$4Billion upgrade

Tom-D said:
Just think.... The US should have saved a bunch of bucks and simply gotten the experts here to design the new AF1.
Click to expand...
Oh, gawd no, more experts.

I don't work the AF1 program (I'm a space guy) but cost overruns are usually driven by three things: Poor planning, requirements creep, and not allocating problem-solving costs. COSTS, on the other hand, are often driven by unnecessary Government requirements, regulations, and policies.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I don't know what requirements they can possibly need 200 million upfront to anticipate and plan for.

We know it'll be a -8. Fine. How much do 2-3 of those cost? Now take the stuff we have on the current -2 and put it on the list of stuff that needs to be on the -8. Comms, ewar, CM, aerial refueling, etc. Now. How much is that?

I just did the "planning." I will accept 100 million in order to save costs.
 
James331 said:
Why not just pay Boeing to make a odd ball one off part based on existing plans once in a while for the current AF1 fleet??
Click to expand...

Sometimes Boeing simply won't do that. Perhaps Boeing doesn't want to keep the tooling around for the -200 and perhaps the tooling itself is end-of-life.

Anyway, I suspect that Boeing would rather sell a couple new 747-800 aircraft.
 
Bob Noel said:
I suspect that Boeing would rather sell a couple new 747-800 aircraft.
Click to expand...
There is no 747-800. It is the 747-8. They changed how they number all of the fleets. The 787 are the 787-8, 787-9, etc. The upcoming 737s are the 737 Max 7, 737 Max 8, 737 Max 9.

I think they did it to confuse everyone.
 
Bob Noel said:
Sometimes Boeing simply won't do that. Perhaps Boeing doesn't want to keep the tooling around for the -200 and perhaps the tooling itself is end-of-life.

Anyway, I suspect that Boeing would rather sell a couple new 747-800 aircraft.
Click to expand...
The -200 has been out of production for 25 years; what tooling existed has been scrapped or converted to other uses by now. Very likely, key suppliers no longer exist or could support -200 work, either.

It's like asking GM to whip out a brand new 1972 Corvette for you. Maybe they can do it, but it'll cost a lot more than a 2016 model.

Ron Wanttaja
 
3196963.JPG

I can build a brand new 69 camaro, and I'm not even POTUS

http://www.classicindustries.com/product/camaro/parts/3196963.html
 
Not even the same James, but then you know that. :rolleyes:
 
They spent 650 million on healthcare.gov web site, that's about 100 times too much...so yea I believe it.
 
Why wouldn't you take all the special equipment,from the old aircraft and install it on the new planes. Most of the money seems to be in the protection systems on the aircraft.
 
frfly172 said:
Why wouldn't you take all the special equipment,from the old aircraft and install it on the new planes. Most of the money seems to be in the protection systems on the aircraft.
Click to expand...

I suspect everything on AF-1 is "gold plated". EMF resistant, quadruple redundant, blast resistant, leak-proof, explosion proof, yada yada yada. All of that adds up. Then you add in all of the secure comm gear and all of the electricity required to run that stuff. Then you add the defensive systems.

It adds up quickly because the design costs for 2 aircraft are the same as the design costs for 2,000...
 
You know, it probably would be cheaper and more practical to just lease back Trump's own private jets for his travels but I'm sure there would be no end to the complaining.
 
cowman said:
You know, it probably would be cheaper and more practical to just lease back Trump's own private jets for his travels but I'm sure there would be no end to the complaining.
Click to expand...
But then what would we do with the current AF1 planes, since they are not scheduled to be replaced for at least 8 years.
 
JOhnH said:
But then what would we do with the current AF1 planes, since they are not scheduled to be replaced for at least 8 years.
Click to expand...

Tours! Park 'em and give free tours. We're the taxpayers right, so we shouldn't be charged. Rightttttttttttt. :D
 
kyleb said:
I suspect everything on AF-1 is "gold plated". EMF resistant, quadruple redundant, blast resistant, leak-proof, explosion proof, yada yada yada. All of that adds up. Then you add in all of the secure comm gear and all of the electricity required to run that stuff. Then you add the defensive systems.

It adds up quickly because the design costs for 2 aircraft are the same as the design costs for 2,000...
Click to expand...
but most of the defensive parts are off the shelf =

the real money is in the electronics engineerings and switch flows and current isolation . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
but most of the defensive parts are off the shelf =
. . .
Click to expand...

