Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Replacement for Air Force One.

  • 17-08-2012 11:44am
    #1
    roundymac
    Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    US looking for replacement for Air Force One.
    ww.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=56048148-8192-4583-a4ab-cceb5df298db


«1

Comments

  • #2
    squonk
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭squonk


    Airbus A380 so :)


  • #3
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    Yup, Airbus is the only way to go.


  • #4
    Reoil
    Registered Users Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭Reoil


    Confab wrote: »
    Yup, Airbus is the only way to go.

    Not according to this:
    https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=ivl&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e35e259abc36437e8e7665d42bdac9b2


  • #5
    Daidy2011
    Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭Daidy2011


    Not a chance that it will be an A380, even if Airbus have recently announced that they will open an assembly facility in the US - the US taxpayers would go bananas, not to mention The Senate and Congress, if Airbus were to win this contract.


  • #6
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Wouldn't the A380's size limit the number of usable airports?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Bsal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭Bsal


    Surely a 747-8 or triple 7.


  • #8
    b757
    Registered Users Posts: 1,370 ✭✭✭b757


    The USAF will never chose airbus to replace AF1, it will be a 747-8 or 787.


  • #9
    Bebop
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭Bebop


    B777-200LR with P&W engines


  • #10
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Daidy2011 wrote: »
    Not a chance that it will be an A380, even if Airbus have recently announced that they will open an assembly facility in the US - the US taxpayers would go bananas, not to mention The Senate and Congress, if Airbus were to win this contract.

    When the USAF released their 2020 forward plan a while back it included a clause that referred to 3 aircraft to be sourced (to replace the current pair of VC-25's) Airbus stated then that they would not be bidding in such a procurement campaign.


  • #11
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Would it be stupid to assume that they will not go for a twin engine plane?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    b757
    Registered Users Posts: 1,370 ✭✭✭b757


    weisses wrote: »
    Would it be stupid to assume that they will not go for a twin engine plane?

    Why not? Cheaper to run, less maintenance.. Overall cheaper to buy too

    The 787-9 (When it comes available) will be the perfect choice in my opinion, if they were to go for the twin instead of the 747 again.

    I know not as much room as the 747-8 but it could do the job. 787 has more range and could fit into even smaller airports than what the 747 can fit into now.


  • #13
    seanmacc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭seanmacc


    Just bear in mind the extras that Air Force 1 currently has like military grade radar, flares, chaff, countermeasures, air to air missiles (rumored) , escape pods (rumored) and re-enforced armor. Could these things be fitted to a plastic Dreamliner whose design has not yet stood the test of time? The new 747 is probably going to be the obvious choice unless they want to go smaller.


  • #14
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    seanmacc wrote: »
    Just bear in mind the extras that Air Force 1 currently has like military grade radar, flares, chaff, countermeasures, air to air missiles (rumored) , escape pods (rumored) and re-enforced armor. Could these things be fitted to a plastic Dreamliner whose design has not yet stood the test of time? The new 747 is probably going to be the obvious choice unless they want to go smaller.
    Spot on. The 'tried and tested' train of thought is the reason that the current VC-25A's are modified B747-200's rather that B744's (which were in service at the time,I did read somewhere that the VC-25A's have a modified -400 wing though)

    I think the B747-8i seems like the obvious replacement. it will be in service several years before 2017-2020. It also has so much physical space (as opposed to the B787) for all the meetings rooms, press area, military comms rooms, bedrooms etc that the current 2 aircraft contain. I'm not sure how the B787 would respons to all the extra kit they have to bolt onto the SAM aircraft


  • #15
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Air Force Two?


  • #16
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    b757 wrote: »
    Why not? Cheaper to run, less maintenance.. Overall cheaper to buy too

    The 787-9 (When it comes available) will be the perfect choice in my opinion, if they were to go for the twin instead of the 747 again.

    I know not as much room as the 747-8 but it could do the job. 787 has more range and could fit into even smaller airports than what the 747 can fit into now.


    Fair enough ... was only worried that 2 engines are easier to take out then 4 (in the case of an attack)


  • #17
    LeftBase
    Registered Users Posts: 743 ✭✭✭LeftBase


    Sorry to be pedantic but "Air Force 1" is the callsign of the presidential party when airborne. If he was in a C172 or a commercial flight it would be air force 1. So there is no real specific air force 1....however one 747 regularly fulfills the role, but that aircraft is not named air force 1.


