Qatari 747-8i as temporary VC-25B replacement

Status
Not open for further replies.
NMaude said:
It certainly would but as has been pointed out upthread at the absolute minimum this "Gift" needs to be given a comprehensive D-check to make sure there are no unwelcome surprises. But to be a proper VC-25B it needs to undergo the lengthy and hideously expensive process of the needed structural and avionics upgrades which take years.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's probably due for a D-check anyways, and you're 2/3rds of the way to a D-check when you're replacing the entire interior. Which is going to be stupid expensive but probably cheaper than whatever the Qataris have installed.

And in that time between "interior designed" and "interior installed" is a whole lot of work. The shops at Tramco could crank out a normal interior in a month or so, with commercial build quality. You're probably talking a year for "custom" build quality, maybe 2 for VVIP build quality.

Oh, look, I just found time to do most of the -B upgrades...
 
Scott Kenny said:
I mean, it's probably due for a D-check anyways, and you're 2/3rds of the way to a D-check when you're replacing the entire interior. Which is going to be stupid expensive but probably cheaper than whatever the Qataris have installed.

And in that time between "interior designed" and "interior installed" is a whole lot of work. The shops at Tramco could crank out a normal interior in a month or so, with commercial build quality. You're probably talking a year for "custom" build quality, maybe 2 for VVIP build quality.

Oh, look, I just found time to do most of the -B upgrades...
Click to expand...

But of course, the thing Trump likes about the Qatari aircraft is the current interior.
 
CJGibson said:
That won't get into Aberdeen Airport for POTUS to play Scottish Croquet.
Click to expand...
It actually will, in theory, almost up to maximum landing weight. It can even get out again if you don't put too much fuel in - a 787-8 can take off at about 800,000lbs from a 6,400 foot strip at sea level and STD + 15 degrees. And let's be honest, Aberdeen isn't seeing 30 degrees very often.

Doing it with sufficient margins is another matter. As is evacuating most of Aberdeenshire to deal with the strong feelings held toward their most famous hotelier.
Scott Kenny said:
Which then needs to be inspected/rebuilt to Yankee White standards (at major cost).
Click to expand...
If the sole consideration was 'what corners can we cut to get a new aircraft quickly', those standards would probably be worth a look. Not saying it's a good idea - quite the opposite in fact - but trying to bring one aircraft up to extremely stringent standards is almost certain to take longer than bringing one to less-stringent standards with a head start.

Unless, of course, you're accepting less-stringent standards to get the Qatari aircraft in anyway.
 
Does the Air Force One requirement insist on a 4 engines transport? If not, why not use a converted KC-46? I would think the hardening of any sort needed for military use would have been done for the type.

And if 2 engines is not considered safe enough, aren't the millions of flyers flying ETOPS risking their lives in the name of "efficiency"?
 
zjz said:
Does the Air Force One requirement insist on a 4 engines transport? If not, why not use a converted KC-46? I would think the hardening of any sort needed for military use would have been done for the type.

And if 2 engines is not considered safe enough, aren't the millions of flyers flying ETOPS risking their lives in the name of "efficiency"?
Click to expand...
Probably not enough capability. A 777-9 though. . .
 
zjz said:
Does the Air Force One requirement insist on a 4 engines transport? If not, why not use a converted KC-46? I would think the hardening of any sort needed for military use would have been done for the type.

And if 2 engines is not considered safe enough, aren't the millions of flyers flying ETOPS risking their lives in the name of "efficiency"?
Click to expand...

I think the short answer is yes.

The slightly longer but not detailed answer is that the modifications likely add so much weight that no twin engine aircraft can sustain flight in an engine out scenario.

So yes, four engines probably is an absolute hard requirement.
 
EmoBirb said:
*C-17 sitting in the corner*
Click to expand...

No, because cargo aircraft suck a huge bag of dicks to do what they do in terms of range and weight. They have far more resistance and have to separate the strength of their wings from the strength of their landing gear.

Russia and China use cargo planes as tankers because they lack a successful commercial aircraft industry. Their substitute for an old KC-135 is a four engine cargo aircraft because they cannot do better. A KC-135 out performs their tankers by a factor of 2-3, despite being old as shit.
 
zjz said:
Does the Air Force One requirement insist on a 4 engines transport? If not, why not use a converted KC-46? I would think the hardening of any sort needed for military use would have been done for the type.
Click to expand...
It explicitly required 4 engines.


zjz said:
And if 2 engines is not considered safe enough, aren't the millions of flyers flying ETOPS risking their lives in the name of "efficiency"?
Click to expand...
There's a vast difference between "safe enough for mom and pop" and "safe enough for a person that half the planet might want to shoot at"

IIRC, another part of the 4 engine requirement was actually generator capacity. AF1 requires more generator power than an AWACS, or so I've heard.
 
