Replacing Air Force 2 Will Be a HUGE Challenge. Here’s Why...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- Why Boeing hasn't re-engined the 757: • Why Hasn't Boeing Re-E...
If you enjoy these videos and want to help me make more, please consider joining our Patreon:
/ cobyexplanes
Can't get enough Coby Explanes? Follow me on Instagram for even more great aviation content! / cobyexplanes
Thanks so much to my "First Class" patrons Vicky Bagwalla, Dnesscarkey, and EliAviator. To learn more about Vicky's company Cloud Managed Networks, Dnesscarkey's Anti Spam Wordpress Plugin, & Eli's Aviation Channel, check out the links below!
Cloud Managed: cloudmanaged.ca/
EliAviation: / elielsenable
WP Armour Anti Spam Wordpress Plugin: dineshkarki.com.np/
Thanks so much to my videographer friends for generously providing excellent B-roll for this video. Go check out and subscribe to their channels for more A+ plane spotting content
@FRAproductions
@miraviation
@brunomars
@PlanesWeekly
__________________________________________________________________________________
In just a few days time, the United States Government will undergo a transfer of power. During this handoff, a new cabinet will be seated, a new congress will get to work, and most importantly a new president will be sworn in. But while these governmental transformations happen fairly frequently, a few symbols of American democracy always endure the shifting landscape. The presidential fleet of aircraft is one of them - with Air Force One now set to serve its 6th presidential administration.
But Air Force One is aging, and come 2024, a new set of aircraft will take its place. But what about the Vice President’s plane - Air Force Two? It’s also aging, but there aren’t any plans in place to modernize it. So when will it be replaced, and what plane will ultimately be picked to continue flying America’s second in command? Let me explain...
#Airforceone #airforcetwo #airforce 
Авто/Мото
Ok ok ok yes, I misfired a bit here. If Joe Biden flew on a commercial aircraft, it would be called “executive one”. If he flew on a marine jet (or helicopter) that aircraft would be “Marine One” - the term Air Force One is actually reserved only for Air Force operated aircraft.
Thanks for calling me out - I’m here to educate so whenever I mess up I encourage you guys to correct me :)
We forgive you
Saw this mistake too. Good video otherwise
Appreciate that you own up to your mistakes
Fantastic
I learnt a lot from you, so don’t sweat it
Private aircraft carrying them would be "Executive one" and Executive two", since they aren't operated by the you know... Air Force.
Big oof when I heard that lol. Also depends on the branch that operates the aircraft the president or VP is on, ie Navy one, Marine one, Army one, coast guard one, or SPACE FORCE one.
I was going to jump all over that too, but now I don't have to...thanks..lol
This guy really showed his ignorance with that, the idea that an aircraft operated by someone other than the USAF would have an Air Force call sign.
Came here to comment this. This is the kind of mistake that almost requires him to take down the video and fix.
Excellent point Ally, but the comments after your correction are not very helpful, only rude. Why tear the guy down doing what he obviously loves to do. Stop being so negative and send him a message so he can edit the video? Just a suggestion.
Air Force 2 (757): I can do fast decent rate
737 Max: hold my beer
😂😂😂
I'm going to hell for laughing at that
@@BrowncoatInABox Me too...Me too
You meant descent right?
@@arvindjijiantony4882 close enough
Dude,Just use a 787.It’s a modern,efficient plane that has long range,power and can land on shorter runways. It’s a perfect fit.
I was going to say the same thing. Go with the short 787 with max range. That would be perfect.
@@acars9999 Yep !!! 787 8
Or you could go with a 777-300ER bigger plane and even longer range
777X
@@randolphcabral that could be AF1 and AF2 is a 777-300ER
787 is amazing on short fields. Has super long range and high capacity.
The 787 has terrible short field performance
@@CobaltSkies Are you sure? Search for "787 short field performance" on youtube and you'll find some impressive braking action
@@nados3258 I am very sure, I have it's documentation in front of me, it's short field performance is horrific compared with other types such as the 75/67 and even A330
@@CobaltSkies no one asked you
@@georgemarch2094 many people ask me daily.
