$4Billion upgrade

JOhnH

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
14,487
Location
Florida
Display Name

Display name:
Right Seater
I am not posting this to start a political fight, but Trump tweeted that the new Air Force 1(s) will cost $4Billion. Is there any way that could be right, and if so, is there any way that could be justified? I am hoping this conversation can stay on the topic of R&D and costs of new technology vs existing technology. (that is why I posted under "...upgrades".
 
The quote I heard was that he said to cancel the order as costs were out of control.
 
Last edited:
Even if it is only 1 plane, I'm not really surprised, seeing how much we spend on the development of fighter jets alone.
 
I am not posting this to start a political fight, but Trump tweeted that the new Air Force 1(s) will cost $4Billion. Is there any way that could be right, and if so, is there any way that could be justified? I am hoping this conversation can stay on the topic of R&D and costs of new technology vs existing technology. (that is why I posted under "...upgrades".

No one seems to know where he came up with that figure. Boeing has a contract for $167 million to develop the next generation AF1. Maria Cantwell, the "Senator from Boeing" says that it is a made-up figure. Not the first time The Donald has exaggerated for effect.

The plan is to build two planes, and they are not upgrades but new designs. AF1 has communication and self-defense capabilities not present in any civil aircraft.

Bob Gardner
 
The version I heard was the cost over runs were 4 billion. he said, at that cost cancel the order.
 
What do 2-3 new, stock 747-8's cost? That's the baseline. Now add all of the fancy stuff mentioned earlier in the thread, spares, support equipment, etc. necessary for a 40 year service life, and $4B isn't out of the question. Specialty engineering isn't cheap.
 
And that's not even counting the C-17s that carry equipment and Presidential Limos. And then those fighter escorts you never see. And then the....on and on.
 
No one seems to know where he came up with that figure. Boeing has a contract for $167 million to develop the next generation AF1. Maria Cantwell, the "Senator from Boeing" says that it is a made-up figure. Not the first time The Donald has exaggerated for effect.


Bob Gardner

The $167 million is just to "to help determine the capabilities of this complex military aircraft that serves the unique requirements of the President of the United States.", not for actually developing anything.

According to the Washington Post article linked in the above post,
"The Air Force hasn’t released a total dollar amount for the program yet. The program includes two aircraft and is still in the development stages. So far the Air Force has budgeted $2.7 billion for the program. But that’s for research, development and testing—not manufacturing. And the Air Force expects “this number to change as the program matures with the completion of risk reduction activities,” the Air Force said in a statement.

The real cost could grow to $4 billion, according to an analysis by Todd Harrison, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The aircraft are projected to be operational by the mid-2020s, officials said."

If $2.7 billion is budgeted before manufacturing costs it seems likely that $4 billion is probably a low estimate.
 
The part that I couldn't figure out was that the aircraft wouldn't come into service until 2024. Eight years? I thought Boeing could build a 747 in a few months. Granted, there's a bunch of modifications, but EIGHT YEARS?
 
The part that I couldn't figure out was that the aircraft wouldn't come into service until 2024. Eight years? I thought Boeing could build a 747 in a few months. Granted, there's a bunch of modifications, but EIGHT YEARS?

C'mon man, that's how government contracts roll. ;)
 
Statists can always rationalize taking out massive loans against OPM.

Justified is a stronger word that insinuates some sort of moral imperative which simply isn't there in this case. Certainly not at our current level of debt plus unfunded mandates.

Two things going on. Corporate welfare and attempting to impress the neighbors by buying things we can't afford like the neighbors with the 30 year mortgage and no furniture or blinds, and two sports cars with seven year loans on them and not a dime of savings.
 
Can't he just put his 757 on leaseback?

I'm sure Airbus would love a nifty AirForce contract.

And don't forget Bomardier.
 
I'm sure Airbus would love a nifty AirForce contract.

They decided not to bid. Based on their experience with prior bids they knew that even if they won the contract, it would get scuttled through political interference.

