Wow. New AF1 flap simply another object lesson about the reality behind Trumpian "deal making."

[Pholus]

So this morning the Boeing CEO says after talking with our new oh-so-great dealmaker-in-chief that the new Air Force One fleet will be built for less than $4 billion.

http://fortune.com/2016/12/21/boeing-ceo-air-force-one-donald-trump/

Wow, what sacrifice, considering I actually have yet to actually see any estimates that exceed $4 billion dollars. The largest number I've seen at all was on Politifact which estimates that the 12 year cost might approach $3.73 billion if you build in an outside estimate of about $1 billion dollars in out-year costs to 2024.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/06/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweet-air-force-one-bo/

So...considering the press announcement you have to ask exactly what the Boeing guy means, no? That there won't be any huge cost overruns? Ummmm nice I guess. Easy for them to do after all considering most of the cost goes to subcontractors. I mean, Boeing could deliver two stock 747's straight off the assembly line for the normal $357 million per plane and that would still involve the normal profit margin for them?

http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2014/06/03/why-a-boeing-747-8-costs-357-million/

The rub is in how tricked out these 747's have to be right? I have to figure these "moon shot" kinds of projects that push technological limits have to have contract clauses covering how to react if something becomes impossible due to cost. So, the promise is really easy to give -- if the costs get too high the end product is simply less capable.

So which features will slide? http://fortune.com/2016/12/10/air-force-one-actual-cost/

The custom engines that give it a speed boost?
Midair refuelling capability?
Electronic countermeasures?
Physical countermeasures?
The communications suite needed to control the US military from the air?
Hardening against EMP?

Nope. As a taxpayer I understand those capabilties are needed in what is actually a military aircraft. However, if Boeing is looking for a list of comparatively non-essential features might I suggest starting with the following:

Separate presidential suite (especially plush furniture or anything gold-plated)
Two gourmet kitchens
Any kind of entertainment facilities
Gym
Medical facilities

But what an insight into the Trumpian plan for success. Make up an inflated number and then claim victory when it inevitably comes in cheaper. Simple theater for the numerous rubes like my fundy sister who is already claiming that this was some kind of huge personal victory for her from her new president.

[Kolesar]

1. I didn't know about the speed boost

IIRC, the Boeing 747 flies just a bit faster than other wide body jets when it is at its "optimal speed". There are some articles on the internet about it.

[AngryAmish]

2. I think most Jumbo's can go much faster if they want to

But it eats a lot of gas.

What other nations use such aircraft?

[Kolesar]

5. I see mach 0.92 vs mach 0.90 as max speed on the specifications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25#Specifications_.28VC-25A.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8#Specifications

I was dreaming of flying to New Zealand and wanted to find the fastest conveyance. My last eight hour flight on a United Airlines 777 jet featured "broken seat spring technology".

[Pholus]

3. Ooops - you seem to be correct! Didn't get that from the Fortune article.

The wording in TFA about the current AF1 set the image of improved engines in my mind:

"Capable of moving up to 620 miles per hour—40 miles per hour faster than the average commercial jet—Air Force One has the ability to refuel midair, so the president can travel as far as necessary without the need to touch down on dry land. "

The trap is in the words "average commercial jet" rather than "average commercial 747." But when I looked the maximum speed of the Boeing 747-8 is indeed 620 mph.

But in my (weak) defense the VC-25 is a modified Boeing 747-200, whose maximum speed is given as only being near 600 mph. That isn't a defense -- it means I did extrapolate a bit from the article. After all, if *I* were taking a stock commercial aircraft and using it to protect the Commander-in-Chief I would certainly be using my R&D budget for any engine modifications that, while too expensive to justify for a commercial carrier, improved absolute capabilities. And, I would also not publicize it if my top speed were actually some number of mph over that -- it might be the stated 620 for the VC-25 is merely the fastest speed someone looking at presidential travel every could have calculated.

I know...."get hype!"

[Kolesar]

6. Extend the nose radome and give it a longer tail for a bit more ultimate speed

It would work with a boat. I don't know how they could streamline it more.
Could just strap on some ram jets.

[Pholus]

7. In any case, just another fake deal where everyone "wins" in the end.

Enron accounting, updated for the neo-Soviet era.

[spanone]

4. what a sham...AF1 was never gonna cost 4 billion...but won't trump look like a fucking hero

optics....that's all they care about