“ I will call it Air Force One for simplicity” proceeds to immediately call in VC25-A
I remember when I was flying my Cessna 172 that the Boeing 757 had its own wake turbulence classification. A real Hot Rod.
Yes, it's the only narrow body jet that is classified as a heavy because of that wake turbulence. There were a couple of accidents because small planes were too close behind a 757.
All the airline pilots LOVED that two winded HOTROD!
@@shrimpflea ah ah ahhh, don’t forget the speediest of Speedbirds ;) Concorde was a heavy too ☺️
757 was, and still is a marvel. Would have loved to see it updated.
@@noahwilliams8918 That right, I forgot...RIP Concorde.
As a passenger the 757 was always a favourite. With that phenomenal acceleration, take off angle and climb rate nothing has come close since, Truly a homesick angel.
I think it’ll be a while too. Almost 0 major airlines fly the 747-200 but many major airlines fly the 757 still. If they 757 is still in major commercial use then we’ll still have plenty of spare parts for maintenance.
Just as long as the air frame does not max out on the hours.
@@andypeterson8013 the government has the money to fix airframes
I forgot about the 797. They could wait right till it comes out cause there not that desperate for a new aircraft.
As my personal airplane, i would pick a 787-10. That plane is so beautiful, silent and elegant.
Requires relatively long runways
Is that made in Boeing's South Carolina plant?
I'd say the 787-8, it's perfect in my opinion
It’s made in South Carolina so it may just fall out of the sky out of sheer incompetence
@@MrJimheeren Well yes, there is that 😆
It would be awesome if they just used the c17 globemaster. It's got good stol capability and if needed could be assisted by rato pods. If an airport is too expensive to land at or the runway is too short, they could just air drop the presidential limo, with all needed staff already in the vehicle.
That production line has been shutdown for over a decade.
The C-17 doesn't have any attachment points for JATO rocket bottles, and the presidential limo is not designed for air drop delivery.Also, that vehicle is just too long, and too heavy for the standard air drop pallets.
Another thing, if you have the crew, or staff inside any vehicle being air dropped, the shock of the pallet hitting the ground, will most likely either severely injure, or kill them, which is why vehicles are air dropped without anybody inside.
@@johnosbourn4312I think they meant the airdrop thing as a joke. Really funny to imagine a sitting US president hanging on to the limo's grab handles for dear life
Hey, Coby, the KC-135 is not a modified 707, instead, it's known to Boeing as the Model-717, which is shorter, and narrower than the 707, also, the CFM-56(DOD Designation: F108CF-100) reengining was conducted in the mid 80's, not the 2000's. That was when the USAF put those same engines on their RC-135 fleet.
Yes, you are correct. I flew in KC-135's 1989-1993
The Air Force One callsign only applies to USAF aircraft - its Navy One, Marine One, Army One etc for other services. For a civilian aircraft to use Air Force One as a callsign it would have to be a charter by the USAF.
Civilian aircraft carrying the President use the callsign "Executive One" although this has only been used once ever. In 1973, Richard Nixon, in a show of support for the airlines during the energy crisis, flew aboard a United Airlines DC-10 from IAD to LAX
@@JBS319 Given that they chose to put him on a DC-10... Did United Airlines try to kill Nixon? xD
SPACE FORCE 1
Diaper-One
@@ZiggyMercury May or may not have forgotten a few cargo door latches
The Pan Am plane you show while talking about the B707 is actually a DC-8.
oof
ooops
8:32. Totally!
Great eye!
Caught this too!
I flew the 757 for years it is a real hot rod I loved it It does everything you could want and well
Is it the one that test pilot Tex did a loop in while first showing it off?
@@211212112 that was the dash 80 precursor to the 707
@7:03 Behind the engines under the wing are the 2 IRCM (Infrared Counter Measure) Jammers - for Air to Air or Ground to Air Missile Defense.
Simply buy the 787 to replace the 757s
The only issue is that the 787 needs more runway t land and a major use of Air Force 2 is to fly to airports to small for Air Force 1
thats what i thought he could use but he could use a 777 or a 767
Not even the same type of aircraft
737 BBJ would do the trick, that’s what the RAAF use for the Australian Prime Minister. Can fly Sydney to Honolulu direct or trans-Atlantic.
