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

Chief Captain

Chief Captain

Well-Known Member
If the government is interested in cost, why not buy 777s to use as Air Force 1? Over the past 10-20 years, and especially when oil was high, twins have proven their capability. I read somewhere that the 777 was not so recently approved for 330 minute ETOPS.

I like seeing a 747 as much as anyone else, but when I'm paying the bills, it seems like a 777 can replace the 747 as an executive aircraft, at a significant cost advantage.
 
Chief Captain said:
If the government is interested in cost, why not buy 777s to use as Air Force 1? Over the past 10-20 years, and especially when oil was high, twins have proven their capability. I read somewhere that the 777 was not so recently approved for 330 minute ETOPS.

I like seeing a 747 as much as anyone else, but when I'm paying the bills, it seems like a 777 can replace the 747 as an executive aircraft, at a significant cost advantage.
Click to expand...

The cost of the airframe is likely tiny compared to the cost of the engineering customization the Air Force would want. Presumably much of that work that was done on the last 747s can be reused, but much of it would be done over again for a different aircraft, raising the price even more.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
The cost of the airframe is likely tiny compared to the cost of the engineering customization the Air Force would want. Presumably much of that work that was done on the last 747s can be reused, but much of it would be done over again for a different aircraft, raising the price even more.
Click to expand...

In addition, you wouldn't just have to replace the classic AF1 airframes.

There are actually a couple of others that make up the NAOC so it's gonna be a multi aircraft buy that require their own tailoring. The VC-25's are the ones everybody associates as AF1, but the E-4Bs have many of the same role/capability requirements.


While I'm all for updating some of the AF's downright ancient civil style aircraft from the 60's I would think starting with all the 707 based planes to some 767 etc type would net us more good than updating the big low density fleet.
 
Last edited:
They got rid of all the 707's I thought? When my dad moved from Andrews AFB they had replaced them with 757's. And the 707's had the old engines. Talk about guzzling. And making smoke trails. Good grief. I thought the C-130 E model was bad.
 
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
They got rid of all the 707's I thought? When my dad moved from Andrews AFB they had replaced them with 757's. And the 707's had the old engines. Talk about guzzling. And making smoke trails. Good grief. I thought the C-130 E model was bad.
Click to expand...

Your kidding right?

Most of the support AC fleet (AWACS, JSTAR, Rivet Joint, etc) are all still 707 platforms.

Not only that but some of them like JSTARS were used 707s the AF bought and rebuilt. One of them smells like goats so god only knows what that airplane did before it was modified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
Not only that but some of them like JSTARS were used 707s the AF bought and rebuilt. One of them smells like goats so god only knows what that airplane did before it was modified.


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

Hajj charter maybe?

arian-707.jpg
 
Lawman said:
There are actually a couple of others that make up the NAOC so it's gonna be a multi aircraft buy that require their own tailoring. The VC-25's are the ones everybody associates as AF1, but the E-4Bs have many of the same role/capability requirements.
Click to expand...

Which would be another reason to stick with the 747. I have no idea if the E4-Bs will be replaced or just retired though. I would guess that the JSTARs aircraft would be replaced around the same time, and the eventual replacement could probably fill both roles.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Which would be another reason to stick with the 747. I have no idea if the E4-Bs will be replaced or just retired though. I would guess that the JSTARs aircraft would be replaced around the same time, and the eventual replacement could probably fill both roles.
Click to expand...

The wife rode the E4B regularly when Carter was SECDEF. The E4B fleet is old and is probably the most carefully-maintained fleet in the world.

No exec-level Fed wants to be the guy who bought themselves a new airplane, though, so they'll probably fly them until the airframes literally disintegrate in the air.
 
I'm all for fiscal responsibility but at a point, it starts to be cost prohibitive to operate and maintain these old airframes.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Which would be another reason to stick with the 747. I have no idea if the E4-Bs will be replaced or just retired though. I would guess that the JSTARs aircraft would be replaced around the same time, and the eventual replacement could probably fill both roles.
Click to expand...

I've got no doubt that we could and probably should minimize the footprint size of these giant flying C2 nodes. Modular construction models where work stations are simply work stations and generators are generators and all you really do is fill the big void space with "stuff" would be a good way to start. That combined with AESA arrays over old antennas and you don't need some crazy structural mod like putting a big frisbee on an airliner to make an radar platform.

My only thing with it is if we're gonna do it we need to go full hog (IE all the 707 aircraft). The problem is there's simply no money left in R&D without cutting/gutting some other absolutely critical upgrade programs.

People don't want to acknowledge it but we haven't seen a really big arms refurbishment in the military since the Reagan administration. Most of the money spent over the last decade was on stuff to add to stuff we already had or finish projects like 22/35 who started life a decade before hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I bet if we closed, say, half of our little European outposts and had the host NATO country run them instead, we could save enough to re-capitalize some of these old 717-100 airframed aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top