Donald tweets about canceling AirForce 1?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The two current planes entered service in the early 1990s, so currently about 25 years old. However, the current order isn't expected to enter service 'til 2024 so they will be 30+ by then.

The callsign thing isn't quite right, though.

Air Force One is the callsign for any AIR FORCE plane (note, aeroPLANE, not airCRAFT) the president is on. The hint is in the callsign.

The choppers you often see lsnding on the White House lawn (there's a fleet of them .... choppers, I mean, not lawns) are designated Marine One when the president is on-board, because they're operated and flown by the US Marine Corps.

There is also Executive One, which is the callsign used when the pres is on a civilian airliner. The only current or recent reference I can find to that is a United Airlines plane.

Fair enough,but the airframes are from the mid 1980s,and they first flew in the late 80s. The issue is the E4B aircraft usually are deployed at the same time,ie,one E4B is deployed everytime the VC25 is deployed. The problem is the E4B aircraft are even older,ie,from the 1970s.

Both the VC25s and the four E4B aircraft are based on the 747-200 from the 1970s and are considered first generation 747s(the 747 is in its third generation),and almost all 747-100,747-200 and 747-300 aircraft have been retired from airliner service with the last few 747-200 aircraft serving as freighters. The IRIAF is one of the last military operators of the 747-100 and 747-200 interestingly enough.

The E4B aircraft have been put forward for retirement,they do have a reasonable amount of airframe life available,but it makes me wonder how easy parts will be to get as time progresses.

A new aircraft especially based on the larger and more advanced 747-8 will not only have greater range(meaning less refueling stops and less need for tankers to accompany the VC25),but it will allow for greater functionality to be added to the plane too. The order is meant to be for three replacement planes for the VC25s,so I get the impression,they are also partially replacing the E4B too in some ways,ie,one VC25 replacement in the air,one on standby and one in maintenance. Currently out of the four E4B aircraft only one is actually on active duty at any one time.

If(and it is a big If),they are intending to have the VC25 replacements take over more of the functionality of the E4B,then in some ways,it will mean the USAF can gradually retire them from service,then directly replace them which would certainly lead to cost reductions.

Sure you can upgrade old aircraft but the MRA4 scandal showed us that sometimes buying new ones is actually more cost effective.

[Saracen]

Fair enough,but the airframes are from the mid 1980s,and they first flew in the late 80s. The issue is the E4B aircraft usually are deployed at the same time,ie,one E4B is deployed everytime the VC25 is deployed. The problem is the E4B aircraft are even older,ie,from the 1970s.

Both the VC25s and the four E4B aircraft are based on the 747-200 from the 1970s and are considered first generation 747s(the 747 is in its third generation),and almost all 747-100,747-200 and 747-300 aircraft have been retired from airliner service with the last few 747-200 aircraft serving as freighters. The IRIAF is one of the last military operators of the 747-100 and 747-200 interestingly enough.

The E4B aircraft have been put forward for retirement,they do have a reasonable amount of airframe life available,but it makes me wonder how easy parts will be to get as time progresses.

A new aircraft especially based on the larger and more advanced 747-8 will not only have greater range(meaning less refueling stops and less need for tankers to accompany the VC25),but it will allow for greater functionality to be added to the plane too. The order is meant to be for three replacement planes for the VC25s,so I get the impression,they are also partially replacing the E4B too in some ways,ie,one VC25 replacement in the air,one on standby and one in maintenance. Currently out of the four E4B aircraft only one is actually on active duty at any one time.

If(and it is a big If),they are intending to have the VC25 replacements take over more of the functionality of the E4B,then in some ways,it will mean the USAF can gradually retire them from service,then directly replace them which would certainly lead to cost reductions.

Sure you can upgrade old aircraft but the MRA4 scandal showed us that sometimes buying new ones is actually more cost effective.

The designs might be old, and they first flew in 1987, but delivery was delayed because of problems with the fit out, until 1990. During that three or four years, did they fly at all? It's not like the sir force bought a couple second-hand planes previously used as air taxis.

And since delivery, they have been used FAR less than either commercial passenger, commercial freight or general military transports would have been. The two planes are the absolute epitome of the pampered pets of the aircraft world, not working dogs.