Only issue is much smaller cabin than the 757 so would have limited room for media. RAAF are now starting to use their KC-30 Refueller (A330) for some long haul flights when they need to carry a lot of media. They also use smaller biz jets (Falcon 7X) to get into the shorter regional airfields.
A mixed fleet like this is probably the answer though rather than finding one aircraft that can do everything.
I agree simply contract to use the most powerful variant of the GEnx engines. I believe this is the GEnx-1B78/P2.
They could be looking at the 787 8 as well allthough it would require some longer runways to use.
787 can do short field, 6500ft depending on conditions if it can do 6500 I'm sure u can sneak it into 5,000ft but the vc-40 (737-7) is usually the last resort for short fields or muliti stop scenarios
@@cdocker3070 it’s really cool to imagine that a 787 could possibly operate from a 5,000ft runway!
@@nickybyrne9790 there is a video on you tube where it did land at a wrong airport more than once and runways were around 6500ft total, shave the weight and you can do it
don't need a widebody for this type of mission and not cost effective
757 Production line in WICHITA KANSAS shut down and scraped a LONG time ago. 787 Production is now in that Factory area that was 757 (and 737 classic) in WICHITA. (Boeing Wichita sold out to Spirit Aerosystems)
The only limiting factor for the 757 is the airframe life...plenty of engines and parts are out there in the storage. The 757 is a sturdy beast and has an amazingly advanced wing design that makes it a great VIP jet. BA liked operating it as it was as profitable to operate over 100 miles as it was over 1000. They'll wind up refreshing the fleet only because they fulfil their mission so well. Like high tech, high efficiency 707 I guess - the plane it replaced at the end of the 70's on US domestic routes.
Not being in daily commercial use, these airframes have far fewer pressure cycles on them. So, they likely still have lots of life left in them. But, if necessary, the 757 can probably be replaced with the 737s they already have for 90% or more of the trips the 75s make. They can certainly cut down on the amount of people they drag along (the press does not need to fly with the pres/vp, or just bring a pool reporter or two).
Well this is why Boeing needs to build their NMA soon.
Why not use the 767 instead. It is still in production, the Air Force will still have plenty of spares since they fly it as the KC 46.
@@erskineagard4060 good idea, still has somewhat weak engine to weight ratio, lots of runway needed, it’s a just a smaller 74.
@@Rc2Go yeah I think the Boeing 787-9 will probably replace the 757 because the us government WILL never buy a non American presidential aircraft because Boeing would Bit@h about if for years
what’s nma
@@aregularperson7573 787-8 would make more sence... I know what you mean though
The 787-8 would be a perfect replacement, somewhat larger (twin aisle in airline configuration) and much better range.
The 777-8 seems like an excellent replacement given that it will have a significantly greater range.
If I were a head of state somewhere, I'd pick the 747SP without a second of hesitation. Such a neat plane and also surprisingly versatile.
Another example of needing short field performance from Air Force 2: Mike Pence spent Christmas in Vail, CO this year. Short Runway (9,000ft) + High Altitude (6,547ft). Good luck getting a 747 in there, or even a 787.
That's becuase his mommy is so fat!
VP Kamala Harris will be warm in sunny LA....falalalala lalalala
That's where the vc-40(737-7) comes in
@@cdocker3070 For that matter, they also have some C-37As (Gulfstream Vs) available as well... which IMHO is probably more appropriate for that kind of personal travel.
@@DavidCiani right those Gulfstreams are getting old as well all branches have them even Homeland security i.e coast guard, border patrol etc....I'm sure the mil will stick with American made aircraft that's why I say they could just find that the 767-200 or even max 10 could replace the 757s but more or less the 762 being that they (USAF) are already committed to that airframe
Well if Boeing don't go ahead with B797(or B767x), i think AF2 should go with B787-8.
+1 to 787
I think a 737 MAX is a good replacement for Airforce 2
It's going to be a compromise one way or the other. 788 has the legs and is a wide body, but a longer take off/landing roll limiting the airfield selection; the 737 MAX 10 has better airfield selection but short legs without being fitted with air refueling equipment and/or additional fuel tanks (internal or external). If it wasn't for the fact it was basically only produced with 37 examples, I'd say the 767-400ER would've been the best fit; but it was dropped from the pricing sheets in 2013 due to the lack of demand.
