A good thing from Trump.

[Screw_Michigan]

The $4B is inaccurate

They've been in service for 25 years, the average lifespan of commercial aircraft

They're only mobile command posts designed to protect both the president and the US in cases of, you know, nuclear war. They're not that important!

Idiot.

[Mikey]

The $4B is inaccurate

They've been in service for 25 years, the average lifespan of commercial aircraft

They're only mobile command posts designed to protect both the president and the US in cases of, you know, nuclear war. They're not that important!

Idiot.

Another angry Hillary supporter, aren't you.
Get over it.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...in cases of, you know, nuclear war.

Well, Hillary lost the election, so you can dial it back to DEFCON 5...

[Left Seater]

I have no clue how many hours each of the two 747s that fly the Presidents have on them. That said Screwy's number of 25 years is correct. How does that compare to a 747 in commercial service? Certainly it would be fewer hours but that doesn't mean the planes aren't getting old.

I won't pretend to know how the military does their maintenance but airliners and civil aircraft follow a strict schedule. Checks are broken down to A-D. A checks happen a couple times a year, while D checks are usually about 6 years or so apart. A checks can be done overnight while D checks take months.

It is possible that the Presidential 747s are due for heavy maintenance in the early 2020s and performing said checks may not make financial sense when held up against mission readiness or dispatch reliability. Why spend hundreds of millions if it does nothing to help dispatch reliability?

In addition technology has come a long way in 25 years and so have advances in aeronautics and engines. The 747s flying for the President are not flying for any airlines any longer and a huge part of that is fuel consumption. Today's engines use less fuel and put out less noise that this 200 series jet.

So I have no clue if these need to be replaced. I would bet that Screwy would have the best info on these planes or know where to find it. Add to it that he seems to be arguing for their replacement or at least against certain posters also tells me something.

[Diego in Seattle]

Something to consider...
The 787 took 8 years to go from program announcement to first delivery. The next AF1 will be a bit more complex.

The current AF1 may not be all used up, but we'd be playing with fire if we wait until they are to start building a new one.

[The Big Pickle]

Something to consider...
The 787 took 8 years to go from program announcement to first delivery. The next AF1 will be a bit more complex.

The current AF1 may not be all used up, but we'd be playing with fire if we wait until they are to start building a new one.

You're still alive???? Ahhh Fukkkkkkkkkkkk!

[Diego in Seattle]

Something to consider...
The 787 took 8 years to go from program announcement to first delivery. The next AF1 will be a bit more complex.

The current AF1 may not be all used up, but we'd be playing with fire if we wait until they are to start building a new one.

You're still alive???? Ahhh Fukkkkkkkkkkkk!

[Screw_Michigan]

So I have no clue if these need to be replaced. I would bet that Screwy would have the best info on these planes or know where to find it. Add to it that he seems to be arguing for their replacement or at least against certain posters also tells me something.

Here's what is going on:

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg pissed Trump off by telling a manufacturer event that international trade, especially with China, was really important to the American economy. Trump doesn't like it when people speak out against him, so Trump wants to punish him. The Tribune published a story this AM at 7:30 and Trump's tweet happened at 8:55 am EST. Do the math.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/busin ... gle.com%2F

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4384899072 (the time listed is PST)

Trump is simply laying the groundwork for his defense spending boost. In order to gain credibility for this, you have to act like you're going to root out waste, fraud and corruption from the Pentagon. Very simple.

One of the guys I talked to today is a one of the most renowned aerospace analysts in the nation. He said Trump was right on the $4B price tag, but wrong on why. The aircraft is only 20 pct of the cost. The average cost of a 747-8 is roughly $345 million. All the rest is shit like, you know, making Air Force One able to withstand nuclear war and command a nuclear battle. You know, like buying new toilet seats for the Pentagon. The Air Force said they have budgeted roughly $3 billion for the program. But knowing DoD and the costs of such a complex system, the final price tag is bound to be higher.