All this is a bit off my initial point, though, which was that Trump's tweet was about the cost of $4bn snd the White House sort-of semi (but not quite) dismissing that figure. In fact, the GAO (a kind of independent government auditor a bit like our own OBR in some ways) put the current estimate atc $3.2bn, which was "expected to rise". Odds are, by the time the final costs come in, Trump's figure will be righy, or even an under-estimate.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The designs might be old, and they first flew in 1987, but delivery was delayed because of problems with the fit out, until 1990. During that three or four years, did they fly at all? It's not like the sir force bought a couple second-hand planes previously used as air taxis.

And since delivery, they have been used FAR less than either commercial passenger, commercial freight or general military transports would have been. The two planes are the absolute epitome of the pampered pets of the aircraft world, not working dogs.

All this is a bit off my initial point, though, which was that Trump's tweet was about the cost of $4bn snd the White House sort-of semi (but not quite) dismissing that figure. In fact, the GAO (a kind of independent government auditor a bit like our own OBR in some ways) put the current estimate atc $3.2bn, which was "expected to rise". Odds are, by the time the final costs come in, Trump's figure will be righy, or even an under-estimate.

But the problem is that the number of 747-100,747-200 and 747-300 aircraft are small world wide so it does not matter how well they are looked after and you cannot just ignore the fact that everytime a VC25 is flying so does an E4B which is even older. That means 6 quite old aircraft which don't have 100s of commercial aircraft to reduce maintenance costs anymore - it becomes uneconomic to find brand new parts for such old aircraft and apparently they burn through new parts(from what I gather from people who say they have worked in them) since the air force is terrified of any failure.

Plus I can't see them re-using old parts from scrapped 747s either - so at this point Boeing probably will end up specially making parts for the aircraft.


So at this point they become a technical liability - the 747 200 which the vc25 is based on was out of date by the time the vc25 entered service. They did that so they could share parts with the e4b.

The usaf has older aircraft but when you have dozens maybe 100s of them with 100s of spare airframes it's somewhat different.

Plus is the dollar amount the airplane cost or including support and parts?? The $4 billion cost is for two(or maybe three) airplanes.

The whole reason why there is the E4B and separate vc25 is due to space. The vc25 has space for family members and a medical facility whilst the e4b devotes that space to electronics. With the fact the 747-8 is physically much larger in volume,etc and the fact they want three aircraft instead of two,that does strongly hint at a possible replacement of the E4B too.

So that is possibly the replacement of six aircraft with three easier to maintain ones sharing parts with loads with commercial aircraft.

Like I said keeping old aircraft in service is not always economic in terms of running costs and the costs of upgrades.

MRA4 was a prime example of how not to do things.

Two production aircraft and three prototypes came to the equivalent of $4.9 billion if adjusted for inflation and were for rebuilt aircraft. At the time they were scrapped it would have been over $5 billion.

Put that in context of our defence budget at the time that would be ridiculous money even as a percentage of the US defence budget(probably like the US scrapping $80 billion of newly rebuilt aircraft before entering service).

The problem is Trump is using evocative language to gain support but the problem unless he can commission a report to show that keeping the older planes in service for the next thirty years is economic the USAF might end up spending more in the long run and he is pushing the problem for someone else to solve.

The aircraft will need replacement at some point,and what is the likelihood it will be a Democractic president who will have the replacement done under their watch,with The Republicans howling at how expensive it is,just like George Bush Jnr wasn't blamed for the US economic problems and Iraq war but Obama who inherited them was.

It's the same with us infrastructure - they keep putting off spending due to the fact the upfront spending costs look big but then probably waste loads of money keeping it all working. Now they have to probably spend even more money.

It's like with cars - keeping an old one might prove cheaper for a while but as time progresses it's not nearly as economic as it sounds.

[Saracen]

But the problem is that the number of 747-100,747-200 and 747-300 aircraft are small world wide so it does not matter how well they are looked after and you cannot just ignore the fact that everytime a VC25 is flying so does an E4B which is even older. That means 6 quite old aircraft which don't have 100s of commercial aircraft to reduce maintenance costs anymore - it becomes uneconomic to find brand new parts for such old aircraft and apparently they burn through new parts(from what I gather from people who say they have worked in them) since the air force is terrified of any failure.

Plus I can't see them re-using old parts from scrapped 747s either - so at this point Boeing probably will end up specially making parts for the aircraft.


So at this point they become a technical liability - the 747 200 which the vc25 is based on was out of date by the time the vc25 entered service. They did that so they could share parts with the e4b.

The usaf has older aircraft but when you have dozens maybe 100s of them with 100s of spare airframes it's somewhat different.

Plus is the dollar amount the airplane cost or including support and parts?? The $4 billion cost is for two(or maybe three) airplanes.