TomS said:
But of course, the thing Trump likes about the Qatari aircraft is the current interior.
Click to expand...
It still needs an extra-comprehensive D-check, done by Yankee White certified techs, along with the maintenance records gone over like a proctology exam...
 
Onboard power generation capacity ( not run at these rating in normal ops, includes APU-driven generators ):

KC-135R: 3x40 = 120 kVA
767: 2x90 = 180 kVA
747-8: 4x90 = 360 kVA
777: 3x120 = 360kVA
777X: 3x150 = 450 kVA
A350: 4x100 + 1x150 = 550 kVA
A380: 4x150 = 600 kVA
787: 4x250 + 2x225 = 1450 kVA ( yes I checked this ! )

A big twin should have no problem generating enough power for most purposes, given that it's rated not only to supply the aircraft but 500+ IFE terminals.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
It still needs an extra-comprehensive D-check, done by Yankee White certified techs, along with the maintenance records gone over like a proctology exam...
Click to expand...

If the president says it doesn’t, who exactly is going to enforce that?
 
Kiltonge said:
787: 4x250 + 2x225 = 1450 kVA ( yes I checked this ! )
Click to expand...
The 787 was designed to use electrics for stuff other aircraft use hydraulics for, so its generator capacity is higher, but its minimum electrical load is also higher.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Basically.

I don't think there are any 747-200s left flying anywhere else in the world. This means that any "new" spare parts are actually stuff that was pulled out of the Boneyard. Which then needs to be inspected/rebuilt to Yankee White standards (at major cost).

The VC-25As were brought into service in 1990, but the 747-200 first saw service in 1971. Technically, the USAF bought the "previous model year" plane when they bought the -200s, as the -400 was entering service at the same time the VC-25As were being built and delivered, and the -300s entered service in 1983. So even when the VC-25As were brand new in 1990, most of their spare parts specific to the -200 model were coming out of the Boneyard because the base design was 20 years old and most of the planes were being retired. The airlines were buying 747-400s in 1989-1990 and flew them until about 2012, when they replaced the -400s with -8s.

The new 747-8s were basically the last planes off the assembly line or pretty close to it, as well, since the last 747-8i was rolled out in 2022.

So as a side note, it means that the USAF is going to have to pay a LOT of money in 2030 to get a 4-engined VVIP transport developed for service in ~2045-50.
Click to expand...
Unless Boeing severely screwed up ( always possible), given the VC-71s' likely usage, they'll run out of airframe life sometime in the late 22nd Century.

If I remember, from when I was at Sikorsky, the parts for the presidential helicopters remained in production.
 
Last edited:
1635yankee said:
Unless Boeing severely screwed up ( always possible), given the VC-71s' likely usage, they'll run out of airframe life sometime in the late 22nd Century.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't being used for Presidential transport, yes.

The USAF takes all numbers for the Presidential fleet, whether maintenance intervals or total lifetime, and halves them. Stuff with a 1000hr TBO? gets overhauled every 500. etc.


1635yankee said:
If I remember, from when I was at Sikorsky, the parts for the presidential helicopters remained in production.
Click to expand...
It'd be good if Boeing was smart enough to do that.

I'm not sure they are anymore.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It'd be good if Boeing was smart enough to do that.

I'm not sure they are anymore.
Click to expand...

If they aren't then maybe Boeing's senior management need to be purged and replaced by members who have actual hands on engineering experience like they used to before making the mistake of acquiring McDonnell-Douglas and allowing the McD management takeover Boeing turning it into McBoeing.
 
DWG said:
The 787 was designed to use electrics for stuff other aircraft use hydraulics for, so its generator capacity is higher, but its minimum electrical load is also higher.
Click to expand...
Correct regarding the 4 250 kVa starter-generators, but also:
- 5000 psig hydraulic system.
- 5000 psig FBW servohydraulic flight control system with gust load alleviation capability. Experienced GLA during flight to Japan last year, worked very well.
- Electromechanical, brake by wire/antiskid, no hydraulics.
- Environmental control system is complete vapor-cycle system (just like our homes), no engine bleed air. Engine bleed air only for engine anti-icing.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It explicitly required 4 engines.
Click to expand...

I can confirm. I was the Engineering Flight Commander for Speckled Trout when we signed the agreement with a certain organization to be the test bed for many of the new AF1 technologies, which meant I had to sign an NDA for competition sensitive stuff which got me a look at the early requirements pre-RFI so I knew what I could and couldn't say.

