Boeing 747

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?
 
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.
 
_Del_ said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your arena doesn't have to fly.
 
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+.
 
_Del_ said:
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+.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
_Del_ said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
DAhjS4QXgAAkn_9.jpg:small

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***
Click to expand...
 
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. . . .
Click to expand...
*** COMPLETE STORY LINKED ABOVE TITLE ***
 
Boxman said:
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. . . .
Click to expand...
*** COMPLETE STORY LINKED ABOVE TITLE ***
Click to expand...


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?
 
Triton said:
Boxman said:
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. . . .
Click to expand...
*** COMPLETE STORY LINKED ABOVE TITLE ***
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...
They absolutely were considering them after they became available.
 
I get the feeling that Boeing are probably smiling around gritted teeth, because that's the 747 programme suddenly two units closer to shutdown.
 
DWG said:
I get the feeling that Boeing are probably smiling around gritted teeth, because that's the 747 programme suddenly two units closer to shutdown.
Click to expand...
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.
 
"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/
 

Attachments

  • 309315_afo-7478_2up-twilight-aog-tko-lr.jpg
    309315_afo-7478_2up-twilight-aog-tko-lr.jpg
    243.7 KB · Views: 360
  • DJN6k0lXUAAfEtG.jpg
    DJN6k0lXUAAfEtG.jpg
    113.7 KB · Views: 348
Moose said:
No more aerial refueling is a questionable savings.
Click to expand...

OTOH, it's not clear whether the VC-25s have ever used IFR while carrying VIPs.
 
Airplane said:
They have. That's how "W" flew to Iraq without landing to refuel.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TomS said:
Airplane said:
They have. That's how "W" flew to Iraq without landing to refuel.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I thought that aerial refueling was a feature of the VC-25 in case of nuclear war or other emergency.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
Click to expand...
 
Published on Oct 12, 2017

Since her induction into the United fleet, the Boeing 747 aka the “Queen of the Skies” has been one of our most recognizable aircrafts with her unique upper deck. Over the years, she’s won the hearts of customers and employees alike. Join us as we look back at her history with United, before she flies into the sunset after 47 years of service on November 7.


https://youtu.be/QUbabyFKUvQ
 
Triumph, Boeing's 747 fuselage contractor, is auctioning off the entire contents of its 747 facility in Hawthorne and will also shutter its Dallas plant, leaving Boeing with no fuselage for 747s past the 18 still on the books.

www.seattletimes.com

Decisions on future of Boeing 747 loom as storied factory shuts down

Triumph Group, the largest supplier to the 747-8 program, is starting to clear out a storied plant with an online auction of manufacturing gear that began Wednesday.
www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com
 
If Boeing are to continue with it they will need to buy the tooling but it looks to be the end. Will they complete the last 18?
 
The article implies Triumph have rushed through the last few fuselages ahead of the closure, it's only future orders that are a problem. And the news itself will probably scare off any new buyers.
 
The "arsenal plane" work seems to be focused on the Buff, I've seen no serious edging toward an airliner-based solution. If they do start down that path, they'd probably start with the NEAT airframe.

It's a bit disappointing that neither USAF nor the DoD more broadly seemed to consider buying a small number of 747-8s at the tail end of the production run as a reserve/insurance against future issues. VC-25B could have some sort of issue, the E-4 requirement might not fit into NEAT well enough, some other requirement for a couple large airframes could some along, who knows.
 
On a somewhat more serious note:
jalopnik.com

Trump's New 'More American' Air Force One Is A Disgrace To The Name

Since the Kennedy Administration, the light-blue and white jet carrying the president has been more than just transportation for American leadership. It has been a symbol of what that leadership was meant to represent. An internationally-minded, forward-thinking ethos steeped in Modernism and...
jalopnik.com jalopnik.com
 
finance.yahoo.com

Boeing Quietly Pulls Plug on the 747, Closing Era of Jumbo Jets

(Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. hasn’t told employees, but the company is pulling the plug on its hulking 747 jumbo jet, ending a half-century run for the twin-aisle pioneer.The last 747-8 will roll out of a Seattle-area factory in about two years, a decision that hasn’t been reported but can be...
finance.yahoo.com

Nooooooooooo!!!! (howling)
 
It Official on July 30, 2020 Boeing declare in a Press release
That they stop the production of legendary Airliner and in 2022 the Last Planes are to be forthcoming.
It total Boeing build 1574 of this Aircraft.
The 747 revolution Air trafic in 1970s, now it's expensive dinosaur like A380

A Victims of Age were Airlines cutting cost and use cheaper smaller Airliner
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom