Could the U.S. Air Force turn to European planemaker Airbus as it looks to replace the fleet of presidential Air Force One aircraft? While that may be extraordinarily unlikely, it is at least a possibility, according to Flight International. The publication says the USAF has “posted a request for information for market sources that can provide three widebody aircraft to replace two, 19-year-old VC-25s (that fly as Air Force One), which are converted Boeing 747-200s.” The request comes after a federal analysis concluded replacing the Air Force One fleet would be less expensive than modernizing it, according to the acquisition document cited by Flight International.
According to Flight International, the request says the first “presidential aircraft replacement” would need to be delivered in 2017 while the second and third aircraft would be needed in 2019 and 2021, respectively. Flight International says given that time frame, “the USAF’s options for commercially-derived widebody aircraft … could be limited to the (Boeing) 747-8I and (Airbus) A380. Flight International adds Airbus has confirmed that it submitted “data about the A380, A340 and A330 as part of an analysis of alternatives.’
Still, while Airbus may be in the running, adding Airbus jets to the Air Force One fleet would run counter to nearly five decades of preference for Boeing. And, as you might expect, officials from the U.S. planemaker tell Flight International it’s one of Boeing’s top priorities to hold on to the Air Force One contract. “It is a very important program for the Boeing Company and we have been supporting for it more than 50 years so clearly we understand the presidential requirements,” an unnamed Boeing spokesman tells the publication. “We are going to respond to the request for information and look forward to supporting our customer’s needs in the future,” the spokesman adds.
Source:USA Today
By: Ren Frew - 17th January 2009 at 02:02
but the A380 will not be the choice.
So if we all agree that a smaller “AF1” is the political and environmental way to go, and in the light of ‘recent events’ who’s the fool that wouldn’t put their money behind a presidential Air/Waterbus A320. Or should Boeing now add the ‘Hudson Test’ to their evaluation programme ? 😀
By: old shape - 17th January 2009 at 00:09
Aside from the US/European battle, the A380 may have another problem.
Security features like survellance and telecoms equipment, also EMP protection.
from the VC-25 wiki site
The A380 is heavy as it is, will all the extra features make it too heavy?
No. You are replacing 700+ items of talking baggage with a few windbags and some kit. The MTOW could be kept under control……but the A380 will not be the choice.
By: supermario - 16th January 2009 at 23:25
Aside from the US/European battle, the A380 may have another problem.
Security features like survellance and telecoms equipment, also EMP protection.
from the VC-25 wiki site
The airplanes (vc-25) can also be operated as a military command center in the event of an incident such as a nuclear attack. Operational modifications include aerial refueling capability and anti-aircraft missile countermeasures. The electronics on board are connected with approximately 238 miles (383 km) of wiring, twice that of a regular 747. All wiring is covered with heavy shielding for protection from an electromagnetic pulse in the event of a nuclear attack. The planes also have electronic countermeasures (ECMs) to jam enemy radar, flares to avoid heat-seeking missiles, and chaff to avoid radar-guided missiles. All small arms and ammunition stores not under the physical possession of the Secret Service on board the VC-25s are stowed and secured in separate locked compartments each with a different locking mechanism by the Secret Service for added security. Many of the VC-25’s other capabilities are classified for security reasons.
The A380 is heavy as it is, will all the extra features make it too heavy?
By: J Boyle - 16th January 2009 at 17:10
Like VC-137? Or VC-32?
VC-137s are long gone..and I’d guess that due to old engines they’re gas hogs compared to newer planes.
It’s rare that the pres flies in the VC-32. But he probably should do so more of the time. But you got to pity a guy that has to lower himself to a private 757.:rolleyes:
It will be interesting to see if green concerns (or image) will make BO fly in smaller jets more frequently.
By: fightingirish - 15th January 2009 at 17:59
Haha,
when the POTUS Bush flew to visit US Forces in Iraq for Thanksgiving 2003, the VC-25 had the callsign/code of a Gulfstream for security reasons.
Mhh, I remember the stuffed turkey was also fake.
By: chornedsnorkack - 15th January 2009 at 15:53
I don’t see the French president flying in a Gulfstream, usually it’s a Falcon. Ever wonder why?
Is it 50, 900, 7X or 2000?
Why?
Most of the time the AF1 is used for pretty routine trips…where even the 747 is really too large. Combining it and the E-4 would entail a vastly more complex aircraft and very large crew.
