Reagan?

I could totally understand the problems Boeing are having with cost, as mentioned before a friend was involved with the cancelled helicopter contract and they were getting stuff like

"We need to fit something in the avionics bay"
"What does it do?"
"Classified"
"What size it it?"
"Classified"
What power does it need?"
"Classified"
"What does it weigh."
"Classified"

And so it went on.

Nutloose, you're spot on.
According to Av Week (Trump Vows To 'Negotiate' Price Of Boeing's New Air Force One | Ares)

Think about that for a moment - ~$3 Billion in R&D - the actual aircraft are on top of that! :uhoh:
Boeing lost over $250 million building the current VC-25A aircraft - as noted earlier some of that was due to a poor program management, but much of it was underestimating the work required to meet the USAF requirements (adding things like dual APUs, aerial refueling, and EMP hardening to a passenger aircraft doesn't come cheap :ugh:)
As noted, I know more than I can say about the new aircraft requirements but if the USAF gets everything they are asking for, little more than the airframe structure will be common with a 747-8i. As I noted before, I was stunned at the level of system redesign that will be needed to meet the AF1 requirements - and that was just for the engines...:ugh:

It's not your average commute, and when you buy in small production runs the cost per unit is steep.

Now, if I was Airbus, I'd be putting together a cheeky submission...:E:E:E

http://www.superyachts.com/syv2/news...ing-palace.jpg

Nutty, correct, I wonder what our cousins' take on him is.

Buster, could be a CoG problem with the beast in the tail. I like the lift though, avoids the potential for trips and saves your knees running up the stairs. It would however mean the end of the iconic pose at the door of AF 1. I guess the Secret Service would vote for that as that top if steps wave must be the most vulnerable moment in any trip.

"top if steps wave must be the most vulnerable moment in any trip."

Almost always at a totally controlled airfield, normally military - if he's not safe there where is he safe? Compared to being out in crowds -even if they mainly his supporters??

Td,

Fascinating insight...which leads one to wonder if there are fundamental differences in the AAR system developed for the E-4 and that for the VC-25, both are adaptions of the basic 747-200 airframe and were to be refuelled from the same tankers.

Similarly the adaptation of the airframe and systems for EMP reasons would have been required for the E-4 mission and the VC-25 mission would have perhaps built on that as opposed to a completely 'new' system etc.

One could also imagine that the power generation and distribution requirements of the comms gear on the E-4 would have provided a basic, proven, deployed and accepted design from which the VC-25 could have evolved.

Or have I missed the point entirely and the E-4 lessons were in reality inappropriate for the VC-25 programme?

Ummm....isn't the E-4 a 747-200 design of roughly the same era as the VC-25, and also currently being considered for replacement on obsolescence grounds? So what commonality would it have with a 747-800-based solution anyway?

PDR

PDR precisely....... E-4A contract was 1973 with a service entry in 1974...Vc-25 RFP mid 1980s and entered service in 1990... so by the time the VC was being procured the E-4 had a decade plus in service.

So AAR system might have been a straight copy across.. so may have a number of EMP/ power generation/ comms aspects..

It would be interesting to understand how Boeing, having produced seven E-4 airframes were caught 'short' of some of the issues needed to develop the VC-25...especially one of the specific adaptions which may well have been evolutions of the E-4 designs.

If however as you mention the replacement E-4 is also being studied as part of the VC programme then the increased R+D may well be appropriate for the more complex and challenging task...

PDR, I've had the same thought that perhaps some of what was being asked for was really applicable to an E-4 replacement more than the AF1 mission.
I wasn't involved in the original E-4 so I don't know how much carry-over there might have been between that and the current VC-25 - I do know the VC-25 has different engines (CF6-80C2 vs. CF6-50s for the E-4) so in my area it was totally different. There was a great deal of 'wheel inventing' going on during the VC-25, but I don't know how much of that might have been 're-inventing':rolleyes:


BTW, there already is an 'elevator' option available for the 747-8i - it's fitted to at least one of the VIP aircraft (although it's done via STC during the executive interior refit - Boeing doesn't do it).

Perhaps Boeing should call Trump's bluff.

They could say they will supply two standard B-747-8i at the normal price and whatever else you want to install is down to you at your own expense!

:E

HH, I am sure that the SS cover approaching 100% risk but remember a sniper could be over a mile away and there have been terrorist attacks by members of the military.

Then of course the simple Humpty Dumpty syndrome

well I know someone who fell between the steps of the plane and the aircraft door - she was sober but too busy taking in the view - several nasty (but superficial) grazes and cuts)

And a guy leaving the plane, missing a step, and going all the way to the bottom - two cracked ribs and a broken leg

Unlikely to happen to POTUS but with Trump in place................

AIUI the 747-2 is an obsolescent aeroplane which can no longer be manufactured and no longer meets current certification requirements anyway. I am led to believe that "current" 747s have significantly fuel, electrical and information systems architectures - hence the need to redesign these for a new VC-25. Similarly, topday's secure comms systems are very different to those of the earl 90s, with different wiring and antenna requirements. Add in current military needs (a decent Link-32 implementation, plus the best available DASS, would seem to be a minimum) and you rapidly end up with a new aeroplane needing a couple of billion in non-recurring engineering (which if you were looking to heckle you'd call "R&D" so it sounded excessive).

If I was asked for a big-handfulls guestimate for a VC-25 replacement something like $2-3bn would feel reasonable, frankly.

PDR

You don't need all that secure stuff, just borrow Hilary's laptop and do it all on that.

PDR-1 is correct - the (very expensive) troubles Boeing had in getting the new 747 right clealry show it wasn't a simple upgrade from the older models.....................

Mike Pence gets to eat at a Wendy's / Dairy Queen in Big Sky Country.

Looks like he has dealt with Boeing before and they mentioned a price and it bore no resemblance to final Invoice.

Good long term thinking! Let's punish the next three or four presidents cause you don't like this one.

just a swag- but although BA will be the ' general' contractor- maybe 20 percent of the total will go directly to Boeing for the ' green airframe ' with special wiring, armour, etc. the rest of the $$$ will go to interior, comm gear, anti missile, extra apu,engines, flight test by air force, spares, etc ad naseaum.

even so , what is still puzzling is how long it takes to ' decide ' what changes to airframe are needed, and to provide wiring, hooks, brackets, stiffners, extra pieces, emp shielding, etc. EMP shielding has been around since the 60's at least- and now the use of cad-cam should make the fitting of extra brackets, etc relatively easy.