Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Air Force One is an 'unrivalled flying fortress'
It's time for the American president to get a new plane. On the outside, the new Air Force One (which are actually two identical jets) will maintain its iconic blue and white livery - however, the inside will be barely recognisable. Considering the current plane was built at a time when having a fax machine on board was groundbreaking, the technology on board will get a considerable upgrade. It was never going to come cheap. President-elect Donald Trump cast a spotlight on the project this… (www.nzherald.co.nz) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
People really amaze me. AF1 is old and outdated they say. "Horrible". Look at the B-52's that defend our country. They are so old that your father and grandfather flew them. Think about that one for a moment. Father and Grandfather. It was used in Korea. AF1 can be upgraded to modern electronics if necessary. The airframe is perfectly good and there still are lots of parts from mothballed aircraft. I absolutely agree with Trump.
Just a historical correction point please. B52 never saw combat in Korean Conflict. First combat sortie was in Vietnam, 1960's. The first B-52A flew Aug. 5, 1954, after the Korean cease fire went into effect in July, 1953. As an added fact, there were only 3 A models built. The full production version was the B model and so on.
Think about that for a moment. There are 2 AF1 airplanes to keep in parts and __ (you fill in the numbers) B-52s still in service. It is more cost effective to keep making spare parts for many airplanes than for just 2. The cost to operate and maintain the older airplanes should be put into more efficient, modern airplanes. The average person would not want to keep feeding their 1986 car getting maybe 15 or 16 m.p.g. when they can achieve twice that much in a modern vehicle. The same applies to these airplanes. I'm not saying the new AF1 will use only half the amount of fuel as tho older ones but it will be significant.
If we were to buy 20 of these, the cost would likely be a bit less right? Its scale of economy pricing and the fact that these jets are so UNIQUE, that it will be difficult to get the pricing to a reasonable level. Look at the price of the B-2. When we intended on building ~ 130 airframes the price was much lower since our suppliers were building parts for a larger number of airframes, but when Clinton reduced the number to 21, the costs shot up significantly to nearly 2 billion per jet! Scale of economy.
Typically, airframe/engine/component mgfrs use a 1,000 production/cost model to see the ROI/Profit realization. Here however, we are taking a basic 747-8 Intercontinental airframe fitted with new larger efficient engines (That wont fit on the 747-200 wing), a different larger wing and a longer fuselage with better range. We are adding in-flight refueling (UARRSI) systems along with the latest in communication systems. As well the airframes and engines will be build to withstand EMP. As much of this work will be done in the normal production line in Everett, however most of the work will need to be outsourced to a finishing center, likely in Texas or?? (Not China- LOL).
Folks, doing this isn't cheap! We are taking 2 commercial derivative airframes (~$370 Mil each) and turning them into a war fighting, executive transport. A flying command post. We are not building a corporate jet like Trump Force One.
I recall when the VC25's were being modified in Texas back in the 80's, it was a LONG and laborious process. These airframes will have to be N registered, which will require a long engineering process with the FAA and Boeing in order to get the registration and airworthiness certification complete. There will be a massive number of STC's that will have to be accomplished which will involve large engineering teams from the manufacturers of various parts and systems, and the USAF and the FAA.
The costs are in large part, labor. That will be better than half the funding, ooh, doesn't that equate to "American Jobs"? This isn't a welfare program, it is a technical, professional type jobs that are high paying and worth the investment.
We do very little aircraft heavy maintenance and modification work here in the USA. Many of those USA jobs have gone off shore to China, Singapore and South America because the labor is cheaper. That's what our USA flag carriers have done these past 30 years. Boeing for a recent example sent the China Postal 757 & 737 P2F mods to China, knowing full well that we have the capabilities here in the USA to complete. United airlines has all the trip-7's heavy checks done in China. I think they also send their 747 fleet there as well.
Here is a chance to get some aviation jobs going again in the USA, yes it is just two airframes that will cost a lot of money to build and modify. But doing business with the government isn't cheap! I know many suppliers in this industry that absolutely refuse to participate in government programs. Thus the source pool is smaller for fair and competitive pricing for many unique parts and assemblies. One of the additional problems with these type of programs is the cumbersome and complex DFAR compliance. The DoD/USG acquisition regulations and protocols are very confining and restrictive and have a ton of oversight agencies involved in these contracts.