Airbus shortened the 220 to the 218 to solve the trust problem Boeing once did it with the 747SP
A 787S / A737S with airrefueling capacities would solve the range problem.
@@spyderf16 The 737 also can't handle crosswinds as well as the 757 can. The airport at St Helena for example has a 6300' runway which is ok for a 737 but the crosswinds make it not viable. A Titan Airlines 757 has landed there several times however without incident. The 757 is this eras DC-3 where the only replacement for a 757 is another 757.
I mean Algeria does also use the IL-76 (which I saw) as a military aircraft. Fun fact: On the finals of the AFCON 2019 the Algerian Military got some IL-76s and took people to Cario for FREE meaning if you were there you could go on a soviet Military plane for free
A321 NEO XLR would be a good candidate for airforce 2
But Americans feel un-patriotic if a European made plane come as a replacement. Their arrogance comes first before logic.
@@RamakrishnanSRM You're going to have to explane how that is arrogance? LOGIC would dictate to use a 787-8....not an aircraft produced on another continent.
@@davidcole333 logic would be selecting the best airplane for the job, aka the a321 neo XLR, regardless of where it was made, so long as it is not an adversary. But these things will always be driven more by patriotism than logic, and that's fine.
@@RamakrishnanSRM I mean the Air Force actually considered the a380 as a replacement for air force 1, however Airbus said building a new a380 facility in the US for only 3 planes won't make much sense
A "hotrodded" 757 would surely be my pick.
I love the stance prior to beginning it's roll & the AOA & climb capabilities.
They would probably choose a 767 because it has longer range
757 and 767 are no longer produced, the only obvious choice is a 737-Max8
@@bob80q the 767 is at or near the end of it's run. May have just ended it's production run.
@@mikeherbst1825 the freighter version is still being produced along with the KC-46 for USAF, airline versions ceased being made around 2013. And again you don't need a widebody for the mission the C-32 performs.
For the 787 people. Keep in mind, you still need 8500’ of runway for one of those. Best solution is to acquire a low cycle 757. I don’t think AF2 is doing as many cycles as an airliner (this is why the AF is still able to fly stuff like 707s) theoretically the airforce could keep these for a very very long time.
Thanks for the info. I was wondering why he the 787 wasn't more prominent here.
The problem is that all low cycle 757s is that they are mostly 757-300. A solution could be a 737max 7 as it can land at small airports and it has 3,800nm range. Remember that they could just go for the a321neo as the Air Force did consider a380s to replace the existing Air Force One.
The 787 in VIP configuration will not need very much runway, as it is well below it’s maximum takeoff weight.
Perhaps they can get Trumps 757 at a bargain as he might need money
Martin S. They would probably get a United, Delta, or American 757-200 as they all are being retired where as Trump’s 757 doesn’t have a retirement plan.
Okay, but can we just agree that the 757 is one of, if not the most beautiful plane out there?
Yeah, its a great plane
I think the easiest solution would be a 787-8, but with the GEnx from the 787-10 to give it better short-field and climb performance.
Nothing beats the 747 for style and presence!!! Long live the queen of the skies!!!
A220. I like Boeing better but bombardier / now airbus made a great jet.
@@Rc2Go Totally different, A220s are great but they're small, narrow body jets.
An A380 though, definitely beats out the 747 in both style and presence.
@Jay F Yes indeed.
@@seventh-hydra I don't nessesercaly agree, i don't like the a380s design personally I love the 747
@@Joa_sss Yeah that's fair. I mean it's a taste thing. Personally, I like Boeing a lot more than Airbus, but I loved the A380's more streamlined hull and centered cockpit. The 747 looks awkward and clunky by comparison in my eyes.
The lavish interior styling for first class from carriers like Etihad is really where it's at, though.
