It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Boeing invited to bid for Air Force One replacement

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Boeing has officially been invited to bid on the Air Force One replacement. The Air Force released a 375 page solicitation moving the program closer to starting work on the new aircraft. The 747-8 has been selected to replace the VC-25s that are currently used for Air Force One. The bid would be for one aircraft, with an option for a second, and a third aircraft possible.


The US Air Force has invited Boeing to submit a detailed proposal to supply and modify two passenger-carrying Boeing 747-8s to replace the 747-200-derived VC-25A fleet in the 2024 timeframe.

A 375-page solicitation released by the Air Force on 12 September moves the programme closer to a contract award that would launch the development phase of the Air Force One replacement fleet.

Having already awarded Boeing a $150 million contract to de-risk the design, the Air Force says it is emphasising “cost control and risk reduction” in the Presidential Aircraft Replacement (PAR) programme.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Can you imagine if Airbus had the chance to make the A380 into Air Force One.

I understand that wont happen though with Boeing being an American company an all that.


Out of interest (Forgive my naivety)... Are there other options other than a 747 that would do the job?




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: brace22
Can you imagine if Airbus had the chance to make the A380 into Air Force One.

I understand that wont happen though with Boeing being an American company an all that.


Out of interest (Forgive my naivety)... Are there other options other than a 747 that would do the job?



Of course their are .

but it is all depended on one critical factor that will determine which plane and maker that is....
Lets see if you can guess what that is....

Durability.....NO

Getting moneys worth.....NO again..

Who has the latest technology......NO

hmmm what could it be..

If you guessed who contributes more "political" donations, kickbacks, and profit for the politicians friends......
YOU GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER.

To which the TAXPAYER will be paying out the backside.

Scrounger



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

Well... That makes sense!!

If that wasn't the case though... What plane would be the best suited for Air Force One?




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: brace22
Airbus had the chance to turn the A380 into Air Force Once, but chose not to. Taken from the article:


An analysis had concluded the Air Force needs a four-engined widebody to perform the mission, leaving only the 747-8 and Airbus A380 as candidates. Airbus initially expressed interest several years ago in offering the A380 for the Air Force One contract, but later maintained that it would not pursue the deal.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: brace22

The A380 and 747 are the only aircraft currently qualified to do the mission.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Would love to see an A340 airforce one



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

They'd have to use a used aircraft, which means it would never happen.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Airbus? Phooey.

Generally, I'm all for buying the best out there...

But this is Air Force One, iconic symbol of the United States...perhaps more so than the idiot who rides in it--actually, definitely more than the idiot who rides in it.

If any one thing should be built in this country, it should be Air Force One. Just sayin'.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well CRAP there goes my X33 idea.
Wasn't POINTY enough anyway.
edit on 14-9-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: brace22

If we decided on the basis of the quality of US politicians, I'd suggest a Piper Cub.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS



This'd be more appropriate, IMHO.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: brace22

If I were the Prez, I'd want to cruise around in a B2, wearing my shades of course.




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: brace22
Can you imagine if Airbus had the chance to make the A380 into Air Force One.

I understand that wont happen though with Boeing being an American company an all that.


Out of interest (Forgive my naivety)... Are there other options other than a 747 that would do the job?



I imagine that a four engine aircraft is specified, so options are limited. Boeing has the 747, and that's it for them, unless you want to make radical mods to the C-17. Airbus has the 380, and the 340, but the 340 is no longer made. Antonov, Ilyushin and Tuspelov make various 4 engine aircraft, ut I don't see the Air Force buying Russian. Lockheed has the C-5 and the C-141, but both are military cargo aircraft. There are a few other quadjets out there, but they are unsuitable by virtue of limited range, speed or size. A quadjet is required for ETOPS immunity.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy
If the USAF was to suspend the four engine requirement they would also have the option of a 777 derivative. Ideally you would want it to be an "X" model with all the updates, new motors, range increases, fuselage stretches etc. A -8 would give them a range over 8500nm but with reduced interior volume. The -9 has that cut to around 7900nm but gains a few meters of extra cabin space. Now the -10 gives you a fuse length to rival the A-380 at a whisker under 80m. It may be possible to gain some range with underfloor cargo bay fuel cells a la the 747-400ER and BBJ's, then again that's what airborne tankers are for. You would probably need to add extra generators on the accessory gearbox's for all the comms gear etc that it would be festooned with and possibly a dual APU setup. ETOPS in this day and age is becoming less and less of an issue. Apart from the obvious redundancy arguments, about the only other thing I can think of is operating restrictions for extended periods in polar latitudes.

LEE.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TonyS



This'd be more appropriate, IMHO.


That literally has me rolling on the floor laughing! The current quality of our US government in a nutshell



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Bwahahha, you won that one!




top topics



 
2

log in

join