  • #18
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    LeftBase wrote: »
    Sorry to be pedantic but "Air Force 1" is the callsign of the presidential party when airborne. If he was in a C172 or a commercial flight it would be air force 1. So there is no real specific air force 1....however one 747 regularly fulfills the role, but that aircraft is not named air force 1.

    Any civilian flight carrying the US President would be Executive 1; its only Air Force 1 when its an Air Force plane. Hence there's Marine 1, Navy 1, etc.


  • #19
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Air Force Two?

    Its only ever Air Force one when the president is in it. :)


  • #20
    Mister Jingles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭Mister Jingles


    Tbh though when someone says Air Force 1 most of us think of the 747 even though he travels in other aircraft from time to time.

    As for Air Force 2, again I would probably associate that with the 757 but not to the extent of AF1 - 747 context.


  • #21
    Mister Jingles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭Mister Jingles


    MYOB wrote: »
    Any civilian flight carrying the US President would be Executive 1;

    Hasn't being used in around 40 years if I remember correctly.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Bebop
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭Bebop


    There are two identical aircraft, the one carrying the President is given the callsign AirForce one, if the Vice-president flies it is called Airforce two, the two men are forbidden to travel on the same plane and either aircraft can be designated AF1 or AF2, it depends on who steps aboard


  • #23
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Mister Jingles wrote: »
    Hasn't being used in around 40 years if I remember correctly.

    Didn't Obama hire a Gulfstream into Teterboro to bring Michelle for a date in NYC after he got elected? Why I remember that (if its even true!) I dunno. :o


  • #24
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    MYOB wrote: »
    Didn't Obama hire a Gulfstream into Teterboro to bring Michelle for a date in NYC after he got elected? Why I remember that (if its even true!) I dunno. :o
    He would have only been President Elect at that stage, not the President though. They take their time about the swearing in ceremony over there (think a month or 2 later)


  • #25
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    murphaph wrote: »
    He would have only been President Elect at that stage, not the President though. They take their time about the swearing in ceremony over there (think a month or 2 later)

    Election was in November, (4th or 5th I think) inauguration was in early-mid January. (And it was pretty cold in Washington then)


  • #26
    squonk
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭squonk


    I was joking about the A380 - too big and too European :).

    My money is on a 748 really.


  • #27
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Air Force Two?

    Carries the Vice President.


  • #28
    AMKC
    Registered Users Posts: 15,512 ✭✭✭✭AMKC
    Ms


    So it will be a 747-8 for the next Air Force One and it will bit be delivered before 2024 at the earliest. It was the Obama administration that got the ball rolling but the Trump one looked for cost cutting so the new Air Force One will not have in air refueling which us just crazy and very short sighted I think and they will be based on two 747-8s that Boeing were going to sell to Transaro a Russian airline ironically that decided to pull out of buying them. Don't forget these planes AircForce One and Two I think will have to serve for at least 30 years so not having iarf is crazy if you ask me. You know the way it's always when you don't have something with you that you need it and when you have it you do not. That could happen here. Who knows what will happen in the next 35 to 40 years.


    https://youtu.be/nfO3Agp59qI

    Live long and Prosper

    Peace and long life.



  • #29
    Sexual Chocolate
    Registered Users Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭Sexual Chocolate


    Crazy money involved. While I love the 747s I do think that the 787 or even the 777-8 would of being ample enough.


  • #30
    AMKC
    Registered Users Posts: 15,512 ✭✭✭✭AMKC
    Ms


    Sexual Chocolate wrote: »
    Crazy money involved. While I love the 747s I do think that the 787 or even the 777-8 would of being ample enough.

    It does seem like crazy money alright and that's why I think it's crazy they are not having refueling capability on it. Who knows what else the buffoon currently in the White House has asked to be left out. In the long run do when you think this plane will be used for at least 30 years it's not really that bad of value maybe.
    I wonder what will happen the current one. Will it be like the Beast and all broke down and stripped so no one can find out about its secrets? A pity really.

    Live long and Prosper

    Peace and long life.



  • Advertisement
  • #31
    smurfjed
    Registered Users Posts: 10,026 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Sexual Chocolate wrote: »
    Crazy money involved. While I love the 747s I do think that the 787 or even the 777-8 would of being ample enough.

    2 engines forget it, if one fails the aircraft must land, with 4 it just continues.

    Considering the aircraft mission, is air to air fueling required ?

    My understanding is that in time of war, POTUS would be taken to an E4 B747 and not these aircraft.


Advertisement