AFMC begins search for new Air Force One

By Bruce Rolfsen - brolfsen@militarytimes.com
Posted : Saturday Jan 10, 2009 10:15:53 EST

The Air Force needs new a new Air Force One — three new Air Force Ones, to be exact.

The pair of modified Boeing 747-200s now flying as the president’s airplane need to be retired starting in 2017, according to Air Force Materiel Command.

On Jan. 7, Materiel Command asked firms interested in providing the next-generation of presidential airlift to submit basic information on how they would go about designing and building the planes. The submission deadline is Jan. 29.

Materiel Command wants the first new Air Force One ready for operation in 2017, with two others to follow in 2019 and 2021. The jets will start as commercial airframes but will be extensively customized to handle the presidential staff’s security and communications needs, including the ability to refuel in flight and operate from airfields too small for most large passenger jets.

There was no mention of a projected budget in Materiel Command’s request. Each of the current 747s cost about $350 million when new. The price tag for the next generation is likely to be much higher — the presidential helicopters now in development cost around $400 million each.

Only two firms build wide-body commercial jets large enough to serve as Air Force One — Boeing Co. and the European-based Airbus. Aircraft cited as likely candidates include the Boeing 747-800 and the Airbus A380.

The Air Force is not ruling out using an overseas firm to build Air Force One. “The level of security and amount of foreign participation in this requirement has not been determined,” the request advised contractors.

The two planes flying as Air Force One — officially designated VC-25s — were purchased in 1987 and delivered in 1990. Both jets were expected to fly without major overhauls for 30 years. The Air Force considered upgrades to the jets instead of buying new planes but concluded the lack of spare parts and modification costs made it unwise to keep the 747s flying much beyond 2017.

Air Force Times
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/01/airforce_airforceone_replacement_01080...

Airbus won't bid for Air Force One

By Michelle Dunlop, Herald Writer
EVERETT -- The Boeing Co. looks like a shoo-in to build the next presidential plane, considering its European rival won't compete for the U.S. contract.

Boeing has been the government's preferred supplier of its Air Force One fleet. Early this month, the Air Force suggested that companies interested in competing for the business should respond this week. Boeing's competitor European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the parent company of Airbus, said it won't go after the contract.

Based on the Air Force's solicitation, industry observers thought EADS may pit the Airbus A380 superjumbo jet against Boeing's updated 747-8 jumbo jet. In 1990, the Air Force received the existing Boeing 747-200 aircraft, which had a estimated life of 30 years. The government hopes to buy three presidential jets with deliveries in 2017, 2019 and 2021.

The Air Force solicitation for bidders raised concerns that future American presidents would fly in a jet that wasn't made in the U.S. But EADS reported that competing to build Air Force One would not help it meet its "business objectives" of winning aerospace and defense jobs.

It reiterated its commitment to bidding for the U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker contract with partner Northrop Grumman. The duo beat out Boeing for the $35 billion deal last February. But government auditors found flaws in the competition and suggested the Pentagon rebid the contract.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a congressional committee Tuesday that he plans to restart the tanker competition after the new presidential administration fills key defense posts and those positions are confirmed by Congress.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090129/BIZ/701299854

 Why The Requirement?

 Insiders say the reason is simple:the US President got the wrong aircraft to begin with. When the USAF purchased the VC-25A in 1986, new airliners had glass cockpits, two engines, and two pilots. The USAF wanted analog instruments (again, because of EMP in atomic was scenario), four-engine reliability, and larger flight crew. It could have gotten four engines (but just two pilots) with the Boeing 747-400, the advanced version of the 747 then soon to enter production. Instead, the USAF chose the older 747-200, which was being phased out. Because of misplaced thinking thinking about security and safety, the USAF saddled the President with an aircraft that was obsolete the day it rolled out the factory.  

 An insider Pentagon source who did not want to be named bolstered this reasoning with this quote: 'The VC-25A cockpit is analog, non-glass 1960s/70s technology and is not easily upgradeable. Since it was designed, in the last dozen years, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] have implemented myriad air traffic control/airspace management initiatives/standards such as GATM [Global Air Traffic Management] and now CNS/ATM [Communication Navigation Surveillance and Air Traffic Management] that require new digital cockpit displays, new digital autopilots, new digital radio altimeters, new digital flight directors, Flight Management System, new pitot/static systems. new air data computers...the list goes on and on. All these upgrades are absolutely required in order for VC-25A to fly in normalcruising airspace, meaning FL290-FL410 (29,000ft to 41,000ft) or even to fly at all in certain European airspace, and to approach and land at certain airports.'

 The Pentagon source continued:'Moreover, the standards in information technology, such as C4I [Command, control, communication, computers and information] for the President have risen so sharply in the past 20 years that tearing out the old systems in the jet and going to IP [Internet Protocol]-based 'backbone' would be too costly.' In short, modifying the VC-25As would be costlier then purchasing new aircraft.

 A different source dropped a hint about the the VC-25A nose gear being  near the end of its service life. This seems unlikely as a matter of fact and even less likely as a reason to replace an aircraft.

 If Airbus is serious about not participation in a new Air Force One competition, Washington may be spared the unbearable prospect of a re-run of the USAF's failed KC-X competition to purchase a new air refueling tanker, which has now been taken away from the Air Staff and is in the hands of the Department of Defense acquisitions boss John young. In KC-X, the Airbus tanker, which was to have been designated KC-45A, was chosen over the Boeing entry. US contractor Northrop Grumman was to assemble KC-45as on US soil. Legalistic wrangling and Washington politics killed the deal.
 
www.combataircraft.net  Pg-17 of the Magazine

the presidential helicopters now in development cost around $400 million each.

Nobody really though about it but Tony Blair had one of the best secure planes before they retired it, the Concorde. It flew to fast to be a target, and you really could not plan an assassination on it because the RAF like the USAF kept mission secret until it happened. And not many people could plan and implement a way to get to him in the time it took the Concord to leave the UK and land in the US or any of the another countries he needed to visit.        

Between the: US(747-2), UK(Concord/777), & Japan(747-4), all the planes went high, fast, and have decent range to keep the leaders out of harms way.