New Air Force One

[Guest nsplayr]

I’m in board with kicking Boeing straight in the junk but what’s the alternative, buy an Airbus and start over with all the bespoke requirements of AF1?

Maybe we shouldn’t have allowed so much corporate consolidation and monopoly building over the last 40 years, then we would actually have other options. Boeing is too big to fail in commercial aviation, just like LM, Amazon, Google, etc. are in their industries. 

[brabus]

Therein lies the prime issue. We’ve fucked up for too long, time to rip the bandaid off and start fresh, which means there will be short term pain in a lot of ways, but as a society we’ve been way too focused on the now and barely even aware of what does 5, 10, 20 years down the road look like? As Tree said in another thread, we’ve already fucked unborn generations - it has to stop now. If we do, maybe 3-4 generations from now will be free of the financial impacts of their predecessors idiotic decisions. 

Edited February 20 by brabus

[herkbier]

Much like gun laws that we have and just need to enforce appropriately.. the primes need to be held accountable. Financially and probably criminally. 
 

The primes may have a monopoly on the product, but the US government in many ways has a monopoly on consuming the product.. time to start exercising that monopolistic power. 

[disgruntledemployee]

DOGE should just cancel it.  Trump can fly on his own plane.

[SurelySerious]

DOGE should just cancel it.  Trump can fly on his own plane.

That assumes he’ll just become dictator and be able to go for 3+ terms.

[disgruntledemployee]

On 2/21/2025 at 3:15 PM, SurelySerious said:

That assumes he’ll just become dictator and be able to go for 3+ terms.

I stand unastonished.  Not only will he take the gifted palace plane, he'll have use AF taxpayer money modify it, and he'll keep it afterwards.  I say if he's gonna keep it, he has to refund the tax $$ used to modify it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121680511

[Clark Griswold]

Just switch to 777

 

Not cheap, not easy but if king for a day it would be part of a 777 mil variant project, tanker/mobility, VVIP, new NECAP platforms.

[Standby]

5 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Just switch to 777

 

Not cheap, not easy but if king for a day it would be part of a 777 mil variant project, tanker/mobility, VVIP, new NECAP platforms.

 

Dreamliner will do just fine. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 minute ago, Standby said:

Dreamliner will do just fine. 

Too beaucoup gi?

 

[Standby]

8 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Too beaucoup gi?

 

I think so. I get the desire for the biggest and baddest. That said, I think it ultimately comes down to the engine redundancy…quads vs ETOPS. If it wasn’t for that, I think the 787 would take the cake based on higher cruise speed with comparable range. 

[StoleIt]

12 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I stand unastonished.  Not only will he take the gifted palace plane, he'll have use AF taxpayer money modify it, and he'll keep it afterwards.  I say if he's gonna keep it, he has to refund the tax $$ used to modify it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121680511

There should be no keeping it. That is simply insane to me.

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Standby said:

I think so. I get the desire for the biggest and baddest. That said, I think it ultimately comes down to the engine redundancy…quads vs ETOPS. If it wasn’t for that, I think the 787 would take the cake based on higher cruise speed with comparable range. 

Yeah, for the survivability and other requirements i don’t know of exactly I can see the quad being preferable, might not be required but as 747s are available here we go…

Split the mission double the bill and make several CODELs happy 😉

747s for overseas and 787s for domestic / near abroad 

[StoleIt]

3 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yeah, for the survivability and other requirements i don’t know of exactly I can see the quad being preferable, might not be required but as 747s are available here we go…

Split the mission double the bill and make several CODELs happy 😉

747s for overseas and 787s for domestic / near abroad 

At the bro level, we have been talking a lot about what could replace the C-40 and C-32 as they start to get long in the tooth. Apparently, Boeing originally had an idea for a 787-300 that the Japanese wanted for short dense inter-island flying and it would have been the basis for the 787 BBJ as well.

The real big issue is the foot print of a 787, be it a fictional -3 or a real -8/9/10, is way bigger than a 757 or 737. We are talking an extra 70 feet of wing let alone PCN issues. Airport flexibility goes way down, hell, we already sank a C-32 into the pavement at MDW because of a PCN being wrong in the Giant. A 787 wouldn't even be able to land at MDW, let alone park.

I fear the MAX9 or 10 is really the only replacement for the C-32 and it simplifies crewing because it's a shared type. But it will come with a performance and capability hit. Best to bring it online right as we change administrations so there isn't any growing pain...like that'll ever happen.

[Clark Griswold]

At the bro level, we have been talking a lot about what could replace the C-40 and C-32 as they start to get long in the tooth. Apparently, Boeing originally had an idea for a 787-300 that the Japanese wanted for short dense inter-island flying and it would have been the basis for the 787 BBJ as well.
The real big issue is the foot print of a 787, be it a fictional -3 or a real -8/9/10, is way bigger than a 757 or 737. We are talking an extra 70 feet of wing let alone PCN issues. Airport flexibility goes way down, hell, we already sank a C-32 into the pavement at MDW because of a PCN being wrong in the Giant. A 787 wouldn't even be able to land at MDW, let alone park.
I fear the MAX9 or 10 is really the only replacement for the C-32 and it simplifies crewing because it's a shared type. But it will come with a performance and capability hit. Best to bring it online right as we change administrations so there isn't any growing pain...like that'll ever happen.

