Why isn't the new Air Force 1 a 777?

Chief Captain said:
When I said to replace the other planes with 777s, I was thinking more of the E4B. Agreed that 707->777 is perhaps overkill, but the 777 is what has put the nail in the 747's coffin. I'm not seeing why when just about every airline is replacing 747s with large twins, the AF wants to stick with the 747.
Click to expand...

If the argument is saving overall money though replacing the 747s to make their operation cheaper would be like buying a 70k dollar car because it gets 1mpg better than the car you've already paid off. It's not sound financially until you get into the really long game and by then we will be having the same conversation about how all the airlines are retiring these ancient 777s for the 7X7/A5XX whatever.

And since they are so low density as a fleet yeah they are expensive in a vacuum of cost/hour compared to what a same time 777 would be, but they don't even make a line worth mentioning in the operational costs of the whole Air Force. More importantly whatever savings you added up, it would pale to the billions spent basically redesigning 6 airplanes to replace 6 perfectly good ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
///AMG said:
If you want to talk about "flexibility"…….the planned phase out of the KC-10 just made a lot of naval aviators shed a tear. Quickly reconfigurable for both drogue and boom receivers, big soft basket for us probe/drogue types, and plenty of give. The only thing the -135 has going for it from a USN/USMC perspective is that your tanker will be relatively dedicated due to pre-takeoff configuration, and the flow rate is higher. I'd take an FMC MPRS jet over a -10, but 9/10 of the time, one of those pods is inop, so it instantly becomes worse than a -10 or drogue -135, flow rate wise. Not to mention that any KC-135/707 based tanker is likely without autopilot as soon as the crew decides that they need to anchor their track right in a thunderstorm and do just about everything they can to effect an inefficient rejoin with their receivers.
Click to expand...
I haven't flown a MPRS jet yet, but from what I've heard their sorry FMC rate is due to a multitude of factors stemming from the fact that MPRS was an extreme afterthought. The jet simply wasn't designed for them.

After my last deployment in the -135, I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of crews out there that don't try to help their receivers. IMO, the root cause is too much stateside flying, aka not training how we fight. In training, the "old school SAC-trained killers" constantly beat students over the head with threats of FAA violations if they stray from the assigned track in any way. The mindset is to fly the track as depicted with no exceptions because the bombers (seemingly the only receivers these instructors ever trained for) won't make their targets if either aircraft wastes an ounce of fuel. Take this training level to the AOR and you get crews that think that getting creative will cost them their wings.
 
Chief Captain said:
When I said to replace the other planes with 777s, I was thinking more of the E4B. Agreed that 707->777 is perhaps overkill, but the 777 is what has put the nail in the 747's coffin. I'm not seeing why when just about every airline is replacing 747s with large twins, the AF wants to stick with the 747.
Click to expand...

They've always enjoyed the 4 engine redundancy for AF1 & 2
 
The Fez said:
I haven't flown a MPRS jet yet, but from what I've heard their sorry FMC rate is due to a multitude of factors stemming from the fact that MPRS was an extreme afterthought. The jet simply wasn't designed for them.

After my last deployment in the -135, I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of crews out there that don't try to help their receivers. IMO, the root cause is too much stateside flying, aka not training how we fight. In training, the "old school SAC-trained killers" constantly beat students over the head with threats of FAA violations if they stray from the assigned track in any way. The mindset is to fly the track as depicted with no exceptions because the bombers (seemingly the only receivers these instructors ever trained for) won't make their targets if either aircraft wastes an ounce of fuel. Take this training level to the AOR and you get crews that think that getting creative will cost them their wings.
Click to expand...

Now time to take your talents to Travis to the Gucci unit there :)
 
Lawman said:
More importantly whatever savings you added up, it would pale to the billions spent basically redesigning 6 airplanes to replace 6 perfectly good ones.
Click to expand...

But it does provide a lot of jobs for all that redesign work, and most of it would probably not be outsourced to India and China.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
But it does provide a lot of jobs for all that redesign work, and most of it would probably not be outsourced to India and China.
Click to expand...

True, but so does the future Strike bomber or other programs. Potentially a lot more and more importantly more important.

We are gonna spend the money, but I'm in agreement with a lot of others on the AF1/VC-25 upgrade, it's like 19th on the list of things that should be a priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
True, but so does the future Strike bomber or other programs. Potentially a lot more and more importantly more important.

We are gonna spend the money, but I'm in agreement with a lot of others on the AF1/VC-25 upgrade, it's like 19th on the list of things that should be a priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agreed. Marine One is still a VH-3D, with President Obama having cancelled the VH-71, as he determined that it wasn't a priority.
 
MikeD said:
Agreed. Marine One is still a VH-3D, with President Obama having cancelled the VH-71, as he determined that it wasn't a priority.
Click to expand...

That whole ordeal was a perfect example of mission creep.

Marine 1 is a rotary wing Uber. In the 3-8 minutes it takes to go from point A to point B the president is not in need of a flying Situation Room. Basic SATCOM and other secure comms sure, but even then let's not get crazy.

It's not like he was gonna rotary wing cross country to Cincinnati in the thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chief Captain said:
And if they reopen the 747 line, they may as well reopen the 757 line and churn out some 757-400s [emoji3]
Click to expand...

Impossible. All the jigs and tooling for the 757 was destroyed by Boeing to ensure no one ever got their hands on them and restarted the line.
 