What the POTUS-elect says is that he is all about Gvt deregulation to remove the obstacles that hinder and obstruct businesses here in the USA. Well this is one big example of a program that he can do that with. He can drive the DoD/USAF and Boeing to identify what regs are slowing the process and driving the cost up.
Where can we LEAN out this process of acquisition to make it more affordable to the taxpayer and get the right aircraft built on schedule and on/or under budget. Don't just beat down the program due to sticker shock. Go out and get a proper understanding of what it takes to build these jets, put the right people on the job to fix it and get it done. Its a "shovel ready" job!
Typically, airframe/engine/component mgfrs use a 1,000 production/cost model to see the ROI/Profit realization. Here however, we are taking a basic 747-8 Intercontinental airframe fitted with new larger efficient engines (That wont fit on the 747-200 wing), a different larger wing and a longer fuselage with better range. We are adding in-flight refueling (UARRSI) systems along with the latest in communication systems. As well the airframes and engines will be build to withstand EMP. As much of this work will be done in the normal production line in Everett, however most of the work will need to be outsourced to a finishing center, likely in Texas or?? (Not China- LOL).
Folks, doing this isn't cheap! We are taking 2 commercial derivative airframes (~$370 Mil each) and turning them into a war fighting, executive transport. A flying command post. We are not building a corporate jet like Trump Force One.
I recall when the VC25's were being modified in Texas back in the 80's, it was a LONG and laborious process. These airframes will have to be N registered, which will require a long engineering process with the FAA and Boeing in order to get the registration and airworthiness certification complete. There will be a massive number of STC's that will have to be accomplished which will involve large engineering teams from the manufacturers of various parts and systems, and the USAF and the FAA.
The costs are in large part, labor. That will be better than half the funding, ooh, doesn't that equate to "American Jobs"? This isn't a welfare program, it is a technical, professional type jobs that are high paying and worth the investment.
We do very little aircraft heavy maintenance and modification work here in the USA. Many of those USA jobs have gone off shore to China, Singapore and South America because the labor is cheaper. That's what our USA flag carriers have done these past 30 years. Boeing for a recent example sent the China Postal 757 & 737 P2F mods to China, knowing full well that we have the capabilities here in the USA to complete. United airlines has all the trip-7's heavy checks done in China. I think they also send their 747 fleet there as well.
Here is a chance to get some aviation jobs going again in the USA, yes it is just two airframes that will cost a lot of money to build and modify. But doing business with the government isn't cheap! I know many suppliers in this industry that absolutely refuse to participate in government programs. Thus the source pool is smaller for fair and competitive pricing for many unique parts and assemblies. One of the additional problems with these type of programs is the cumbersome and complex DFAR compliance. The DoD/USG acquisition regulations and protocols are very confining and restrictive and have a ton of oversight agencies involved in these contracts.
What the POTUS-elect says is that he is all about Gvt deregulation to remove the obstacles that hinder and obstruct businesses here in the USA. Well this is one big example of a program that he can do that with. He can drive the DoD/USAF and Boeing to identify what regs are slowing the process and driving the cost up.
Where can we LEAN out this process of acquisition to make it more affordable to the taxpayer and get the right aircraft built on schedule and on/or under budget. Don't just beat down the program due to sticker shock. Go out and get a proper understanding of what it takes to build these jets, put the right people on the job to fix it and get it done. Its a "shovel ready" job!
I also forgot to share that the YAL-1 ABL program was a single 747-400 derivative, highly modified airframe and high tech COIL laser systems and optics, cost for that program was over $5 Bil. To date, it was the most expensive single aircraft ever built in modern aviation history. Can you say "Spruce Goose"? And by the way, that airframe did not go to a museum and it had less than 300 cycles on it. It went to DM and went to the Hammer Mill.
To be fair, I think it's highly unlikely we will see either of the VC-25s meet the scrapper. Both have a far wider historic audience when compared to the YAL-1, having flown (so far) Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
They'll end up much like the VC-137Cs: in museums.
They'll end up much like the VC-137Cs: in museums.
Oh yes I am in full agreement Sir. I was just sharing a trivia fact about YAL. Not trying to make a case that the VC jets will be scrapped. That would never stand any challenge. I made the same point in an earlier post to another gentleman. They will be museum birds for sure.