Been watching this for a while, knew about it for several weeks as one of my colleagues comes from the aircraft overhaul world in San Antonio and mentioned it last month. From what I gather, the backup effort goes back before the beginning of this year in the last admin. There just aren't, anymore, that many green -8 passenger versions setting around looking for new homes. ISTR only 2 VVIP versions were looking for new homes the last 5 years, the one with 16 hours that got parted out and the Qatari bird, which was the backup to the backup. Made for some interesting conversation because said colleague worked with Kelly Ortberg in a previous life.

A few other thoughts. If this is an interim meant to apply pressure to Boeing and manage risk on the two A's, then the full set of VC-25B requirements don't have to be in play. Namely, just do the coms, EMP, defensive suit, interior and leave off the AR. All the AF1's up to the current two did fine without it and 95% of the VC-25A missions don't need it. The folks who are supposedly doing it should be capable of that (see first para). When I worked at Boeing, I was actually a finalist for two jobs on the program and the PIM who sat next to me still helped on the program in his spare time, I'm somewhat familiar...

Also, FWIW I've been on the current jet, got the full tour, even sat in the president's chair in his office. Have the signed picture and presidential M&M's on display in my office. Gave the rest of the press kit to my parents since I missed my mom's birthday to work weekend duty, which led to the tour. Finally, funny story. Since I was the weekend maintenance duty officer, like any good officer when I saw the VC-25 on approach, I drove over to TA to get a look at the bird. The head of the SP's came over to ask me what I was doing, which I explained (I'm the MXG/CC's representative on the flightline this weekend, he wants a report of any significant events), so she then saluted me. The head of the aircraft security detail saw her salute me, so he walked over and asked if it was OK to park the C-32 next to the VC-25, since the VP and Sec State were in Crawford that weekend with W.
 
mkellytx said:
I can confirm. I was the Engineering Flight Commander
Click to expand...

Talking about that the VC-25A (Since it's a heavily modified 747-200) I assume its' cockpit still has a flight-engineer, now given that the upcoming VC-25B is based on a heavily modified 747-8I would it just be a two-pilot cockpit or would it have a dedicated flight-engineer?
 
NMaude said:
Talking about that the VC-25A (Since it's a heavily modified 747-200) I assume its' cockpit still has a flight-engineer, now given that the upcoming VC-25B is based on a heavily modified 747-8I would it just be a two-pilot cockpit or would it have a dedicated flight-engineer?
Click to expand...
Great question, to be completely honest I don't remember if they had an FE. That said, we did on Trout even though it wasn't required we did, wouldn't surprise me they have FE's on AF1. Again, this is 20 years ago, the flight deck displays were digital (lcd or crt, don't really remember). To be completely honest, 3-4 person cockpits with proper CRM have far better safety margins than two person cockpits.
 
mkellytx said:
To be completely honest, 3-4 person cockpits with proper CRM have far better safety margins than two person cockpits.
Click to expand...

I imagine that you'd need an additional crew-member in the cockpit to manage all of the VC-25's defensive ECM systems (Having a navigator too wouldn't surprise me even though the introduction of INS in the 1960s rendered such a position redundant).
 
NMaude said:
I imagine that you'd need an additional crew-member in the cockpit to manage all of the VC-25's defensive ECM systems (Having a navigator too wouldn't surprise me even though the introduction of INS in the 1960s rendered such a position redundant).
Click to expand...
Then that's what they said about GPS. Funny thing though, -135's that flew with a nav almost never violated airspace. ONW two pilot crews violated Syrian airspace all the time. Even though the commercial -8's are a two-crew jet, my money is on a third set of eyes most likely a nav since they're rated and officers. Defense? Nobody who knows talks.
 
mkellytx said:
Defense? Nobody who knows talks.
Click to expand...

Given that the VC-25As are USAF aircraft with national command authority in the event of an all out war (Think WWIII) I think that we can logically assume such a position in the cockpit.

Edit: Do you know if the VC-137A and its' VC-137C successors had a defensive ECM position in the cockpit (I ask since they were retired in 1990 when the VC-25As entered service)?
 
Last edited:
mkellytx said:
A few other thoughts. If this is an interim meant to apply pressure to Boeing and manage risk on the two A's, then the full set of VC-25B requirements don't have to be in play. Namely, just do the coms, EMP, defensive suit, interior and leave off the AR. All the AF1's up to the current two did fine without it and 95% of the VC-25A missions don't need it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that'd probably be enough.

Edit: And it'd be possible to add the refueling stuff in a later D-check, to get all 3 birds up to the same standard.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Given that the VC-25As are USAF aircraft with national command authority in the event of an all out war (Think WWIII) I think that we can logically assume such a position in the cockpit.

