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

Lawman said:
Rickenbacker is advertising they are on the list.

Going to a bigger airframe though there simply will not be enough purchases to go boom for boom.

That being said, it should have more give than the 135 so there is potential it would need less lines on the ATO. It just takes away a lot more flexibility from the CAOC. Especially when we have stupid games like RC/theatre commanders not releasing use of their toys when they don't have a real job for them.


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

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.
 
///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've heard nothing but pain and hatred for the 135 from my probe fueling friends. The Iron Maiden sounds like the AF went out to try and make it so people would stop asking them for tankers for NATO/Navy/Marines.

My worry on flexibility is more that if there are less total tails in a given boss's pool of stuff he is less likely to let one go since now they are talking about being 6/7 instead of 11/12.
 

I like how the AF went out of its way to buy an engine configuration no airliner would buy so as to get the engine closer to the pavement.
 
I do miss living on Andrews AFB. Or at least Andrews pre-911. There were a lot of really cool military a/c that flew in and out of there. We used to sit at the base lake and drink beer and watch them to touch and go's.
 
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...

Short term, yes, I assume a 777 is cheaper, but looking 20-30 years into the future, things like maintence costs and fuel would probably make the 777 significantly cheaper than the 747.
 
Lawman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Won't those airplanes eventually need to be replaced as well? Why not eventually replace them with a 777 fleet?
 
I think I've found a better option.....
 

Attachments

  • 00009259.jpg
    00009259.jpg
    509.7 KB · Views: 113
Chief Captain said:
Won't those airplanes eventually need to be replaced as well? Why not eventually replace them with a 777 fleet?
Click to expand...

In the long scope of the total force those planes are less used up than a lot of other areas we need to invest.

The 707 family planes going to a 777 size platform would be a huge increase in size/cost to do what they do. You'd only be replacing a small group of 747-200s. Relatively with the meticulous maintenance those aircraft all get so long as 747s are still out there to support from the manufacturer they would last longer than a fleet of 707s that have been mostly divested and left to die in bone yards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chief Captain said:
Short term, yes, I assume a 777 is cheaper, but looking 20-30 years into the future, things like maintence costs and fuel would probably make the 777 significantly cheaper than the 747.
Click to expand...

I suspect fuel is probably in the single digit percentages for the operating costs of AF1.

The 777 would probably work, but the cost of designing and testing aerial refueling, power for the communications, radiation hardening, electronic countermeasures, missile countermeasures, and whatever other classified systems are integrated into the thing are probably 10 times the price of the lifetime fuel consumption of the aircraft.
 
Lawman said:
In the long scope of the total force those planes are less used up than a lot of other areas we need to invest.

The 707 family planes going to a 777 size platform would be a huge increase in size/cost to do what they do. You'd only be replacing a small group of 747-200s. Relatively with the meticulous maintenance those aircraft all get so long as 747s are still out there to support from the manufacturer they would last longer than a fleet of 707s that have been mostly divested and left to die in bone yards.


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

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.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I suspect fuel is probably in the single digit percentages for the operating costs of AF1.

The 777 would probably work, but the cost of designing and testing aerial refueling, power for the communications, radiation hardening, electronic countermeasures, missile countermeasures, and whatever other classified systems are integrated into the thing are probably 10 times the price of the lifetime fuel consumption of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Good points. I guess with the -8, they already know how to integrate their mods into the basic scaffolding. I'd guess the decreased operating cost would outweigh all that, but there's no way we can prove it either way.

That begs the question though- what happens when we need to replace the -8s? Ask Boeing to reopen the line? [emoji23]














And if they reopen the 747 line, they may as well reopen the 757 line and churn out some 757-400s [emoji3]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top