Boeing VC-25A VC-25B Air Force One

[fredymac]

Boeing (NYSE: BA) today issued the following statement regarding the Air Force One program:

"We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States. We look forward to working with the U.S. Air Force on subsequent phases of the program allowing us to deliver the best planes for the President at the best value for the American taxpayer."
----------------------------------

Anodyne (an·o·dyne): adjective
not likely to provoke dissent or offense; inoffensive, often deliberately so

 

[flanker]

His 4 billion figure is not true as far as i know (3 or so is the correct number i believe?) and it is important to consider the tweet and statement made by him was not random or unprompted. Just before the tweet, this was up...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-boeing-china-trump-robert-reed-1206-biz-20161205-column.html

 

[marauder2048]

His 4 billion figure is not true as far as i know (3 or so is the correct number i believe?) and it is important to consider the tweet and statement made by him was not random or unprompted. Just before the tweet, this was up...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-boeing-china-trump-robert-reed-1206-biz-20161205-column.html

There's a long tradition of "Negotiating through the press." Reminds me a bit of Akbar Al Baker of Qatar Airways.


"“Well I think the planes are too expensive. I spoke to a very good man yesterday, the head of Boeing, a terrific guy,
and we're going to work it out,” Trump told NBC’s “Today” on Wednesday morning. “You know, that’s what I’m here for.
I’m going to negotiate prices. Planes are too expensive and we’re going to get the prices down and if
we don’t get the prices down, we’re not going to order them. We’re going to stay with what we have.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-232305

 

[lastdingo]

Wow, he's really dumb enough to believe that there wasn't much of that money spent already, impossible to be recovered.
A competent businessman understands sunk costs, but businessmen who go bankrupt and stiff contractors as a business model don't necessarily so.

 

[marauder2048]

Wow, he's really dumb enough to believe that there wasn't much of that money spent already, impossible to be recovered.
A competent businessman understands sunk costs, but businessmen who go bankrupt and stiff contractors as a business model don't necessarily so.

Meh. Given Trump's vastly superior visibilty into the program, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[NeilChapman]

Wow, he's really dumb enough to believe that there wasn't much of that money spent already, impossible to be recovered.
A competent businessman understands sunk costs, but businessmen who go bankrupt and stiff contractors as a business model don't necessarily so.

Meh. Given Trump's vastly superior visibilty into the program, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Don't think he really cares about the exact number or the exactly where it is in the acquisition process. PETrump is reacting like the 'everyman' hearing a news story about US$3+ billion being spent on the replacement AF1 program.

His first reaction is get pissed. "This is bull$&^t! Cancel it!"

He knows it's as much about perceived power in dealing with Congress as it is in dealing with authoritarian governments. He has a lot to get done w/Congress. Perceived power in Congress starts with approval ratings.

No fool this one.

 

[Moose]

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[TomS]

Wow, he's really dumb enough to believe that there wasn't much of that money spent already, impossible to be recovered.
A competent businessman understands sunk costs, but businessmen who go bankrupt and stiff contractors as a business model don't necessarily so.

Actually, very little of the Presidential Aircraft Replacement budget has been spent, since they only awarded the initial development contract earlier this year. But there's also not much room to cut, without eliminating fundamental capabilities like nuclear command and control. Maybe he'll cut the leather seats?

 

[Sferrin]

Wow, he's really dumb enough to believe that there wasn't much of that money spent already, impossible to be recovered.
A competent businessman understands sunk costs, but businessmen who go bankrupt and stiff contractors as a business model don't necessarily so.

Actually, very little of the Presidential Aircraft Replacement budget has been spent, since they only awarded the initial development contract earlier this year. But there's also not much room to cut, without eliminating fundamental capabilities like nuclear command and control. Maybe he'll cut the leather seats?

Or, like his change of heart on waterboarding and such after speaking to Gen. Mattis, he'll tone it down once the experts explain why it costs what it does. Maybe he could have a, "beer summit" with Muilenberg.

 

[NeilChapman]

Wow, he's really dumb enough to believe that there wasn't much of that money spent already, impossible to be recovered.
A competent businessman understands sunk costs, but businessmen who go bankrupt and stiff contractors as a business model don't necessarily so.

Actually, very little of the Presidential Aircraft Replacement budget has been spent, since they only awarded the initial development contract earlier this year. But there's also not much room to cut, without eliminating fundamental capabilities like nuclear command and control. Maybe he'll cut the leather seats?

