The Journey To Replace The US Air Force's Boeing 747 Doomsday Jets

The US Air Force has four E-4s in its inventory, which collectively fly more than 50 overseas missions, including stops in over 25 countries, each year. They’ve more or less been doing this since the 1970s and so it’s safe to say that these jumbo jets are due for a replacement.
In today’s video, we’ll look at the US Air Force’s plan to replace its quote-unquote Doomsday planes!
Article:
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: [e-mail]

[@FrequencyORD]

Im glad I was able to catch a picture of one of these beauties before they are all retired. It was at cruising altitude when the secretary of defense was on board for the long flight from manila to washington dc.

[@carlsavage614]

The 747. Just a legendary piece of engineering,

[@TheSvrstorm]

Being a smaller company they should be able to make good decisions and complete the work before 2036

[@johnp139]

Until they realize that they underestimated the scope of the effort.

[@jakeoht791]

You would think… Hopefully this win isn’t the death of their company.

[@mxg75]

With the 747 production winding down, the USAF is eager to refresh their specialized planes before they lose the opportunity and have to figure out how to fit out a different plane. There’s nothing else of this size available from US manufacturers right now, and special ordering a new design for such a small number of planes is not cost effective.

[@shockwave2477]

747 production shut down in 2022 itself.

[@BulletproofPastor]

With over 20 years working for Boeing I am not surprised they bowed out of any contract without an endless stream of federal funding. If they can't suck endless resource with continued "upgrades and change orders" they want out. It's obvious the company has lost their way and no longer can produce a finished product to meet defined objectives in a timely manner or within budget.

[@roshanantony7467]

What makes SNC immune to the losses that Boeing was afraid of? Really surprising that a small tiny firm bagged such a huge contract.

[@simonbone]

Presumably it's an ad hoc company owned by others to limit liability. If it makes a huge loss, it can go bankrupt, unlike Boeing.

[@johnp139]

@@simonboneWhich it will probably end up doing so.

[@timboyle3114]

@@simonbone No - Its a real corporation that already has a track record of delivering specialist airframe platforms to the Airforce. What makes different - Its better managed and more agile!

[@SeeLasSee]

It’s a serious company. Small but full of a broad range of specialist employees.

[@N1njaSnake]

It didn't gut itself for executive bonuses and is agile with lower overhead.

[@icare7151]

Boeing has become so dysfunctional it is good news they are not the main contractor holder.

[@ricahrdb]

It looks like they learned their lesson from the AF1 debacle.

[@johnp139]

They kept on losing from stupid Firm Fixed Price contracts like KC-46 and VC-25B. These contracts need to be toned down.

[@PakaBubi]

Thats a stupid comment from an armchair expert. Boeing's decision to decline this project isn't related to their current issues. They were pressured into the Air Force One project by Trump and ended up at a disadvantage. It's wise for Boeing to avoid similar projects and concentrate on resolving their existing problems.

[@icare7151]

@@johnp139 Boeing kept loosing because they are verified corrupt fraudulent 🫏 🧻. Any questions?

[@PaulNoake]

Well I wouldn't have given the replacement option to Airbus as their aircraft are total SHIT

[@camd6102]

Boeing doesn't like a fixed price contract. See Starliner.

[@d.b.cooper1]

They got burnt and publicly shamed into a fixed contract for the new air force 1’s by trump which has hurt them 😂. Hence the u turn & refusal to do fixed price contracts to keep shareholders happy

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

No wonder, as the work is done by Boeing MBAs, and USAF people have superb ideas every month.

[@deniermurch8693]

They have as good a chance as Boeing would have, maybe better. We will see

[@davidkavanagh189]

It's incredible how old these frames are. Some of the earliest 747-200B frames

[@cruisinguy6024]

They’re super old and yet they’re young compared to the B-52 fleet

[@Dbodell8000]

I bet they don’t have many flight hours on them

[@cruisinguy6024]

@@Dbodell8000 I don’t think flight hours are the issue - it’s landing/takeoff cycles. According to a congressional report back in 2015 they had sufficient cycles and airframe hours to get them to the late 2030s however were expected to be maintenance limited by mid 2020s. These airframes are 50 years old at this point.

[@Dbodell8000]

@@cruisinguy6024 Still they are lightly used planes compared to commercial airliners.

[@scoopdawgFC]

Theres one already here in Dayton ..flew in from ICN last week

[@PavlosPapageorgiou]

Low frequency antenna is probably for communicating with nuclear subs. Equally EMP protection is against a nuclear attack.