The Fez said:
I haven't flown a MPRS jet yet, but from what I've heard their sorry FMC rate is due to a multitude of factors stemming from the fact that MPRS was an extreme afterthought. The jet simply wasn't designed for them.

After my last deployment in the -135, I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of crews out there that don't try to help their receivers. IMO, the root cause is too much stateside flying, aka not training how we fight. In training, the "old school SAC-trained killers" constantly beat students over the head with threats of FAA violations if they stray from the assigned track in any way. The mindset is to fly the track as depicted with no exceptions because the bombers (seemingly the only receivers these instructors ever trained for) won't make their targets if either aircraft wastes an ounce of fuel. Take this training level to the AOR and you get crews that think that getting creative will cost them their wings.
Click to expand...

I'm all about saving every ounce of fuel too, especially in my old steed that didn't have any to waste in country. Geometry is how you do that though. The missing ingredient with some tankers is being predictable. I take a radar lock out at range, see them right on the line on a long leg in left hand flow, and I am going to work the geometry to join them on the crosswind/short turn with auto throttles set at 250 knots. Then they inexplicably turn hard super early and now are pointed directly at me. I take an offset to build some turning room to once again use geometry, and then they hot nose me all the way to a high aspect pass. Yes, our aircraft have technically reached one another in a shorter amount of time, but now I have to do some crazy hiyaka turn, roll out either 2 miles in trail and have to run them down, or if I time it perfectly, I end up a couple miles abeam on the outside of the turn (unless I also go full AB and do a 6-7G join, not exactly fuel efficient). So it ends up taking longer, and requiring more fuel since I am now jockeying the throttles, than it would have had they just maintained their published track in a predictable manner. Granted not every crew is this way, but a lot of the guys who have just started their 30 day "deployment" didn't get it.
 
///AMG said:
I'm all about saving every ounce of fuel too, especially in my old steed that didn't have any to waste in country. Geometry is how you do that though. The missing ingredient with some tankers is being predictable. I take a radar lock out at range, see them right on the line on a long leg in left hand flow, and I am going to work the geometry to join them on the crosswind/short turn with auto throttles set at 250 knots. Then they inexplicably turn hard super early and now are pointed directly at me. I take an offset to build some turning room to once again use geometry, and then they hot nose me all the way to a high aspect pass. Yes, our aircraft have technically reached one another in a shorter amount of time, but now I have to do some crazy hiyaka turn, roll out either 2 miles in trail and have to run them down, or if I time it perfectly, I end up a couple miles abeam on the outside of the turn (unless I also go full AB and do a 6-7G join, not exactly fuel efficient). So it ends up taking longer, and requiring more fuel since I am now jockeying the throttles, than it would have had they just maintained their published track in a predictable manner. Granted not every crew is this way, but a lot of the guys who have just started their 30 day "deployment" didn't get it.
Click to expand...

Radar lock for geometry, lol. You pointy nose types have it easy.

We never had such a easy going luxury in my jets. Good ole TACAN only rejoin with DME or visual day/night rejoin for a -135, or in the case of a -10, some added azimuth along with the range.
 
MikeD said:
Radar lock for geometry, lol. You pointy nose types have it easy.

We never had such a easy going luxury in my jets. Good ole TACAN only rejoin with DME or visual day/night rejoin for a -135, or in the case of a -10, some added azimuth along with the range.
Click to expand...

haha…..I remember asking the prowler guys how they did it, and it was like the old sound ranges/nav aids my dad tells me stories about using in the 50's/60's………."hey the DME is getting bigger, turn around…….no its getting bigger again, right 90". Did you guys have ADF? Poor man's MIDS right there, at least as implemented in the Hornet.
 
I'd rather leave the security requirements, range and capability discussion to actual people involved in making those decisions.

"Cheaper" isn't always "less expensive". And "cheaper" doesn't necessarily mean it's going to complete the ultimate mission. Remember, we're essentially putting the leader of the free world on a warplane that's the target of every bad guy on earth.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Who knows. But the new AF1 probably won't be ready until 2030, so it will be 2060 by the time it is being replaced. Most or all of us will be dead by then, so who really cares?
Click to expand...

So you're saying Elon Musk will have been to Mars far before the political machinations align, create an RFP for a new AF 1 and produce it?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Who knows. But the new AF1 probably won't be ready until 2030, so it will be 2060 by the time it is being replaced. Most or all of us will be dead by then, so who really cares?
Click to expand...

If we're still burning dinosaurs to propel aircraft in 2060....well....ugh...

Teleportation motors FTW!
 
///AMG said:
haha…..I remember asking the prowler guys how they did it, and it was like the old sound ranges/nav aids my dad tells me stories about using in the 50's/60's………."hey the DME is getting bigger, turn around…….no its getting bigger again, right 90". Did you guys have ADF? Poor man's MIDS right there, at least as implemented in the Hornet.
Click to expand...

We could voice DF them I suppose. No actual ADF navigation receiver in the jet. But what you describe is pretty much how a night EMCON 4 rejoin would go if it was a receiver turn-on rejoin.
 
MikeD said:
We could voice DF them I suppose. No actual ADF navigation receiver in the jet. But what you describe is pretty much how a night EMCON 4 rejoin would go if it was a receiver turn-on rejoin.
Click to expand...

I know, riieeeeeeeght? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top