Edit: Do you know if the VC-137A and its' VC-137C successors had a defensive ECM position in the cockpit (I ask since they were retired in 1990 when the VC-25As entered service)?
Click to expand...
@NMaude that's getting close to sensitive topics. Generally speaking, when I say "defense" I'm referring to EW, IR counter measures, IR jamming and the like. Going back to my BUFF days, the guys who controlled the 'trons, flares and guns were defense. They guys who ran the radar and pushed the button were offense. Defense is always very secret squirl. I've flown, and tested EW, IR counter measures, and LAIRCM on multiple platforms. What I know is subject to NDA;s, can't say more than that.

The best I can offer is look back to 9/11. The VC-25 has a lot of capability, enough to get the president to someplace he can board an airborne command post if necessary. If you want to fight WWIII from an aircraft, it's a different platform, the E-4B. I flew with E-4B former aircrew on Trout, when W visited Crawford, it camped out on our ramp at Dyess, I've been around it enough that what I just wrote is the about what I'm comfortable saying in public.

All of the VC-137's are in museums these days, the only one I haven't been on is SAM 971 in Tuson. To be completely honest, I wasn't looking for those things, if I saw them, recognized them, I was with people I couldn't tell what they were. My musician wife, and 10-year-old son are way more interested in the stuff behind the cockpit anyhow.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, that'd probably be enough.

Edit: And it'd be possible to add the refueling stuff in a later D-check, to get all 3 birds up to the same standard.
Click to expand...
Exactly, a fleet of three is always better than two since when one is in maintenance you can still have a primary and spare. Once you pay the sunk cost, enjoy the added capability.
 
martinbayer said:
One can never have too many executive jets...
Click to expand...
Indeed, that does seem to be the attitude of the enlightened class of betters in the capital, especially when all the C-32's and C-40's are considered. Three is pretty much the ideal fleet number if the mission dictates a primary and a spare. A fleet of two is always at risk. FWIW the fleet of VC-137's was 4.
 
NMaude said:
It certainly would but as has been pointed out upthread at the absolute minimum this "Gift" needs to be given a comprehensive D-check to make sure there are no unwelcome surprises. But to be a proper VC-25B it needs to undergo the lengthy and hideously expensive process of the needed structural and avionics upgrades which take years.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the procurement of the VC-25B will have taken about 9 years between contract announcement and delivery. And supposedly, delivery would have been delayed even further to 2029 if requirements hadn’t been reduced a couple of years ago. To a layman, this sort of timetable looks absurd. Similarly, a low hours VVIP transport seems like a reasonable starting point for a VVIP command transport, at least compared to a pair of undelivered passenger planes ordered by….a bankrupt Russian airline. As aviation enthusiasts we can explain away absurdly long time scales as normal for aerospace and defense procurement. To the average layman it looks bad. And quite frankly, you cannot simply blame Boeing when it appears to be a broader issue than goes beyond one company. We can’t blame Boeing for the VH-71 fiasco. And looking at other instances of increasing timescales for non-aerospace projects, we seem to have a broader societal issue. As a people, we just can’t seem to get anything done in a reasonable amount of time.

To put it simply, upfitting radio antennas and transmitters to an airliner shouldn’t take the better part of a decade. And having watched a full tear down inspection of a passenger 747-8 in a documentary, it isn’t a process that would take multiple years or destroy VVIP fittings.
 
Nvlgzr said:
A380 is out of production and not American.
Click to expand...
The 747-8 is also very much out of production. By the time the VC25Bs are in service, I would expect the remaining commercial 747-8 fleet to have been greatly reduced in numbers by storage and scrapping. I’m actually amazed that Lufthansa is still operating their 747-8I fleet.
 
TinWing said:
To put it simply, upfitting radio antennas and transmitters to an airliner shouldn’t take the better part of a decade.
Click to expand...

The VC-25B is being entirely rewired, even the cabling to the engines has to be EMP-proofed. That's one of the factors that prolonged the KC-46 saga, too.

Beyond that, the requirements for the VC do look to have run out of control but I think that's more about how the USA places unrelenting responsibilities on its Presidents nowadays. For example, the Senator from Illinois: "or if he is out of contact, God forbid, with our nation’s military during a crisis.” Surely that's why the VP, JCS, DoD and chain of command exist.
 
During my research on VIP aircraft for They Also Serve, I came across this interesting blast from the past.

Has anyone else noticed the similarity in these schemes? Are they by any chance related? I think we should be told.

Chris

Lookalike.png
 
Flyaway said:
abcnews.go.com

Pentagon accepts luxury jet from Qatar to use as Air Force One

The United States officially accepted a luxury jet to use as Air Force One from Qatar, the Department of Defense confirmed to ABC News on Wednesday.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...

Apparently the Qatari 747-8I is not new at 13 years old and also that they had been trying to sell it for the last five years, the question is how much air-mileage does it have and when it has been stored as it in a climate-controlled hanger with regular inspections and preventative maintenance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom