry is you never pass up a chance to bloviate about your hatred of the US. You don't need to scream it from the top of every mountain, we get it.

Back to the thread.

West Coast - I have a great admiration and liking for the USA and lived there for many years - I have family and many, many friends states side - I even still pay (some ) taxes there :(

I wouldn't say I supported all US policies but then who in the USA does?

I'd like to see some examples of this "hatred" you quote TBH

I really don't think suggesting there are decent alternatives to an old design really puts me in front of the UnAmerican Activities Committee ....... :ok:

Wind it down harry, go back to the thread and contribute or ask questions about AF1. Theres threads in JB if you have issues with the occupant of the plane.

"according to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Air Force has set aside $1.65 billion between 2015 and 2019 for two replacement jets."

Base price for a 747-8 is in the $350-$375mm range - but they have to design, fit and certify a lot of extra kit . Air-to-air refueling is probably the most obvious but all the electronics probably have to be hardened and all the comms gear will cost an arm and a leg.

the current VC-25 is quoted at a unit cost of $325 million cp the commercial cost of around $ 80mm per commercial aircraft so the extra cost look as if it is in proportion