[@johnp139]

No shit Sherlock.

[@beagle7622]

There are many low landings 747-400’s in the California desert including ex Qantas 747-400’s built in 2003 .

[@davidkavanagh189]

Already a 45 year old design and these new aircraft will be planned to have a decades long careers so starting with an ancient airframe would not be wise.

[@beagle7622]

@@davidkavanagh189 I do agree but the first thing this plane would need is the redundancy of 4 engines . I believe a 747-8I just got scrapped. Beyond the Boeing 747 what other airframe could they use. The could look at an Airbus 340 but it goes back to the early. 90’s too. Got a hunch it will be a new plane.

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@beagle7622 I mean the 400s are too old. The -8s are fine as they were built more recently so it makes sense they are using the -8

[@beagle7622]

@@davidkavanagh189 One is just getting scrapped, a VIP one in the Middle East, I don’t know which country.

[@aerohk]

5:50 Isn't it a cost plus contract?

[@jakeoht791]

No it’s a Fixed price contract, that’s why Boeing didn’t pursue.

[@owenchuarbx]

Splendid.

[@Dbodell8000]

Never mind their age how many flight hours do they have?

[@TomK-ti8kp]

The Air Force doesn’t have a choice. They cannot buy new 747s, and the last passenger 747s were sold to KAL. The cargo versions are probably harder to modify than the passenger version, and has less floor space.

[@jakeoht791]

They broke ground on the facility and started hiring new employees for the program in 2022. It’s definitely going to be challenge building from scratch a production line and new workforce.

[@arindamkumar7725]

The Low frequency antenna can dangle upto 5miles behind the aircraft??? WTH😮!!

[@ferencmolnar6474]

Actually the trailing wire antenna is 6.2 mile-long and hangs vertically below the aircraft when deployed.

[@jamesclark1001]

The aircraft will go into a steep bank turn in a very tight circle. The antenna will dangle in a tornado like form.

[@creativemindplay]

Hurrikins❤

[@sounakbatabyal]

They should learn from the German Government. Planned replacements for A340 4 years ago. Replacement done within deadline and in budget.

[@PasleyAviationPhotography]

Uhhh, a doomsday plane being modified and built off an existing platform is a bit more complex than replacing a few VIP A340. That not even close.

[@sounakbatabyal]

@@PasleyAviationPhotography you mean to tell me...if the german government wanted a similar doomsday plane from Airbus...it would take as long and would burn through as much cash right?

[@sounakbatabyal]

​@@PasleyAviationPhotography You mean to tell me....that Airbus would take as long and burn through as much cash if it was offered a similar project?

[@davidkavanagh189]

​@@sounakbatabyal Maybe, maybe not. You can't say either way. They haven't done a project like this before. Your comparison with the German aircraft is invalid. Not comparable at all.

[@sounakbatabyal]

@@davidkavanagh189 Can't argue with that. It's true Airbus has never done such a big project.

[@StormFanatic210]

They have 12 years to do introduce it into service, but they’ve already sourced 5 Airframes. Tells me that it’s possible to come in ahead of schedule by a few years. This is the US Government though, which does everything at half the speed of smell.

[@davidkavanagh189]

They can't exactly start converting planes they don't have now can they? It's also likely to be phased. Not making all airframes at the same time.

[@ferencmolnar6474]

I believe the 12-year-long deadline is for achieving combat readiness, which presumes years of testing, acceptance and familiarization within the Air Force as well. I also think it's better buying those airframes now, than letting them to rot for years in a desert storage or boneyard (and trying your luck on that they were not looted, damaged or cannibalized meantime).

[@jakeoht791]

They broke ground on the facility and started hiring new employees for the program in 2022. It’s definitely going to be challenge building from scratch a production line and new workforce.

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

12 years program....😒

[@pg41226]

Im happy I can watch 2x 30 sec adverts about old women urination absorption products 😮 thanks

[@tomdavis8757]

Well I guess if you have an unlimited budget.

[@davidkavanagh189]

They don't have an unlimited budget. It's a fixed price contract

[@robm3074]

This is where national and international politics come in to play. The USA is not going to fly around anything but American made aircraft. When it comes to Air Force One, E4B, or anything else involving the national defence. Political foolishness just won't allow it.

