It is somewhat interesting that the main justification to retire the existing Presidential 747s was because it was an older model and replacement parts were becoming difficult to come by.

 

The thinking here?  Hey lets order two more, the very last two to roll off the 747 assembly line.

 

Seems like they might have decided instead to go with the 777 instead since it will have a much longer shelf life.

 

Anyone following the crazy history of getting the military refueler version of the 767 now being built will know that it will have the functionality of the 1950s KC-135 but cost orders of magnitude more due to arbitrary military requirements.  The decision makers in the U.S. Air Force have lost any speck of common sense.

 

Mark Trainer

 

 

The thinking here?  Hey lets order two more, the very last two to roll off the 747 assembly line.
 
Seems like they might have decided instead to go with the 777 instead since it will have a much longer shelf life.

 

I think the US was also looking at the 787 as a possible replacement for AF1.

 

 

The decision makers in the U.S. Air Force have lost any speck of common sense.

 

Being retired USAF, I cannot argue with that; however, the decision to go with the four-holer is probably based on some very sound decisions since the mission profile includes much more electrical power than you want to place on only two engine alternators.  Almost two decades ago, the E-4B had four 400KVA alternators, and as all things do the growth in requirements has been sure and steady I bet.

 

 

Seems like they might have decided instead to go with the 777 instead since it will have a much longer shelf life.

 

 

I think the US was also looking at the 787 as a possible replacement for AF1.

 

 

not possible, main reason i've read is the power needed for all the special electronics requires the additional generators.  or at least can't operate on just one, should an engine go out.  not exactly like they can just accept load shedding cabin lights etc like in a normal jet

I could be wrong, but only the -400's (freighters / combos etc) will be released first? Then the -8 and -8i versions?

 

Could be a long wait if that's the case. Good news that some airline like UPS ordering the 747-8 so we will have something still current.

Not really a problem, as I'll be painting both the 400F and -8F (if I get the -8, may depend on budget considerations, but I'd give my -400 masters to a fellow painter who would have the -8 to transition if that was the case.) 

I could be wrong, but only the -400's (freighters / combos etc) will be released first? Then the -8 and -8i versions?

 

That's correct.

 

 

Anyone following the crazy history of getting the military refueler version of the 767 now being built will know that it will have the functionality of the 1950s KC-135 but cost orders of magnitude more due to arbitrary military requirements. The decision makers in the U.S. Air Force have lost any speck of common sense.

 

I heard it said once that if the DoD made a car, it would have a capacity of 1, would get 2 miles per gallon, and would cost $850,000.

I heard it said once that if the DoD made a car, it would have a capacity of 1, would get 2 miles per gallon, and would cost $850,000.

Partly because they can only buy a relative few, a number not nearly large enough to recognize the benefits of modern production techniques.  If Toyota could only build 200 Camrys, they'd probably be about that cost too. That cost also includes initial spares and training...., I'm not defending DoD procurement but the only fix is understanding the problems, which few take the time to do.