Boeing has stated that they "don't make any money" on the AF1 program (-200 jets). Don't know if I believe that. At the very least I'm sure they meticulously 'ensure' that they lose no money on the program.

Perhaps they'll be willing to sell a US$1 for US$.70 for the prestige of branding. Or, maybe they'll back out or Airbus will get involved in bidding. Recall how RyanAir used Airbus to negotiate 737-800 then later 737-MAX purchases from Boeing. The point is that this is political theater to
1. keep vendors on their toes and
2. voters confident,
3. favorability polls climbing and
4. markets banking that he means business.

It's not like SECDEF Carter wasn't playing hardball with LM for the F-35 LRIP-9 contract. The only difference is that PETrump has some political aims between now and 1/20/17.

Or - Not.

We'll see, said the Zen Master.

 

[Airplane]

Other than the outer mold line, landing gear, and engines(?), these planes are essentially one-off nuclear, chem, biological hardened, flying command/control vehicles with classified defensive/offensive HW. It's not quite the same as his Trumpforce One buying experience. I like the Donald, but geez...

 

[marauder2048]

Boeing has stated that they "don't make any money" on the AF1 program (-200 jets). Don't know if I believe that. At the very least I'm sure they meticulously 'ensure' that they lose no money on the program.

I believe VC-25 was done (EMD + procurement) on a fixed-price basis. From what I can tell, VC-XX looks to be mostly cost-plus.
No need to rehash who bares the burden of overruns.

 

[_Del_]

Can't speak for Boeing, but once upon a time we did work for the VC-25 fleet at a net loss just to be able to say we were the ones that did it. So it's possible they aren't raking in the dough.

Having said that, I'm not sure that the development cost for a fleet of 2 or 3 planes should be anywhere near the quoted figures. All the internal goodies could be scavanged from the existing fleet. Most of that stuff is still being produced in part or whole for the TACAMO (or whatever we're calling it now) and the existing VC-25's.

This reeks of the same mismanagement that led to overruns and delays on the KC-46 even though a KC-767 version already existed. This shouldn't be reinventing the wheel. You already have a 747-200 series developed and in service. How many billion do you need to adapt the -800 series for the same mission? What new cutting edge technology are we developing for this project? What am I missing?

 

[Airplane]

Can't speak for Boeing, but once upon a time we did work for the VC-25 fleet at a net loss just to be able to say we were the ones that did it. So it's possible they aren't raking in the dough.

Having said that, I'm not sure that the development cost for a fleet of 2 or 3 planes should be anywhere near the quoted figures. All the internal goodies could be scavanged from the existing fleet. Most of that stuff is still being produced in part or whole for the TACAMO (or whatever we're calling it now) and the existing VC-25's.

This reeks of the same mismanagement that led to overruns and delays on the KC-46 even though a KC-767 version already existed. This shouldn't be reinventing the wheel. You already have a 747-200 series developed and in service. How many billion do you need to adapt the -800 series for the same mission? What new cutting edge technology are we developing for this project? What am I missing?

What about inflation over about 30 years since the -200?

 

[_Del_]

Sure, there has been inflation. But what is costing billions of dollars for development? The airframe is proven and developed. The systems are proven and developed. Why couldn't a team of old guys with slide rules figure out the basic layout and balances in a few months time? What work is going to cost billions of dollars? How many times do they have to look at weights and balances to decide a layout. I imagine it would/should be more or less similar to the -200. I know the planes won't be cheap, but a program cost in the multiple billion area seems extreme to me.

 

[Jeb]

Total cost of ownership? Maybe. I'm just thinking that the new AF1 is probably going to incorporate some bleeding-edge communications, IT, and hardening/defense subsystems, not to mention medical facilities. The basic airframe cost really doesn't play since it's essentially a bespoke design that, other than overall shape, will only have modest resemblances to a line 747.

 

[Sferrin]

Sure, there has been inflation. But what is costing billions of dollars for development? The airframe is proven and developed. The systems are proven and developed.

What systems? Do we know all the systems that go into an Air Force One? I imagine there are more than a few items unique to that aircraft.

 

[Arjen]

I think some of us are focusing on the least important/costly part of AF1/2 - the airframe. The on-board systems are what need to be looked at to grasp costs.