You can’t replace a 757
yes
@@PhoenixAviation006 Agreed. If this works, I would imagine many airlines will knocking on Boeing's door for 757neo, 757x, 757max whatever name they want to call
@@bobchan1666 yes....but no 757MAX looking at the 737MAX lol
@@bobchan1666 neo is a category for Airbus
@@bobchan1666 757Plus or Ultra
I've been looking at the 737 specs on wiki, it seems that the smallest variant (737 Max 7) has similar performance to the 757-200 (the basis for Air Force 2) but it also seems to have about 25% less cabin space than the 757. I suppose the 737Max7 could be a viable replacement if compromising on cabin space would be an option.
I was thinking that too. Especially with modern technology, you could require less staff and less space to do the same work.
Follow up. MCAS was needed to move the engines forward, and up to fit the new engines. This would be an inexpensive way to solve the problem of adding greater thrust and efficiency to the aircraft.
Dude how do you come up with such creative topics - your videos are always the most unique of all of aviation RUclips
He's still a virgin duh
He's smart has a great voice and doesn't hurt that he's hot. Well he is.
Going should have come up with a 757 replacement a long time ago, Airbus has a lead in this particular market
Or at least modernize it while they still had the production line.
The 757 is my second favorite airliner of all time behind the queen, so I'm happy if they keep both of them.
If anyone has ever flown on a 757 out of KSNA, that is about as much fun as one can have as a passenger on an airliner. KSNA has many wealthy people living under the runway and the noise abatement procedures dictate an extremely steep climb out which equals lots of fun.
i know it's a much smaller piece by comparison but i'd love an a318 to myself :] they are so cute i love them
@CobyExplanes , if all cards were put on the table, I think the B787-8 or 9 would be a good fit for "AF2" due to the range in comparison to the 757's. (13.6K Kilometers & 14.1K Kilometers Vs 10.4K Kilometers)
Maybe the only factor that would make it not suitable is the ability to land on shorter runways. But this is my two cents as an AvGeek and not as a pilot or any one in the Aviation industry.
Should work. Sleek, the latest American model, a great plane to "fly the flag." If the VP is going into an especially small airport, let them borrow a C-137A from a service chief. Have the 787 fly in lightly loaded without the VP on board, just push the safety limits, so the special comm facilities are available while on the ground in a foreign country.
@@donjones4719 Good point. Though aren’t the “Stratoliners” (C-137A) out of service? Unless you meant something different, but those B707’s are sitting in some museum in WA.
@@JeremyKabaya An oddly confusing typo. I meant to type C-37A, the service version of the Gulfstream V. I think VP could get along with the same comm systems as one of the Joint Chiefs for the duration of the flight.
More amusing confusion: When I saw Stratoliner the image of a 4 engine piston aircraft popped into my head, the Boeing 307 from 1940, lol. I never knew the C-137s were called that.
@@donjones4719 Ah, Yes. Indeed the Gulfstream V & G550 are also capable jets. And the ones that the 89th Airlift Wing and 99th Squadron have pretty much have a long lease of life on them, cause they were delivered last year.
an Airbus would be great
Can they hunt for the 797 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You are funny and smart I’m glad to see people at your age group that have knowledge
A 787-8 or -9 in the Air Force 2 colour scheme would be beautiful, and it seems like the most relevant fit
Since my favorite jet is the B757, I gotta go with AF2. I mean...who doesn't want an overpowered jet at their disposal?
And a narrow body that's had a "heavy" designation? Sign me up.
Yes agreed
So, a quick note: Civilian aircraft aren't given military callsigns, and the callsigns for POTUS and VPOTUS are [Service Name] One or Two, respectively. When flying in a Marine helicopter, it's Marine 1/2, when boarding even a Navy ship, it becomes Navy 1/2. I am also fairly certain that as the Commander in Chief, POTUS isn't allowed to fly civilian aircraft, which is why the current POTUS, who owns a 757 he actually likes better, doesn't use his own transport.
Also, while the two VC-25As are almost exclusively used by POTUS as Air Force 1, the four VC-32As are used by the Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs for numerous diplomatic and administrative functions, including, as you mention, descent into hostile or unsecured territory. In addition, there are also two more VC-32Bs which have added capabilities mostly to extend their range, are also available.
At timestamp 1:45.
I believe Nixon flew commercial a few times as a publicity stunt. They used the call sign “executive one”.