And don't forget Bomardier.

I don't think they build anything that would accommodate the required royal accoutrements.
 
Don't some believe this is for 1 aircraft? when in reality it is for a new design program, for the next couple decades. which includes the support at Andrews AFB, plus the maintenance. but cost over runs WTF?
 
The part that I couldn't figure out was that the aircraft wouldn't come into service until 2024. Eight years? I thought Boeing could build a 747 in a few months. Granted, there's a bunch of modifications, but EIGHT YEARS?

I live adjacent to Lockheed Georgia and have heard the program management tales from many people who are or were involved there. How it works is someone develops a set of specifications and passes them to the manufacturer. Preliminary engineering is done, and the design is sent for review. By this time, the first program manager has moved on, and a new guy has new priorities, so the requirements change. Now, there's more engineering and the schedule is pushed back. Lather, rinse, repeat, and you spend 8 years and $4 Billion.

This is pretty much the status quo for all military programs other than a few of the black programs where there are very few cooks in the kitchen, so the program's goals never change, which helps on timeline and cost.
 
Do they really need a new one? Is there something wrong with the current one... getting near end of lifespan?
 
Do they really need a new one? Is there something wrong with the current one... getting near end of lifespan?

Yes. The current ones are based on the 747-200 and Boeing stopped providing full support. At the time, the USAF bought Boeings stock of spare parts but eventually, they'll have an issue. The good thing is that compared with airline service, they don't fly much.
 
Yes. The current ones are based on the 747-200 and Boeing stopped providing full support. At the time, the USAF bought Boeings stock of spare parts but eventually, they'll have an issue. The good thing is that compared with airline service, they don't fly much.

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??

Like the man said, they seem to work just fine.
 
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??

Or scrap them and purchase a gaggle of BBJ/C40B as off the shelf replacements.
 
Big Brother Boeing isn't laying anyone off in their R&D shops
Actually, the layoffs have been pretty severe, though they're tempered by the union contracts and the fact that most of the affected engineers are senior ones who can just retire.

Boeing has been basically moving jobs out of Seattle to places like Oklahoma City. Those in Seattle doing the work are told they can re-apply for a job at the new location, with a significant pay cut (and moving expenses not covered). Those that don't are either involuntarily laid off or may take voluntary layoffs.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-sees-big-savings-others-see-big-risks-in-job-transfers/

I've had a number of co-workers receive layoff notices. While many of them got the layoffs lifted, others didn't and they were laid off.

Fortunately, most of them were in their late or mid-50s, and were able to retire and start drawing their pension (Boeing has a traditional pension plan, though it's being phased out). In the event of a layoff, they also receive a lump-sum payment. The union contract specifies this is up to a half-year's salary, and in some cases, Boeing has doubled that. Boeing is also offering incentives for the more-senior engineers to accept voluntary layoffs, with, again, a significant lump sum.

The problem is the loss of expertise. During the problems with the batteries on the 787, Boeing drew experts from all over the company to solve the problem. We had three in our organization pulled into that. Two are gone, and the third's layoff date is in February.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Actually, the layoffs have been pretty severe, though they're tempered by the union contracts and the fact that most of the affected engineers are senior ones who can just retire.

Boeing has been basically moving jobs out of Seattle to places like Oklahoma City. Those in Seattle doing the work are told they can re-apply for a job at the new location, with a significant pay cut (and moving expenses not covered). Those that don't are either involuntarily laid off or may take voluntary layoffs.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-sees-big-savings-others-see-big-risks-in-job-transfers/

I've had a number of co-workers receive layoff notices. While many of them got the layoffs lifted, others didn't and they were laid off.

Fortunately, most of them were in their late or mid-50s, and were able to retire and start drawing their pension (Boeing has a traditional pension plan, though it's being phased out). In the event of a layoff, they also receive a lump-sum payment. The union contract specifies this is up to a half-year's salary, and in some cases, Boeing has doubled that. Boeing is also offering incentives for the more-senior engineers to accept voluntary layoffs, with, again, a significant lump sum.