 

[_Del_]

I agree that onboard systems are the primary cost driver. But everything is or should be existing technology. What is mission critical that is not already flying on VC-25's, TACAMO, or NEACAP? Integration into a new(-ish) airframe might be a headache, but not $3B worth. That's an aneurysm, not a headache. Development costs of the Falcon 9 were ~$300M.
Is the customer asking for things driving the costs up? This happens a lot. Are they looking for an operational DEW instead of DIRCM?
Instead of looking at a couple of configurations and calling it good, is Boeing doing heavy number crunching on all 6,736 potential arrangements and billing the customer because one saved 300lbs over the other top 5 original layouts? Thank goodness for cost-plus %.
If one can develop a reusable booster essentially from scratch for $300M, surely we could cram existing technology into a larger airframe than we already did in the -200 series. If you can design and build a multifunction sports arena with kitchens, media centers, and medical facilities for 300M, surely you can interior design an aluminum tube with existing systems, galleys, press room, and an OR for less than $3B.

That's a little tongue in cheek, but I'm not seeing a cost driver on the scale of billions of dollars. It's an honest question. Maybe I'm missing something. What isn't overlapping with existing projects?

 

[marauder2048]

A non-trivial portion of the $3.2 billion is MILCON in order to accommodate the 747-8I which is taller, longer, wider and heavier than the 747-200.
My guess is the same as _Del_'s guess: defensive systems. Do you provision for DEWs and KICM/MSDM?
At a minimum, it's all aspect DIRCM + towed decoys.

 

[Sferrin]

I agree that onboard systems are the primary cost driver. But everything is or should be existing technology. What is mission critical that is not already flying on VC-25's, TACAMO, or NEACAP? Integration into a new(-ish) airframe might be a headache, but not $3B worth. That's an aneurysm, not a headache. Development costs of the Falcon 9 were ~$300M.
Is the customer asking for things driving the costs up? This happens a lot. Are they looking for an operational DEW instead of DIRCM?
Instead of looking at a couple of configurations and calling it good, is Boeing doing heavy number crunching on all 6,736 potential arrangements and billing the customer because one saved 300lbs over the other top 5 original layouts? Thank goodness for cost-plus %.
If one can develop a reusable booster essentially from scratch for $300M, surely we could cram existing technology into a larger airframe than we already did in the -200 series. If you can design and build a multifunction sports arena with kitchens, media centers, and medical facilities for 300M, surely you can interior design an aluminum tube with existing systems, galleys, press room, and an OR for less than $3B.

That's a little tongue in cheek, but I'm not seeing a cost driver on the scale of billions of dollars. It's an honest question. Maybe I'm missing something. What isn't overlapping with existing projects?

Your arena doesn't have to fly.

 

[_Del_]

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. The flying part was developed some time ago. Nothing about integrating existing mission critical things into the -800 series should be a $3B+ expenditure plan. A Falcon 9 flies and does things nothing else did before and it cost ~$300M to develop. I understand a flying command post isn't cheap. Lots of goodies to cram in there, and they all cost money. Making a direct comparison to the cost of an airliner is naive. But there is a lot of room between "expensive" and $3B+.

 

[kaiserd]

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. The flying part was developed some time ago. Nothing about integrating existing mission critical things into the -800 series should be a $3B+ expenditure plan. A Falcon 9 flies and does things nothing else did before and it cost ~$300M to develop. I understand a flying command post isn't cheap. Lots of goodies to cram in there, and they all cost money. Making a direct comparison to the cost of an airliner is naive. But there is a lot of room between "expensive" and $3B+.

We are talking about bespoke ultra small production run ultra high tech systems, the most advanced in the world of their type, generations more sophisticated (and expensive) than in the current presidential 747's (which should have been replaced a while ago but replacement postponed for political optics).
In a new aircraft whose is really very different structurally and system wise than the current airforce 747's despite the superficial similarities of being another 747.
Not going to claim every penny is necessarily justified, just that nobody can be surprised they will be extremely expensive or that a new billionaire president abandoning so many campaign promises wouldn't look to pander to a highly dubious "Everyman" image.

 

[_Del_]

I'm not at all surprised that they're expensive. And of course the -800 is rather different than the -200. Marauder made a good point about MILCON for a type not in service previously, for example. I'm not suggesting the price should be approaching an -800 in a cargo or passenger configuration or even the nearly as capable and less posh E-4 fleet. I just don't understand where the extra billions are coming from.