[@davidkavanagh189]

One of the requirements is size and 4 engines. That limits it to 747 or A380 so at least a 50% chance it'd be a 748 anyway.

[@richardshiggins704]

Strategically placed upgraded and state of the art drones should be aloft and possibly would be less expensive to produce and maintain .

[@davidkavanagh189]

The whole point of the aircraft is the capability to operate independently without ground support. How on Earth would a ground-controlled drone fill that brief?

[@t.l.robinson2162]

SNC is going to fail, miserably.

[@stephenbritton9297]

Should have been replaced years ago. Now we'll be paying for the upkeep of dinosaurs for the next 12 years before these come on line. Nothing new for the AF. look at the tanker fleet and all the other important planes based on the 707/C135 platforms...

[@grandnagus5851]

Too scared to buy / use A380s? So many of them almost free on the used airframe market.

[@ricahrdb]

Getting B747's might be cheaper because so many were built and parts are much easier to get. A380's are much less common and may have been a bit too big.

[@grandnagus5851]

@@ricahrdb The program uses 747-8 and there have been 155 of those. A380s number at 251 delivered, granted some have been scrapped already, but still the produced numbers of the respective variants taken into account, there are more A380s than 747-8s. Add to that how many airlines have stopped using their A380s, not gonna go into why, just the fact that they have done so. I would think there could be a deal made that favors everyone involved by using the A380, but who am i to argue :)

[@michaelmcnally2331]

I did hear that the USAF actually wanted A380’s however turned down for political reasons, as in wasn’t american. The air force wanted the extra space in the airframe etc. There are limited airplanes of the size required so effectively 747 or nothing.

[@johnp139]

@@michaelmcnally2331it’s the law.

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@grandnagus5851 All things being close to equal, they will choose US-built and serviced kit for major roles simply to have more guarantee of control over its servicing a parts going decades into the future. They do occasionally select foreign designs/parts/upgrades for some roles but in those cases it's usually because the foreign offer was far more capable, and even then, they tend to insist on licence producing it in the US. The new engines for the B52s are a good example of that.

[@GeneralHawk505]

Boeing made the mistake when they killed off the 747 a while back.

[@barron204]

So there will be $3 billion spent on computers and tech for each plane? Also remember when people were saying that a Doomsday plane dropped the bomb on Tonga in 2022? Got to add some large cargo doors to the underside of each plane for the next event.../s.

[@firewalkerjon]

Retrofitting old 747s? No imagination.

[@PavlosPapageorgiou]

They're out of production, but there are many lightly used 747s that could be adapted. Airbus equally doesn't make any more A380s or A340s. Ironically the only four engine aircraft you could get new is the IL-76 that Russia is putting back in production out of necessity.

[@TheWizardGamez]

alternative, retrofit or modify a couple triple 7s. idk. the 747 has a massive carrying capacity which is why it was chosen. and given that the aerial refueling tech(physics) is already known it seems like it would be cheaper. but alternatively they could also use a a350. but again. carrying capacity.

[@johnp139]

It’s a matter of economics.

[@kurlis]

Couldn't an A350-1000 able to do the job, do they really need 2 floors?

[@PasleyAviationPhotography]

They want a four engine aircraft for the same reason they did for AF1, survivability. Besides that, the A350 doesn't have the range of a 747 and it's a better look to not use a foreign aircraft.

[@dudefjdfkhllkj]

They would never use a foreign aircraft for such a high profile project, even from NATO suppliers

[@jamesmasters4255]

Probably a few spare 747-8 cargos laying about to be retrofitted

[@sierragutenberg]

@@PasleyAviationPhotography Using a foreign aircraft isn't always bad. After all, having the door saying goodbye to a Doomsday plane mid air wouldn't be a nice situation to be in...

[@PavlosPapageorgiou]

All big planes have two floors. The lower floor is normally full of cargo, but for a special purpose plane like this it could be available for use. Indeed you can see the 747 extending an air stair from its lower floor in the video.

[@Kepler-22b-k1w]

They could just buy the a350-1000 or 777x but NO we only need for engine plane reason unknown

[@EpicThe112]

You will run across this issue with them electrical load and over water endurance

[@johnp139]

WHAT??? Speak English!!!

[@WChocoleta]

Hope that the new Doomsday 747 doesn't have doors that blow out.

[@Hot1765]

With the technology we have now a days make it a 787 or A350 yes I said Airbus both are long range planes well built, the 787 should have been the new tanker not that stupid 767