@@wccborn Also, Al Gore flew on a US Airways flight from NY to DC in 2000 to quickly return to the Capitol to cast a tie breaking vote in the House if needed. That Flight had the callsign Executive 2.
P or VP flying commercial would be call signed Executive 1 and Executive 2 respectively
Is receiving 23 billion dollars from gouvernmental contracts still considered as partnership or just milking the cow?
it's called "supporting local struggling bussines"
Yeah, unfortunately Europeans know that too well. Guess who paid most of the dieselgate penalty indirectly...
@@jakobtob7350 you are right. It's European term for corruption .
It depends what it was spent on. If they're purchasing aircraft for that, then it's a sale, same as any other. Unfortunately, they also use that money to "research" new technologies. At which point it become government aid, which is why the Europeans get all pissy about the relationship between the US Gorvernment and Boeing, who in turn complain about zero interest loans from European governments to AIrbus.
Funnily, Boeing bitching to the US government about "unfair" loans to Bombardier pushed the C-Series into the arms of Airbus, making Airbus now a major player in the regional market, which Boeing then decided to skip out on when they withdrew from their agreement with Embraer
There was actually a study back a few years ago, I think in 2017 or so, that looked at replacing the C-32, the E-4B, and the E-6B with a single new platform, since they would share a lot of the same requirements. While the USAF and the Navy have started to develop requirements for the E-6B Replacement, there's still nothing that blocks them from using a single platform. As for which aircraft, I'm thinking it would either be a (new) version of the KC-46A, or maybe Airbus may finally break into the US Military Aircraft Market, with presumably the A321neo.
I worked for The Boeing Company for 21 years retiring in Dec 2017. My title, national and international contracts and Supplier Management Everett WA. I worked on all the Boeing platforms major Components. From main engines to APU’s. My first “Package” purchasing all but two doors and for the 747-400. I owned all the rest. owned all the rest, Cargo doors forward and aft, the SUD door in the upper cabin,,, SUD, for Stretched Upper Deck on the 747-400. I also was a player for negotiating contracts for 737NG, 747-400 and -800, 757, 767, 777 and 777x, 787-you name it. With all that I’m very confident to my choice, 747-400 and the 747X. With out a doubt the 747 was the best hands down! Other variants 747-200, 747-400, 747-500 and 747-600.. ok you caught me. Boeing never built the -500 or -600. That said I was involved researching these platforms for performance. Again no doubt the 747-400 and -800 rocks!
Awesome!!
8:28 _Shows DC-8_
That's what I thought but I wasn't sure
757 is my favourite commercial aviation plane, its painful to see them being retired as they are reaching their end years. I would love the idea of those Air Forece 2 getting new engines so we still had them flying some extra years. Mirroring other comments I thought about 787 but it seems to me like a much more expensive plane for the needs that 757s is covering now.
Hi, Cody. White House reporter here. If POTUS or VPOTUS flew on a commercial plane it would be “Executive One” or “Executive Two.”
“Air Force One/Two” is any *Air Force* plane with POTUS/VPOTUS on board. The same goes for other services, e.g. Marine One/Two, Coast Guard Two (used by then-VP Biden in 2009) and Navy One (during GW Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” trip to the USS Abraham Lincoln)
When President Nixon flew a United flight from IAD to LAX, the call sign was Executive One; just like if he flies a Navy Jet he is on Navy One; or why the helicopter is Marine One.
Watergate One
Would they consider the 787-8? Granted it would definitely be a bit overkill for the needs, cost wise how would it compare to a re-engine program ?
The 787-8 needs minimum of 8,500 feet of runway for rake-off at MTOW and for landing it needs 5,700 feet. The 757 needs 6,700 for take off at MTOW and needs 4,700 feet for landing. It might be too much for their requirements.
Why overkill, their flying a 747 taking one person around the world.now thats over overkill.
@@swedishkev 🤔🤔 A very valid point
787 is only small percentage US made. Majority is made in Japan and Italy. Only the front "41" section (Wichita Kansas) and Engines (Ohio) are made in USA. Final Assembly of Foreign parts is in Charleston SC.
THE BOOM OVERTURE, DARLING!!
