If I remember correctly AF1 would land in Alaska when it needed to go to Asia from DC. An interesting question would be if they refill the tanks immediately after each flight. My assumption would be "yes", even if the next scheduled flight is a short hop like NY to DC. AF1 is really old. I worked for Boeing in my first job out of college in 1978. I would see one of them landing for repair or maintenance all the time at Everett field.
6/2019 - The Next Air Force One Aircraft Will Not Be Able to Refuel in Midair Comes from Trump $1 billion dollar program cost cutting promise in 2017 https://www.twz.com/14199/the-next-air-force-one-aircraft-will-not-be-able-to-refuel-in-midair 4/2022 - CEO: Boeing Should Have Rejected Trump’s Air Force One Deal The company revealed that it has lost $660 million outfitting the next presidential jets—so far. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2022/04/ceo-boeing-should-have-rejected-trumps-air-force-one-deal/366186/ .
(First Flight 1987) Operational 1990 , sooo 35+ yrs old. >>> Spring chicken compared to B-52's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25 .
Program costs include an enormous new hangar at Andrews AFB in Maryland, with a price tag of around $250 million. https://www.twz.com/40719/the-new-air-force-ones-250m-nest-is-taking-shape Andrews AFB - Google maps screen shot Old hanger at top, New hanger at bottom Image Unavailable, Please Login .
More importantly it has a lot less cycles and hours than a typical commercial airliner that is basically flying nonstop.
Really? It’s very procedural and requires attention. It is far less risky than dozens of other activities required of military aviators. I’ve had tours where we refueled ever night for weeks and weeks. It becomes rote.
Again, I'm no expert on this. However it seems to me a 747 flying a low speed behind and connected to a tanker with the President on board in what might be a situation of war is probably something you only want to do in an emergency situation. Its one thing to risk something a military pilot and crew. Its another to be risking the President and a good number of his staff.
Bob- AAR is really routine and not a threat to the president at all. In fact, he would likely not even know they were refueling. With a good stick, and all the 89th pilots are great sticks, he would not even feel it.
They would never want to have to land (period during attack) and take fuel from an unvetted source. .
I heard part f the problem with the -200 Af1 is not flight hours but that parts are no longer newly made. While its Ok to scavenge and old -200 for non timed out bits to fly a freighter, its not allowed for a presidential aircraft. That makes it really hard and expensive to keep these aircraft flying regardless of low flight hours accrued. Still the new -8 aircraft are woefully behind schedule, I doing event think Boeing has the 767 tankers fully worked out yet either. There may be many issues with the program but surely the major one is Boeings dysfunction.
The -8s will have been out of production for almost a decade by the time these airplanes go into service!
I've thought about this some more. Boeing still supports the -400 and presumably will the -8 for some time to come, same with powerplants, not so the -200. The alternatives in a new build are all twins. Seems like the new e4s are also going to use airline -8s from korea I belive. Somewhere in the future this will be an issue. I wonder what the airframe hours are on the presidential 747's.
Every contract we make should have set limits. Any changes - yes - add them to the costs. But I'm kinda sick of companies winning low bids on making stuff, and then, al of a sudden, there is a cost overrun - and taxpayers have to pay it. You quoted us 75 million per plane, and it will be 75 million - not 110 million. I'd bet the POTUS could sign a waiver for whatever FAA regulations that need to be worked-around. I bet you Connie Kalitta's aircraft company can make the parts - they already do for some of the biggest aircraft around, it's a helluva operation he has going, there is a bio film on it somewhere.
Actually, that is not true. The President flies on the 757 regularly, and even on the Gulfstreams on occasion.
Ive seen the vp go long distance over ocean on the 757 not the pres. You do bring up another issue though. Hegseth had to go to Europe on a c17 because apparently the 757 was not serviceable. later Rubrios 757 had to return dur to mechanical issues. As airlines seem to still fly 757s just fine, what's with the af ones.
At one time, maybe they still are - we had two of the four Presidential E4's here at Offutt AFB. I have not seen them fly in awhile, I'll have to ask if they are still there. I am in the direct flight pattern - albeit 25 miles away.