Packaging, integraton, and testing of those systems can't be cheap...

I mean, the ejection capsule, what do you think it costs to do a real world test of one of those. ;-)
 
kyleb said:
Packaging, integration, and testing of those systems can't be cheap...
Click to expand...
Not to mention the testing to ensure that the various systems don't affect each other....you can dump COTS parts together all you want, but there's no assurance that there won't be corners where one system messes up another. These systems aren't plug-and-play.

Boeing should just sell a "green" 747-8 to the Air Force and let them solve all those problems themselves.

Ron Wanttaja
 
kyleb said:
Packaging, integraton, and testing of those systems can't be cheap...

I mean, the ejection capsule, what do you think it costs to do a real world test of one of those. ;-)
Click to expand...

And repacking the chute alone has to be, what, a cool $20 million? ;)
 
cowman said:
You know, it probably would be cheaper and more practical to just lease back Trump's own private jets for his travels but I'm sure there would be no end to the complaining.
Click to expand...

By the time they turned his jet into a nuke hardened command platform it would also cost a couple billion dollars and he would have been out of office for five years.
 
Me thinks the real problem is the idea that the leaders of the free world have to be in constant touch with the rest of the world. Just hand them a verizon cellphone and a ticket on jet blue and there you go. If no one knows which jet blue aircraft he's on, how could you take him out. Besides, the whole secession thing has all the best people waiting in line.
While no longer the government heads, the royal family travels on commercial airlines, mostly. Trump has his own airforce. And if we're really worried, drop him into the back seat of a modern day fighter. Why should we pay for his entire entourage to go with him? And why in God's good name should the press travel with him? I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.... out the back at 40,000 feet!
 
comanchepilot said:
Seriously - $4BILLION for TWO airplanes?
Click to expand...

Two very large airplanes with custom frame and engine improvements. Then add the communication equipment for POTUS to be in contact with the military and civilian government in case of emergency. Then add custom defensive systems. And have it all EMP shielded. Plus fancy kitchen equipment for high quality meals; I think I read for up to 100 people.

I've read that the $4 billion number may be a multi-year cost. The Airforce One planes have their engines worked on far more than your typical jet. Just to make as close to 100% sure it's good-to-go as humanly possible.
 
Let him fly coach. Lincoln road his horse around.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Don't forget $250 million for a new hangar.
Click to expand...

Geez they can't use the existing AF1 hangar? New plane calls for a new hangar I guess. Guvment...

Current AF1 hangar at Andrews AFB:

images
Andrews+AFB+with+AF1+-+4.png
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
???? They're exempt as far as I've heard. ????
Click to expand...

well, if State aircraft (which includes military aircraft) want to fly in the NAS, they can comply with equippage requirements or wait for ATC to accommodate them. Equipping facilitates access to better routes, etc, leading to fewer delays.
 
Bob Noel said:
well, if State aircraft (which includes military aircraft) want to fly in the NAS, they can comply with equippage requirements or wait for ATC to accommodate them. Equipping facilitates access to better routes, etc, leading to fewer delays.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen ANY examples of that in the real world yet. That's marketing fodder about "NexGen" straight from the FAA website, but there's zero plan to reduce lateral spacing or do anything that will make a runway accept more aircraft per hour just because ADS-B is on board anything.

Time/Speed/Distance still apply, and are the engineering limit factors on arrivals and departures. RNAV by itself has already created the ability to fly direct routes, without need for a transmitter on board that serves to only identify the target.

A transponder already locates the target well within the limiting tolerance of the safe spacing requirements.

If you have an example where an ADS-B equipped aircraft (or Mode S for that matter) receives better routing than a Mode C equipped aircraft, that's published, I'd love to see it.
 
Bob Noel said:
well, if State aircraft (which includes military aircraft) want to fly in the NAS, they can comply with equippage requirements or wait for ATC to accommodate them. Equipping facilitates access to better routes, etc, leading to fewer delays.
Click to expand...

Military has no resemblance to state aircraft. Totally different, and they can get exemptions or waivers as needed or required.
 
mscard88 said:
Military has no resemblance to state aircraft. Totally different, and they can get exemptions or waivers as needed or required.
Click to expand...

From an equippage requirement basis, there is no effective difference.

In any case, wrt exemptions/waivers, what do you thinks happens when a military aircraft doesn't meet RVSM requirements?
 
No idea but if it's a problem I'm sure the military could probably get it waivered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top