I would be extremely surprised to learn that current systems are not mission capable and that completely new generationally advanced systems are mission critical for transporting the President about if that is the primary driver of the price tag.

 

[marauder2048]

I'm not at all surprised that they're expensive. And of course the -800 is rather different than the -200. Marauder made a good point about MILCON for a type not in service previously, for example. I'm not suggesting the price should be approaching an -800 in a cargo or passenger configuration or even the nearly as capable and less posh E-4 fleet. I just don't understand where the extra billions are coming from.

I would be extremely surprised to learn that current systems are not mission capable and that completely new generationally advanced systems are mission critical for transporting the President about if that is the primary driver of the price tag.

And the 747-8 has the added wrinkle of, unlike the E-4 or the 747-200, being partially FBW which
means a fair amount flight requalification when the FBW gets rehosted on rad hardened components.

Also, the FAA Type Certification Procedures For Military Commercial Derivative Aircraft (and ICAO)
are very different compared to those earlier efforts and something that bit the KC-46a relative to the KC-767.

 

[Boxman]

Here's SAM 29000 (USAF Ser. 82-9000) just arrived in Rome ahead of Air Force One, SAM 28000 (USAF Ser. 82-8000) in this instance. Looks like SAM 29000 has sprouted a couple of satcom domes on top of the fuselage towards the tail. Interestingly, SAM 28000 hasn't these "bumps" just yet.

EDIT: Looks like I am a bit behind the curve:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10470/air-force-one-jet-reemerges-with-upgraded-communications-for-world-trip
The War Zone - "Air Force One" Jet Reemerges With Upgraded Communications For World Trip
by Tyler Rogoway
22-May-2017

On Friday both of the 89th Airlift Wing's VC-25As, the 747-200s that often fly the President around under the callsign Air Force One, sat side-by-side at Andrews AFB, ready to carry the Trump White House on its first big trip overseas. If you looked especially close, you may have noticed that one of the iconic jets had a slightly different silhouette than the other—a somewhat unusual instance for the pair of aircraft that often appear identical.

The change is because VC-25 tail number 29000—it's sister ship is tail number 28000—just came back from a deep overhaul and depot maintenance period. It is during those intensive servicing stretches that new capabilities and upgrades are often added to the ultra high profile 747s. In 29000's case, it looks as if these upgrades included a major communications enhancement—one suspiciously similar to an upgrade we have recently seen on another of America's sensitive flying command posts. . . .
***FULL STORY LINKED ABOVE TITLE***

 

[Boxman]

This doesn't help the 747-8 order book as much as it helps the American taxpayer with respect to the Air Force One (AF1) replacement. The pragmatism of this decision may come as shock to many. There is also the added giggle imagining the reaction by some to the aircraft's Russian "origins". . . ;D

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/08/russian-air-force-one-boeing-trump-747/139872/

Trump Wanted a Cheaper Air Force One. So the USAF Is Buying a Bankrupt Russian Firm’s Undelivered 747s
by Marcus Weisgerber - Defense One - 1-Aug-2017

President Donald Trump said the projected cost of new Air Force One aircraft was too high, so the U.S. Air Force found a way to lower it: by buying a pair of Boeing 747 jetliners abandoned by a bankrupt Russian airline.

Air Force officials are now finalizing a contract with Boeing for the two planes, according to three defense officials with knowledge of the deal. The Pentagon could publicly announce the deal as soon as this week.

“We’re working through the final stages of coordination to purchase two commercial 747-8 aircraft and expect to award a contract soon,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in a statement.

The Air Force is not expected to disclose the specific value of the contract, but officials said that the military is getting a good deal on the planes. Boeing lists the average sticker price of a 747-8 as $386.8 million; the actual amount paid by airlines and other customers varies with quantities, configurations, and so forth.

“We’re still working toward a deal to provide two 747-8s to the Air Force — this deal is focused on providing a great value for the Air Force and the best price for the taxpayer,” Boeing spokeswoman Caroline Hutcheson said in a statement.

The 747s that will be transformed for Presidential transport were originally ordered in 2013 by Transaero, which was Russia’s second-largest airline until it went bankrupt in 2015. Boeing built two of the four jets in the order, but the airline never took ownership of them. . . .