One wrong thing with Trump's announcement today is that costs aren't necessarily out of control because they haven't started building anything yet. They're still laying out requirements and performing risk reduction activities. DoD has awarded Boeing only $160 million in contracts so far.

The outrage is ridiculous. They're going to have to start making their own parts ($$$$$) as Boeing is about to stop making the 747-200B. Also, this is the one area you don't want to skimp on: continuity of government. You're going to tell me Trump, in the name of battling waste, fraud and corruption, is going to nickel and dime on Air Force One? What a complete and total disaster.

I don't believe he'll cancel the program but I do believe (as intended) he sent a message loud and clear to the defense industry (and especially companies that dare to cross him) that he will be targeting their spending and bottom lines.

[Screw_Michigan]

Something to consider...
The 787 took 8 years to go from program announcement to first delivery. The next AF1 will be a bit more complex.

The current AF1 may not be all used up, but we'd be playing with fire if we wait until they are to start building a new one.

Good point. Another thing: if this is truly about waste, fraud and corruption, why didn't he go after the F-35? Simple. Lockheed Martin didn't cross him publicly.

[The Big Pickle]

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!!!!!!!!!!!

[Diego in Seattle]

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!!!!!!!!!!!

You're just like her....another pussy firing blanks.

[The Big Pickle]

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Left Seater]

Surprised they would have ever thought Airbus might have a shot, and I would imagine $4 billion might include 2 (maybe 3) 747's, one 757 & Gulfstreams...

Wait what? The 757 is closed. Boeing won't be producing any of those anytime soon. And Gulfstream is a separate company than Boeing. The smallest plane Boeing is building is the Boeing Business Jet which is built on a 737 platform.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

So I have no clue if these need to be replaced.

You're doing the internet wrong. You're supposed to eschew nuance, and take a hard stance one way or the other despite not having all the facts.

And Spray, do you even read the links you paste up in here? That piece wasn't exactly flattering of Trump. It just further reported how much of a snowflake bitch he is.

[Dinsdale]

You're doing the internet wrong. You're supposed to eschew nuance, and take a hard stance one way or the other despite not having all the facts.

I'm pretty sure he neither directly accused, nor even so much as inferred that anyone might possibly be a homosexual out of the deal.

Poor form.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

[Screw_Michigan]

You're not very smart...at all. We know that.

[Screw_Michigan]

Yeah, you're the idiot who thinks Air Force one is simply a luxury jetliner that exists to ferry the president around and that nickle and diming the program is a great idea.

[Left Seater]

And they're about to quit making the 747-200.

Just to keep things accurate, Boeing long ago stopped building the 747-200 series. In fact the last two were delivered in the 4th quarter of 1991.

[Goober McTuber]

Yeah, you're the idiot who thinks Air Force one is simply a luxury jetliner that exists to ferry the president around and that nickle and diming the program is a great idea.

I know enough about aviation to know that they haven't been making a 747-200 in over 1/4 of a century. You don't.

And they're about to quit making the 747-200. Good job, buddy.

No, you didn't know that until LS informed you.

[Screw_Michigan]

I got the model wrong. But the bottom line is they're basically keeping production of the 747-8 going specifically for AF1. They are struggling to get orders for it at the moment so they would shut it down if they could.

Don't let facts get in your way, tubby.

[Screw_Michigan]

So it's a shit sandwich? How do you have any idea of the financial status of the program? They're about 5 percent (or less) into the program. They're still determining requirements. Where's your outrage over F-35?

DoD will roughly spend $4.8 TRILLION total over the next eight years ($600 billion x 8 ) and they're planning on spending $4 billion on a new Air Force one. That is 0.083% of spending over that period. Not even 1/10 of a percent.

And I'm sorry, who are you to determine what type or size of airplane is acceptable (or not) to both protect the president and allow him to command a military in the event of nuclear war? Are you a military aerospace professional?

I know you're busy with your lips wrapped around Trump's crank, just being outraged over something you're told to be outraged about. But please try to think lucidly about this.

