AFMC Begins search for the new Air Force One

[Jumpshot724]

From Air Force Times:



AFMC begins search for new Air Force One

By Bruce Rolfsen - brolfsen@militarytimes.com
Posted : Thursday Jan 8, 2009 13:24:08 EST

The Air Force needs new a new Air Force One — three new Air Force Ones, to be exact.

The pair of modified Boeing 747-200s now flying as the president’s airplane need to be retired starting in 2017, according to Air Force Materiel Command.

On Jan. 7, Materiel Command asked firms interested in providing the next-generation of presidential airlift to submit basic information on how they would go about designing and building the planes. The submission deadline is Jan. 29.

Materiel Command wants the first new Air Force One ready for operation in 2017, with two others to follow in 2019 and 2021. The jets will start as commercial airframes but will be extensively customized to handle the presidential staff’s security and communications needs, including the ability to refuel in flight and operate from airfields too small for most large passenger jets.

There was no mention of a projected budget in Materiel Command’s request. Each of the current 747s cost about $350 million when new. The price tag for the next generation is likely to be much higher — the presidential helicopters now in development cost around $400 million each.

Only two firms build wide-body commercial jets large enough to serve as Air Force One — Boeing Co. and the European-based Airbus. Aircraft cited as likely candidates include the Boeing 747-800 and the Airbus A380.

The Air Force is not ruling out using an overseas firm to build Air Force One. “The level of security and amount of foreign participation in this requirement has not been determined,” the request advised contractors.

The two planes flying as Air Force One — officially designated VC-25s — were purchased in 1987 and delivered in 1990. Both jets were expected to fly without major overhauls for 30 years. The Air Force considered upgrades to the jets instead of buying new planes but concluded the lack of spare parts and modification costs made it unwise to keep the 747s flying much beyond 2017.





Personally, I prefer Airbus airliners over Boeings....BUT, in a US military/government case (especially one as high-profile as this) I would rather see an American made a/c. Yes nowadays no aircraft is made entirely in any one country (Boeing included), but the general public doesn't know that. Especially in this economy, the people should see their president flying in a product that was made by them. It just subtly shows the US government's backing of American industry.

With Northrop Grumman's A330 KC-45, I didn't think that it being an Airbus was a bad idea, in fact I thought it showed a bond between the US and Europe. I still voted for Boeing's 767 version for other reasons, but I have no problem with the next tanker being an Airbus. I just think that an aircraft as high-profile as Air Force One should be American made though.

Thoughts??

[Ford Friendly]

I've said it before and it remains my position that the US government should use US designed and manufactured equipment. The current global financial situation illustrates the economic impact of the house of cards being shaken to its roots - no government representing a G-8-size nation should be held hostage by the international/global economy or a trans-national industrial complex.

Any there's NOTHING subtle about the President's plane, so if he flies in a non-American product, what does message does that send?

One man's opinion.

[Firebird]

My personal opinion, which counts for little, is that there is no way that they will have the US President flying in a non-US aircraft.
It will also go some way to appease Boeing for not getting the first Tanker replacement contract, which I believe will end up with the Airbus being selected.

[djnocturnal]

C-130....The J of course!

[MIKE JG]

Let em fly on a Regional Jet!

[sprocky]

As much as I would really like to see an A380 in a US presidential livery I have to agree that the President of the United States should fly in a Boeing. Although (as posted above before) the parts come from almost all over the world this aircraft should be developed and assembled by a national company. In the same words I would expect European Prime Ministers/Chancellors/Presidents flying in an Airbus.

[VulcanDriver]

Why doesn't he charter an airliner like Queen and the Prime Minister when they need it. It would be a lot cheaper for the US tax payer.

[Jumpshot724]

Why doesn't he charter an airliner like Queen and the Prime Minister when they need it. It would be a lot cheaper for the US tax payer.

I akin it to being "too late for that idea". Air Force One is already a celebrity, getting rid of it altogether would be like....moving from the White House to some other compound. Air Force One screams America, you just can't get rid of it now.

[Ford Friendly]

Why doesn't he charter an airliner

Let's see.
1. Security - of the airframe itself, mechanical status and by rumored (but not confirmed through unclassified sources afaik) on-board in-air self-launchable missles, chaff ejectors, etc.
2. Communications - have you got any idea of the sophistication of the C3 capabilities built into AF1 birds? (not being snide here)
3. Availability & Reliability - 2 birds always available - 1 as backup. So, there'd be a need to charter 2, not 1 - oops, there go the "savings".
4. Amenities - Not only are there beds and 2 gallies, there's a fully functional surgical suite on board for God's sake!
5. Unique paint job - 'nuff said

Oh... and he ain't the Queen.

(Ends this with image of President deplaning a Virgin Atlantic bird at Sheremeteyvo.... yep. Great political visual statement.)

[drydocker]

I say keep it with boeing. If not the 747-800 may be a modify 787 then.