*** COMPLETE STORY LINKED ABOVE TITLE ***

 

[Triton]

This doesn't help the 747-8 order book as much as it helps the American taxpayer with respect to the Air Force One (AF1) replacement. The pragmatism of this decision may come as shock to many. There is also the added giggle imagining the reaction by some to the aircraft's Russian "origins". . . ;D

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/08/russian-air-force-one-boeing-trump-747/139872/

Trump Wanted a Cheaper Air Force One. So the USAF Is Buying a Bankrupt Russian Firm’s Undelivered 747s
by Marcus Weisgerber - Defense One - 1-Aug-2017

President Donald Trump said the projected cost of new Air Force One aircraft was too high, so the U.S. Air Force found a way to lower it: by buying a pair of Boeing 747 jetliners abandoned by a bankrupt Russian airline.

Air Force officials are now finalizing a contract with Boeing for the two planes, according to three defense officials with knowledge of the deal. The Pentagon could publicly announce the deal as soon as this week.

“We’re working through the final stages of coordination to purchase two commercial 747-8 aircraft and expect to award a contract soon,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in a statement.

The Air Force is not expected to disclose the specific value of the contract, but officials said that the military is getting a good deal on the planes. Boeing lists the average sticker price of a 747-8 as $386.8 million; the actual amount paid by airlines and other customers varies with quantities, configurations, and so forth.

“We’re still working toward a deal to provide two 747-8s to the Air Force — this deal is focused on providing a great value for the Air Force and the best price for the taxpayer,” Boeing spokeswoman Caroline Hutcheson said in a statement.

The 747s that will be transformed for Presidential transport were originally ordered in 2013 by Transaero, which was Russia’s second-largest airline until it went bankrupt in 2015. Boeing built two of the four jets in the order, but the airline never took ownership of them. . . .

*** COMPLETE STORY LINKED ABOVE TITLE ***

The United States Air Force wouldn't have previously considered the two undelivered aircraft without President Trump's prior threat to cancel the project as too costly?

 

[Moose]

This doesn't help the 747-8 order book as much as it helps the American taxpayer with respect to the Air Force One (AF1) replacement. The pragmatism of this decision may come as shock to many. There is also the added giggle imagining the reaction by some to the aircraft's Russian "origins". . . ;D

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/08/russian-air-force-one-boeing-trump-747/139872/

Trump Wanted a Cheaper Air Force One. So the USAF Is Buying a Bankrupt Russian Firm’s Undelivered 747s
by Marcus Weisgerber - Defense One - 1-Aug-2017

President Donald Trump said the projected cost of new Air Force One aircraft was too high, so the U.S. Air Force found a way to lower it: by buying a pair of Boeing 747 jetliners abandoned by a bankrupt Russian airline.

Air Force officials are now finalizing a contract with Boeing for the two planes, according to three defense officials with knowledge of the deal. The Pentagon could publicly announce the deal as soon as this week.

“We’re working through the final stages of coordination to purchase two commercial 747-8 aircraft and expect to award a contract soon,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in a statement.

The Air Force is not expected to disclose the specific value of the contract, but officials said that the military is getting a good deal on the planes. Boeing lists the average sticker price of a 747-8 as $386.8 million; the actual amount paid by airlines and other customers varies with quantities, configurations, and so forth.

“We’re still working toward a deal to provide two 747-8s to the Air Force — this deal is focused on providing a great value for the Air Force and the best price for the taxpayer,” Boeing spokeswoman Caroline Hutcheson said in a statement.

The 747s that will be transformed for Presidential transport were originally ordered in 2013 by Transaero, which was Russia’s second-largest airline until it went bankrupt in 2015. Boeing built two of the four jets in the order, but the airline never took ownership of them. . . .

*** COMPLETE STORY LINKED ABOVE TITLE ***

The United States Air Force wouldn't have previously considered the two undelivered aircraft without President Trump's prior threat to cancel the project as too costly?

They absolutely were considering them after they became available.

 

[DWG]

I get the feeling that Boeing are probably smiling around gritted teeth, because that's the 747 programme suddenly two units closer to shutdown.

 

[Moose]

I get the feeling that Boeing are probably smiling around gritted teeth, because that's the 747 programme suddenly two units closer to shutdown.

Interesting that some of the savings aren't being proposed for buying a third aircraft, which is a big wishlist item from the people working that program.