[Mikey]

It would be a lot more cost effective to put Trump in an Adrian Davis Long-EZ.

[Left Seater]

Is the 747-800 program struggling? Yes. As is the Airbus A-380. There just isn't much of a market for 4 engines on commercial airframes. The A-380 line has been rumored to be close to shutdown for about a year. There will soon be many first generation A-380s sitting in the desert.

The 747-800 line has orders on the books to keep it producing jets for roughly 20 months. After that the line will shut down unless more orders are forthcoming.

What might happen is Boeing ends up buying back a 747-800 or three (which happens all the time as part of orders), think trading in your current grocery grabber for a new one. Then they could modify/rebuild to USAF specs. Or the next AF1 might be built on the 787-900 platform.

[Bucmonkey]

No worries...Trump got's this...

[Diego in Seattle]

Or the next AF1 might be built on the 787-900 platform.

Uh, no.

[Left Seater]

Why not. The 747 program isn't going to be around for ever.

[smackaholic]

Or the next AF1 might be built on the 787-900 platform.

Uh, no.

Yeah, why would they want to fly 21st century technology when mid 20th century has performed so well?

I see one reason for staying with that airframe. 4 beats 2. Modern widebodies have gone to 2 engines purely for efficiency reasons. The added redundancy doesn't hurt.

[Left Seater]

4 vs 2 was also an airline discussion about safety and reliability. Virgin Atlantic tried to argue for a number of years that their A-340s were a safer choice on flights across the Atlantic since they had 4 engines vs American Airlines and British Airways move to 777s with 2. Turns out dispatch reliability was actually higher on the 777 than the A-340, and their inflight engine shut down rate was damn near the same.

Funny thing though the A-340 is underpowered despite having 4 engines. Hence the jokes about 4hairdryers hanging from the wings or the 340 being the first commercial aircraft to be certified with 5 APUs.

I don't think number is f engines makes much difference in reliability.

[Rooster]

Gotta laugh at the aviation humor.

[Diego in Seattle]

The 787 is an a/c designed for civilian use only. I doubt it would measure up to the standards needed by the Pentagon.

[Screw_Michigan]

Get the fuck out of here Diego with your commercial aerospace knowledge. You're supposed to be outraged over Air Force One because the Fuhrer told you to be!

[Diego in Seattle]

President-Elect Cheeto says he wants to negotiate the deal personally.

Boeing itself is a cautionary tale of what happens when you put a non-aerospace person in charge of things.

[Left Seater]

The 787 is an a/c designed for civilian use only. I doubt it would measure up to the standards needed by the Pentagon.

As were the 707 and 747. Both were originally designed to be commercial passenger haulers. Bother were later modified for numerous additional roles. Same could happen with the 787. The 787 line will be running long after the 747 line.

[Screw_Michigan]

Trump today vowed to put a five year ban on USG procurement officials from taking industry jobs after retirement. Just happened after Northrop Grumman announced it added its just retired chief of staff to its board of directors. Oh yeah, those BoD positions pay on average $200k. Not bad. Plus the USAF just awarded a contract to NG for the new bomber, which is geared to be the #1 most expensive program for the Air Force over the next 10 years.

Do the math. I hope he accomplishes this.

[Diego in Seattle]

Trump today vowed to put a five year ban on USG procurement officials from taking industry jobs after retirement. Just happened after Northrop Grumman announced it added its just retired chief of staff to its board of directors. Oh yeah, those BoD positions pay on average $200k. Not bad. Plus the USAF just awarded a contract to NG for the new bomber, which is geared to be the #1 most expensive program for the Air Force over the next 10 years.

Do the math. I hope he accomplishes this.

Sounds familiar...

[smackaholic]

Why would they cut it so close on engine power? Would a slightly larger engine do much to fuel mileage?

[Left Seater]

Fuel burn per available seat mile. Damn near anything larger and no one ever would have bought them.