Air Force One

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

The new one. Why a 747? They're systematically being phased out. Why not a 787, which is Earth friendly, an A350, plenty of room and range, or if space is crucial, an A380 or 777? Why invest in the dregs of the plane world?

 

[NannyBeBe]

I would hardly call the 747 the dregs. It's a beautiful airplane.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

I would hardly call the 747 the dregs. It's a beautiful airplane.

Oh don't get me wrong, I have a soft spot for 747s… they were my first plane! But now they're being retired by all the carriers, perhaps it's time to go with the flow...

 

[sam_gordon]

Size? According to https://knaviation.net/787-vs-747/, the 747 is longer and wider than the 787.

Another quick google search shows while the A350 is longer, the 747 is still wider.

The 747s also have four engines vs the two on the 787/A350. Maybe that provides more redundancy?

 

[soccerdad72]

I'm pretty sure after all the retrofits that are done to the airplane, it really doesn't matter that much what model plane they start with.

 

[kdonnel]

While the popularity of the 747 for passenger service has waned, it is still very popular and in use for cargo.

As a result parts will be easily available for decades to come.

There are still over 400 in active service.

 

[tvguy]

I'm pretty sure after all the retrofits that are done to the airplane, it really doesn't matter that much what model plane they start with.

Not sure if the one being retrofitted will ever actually be Air Force One. The two being build from the ground up will be state of the art.

 

[tvguy]

The new one. Why a 747? They're systematically being phased out. Why not a 787, which is Earth friendly, an A350, plenty of room and range, or if space is crucial, an A380 or 777? Why invest in the dregs of the plane world?

Greater range with the 747.

 

[sam_gordon]

Greater range with the 747.

Not a lot. And I assume any (planned) AF1 has inflight refueling capability, so the range is basically infinite.

 

[kdonnel]

Not a lot. And I assume any (planned) AF1 has inflight refueling capability, so the range is basically infinite.

The replacement VC-25B(747-8) being modified now will NOT have inflight refueling.

 

[kdonnel]

The new one. Why a 747? They're systematically being phased out. Why not a 787, which is Earth friendly, an A350, plenty of room and range, or if space is crucial, an A380 or 777? Why invest in the dregs of the plane world?

Airbus did not respond to the US Air Force replacement request because one of the requirements was that the replacement aircraft be assembled in the US and at the time that would not have been cost effective to assemble 3 A380 in the US.

At the time it came down to Boeing proposing a 787 variant and the chosen 747.

 

[sam_gordon]

The replacement VC-25B(747-8) being modified now will NOT have inflight refueling.

The "gifted" one?

 

[kdonnel]

The "gifted" one?

The 2 real replacements. From what I read while the current ones can, they never do while the president is on board. It would only be used in a true disaster, nuclear war, scenario. I guess they don’t expect that to happen or have decided it would be better to just land and refuel and deal with that danger.

 

[sam_gordon]

The 2 real replacements. From what I read while the current ones can, they never do while the president is on board. It would only be used in a true disaster, nuclear war, scenario. I guess they don’t expect that to happen or have decided it would be better to just land and refuel and deal with that danger.

Interesting.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard/read/seen somewhere that AF1 also has some missile counter measures (flares & chaff) on board. I'm assuming those would only be used in rare circumstances too.

 

[NannyBeBe]

Off topic a bit, but I would like to mention the beautiful Lockheed Constellation, the first plane I ever flew in.

 

[_19disnA]

You can look around online for various articles that talk about the significant modifications needed to turn the typical 747 into a plane used by the US president. Secure communications, ability to withstand EMP as well as various countermeasures and the list goes on and on. For obvious reasons, the govt never discusses the details of many of these. You basically have to rebuild any aircraft chosen to serve in this role. A simple example that is complex to implement is adding an extra access door. You can't just cut a hole in the fuselage of any aircraft without making major modifications to ensure the integrity of the plane. Making all of the modifications to ANY aircraft likely takes years to accomplish and contractors need the proper security clearances to do that sort of work.

Airbus has no assembly facility in the US, so it doesn't surprise me they didn't bid on this job if that was a requirement or it basically left Boeing as the only one in the running. Haven't really followed the story that closely over the past few years to know why one Boeing airframe was chosen over others.