 

[Triton]

"Searching for $1 Billion: Inside the Pentagon’s Struggle to Match Trump’s Air Force One Boast"
By Marcus Weisgerber

September 8, 2017

Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/09/searching-1-billion-inside-pentagons-struggle-match-trumps-air-force-one-boast/140852/

 

[Moose]

No more aerial refueling is a questionable savings.

 

[TomS]

No more aerial refueling is a questionable savings.

OTOH, it's not clear whether the VC-25s have ever used IFR while carrying VIPs.

 

[Airplane]

They have. That's how "W" flew to Iraq without landing to refuel.

 

[TomS]

They have. That's how "W" flew to Iraq without landing to refuel.

I can't find any confirmation of that. Andrews-Baghdad is about 5400 nm, well within a VC-25's likely non-refuelled range (a 747-200 could do it easily with an official range of 6900 nm with a full passenger load, and a VC-25 has more gas and less weight). They normally like to refuel to keep more gas in the plane, but it wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Triton]

They have. That's how "W" flew to Iraq without landing to refuel.

I can't find any confirmation of that. Andrews-Baghdad is about 5400 nm, well within a VC-25's likely non-refuelled range (a 747-200 could do it easily with an official range of 6900 nm with a full passenger load, and a VC-25 has more gas and less weight). They normally like to refuel to keep more gas in the plane, but it wouldn't be necessary.

I thought that aerial refueling was a feature of the VC-25 in case of nuclear war or other emergency.

 

[TomS]

Certainly that's why the E-4Bs have IFR but the VC-25s never seem to use it (not even on 9/11 when they were afraid of a planned attack against AF1). A scenario where the President needs to stay airborne for more than 12 hours seems pretty unlikely. Secret Service really doesn't seem to like the risks involved.

 

[Moose]

Well there's always give and take between the Service and other requirements, but last I heard the DoD preferred to retain the capability as insurance against really bad days. Going away from that puts more pressure on the E-4 fleet, which itself is running up against recap concerns.

 

[Triton]

"Congress Questions Air Force One’s Lack of Refueling Capability"
Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk September 26, 2017

Source:
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/09/26/congress-questions-air-force-ones-lack-of-refueling-capability/

Design engineers of the next Air Force One may have to go back to the drawing board after lawmakers on Tuesday expressed concern over the plane’s lack of mid-flight refueling capability.

Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, questioned Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford why the Air Force, which is leading the effort, would choose not to have mid-air refueling on the future president’s plane, given the capability would be needed for a long flight in an event of a nuclear attack.

“Strangely to me, the Air Force has just announced that the next version of Air Force One will not have in-flight refueling capability. What do you make of that?” Cotton asked the general, who was testifying during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his reappointment to the chairmanship and to uphold his rank.

“I think that was a decision that was not made by the — by the Air Force, but made by the White House, and I think it had to do with the fiscal constraints on the program,” Dunford said.

He added, “That will certainly be a limiting factor, and we’ll have to plan accordingly.”

The next Air Force One — or the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program, known as PAR — is not scheduled to have mid-air refueling, DefenseOne first reported earlier this month. Officials have argued that the capability, though useful, adds undue cost. Furthermore, presidents have never used the capability in flight; not even former President George W. Bush, whose aircraft loitered in the air for eight hours after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The latest comments on PAR come weeks after the Air Force awarded Boeing Co. the next contract — just shy of $600 million — for the program.

In August, the Air Force cemented a deal to buy two commercial 747-8 aircraft for the program from Boeing. The two planes were originally purchased by a now-defunct Russian airline company, Transaero, DefenseOne reported.

The service did not disclose the value of the planes at Boeing’s request because it could hurt potential 747 commercial sales in the future, the company said.

Boeing in January 2016 first began work on the new Air Force One for risk-reduction activities, signaling major progress on the program since the company won the contract in January 2015.

The next Air Force One entered the hot seat in December when then-president elect Donald Trump lambasted the program for being overpriced.

Trump on Dec. 6 tweeted “cancel order!” in reference to the Air Force One program. He brought up the issue again during a Dec. 16 speech in Pennsylvania.

“I don’t want a plane to fly around in that costs $4.2 billion, believe me … not going to happen … and I didn’t order it, please, remember this,” he said. “But we’re going to work with Boeing, we’re going to cut the price way down — way, way down.”

Boeing has so far received $170 million in development funding to study the technical requirements of the future Air Force One aircraft, the company has said.

Cotton on Tuesday reiterated that lawmakers and military leaders will have to revisit the refueling decision in the future.