You don’t need the E-4 battlestaff to do a campaign stop in Des Moines.Before they buy a new long range transport, I’d like to see them set an example and use a smaller jet most of the time. There’s no real need for a travelling media contingent.
They can buy their own jet and follow.
Like VC-137? Or VC-32?
By: Tango and Cash - 15th January 2009 at 14:25
I seem to recall the Secret Service expressing a strong preference (requirement?) for a four-engine aircraft when the present VC-25s were selected. DC-10 was one of the early contenders if I recall correctly, until someone counted engines. Unless the thinking has changed, I would suspect this puts any twin-engine design (including my personal favorite the 777) out of the running.
While the A380 looks good in AF1 colors, I doubt we’ll see it in reality. Too much “national pride” at stake, and after the VH-71 Agusta-Bell-Lockheed fiasco, any sort of multi-national, multi-company production arrangement will probably be frowned upon.
My money is on the 747-8.
By: fightingirish - 15th January 2009 at 11:34
Hey folks,
I agree with you all, that the next presidential aircraft will be an American product.
But I had a dream last night, that the 747-8 would be cancelled or the 777/787-10 would be too small. ;):D
EVERETT, Wash., Jan. 14, 2016
The Boeing VC-XX completed its maiden flight today , beginning a 1,600-hour flight-test program that’s expected to bring U.S. government certification by early next year. The VC-XX is the second prototype of the Boeing Ecoliner, formally known as Boeing 700 and Boeing 808. […]
First flight as “Air Force One” will happen in January 2017, when President Obama and his family will return home to their residence in Hawaii […]
Source: My iHolo from 2016 :diablo:
By: Hand87_5 - 15th January 2009 at 09:18
Like everyone else….when it comes to jobs and money. 😀
I don’t see the French president flying in a Gulfstream, usually it’s a Falcon. Ever wonder why?
The A400 engine selection seemed to be about protectionism…and France has long stood in the way of a NATO C-17 buy.
For the ultimate example, why did both the UK and France have final assembly lines for Concorde?
The US is no worse than any other country.
.
Absolutely true. It makes perfect sense that the US promote their own champions. The French AirForce never will even consider a minute to fly F16’s (we prefer to waste money in developing out of price Rafales”) However didn’t the USA promoted the free market? Didn’t they force the rest of the world to adopt those pathetic WTO rules? Why do they play dirty when they loose?
By: old shape - 15th January 2009 at 00:04
I’m guessing that’s a bit like when they advertise internal vacancies where I work because they have to be seen to be doing so, even though the job is already in the bag for ‘someone’…? 😉
Correct.
The A380 is no more than a stalking horse. A snowball in hell has got more chance.
We do it to them too.
If US Gov just announced it was going for a 747, then boeing would fill their boots with the price…even after it is subject to price audit etc. At least the US Gov. can turn to Boeing and say “Airbus can do it for $X” and use it as a lever to keep costs down.
Airbus and its supporters can dream about getting Air Force 1, it will never happen. Obama is just being the new brush trying to sweep clean. He’ll get pegged down in congress.
Apart from being “Not American”, it’s also too new. There are problems lurking in the A380 that will take 5 years in-service to find out. I just hope that none of the problems bring one down.
By: J Boyle - 14th January 2009 at 21:42
The US are in favor of a free market …. when they win. Otherwise protectionism
shows up right away.
Like everyone else….when it comes to jobs and money. 😀
I don’t see the French president flying in a Gulfstream, usually it’s a Falcon. Ever wonder why?
The A400 engine selection seemed to be about protectionism…and France has long stood in the way of a NATO C-17 buy.
For the ultimate example, why did both the UK and France have final assembly lines for Concorde?
The US is no worse than any other country.
But seeing how a large part of VC-25 and E-4B interior and functionality matches, would it be feasible to furnish an A380-800 with the entire functionality of both VC-25 and E-4B?
Why?
Most of the time the AF1 is used for pretty routine trips…where even the 747 is really too large. Combining it and the E-4 would entail a vastly more complex aircraft and very large crew.
You don’t need the E-4 battlestaff to do a campaign stop in Des Moines.
Before they buy a new long range transport, I’d like to see them set an example and use a smaller jet most of the time. There’s no real need for a travelling media contingent.
They can buy their own jet and follow.
By: chornedsnorkack - 14th January 2009 at 15:43
747-200 and A380-800 capacity
How much usable floor area does a Boeing 747-200 (VC-25/E-4B) have? And how does A380-800 compare against this?
