New "Air Force One" Updates

[Yooper]

The current 747's have been in service since 1990, over the years they do get systems upgrades, such as a huge one after 9/11, but the bones are old, 30yrs old. There are "other" newer jets from your time period but they do not meet the requirements that the 747 has.

Do you have any gouge on this? Are we having the same problems with the "Kneecap" (and other National Strategic) aircraft? My knowledge is long expired (was current only up to 2005 or so).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[awpitt]

It has to do with Trump because he made this a point of public discourse back at the beginning of his Presidency; that he had "insisted" Boeing bring the price of the new AF1s down.

Yes. This was why they came up with the idea of using the two existing new 747-8s to be modified instead of ordering two additional aircraft to be built.

 

[Yooper]

Yes. This was why they came up with the idea of using the two existing new 747-8s to be modified instead of ordering two additional aircraft to be built.

I guess the drift of the linked The Drive articles is that taking two already available airframes will NOT be cheaper than if we purchased "from the ground up." The implication, then, is that Trump made a crappy deal; Boeing gets to clear out some inventory while WE THE PEOPLE get "second hand" aircraft for a final price tag that will be more than if "from scratch."

I think it's more complicated than that, but not my area of any level of serious knowledge. Another reason why I posted and hoped to have a good discussion.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yes. This was why they came up with the idea of using the two existing new 747-8s to be modified instead of ordering two additional aircraft to be built.

While it's always good to get a deal, the reality it, the plane itself is a rather small portion of the overall project. They run about $400 million each.

Trump claimed he saved $1.4 billion, but...

In 2016, the Government Accountability Office estimated the total cost of replacing the Air Force One fleet to be $3.2 billion, including costs related to research and development, procurement, and military construction spending.

Two years later, in April 2018, the GAO estimated this cost to have reached $3.7 billion, though this figure does not include military construction spending. The GAO told Newsweek military construction spending for 2018 was $314 million, giving a total estimate of just over $4 billion.

The GAO report noted that since the contract had not been awarded at the time, there was no baseline from which to gauge cost performance of the project, making it difficult to keep track of how much money was being spent and would be spent.

According to the Air Force budget for 2019, the total military construction cost relating to replacing Air Force One plane was $254 million. Combining the GAO's latest cost estimate and this figure gives a new total estimate of more than $3.9 billion—bang on Trump’s new deal.

So how, exactly, the White House reached a number of $1.5 billion in savings remains unclear.

There is, however, a mathematical error easily made in using the GAO’s 2016 estimates that would lead to a total of around $5.4 billion, making Trump’s deal of a $3.9 billion fixed cost with Boeing appear like a $1.5 billion savings.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-air-force-one-savings-just-dont-add-1034471

 

[Ken King]

Kneecap

NEACP

 

[Yooper]

NEACP

Well, that's what we called them! Unlike the TACAMO or Looking Glass aircraft; they came pre-packaged with cool names!

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[BOP]

Leave it to the Chair Force to build infrastructure first, then pass the hat to buy weapons platforms. 'Cuz they're sexy.

 

[BOP]

Normally I'd say it's because most govt. projects have cost overruns in that general range.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-72.pdf

In this case, the contract is a firm fixed price, so Boeing is on the hook for any cost overruns.

I'd like to see the contract. I'm more familiar with CSS contracts, but there are always incentives built in, particularly for products, even on a so-called FFP contract.

 

[TCROW]

I have no qualifications to comment authoritatively but I like airplanes.

This will put two more glorious queens of the skies airborne and that’s a good thing. I still believe in Boeing.

 

[glhs837]

Usually the part of this sort of thing that lay people dont get is that this isn't like buying a car, where you stroke a check and it gets delivered. You are buying spares support for the lifetime of the platform, including spares support for special unique parts, and that support needs to be available on a global basis 24/7/365. Oh, and even your regular parts need to be vetted back to the source. Developing entire new maint publications, running new or significantly altered parts through rigorous qualification tests, including survivability testing that's I'm sure is just silly tough. Training systems and devices. So most of us familiar with procurement of new platforms or significant rework of existing platforms wont bat an eye at these numbers.

 

[BOP]

Usually the part of this sort of thing that lay people dont get is that this isn't like buying a car, where you stroke a check and it gets delivered. You are buying spares support for the lifetime of the platform, including spares support for special unique parts, and that support needs to be available on a global basis 24/7/365. Oh, and even your regular parts need to be vetted back to the source. Developing entire new maint publications, running new or significantly altered parts through rigorous qualification tests, including survivability testing that's I'm sure is just silly tough. Training systems and devices. So most of us familiar with procurement of new platforms or significant rework of existing platforms wont bat an eye at these numbers.

Logistics: it's more than just moving packages, Brown.

 

[awpitt]

I'd like to see the contract.

Look it up.

 

[glhs837]

Logistics: it's more than just moving packages, Brown.

Been working half my time for a couple of very smart loggies these last three years and I've learned a ton from them.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I'd like to see the contract. I'm more familiar with CSS contracts, but there are always incentives built in, particularly for products, even on a so-called FFP contract.

The original contract is FA8625-16-C-6599 for the PAR program, but it's been modified a few times.
Modification P00027 (fixed price) was about $24 million to buy the 2 planes and start design work. This work was slated to be complete December of last year.
Modification P00032 (fixed price undefinitized) was sole-sourced and $64 million 2018 dollars went to it.

They say that the "total value of all contract actions for the program is $3.9 billion".

 

[Yooper]

Probably a dumb question, but I figured I'd ask anyway....

Do "special program" personnel costs (e.g., PRP for the aircrews and maintenance folks, HMX-1 folks, etc.) get billed to the contract? Or is this just something built into the USAF annual personnel costs? I assume the latter, but wouldn't be surprised if, due to the special nature of the program, that personnel costs are somehow billed to the program and not to the service....

--- End of line (MCP)