The whole reason why there is the E4B and separate vc25 is due to space. The vc25 has space for family members and a medical facility whilst the e4b devotes that space to electronics. With the fact the 747-8 is physically much larger in volume,etc and the fact they want three aircraft instead of two,that does strongly hint at a possible replacement of the E4B too.

So that is possibly the replacement of six aircraft with three easier to maintain ones sharing parts with loads with commercial aircraft.

Like I said keeping old aircraft in service is not always economic in terms of running costs and the costs of upgrades.

MRA4 was a prime example of how not to do things.

Two production aircraft and three prototypes came to the equivalent of $4.9 billion if adjusted for inflation and were for rebuilt aircraft. At the time they were scrapped it would have been over $5 billion.

Put that in context of our defence budget at the time that would be ridiculous money even as a percentage of the US defence budget(probably like the US scrapping $80 billion of newly rebuilt aircraft before entering service).

The problem is Trump is using evocative language to gain support but the problem unless he can commission a report to show that keeping the older planes in service for the next thirty years is economic the USAF might end up spending more in the long run and he is pushing the problem for someone else to solve.

The aircraft will need replacement at some point,and what is the likelihood it will be a Democractic president who will have the replacement done under their watch,with The Republicans howling at how expensive it is,just like George Bush Jnr wasn't blamed for the US economic problems and Iraq war but Obama who inherited them was.

It's the same with us infrastructure - they keep putting off spending due to the fact the upfront spending costs look big but then probably waste loads of money keeping it all working. Now they have to probably spend even more money.

It's like with cars - keeping an old one might prove cheaper for a while but as time progresses it's not nearly as economic as it sounds.

But again, not what I was getting at. It as the post saying about Trump

.... it's scary that he's tweeting such vague half-truths,

I'm not sure what was a half-truth, given the GAO estimates.

MY view is that the cost of converting these new planes isn't worth it. Use a standard one and keep a spare Pres or two in the cupboard. If he gets shot down .... oh well. Next!!

But that wasn't what Trump said. Surprisingly.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

But again, not what I was getting at. It as the post saying about Trump
I'm not sure what was a half-truth, given the GAO estimates.

MY view is that the cost of converting these new planes isn't worth it. Use a standard one and keep a spare Pres or two in the cupboard. If he gets shot down .... oh well. Next!!

But that wasn't what Trump said. Surprisingly.

OK,I get what you are saying about costs and its not far fetched but ultimately I also think he is being less than truthful in the fact the planes will be replaced,if not under his watch,somebody else's and the VC25 and E4B aircraft are radiation hardened with extensive comms equipment so they will cost more. Like I said unless he commissions a report looking at what the new planes will bring to the table,etc and then compare then to what is being used currently,in terms of up front and lifecycle costs otherwise its only a cheap way of getting political mileage.

When politics get in the way of critcial decisions it leads to problems. Look at the Fukushima nuclear disaster for example?? If it were not for all the anti-nuclear lot complaining about new plants being built,it most likely would have been replaced by something newer. But in the end Japan just kept its old ones going well past their sell by date,which made them even more vulnerable to the threats at hand.

Even Russia has similar aircraft and no doubt so will China too. After all those are the three countries which one consider superpowers due to their nuclear arsenals. Remember,the president has the nuclear football with him,so he can't just go on a relatively unprotected plane,and even if the threat is non-nuclear the VC25 and E4B aircraft are literally a flying White House which keeps the US government still functioning during a crisis in real-time.

[Galant]

Hot air balloon?

[Smudger]

The half truth was that the Donald was saying he was cancelling it, when it's not even been signed, and that it's for one plane, when it might actually be for 5 or 6.

[Xlucine]

Even Russia has similar aircraft and no doubt so will China too. After all those are the three countries which one consider superpowers due to their nuclear arsenals. Remember,the president has the nuclear football with him,so he can't just go on a relatively unprotected plane,and even if the threat is non-nuclear the VC25 and E4B aircraft are literally a flying White House which keeps the US government still functioning during a crisis in real-time.

Donald can bill the US taxpayer for the seats if secret service agents fly on his plane, so I bet we'll see him spending a lot of time on his own aircraft even with The Deterrent.

[Saracen]

The half truth was that the Donald was saying he was cancelling it, when it's not even been signed, and that it's for one plane, when it might actually be for 5 or 6.

It was a Tweet, not a policy paper.

[Xlucine]

He's a president elect, anything he says will be taken as a policy statement. Look at how obama uses twitter, that's how a politician ought to deport themselves