The problem is the loss of expertise. During the problems with the batteries on the 787, Boeing drew experts from all over the company to solve the problem. We had three in our organization pulled into that. Two are gone, and the third's layoff date is in February.

Ron Wanttaja

That explains the mess the Charleston airport has turned into over the last two years. You used to be able to walk up to pull up to the curb 15 minutes prior to departure and still make your flight.
 

I know, had a chance to wander around all of them.

That's why I am suggesting it. Use the bigger generators installed on the P-8 to power all the doodads for the president and install the air-force style refueling port to gain the ability to remain airborne. Without a big passenger compartment to drag along the useless corporate press and low level staffers, there is no need for a 747 sized plane. Opsec would be significantly improved by having multiple smaller planes that can be handled at every commercial airport.
 
Who wants to bet that the 4 billion dollar figure will EASILY be exceeded ? Of course by then all of the mainstream media will have forgotten having castigated him (Trump) for pulling a number out of his ass. You watch.
 
I do like the idea of just hardening up some VC-37s though. Cheaper, smaller, less of a target and more maneuverable. Or just put his happy ass on a C-17 and we'll play the shell game trick.
 
Who wants to bet that the 4 billion dollar figure will EASILY be exceeded ? Of course by then all of the mainstream media will have forgotten having castigated him (Trump) for pulling a number out of his ass. You watch.

If the VH-71 program is any guide, they won't stop at 4.
 
Why would they worry, it's our money and they don't GAF.
 
In all honesty, just get them a net jet account, if anyone kills the pouts, just elect another one.
 
Actually, the layoffs have been pretty severe, though they're tempered by the union contracts and the fact that most of the affected engineers are senior ones who can just retire.

Boeing has been basically moving jobs out of Seattle to places like Oklahoma City. Those in Seattle doing the work are told they can re-apply for a job at the new location, with a significant pay cut (and moving expenses not covered). Those that don't are either involuntarily laid off or may take voluntary layoffs.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-sees-big-savings-others-see-big-risks-in-job-transfers/

I've had a number of co-workers receive layoff notices. While many of them got the layoffs lifted, others didn't and they were laid off.

Fortunately, most of them were in their late or mid-50s, and were able to retire and start drawing their pension (Boeing has a traditional pension plan, though it's being phased out). In the event of a layoff, they also receive a lump-sum payment. The union contract specifies this is up to a half-year's salary, and in some cases, Boeing has doubled that. Boeing is also offering incentives for the more-senior engineers to accept voluntary layoffs, with, again, a significant lump sum.

The problem is the loss of expertise. During the problems with the batteries on the 787, Boeing drew experts from all over the company to solve the problem. We had three in our organization pulled into that. Two are gone, and the third's layoff date is in February.

Ron Wanttaja
Boeing continually cycles their work force, they will hire 500 then in 6 months lay off 400 and keep the 100 they really wanted.
 
Just think.... The US should have saved a bunch of bucks and simply gotten the experts here to design the new AF1.
 
Boeing continually cycles their work force, they will hire 500 then in 6 months lay off 400 and keep the 100 they really wanted.
Production workers, perhaps. Engineers, never, in my experience. I haven't seen a single recalled laid-off engineer. I've seen retired engineers come back as consultants, but even they're relatively flew (and, in face, the layoff rules tend to preclude this). And R&D is performed primarily by engineers.

Ron Wanttaja
 
This shows the utter inanity of what happens in our government . . .

Take 200,000 actual GA airplanes in annual - $3500 each for Stratus ADS-B out install - and the government could have equipped all of us FREE to us for $700 million - and I bet Trump could have negotiated a better deal than that - the $500 rebate is a joke for the mandated upgrade -

Seriously - $4BILLION for TWO airplanes?
 
Back
Top