Roughly how are the usable spaces of VC-25 and E-4B divided? I mean, the basic layout of both is public domain, and there should be a rough idea of the numbers.
Parts of the interior are similar. Both VC-25 and E-4B have principal´s bedroom in the nosecone and office/council rooms nearby. However, other parts are different. E-4B-s have large communications and command rooms taking up most of the rear of the main deck; VC-25s have a small communication room on the upper deck, and most of the rear main deck is given to guests/press/publicity.
An Airbus 380-800 is not the size of two 747-s. But seeing how a large part of VC-25 and E-4B interior and functionality matches, would it be feasible to furnish an A380-800 with the entire functionality of both VC-25 and E-4B?
By: symon - 14th January 2009 at 12:57
If they were really opposed to buying an A380/A340 then they would have went straight to Mr Boeing! As I have said, the Airbus is an unlikely winner but not out of the race, yet! 🙂
And a lot of the time in business (I’m not sure the limits), a company has to offer the contract to all parties able to fulfil it to ensure equal opportunities. Not sure if the USAF is required to do this, but perhaps.
I think President Obama should stick it to both A/B and get a few presidential Il-96’s 😀
By: Bmused55 - 14th January 2009 at 11:53
I do Agree with Sandy and the other mebers. It’s very very unlikely that the presidential fleet will go to Airbus.
I would be very surprised if the tanker deal would go to Airbus as well.
The US are in favor of a free market …. when they win. Otherwise protectionism
shows up right away.
Precisely, sadly.
By: Ren Frew - 14th January 2009 at 11:34
If they were really opposed to buying an A380/A340 then they would have went straight to Mr Boeing! As I have said, the Airbus is an unlikely winner but not out of the race, yet! 🙂
I’m guessing that’s a bit like when they advertise internal vacancies where I work because they have to be seen to be doing so, even though the job is already in the bag for ‘someone’…? 😉
By: Ren Frew - 14th January 2009 at 11:32
I do Agree with Sandy and the other mebers. It’s very very unlikely that the presidential fleet will go to Airbus.
I would be very surprised if the tanker deal would go to Airbus as well.
The US are in favor of a free market …. when they win. Otherwise protectionism
shows up right away.
That’s correct, you have to admire the way the US sticks up for it’s own industries even if the wrong product (occasionally) wins. I think the ‘hoo hah’ they’ve kicked up over the tanker deal is a little embarrassing however. People seem to have conveniently forgotten the scandal surrounding the Boeing KC767 tendering. Some of the anti-Airbus/European kick back surrounding the awarding of the deal is xenophobic bordering upon racist to say the least.
I’d also think it unlikely to see a presidential A380 until a US airline starts to operate the behemoth, who knows if one might drive the other mind you ? There’s still a way to go for the A380 in terms of proving itself to the doubting Thomases, but I gather it’s doing rarther well so far and whether Obama gets one or not, you have to wonder what effect talk like this will have on Boeing and it’s longer term plans for the 747.
By: Hand87_5 - 14th January 2009 at 11:01
I do Agree with Sandy and the other mebers. It’s very very unlikely that the presidential fleet will go to Airbus.
I would be very surprised if the tanker deal would go to Airbus as well.
The US are in favor of a free market …. when they win. Otherwise protectionism
shows up right away.
By: Bmused55 - 14th January 2009 at 10:20
The tanker deal is a whole different kettle of fish, no where near as glamorous (for want of a better decription) as the Presidential fleet.
I don’t think a KC330 deal will have any bearing on the Presidential Fleet deal. Unless of course Airbus do a “buy the A330 and get 2 or 3 A380’s for free” deal. It’s not like they haven’t done similar before. Then, Boeing can offer a “Free 747s for KC767” deal too.
PS, its not Air Force One unless it’s carrying the President. Even a Cessna can become Air Force One if the President officialy hops aboard.
Thats why I refer to the aircraft as the “Presidential Fleet”
By: Bmused55 - 14th January 2009 at 07:19
Obama is all for change.
But he’ll never survive picking foreign jets for his Presidential fleet.
Especialy when home grown aircraft manufacturers are cutting jobs.
It’ll be the 747-800, no question about it.
And that’s not being Pro-Boeing, it’s being realistic.
I will gladly stand to be corrected.
Sign In
January 14, 2009 at 4:52 am