Probably right
Flew the -8 MAX, it’s a good jet, not a Bus but good, good high hot takeoff performance, landing is ok, give the right seat a HUD and tiller if Big Blue buys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[disgruntledemployee]

Uh oh, the Qatari Air Farce One is gonna get Loomered.  And cost us  $B or so.  Wouldn't it be awesome if Qatar flew it to DC, and then Trump sets it on fire?  

Crazy: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maga-stars-turn-on-trump-for-selling-out-to-qatar/ar-AA1EFVyv

Cost: https://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-qatar-gifted-air-force-201529007.html

[Clark Griswold]

@StoleIt
Long range tanks for NGs or MAX

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2014-12-09/versatile-aux-fuel-system-will-give-737s-longer-legs

-9 with tanks might be as good as it gets without a true 757 MAX


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[disgruntledemployee]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

@StoleIt
Long range tanks for NGs or MAX

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2014-12-09/versatile-aux-fuel-system-will-give-737s-longer-legs

-9 with tanks might be as good as it gets without a true 757 MAX


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.

That plane don't need longer legs.

[Clark Griswold]

No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.
That plane don't need longer legs.

I hear ya Lawrence, flew the 73 several 5+ hour flights (if it was for premium I’d look back fondly on them) but looking at the future I think it possible the VIP planes in a contingency will need to get a loooong way on one tank of gas, gray T tails and tankers will be spoken for so giving the pinstripe suits a means to hop a pond in one jet with their entourage will be necessary
Crew with a relief pilot and separate, private crew rest areas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Standby]

On 5/13/2025 at 12:53 PM, Clark Griswold said:

@StoleIt
Long range tanks for NGs or MAX

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2014-12-09/versatile-aux-fuel-system-will-give-737s-longer-legs

-9 with tanks might be as good as it gets without a true 757 MAX


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104521/c-40bc/The C-40 B/C is based upon the commercial Boeing 737-700 business jet. The body of the C-40 is identical to that of the Boeing 737-700, but has winglets…The basic aircraft has auxiliary fuel tanks, a specialized interior with self-sustainment features and managed passenger communications.

I don’t know what 5000NM translates to in 737 time aloft, but I’d guess around 10 hours. Oooof. 

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, Standby said:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104521/c-40bc/The C-40 B/C is based upon the commercial Boeing 737-700 business jet. The body of the C-40 is identical to that of the Boeing 737-700, but has winglets…The basic aircraft has auxiliary fuel tanks, a specialized interior with self-sustainment features and managed passenger communications.

I don’t know what 5000NM translates to in 737 time aloft, but I’d guess around 10 hours. Oooof. 

We did 13 hours in the tanker pretty regularly, and the seat wasn't nearly as adjustable or comfortable as in the 737. 

I wouldn't want to do it, but compared to other military flying it's not notably awful.

[Clark Griswold]

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104521/c-40bc/The C-40 B/C is based upon the commercial Boeing 737-700 business jet. The body of the C-40 is identical to that of the Boeing 737-700, but has winglets…The basic aircraft has auxiliary fuel tanks, a specialized interior with self-sustainment features and managed passenger communications.
I don’t know what 5000NM translates to in 737 time aloft, but I’d guess around 10 hours. Oooof. 

Probably that, 10+ hours in the air for 5000 NM. It was / is 5+30 for JFK to GEO and that’s about 2200 NM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

The C-40 has something around 68k-72k depending on the model with the aux tanks. The AFRC C's are the newest and carry the most gas since they have an updated aux fuel system.

I forget my longest individual leg, but it was definitely over 10 hours. Longest duty day was 24+30 going from the middle east all the way back to MacDill with a fuel stop. That sucked.

[Clayton Bigsby]

Getting back to what we have…

VC-25B was selected for 4-engine redundancy, it was a program requirement for systems and survivability reasons.  Electrical generation is a part of the requirement as well.  As such that narrows the program down to some variation of the 747, or the A380 or Il-96 and obviously those two aren’t happening.  The two aircraft in the process of conversion right now, are both used airframes that were leased to a Russian airline (Transaero?) briefly, but I’m not sure if they ever took delivery/saw service beyond storage at VCV or MZJ.  Make whatever jokes you want about Boeing, or the absolute shit state of the DoD acquisitions process (turn DoGE loose there, geez), but there’s a reason that conversion takes a very long time and Boeing is losing substantial money since it was negotiated as a fixed-price contract…not that I feel sorry for them.  It’ll be ready when it’s ready, and it’ll be interesting to see how Sierra Nevada fares with converting their acquired second-hand 747-8i airframes as the E-4B replacements as they have similar EMP shielding/power generation/communications requirements.

So getting to this Qatari FreeCee-25…yes it’s another low-time 747-8i, this one a BBJ from the outset rather than a conversion, but other than luxurious interior appointments it lacks much of what makes up a VC-25, converted properly to US Head of State requirements it will take just as long as the other two already purchased.  So even if it indeed is ‘free’ there’s substantial cost still involved, and oh btw you do need two of them operationally so other than being a third airframe for use, having just one really doesn’t help.  Yes the 742s are very long in the tooth, there’s a reason the replacement process has been in motion for like 10 years now (and the E-4 program now as well), but this is just further appeals to impatience and vanity and ego for the gold toilet guy.  Or it’s yet another red herring.

[MC5Wes]

Use the Qatari 747 for training

Tell Boeing to move all of the people to one aircraft in San Antonio. And get one done as soon as possible

Once both of them are flying. Take the Qatari aircraft apart for spares

[arg]

Free, is too expensive