Airbus could build next Air Force One; 747 due to be replaced

[Madhouse24]

I'm taking John Pike's side on this one:...

For nearly two decades, Boeing's 747 jumbo jet has served as the president's flying White House, projecting America's might wherever it landed.

But in the next decade, "United States of America" could end up being emblazoned on an even bigger plane that has been a symbol of European unity and pride.

The 747 Air Force One is scheduled to be replaced, and the new plane is likely to be stuffed with top-secret gee-whiz gadgetry, including countermeasures to thwart missile attacks, and aerial-refueling capabilities so it can fly for days without landing.

That's on top of comforts likely to make even the world's richest jet setters envious, including a medical facility and lavish staterooms with showers.

What it will not have is a presidential escape pod, analysts said, a feature that became an urban legend, thanks to a 1997 action film that starred Harrison Ford.

2016 is target date

It is unlikely that President-elect Obama will get a chance to fly in a new Air Force One because the replacement isn't scheduled to begin flying until 2016 at the earliest. It takes up to three years just to modify the plane so it can withstand attacks and enable the president to command from the sky.

But for the first time, the Pentagon has raised the prospect that the replacement for the most photographed and most advanced passenger jet in the world could come from a firm overseas.

In a move certain to raise the political ire of the "buy American" crowd in Congress, the Air Force has requested information from aircraft makers, including Airbus, of Europe, to replace the aging 747 jet. Boeing, headquartered in Chicago, has built presidential jets since the early 1960s.

"I just can't see how they could allow that to happen," John Pike, director of the military policy Web site GlobalSecurity.org, said about congressional reaction to an Airbus plane. "The American president getting off of an American plane has been a major part of U.S. being a superpower."


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...orceone18.html

[jhayes_1780]

Not according to avaition week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense

Boeing Only Contender for New Air Force One
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its Airbus commercial aircraft manufacturing subsidiary is not planning to compete against Boeing for the prestigious contract to supply three planes to transport future U.S. presidents, according to company officials.

[colmc]

"The American president getting off of an American plane has been a major part of U.S. being a superpower."

Personally, I think some other factors might be responsible for that..

[Jalinth]

EADS has declined to bid on the contract per business week. Politics might be the biggest reason for the non-bid but might not be the only one.

As far as John Pike's comments, that is one of the silliest things I've heard. People respect the US because of a big, unarmed plane but not because of ... (some of the following)

• Massive number of nukes
• Big things called aircraft carriers
• Smaller things called bombers that can drop lots of explosive things on enemies.
• Advanced tanks, artillery, other weaponry
• Huge economy (although taking a beating along with most other countries)
• Innovation and R&D
• Significant cultural influence in the world due to movies, books, music, TV, etc...
• At one point, significant powers of moral suasion

[Panoamo]

The next Air Force One is likely to be a 747-8.Boeing is the only company so far intrested in taking on the complicated job. I think the government will support the U.S. Economy.

[Xyzzy]

EADS is not dumb enough to waste money bidding on a contract that it can't win. There is no way the US government would award a contract for this to a non-US firm.

[DeafFlyer]

It's a waste of money to replace such a young aircraft so soon.

[jhayes_1780]

Originally Posted by DeafFlyer

It's a waste of money to replace such a young aircraft so soon.

While it is probably lower hours then most 742's....

It will be 26 years old when it is replaced, not exactly a spring chicken.

[alanR]

Originally Posted by xyzzy

EADS is not dumb enough to waste money bidding on a contract that it can't win. There is no way the US government would award a contract for this to a non-US firm.

It would be worth placing a bid with a very low bid just to see US politicians go apoplectic

[skywalkerLAX]

Wonder what will happen to AF1 & AF2 after they have been replaced.

Will they sell them to Nigeria ?

[DeafFlyer]

Originally Posted by jhayes_1780

While it is probably lower hours then most 742's....

It will be 26 years old when it is replaced, not exactly a spring chicken.

Considering how they take care of them, they are relatively yountg.

[DH]

Originally Posted by DeafFlyer

Considering how they take care of them, they are relatively yountg.

Heck, USAF B-52 are older than most of us.

[ralfp]

Originally Posted by DeafFlyer

Considering how they take care of them, they are relatively yountg.

But they are based on the 747-200; spare parts cost and availability may very well be a serious issue in 2016. Keeping the 90 or so B-52Hs running is not quite so bad, as you have some economy of scale. The US has only 2 VC-25s.

Given the time it takes to make a replacement, it's high time they got started.

[LAX]

Is the 787 not "big" enough to be the AF1/2? With its technological advances, I would think it's a better choice than the 747-8.

LAX

[FWAAA]

Why not a 777LR or 773ER? Two engines means half as many engines to break down. Perhaps less fuel burn than the 747-8.