# US Considers Airbus A380 as Air Force One



## MrFSS

The Airbus A380 has attracted interest from the US Air Force (USAF) as a cargo freighter and as a large VIP transport in the Air Force One class, says an industry source.

Full Story *HERE*.


----------



## gswager

I seriously doubt that it will not work because the plane has to land specific airports that has wide runway. What about the Boeing "Dreamliner" which is American made?


----------



## GG-1

gswager said:


> I seriously doubt that it will not work because the plane has to land specific airports that has wide runway. What about the Boeing "Dreamliner" which is American made?


Aloha

A pilot I know was sent to Boeing for some kind of training on the Dreamliner, said it wont fly for at least 2 years from now.


----------



## Trogdor

The latest I heard on the 787, which was a Boeing press release a few weeks ago, said first flight was delayed until early next year (originally scheduled for August or September this year), with certification and entry into service at the end of next year.

I don't think runway size is an issue for the C-5A replacement, since that one already takes up a good chunk of land to take off anyway. The 787 definitely would not be capable of the heavy lifting that the C-5A does. Air Force One is another story, but it's probably just as likely that they'd go for the 747-8 rather than the 787 (after all, why downgrade in size?). In any event, I doubt any decision would be made on either replacement for a couple of years at least. Once the decision is made, it would take a couple of years to get the planes built, and then (in the case of Air Force One) probably another year or two to get the planes fitted with all of the required furnishings, thereby rendering nugatory the issue of when the 787 enters service.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

I think the C5A/B has something like a 9100 foot runway length requirement (higher if higher density altitude) at max gross weight, and 150' width to turn around. Wingspan I think is about 227'. I have seen a C5A video from an airshow, making a breathtakingly short takeoff run, must have been with no cargo and a small fuel load, but it was an incredible performance.


----------



## printman2000

Do we really believe the President of the United States is going to fly in a foreign made plane?

I don't think so. Perhaps this is intended to put some pressure on Boeing.


----------



## GG-1

printman2000 said:


> Do we really believe the President of the United States is going to fly in a foreign made plane?
> I don't think so. Perhaps this is intended to put some pressure on Boeing.


It would not surprise me, especially if the pressure fails.


----------



## George Harris

:angry2: How loud can I say *NO WAY* ?

If they ever even seriously thought about it, anybody involved in elective office would feel their support sinking fast.


----------



## GG-1

George Harris said:


> :angry2: How loud can I say *NO WAY* ?
> If they ever even seriously thought about it, anybody involved in elective office would feel their support sinking fast.


Aloha

What scares me is how seldom Elected officials think, and please don't think that I am against all of them, there are just to few, that care about anything, except getting elected.

To the ones that Try Mahalo, may the public support you.


----------



## George Harris

GG-1 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> :angry2: How loud can I say *NO WAY* ?
> If they ever even seriously thought about it, anybody involved in elective office would feel their support sinking fast.
> 
> 
> 
> Aloha
> 
> What scares me is how seldom Elected officials think, and please don't think that I am against all of them, there are just to few, that care about anything, except getting elected.
> 
> To the ones that Try Mahalo, may the public support you.
Click to expand...

You are so right. How could I have possibly mentioned thinking and elected officials in the same sentence? Although, if there is anything they do think about it is getting reelected.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

George Harris said:


> :angry2: How loud can I say *NO WAY* ?
> If they ever even seriously thought about it, anybody involved in elective office would feel their support sinking fast.


Thats naive. In todays day an age, considering any large project "American made" is preposterous. GM builds most of its US-bound cars in Canada, Toyota builds more cars in the CONUS than GM and Ford do. The majority of complex things are built with components from all over the world. As I recall, the Airbus uses GE or RR engines, and GEs are obviously "American". Beoing uses primarily RR engines in its 747, and I think I remember reading that the AF1 has RR engines. Which are British. And so on.


----------



## printman2000

There is still a huge difference between the President riding in an Airbus and riding in a Boeing. Does not matter that parts are made elsewhere, it matters that Boeing is a US company and the plane would be built in the US.

I will guarantee our President will not be flying in a plane built in France (or wherever they assemble them in Europe).


----------



## Sam Damon

IMO, the key word here is "considers."

In that same vein, I'm "considering" what I'd do if I'd hit the Powerball numbers.


----------



## Trogdor

The engines in the current Air Force One fleet are GE engines, IIRC.


----------



## GG-1

Hey here is an idea, :huh: , Lets have the President and staff travel in/on an American made train while traveling in North America. 

Aloha


----------



## battalion51

I too highly doubt you'll see Air Force One as an Airbus aircraft. The runway requirements are far too great for it to be plausible since Air Force One needs to be able to takeoff and land at pretty much any commercial airport or AFB. They'll most likely continue to purchase Boeing equipment for the same reason the Limo is a Cadillac, it's an American design and an American company.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

battalion51 said:


> I too highly doubt you'll see Air Force One as an Airbus aircraft. The runway requirements are far too great for it to be plausible since Air Force One needs to be able to takeoff and land at pretty much any commercial airport or AFB. They'll most likely continue to purchase Boeing equipment for the same reason the Limo is a Cadillac, it's an American design and an American company.


The President doesn't ride in a Cadillac, he rides in a custom built variation of a Chevy Suburban that looks sorta like a Cadillac DTS. But not really. And like the Beoing, Cadillac has designs, designers, and factories- around the world.


----------



## printman2000

Green Maned Lion said:


> The President doesn't ride in a Cadillac, he rides in a custom built variation of a Chevy Suburban that looks sorta like a Cadillac DTS. But not really.


Yes, it is a custom built Cadillac based on the DTS. Still a Cadillac (made by GM) and made in the US.

I have not been able to find any mention of this vehicle being a variation of a suburban, only the DTS. (http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-2006...-Limousine.htm)


----------



## battalion51

I didn't even realize they got a new limo. Last new one I knew of was in 2001, but I guess that's been about seven years ago. Where does time go? :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion

A friend of mine worked on the project. He didn't go into many details, but he told me a few minor points of information. Also, you can tell some things from that picture. The rear axle is a LRA of a type designed to handle heavy torque- in the 500-600lb-ft plus range. The vehicle has a rear-drive axle. The DTS is front wheel drive and has an independent rear suspension. The Northstar V8 couldn't produce that kind of power if it tried. Besides, it wouldn't be strong enough for the kind of weight that thing would have on it.

The engine is a diesel, most likely a variation of the Isuzu-designed-and-built Duramax 6600 LBZ, which produces a nice 360 bhp and enough torque to move that thing- 650lb-ft. They would likely take advantage of everything a diesel can offer for that car. First of all, diesel fuel is less volatile- much less likely to be ignited or blown up in an attack. Second, the torque would allow that cars incredible weight- it has to be armored like a tank- to be moved more easily. Third, a diesel engine can run almost independently of electricity. It needs electricty to start it (unless you care to crank an engine with a 20:1 or higher compression ratio  ) but otherwise operates without it. So the car could still be driven after an EMP attack, as well. Isuzu is Japanese.

As for why it has to be Suburban based, it might be more accurate to say it is based off of the last-generation full-sized truck. Based is a loose word though. It probably uses the long-bed frame, and a few stock parts where convenient and reasonable. I frankly doubt that the car has more than 50% US designed components, though.


----------