What would the runway requirement be for a 787-8 with an engine trust of 76,000 lbf (the same as the 787-10) instead of the standard 64,000 lbf? Could this be an Air Force 2 replacement?
I was thinking the same thing!
Probably not because the larger engines would kill the range. Also, even the cfl leap 1b was a major issue, imagine putting a Trent 1000 under the wing. They have too much trouble doing that
@@OwenTunstill He wasnt talking about equipping a B757 with the Trent 1000, he was talking about buying B787s. I was thinking of the same.
The 787-8 in standard config has 2600m takeoff run, vs 2070 for the B757. The VC32A's are probably a lot less loaded than a commercial B757, and with the near double capacity of the B787, it could probably achieve some very short takeoff runs, especially if it was fitted with the engine of the B787-10.
@@okaldhol what if they just shortened the 787-8 to the same length as the 757?
@@OwenTunstill Shortening the 787 could be a good option if they were going to produce many of them as a middle of the market passenger plane, however if they only need two, than it might be easier to just pick a more powerful variant of the same type of engine as the one that is standard for the plane.
They could re-engine it but it wouldn't solve the problem of the age of the airframe. The airframe is 22 years old and an aircraft can only be pressurised and de-pressurised so many times. Anyway great video.
The number of pressurization cycles is probably quite low. It's probably closer to a military aircraft which spend most of its time sitting on the tarmac rather than a civilian aircraft used by an airline and which must in the air basically as much as possible.
Icelandair have many 30+ 757's and their cycle is quite lower than most out there
@@kakwa I suppose so
Nice job, except that the "707" at 8:29 is actually a DC-8.
Hi, Coby Explanes! Thanks for the interesting and inspiring video!
Unlike the KC-135, which has over hundreds, and B-52, which has over 50 in the Air Force, there are only four C-32 (the B757 can be used as "Air Force Two"). I think the number is too small for a re-engine program. It seems using a B787 is more economical feasible. But, a design flaw on the composite structure was picked up recently. Thus, I think no engineer would dare to pledge the B787, which is 80% composite by volume, is reliable for military use until many years later.
Most probably, the new government might try cut to military budget. So, whether employing B787s or re-engine program, I do not foresee them to happen in the near future.
Also, no one in know calls that plane Air Force Two, it’s SAM.
My personal fleet would have a A350-1000 and a A220-300. I love both planes. They are so elegant and quiet.
A great effort Coby, thank you
Hi Coby! Love your series. Why can’t they just use a 787? It’s fuel efficient and modern.
use B-52 they have been flying for almost 70 years
Slight problem: the B-52 is a *bomber*
@@NaenaeGaming yes i know but in video they were going on about the age of the aircraft. Anyway take out the bomb racks and add seats
@@andyc3088 To turn a B-52 into a VIP Transport, you’d likely end up having to completely replace the fuselage like what the soviets did when creating the TU-114 out of the TU-95. Better off using a pre-existing passenger aircraft
@@NaenaeGaming you're right, they wouldn't get their ego on a B52 lol
@@andyc3088 I don't know why, but I'm just imagining the scenario of making a capsule fitted to the racks in the B-52 that would just drop the VP via CCRP (with parachute, of course) into a venue. That'd be fun and quick.
USAF has considered the 767. They already have a militarized version in use as a tanker KC-46
Ah the KC-46 the tanker Boeing would built because the pentagon was going to buy A330 tankers. Which in the end cost the pentagon more money for worse aircraft. American engineering at his finest
The KC-46 boondoggle clusterf*ck mess? That one? Boeing grifted the contract courtesy of their paid up Senators. And still screwed it up.
@@MrJimheeren get over it. They are working out the issues. As a passenger plane, the 767 is a proven commonity.
@@rogerd777 get over it? It’s not my money they have been wasting. I’m just laughing from afar
@@MrJimheeren Well then get over it. It's not the first plane to have problems and it's not going to be the last. Who gives a shit.
The mission specs are different for both aircraft. I’d say that there’s little need to replace the C-32A, as the airframes for all 4 examples are still fairly young in terms of pressurization cycles. The aircraft is still reasonably efficient, and it really doesn’t make sense to replace the aircraft now, or for the foreseeable future.
Germany just started Last week with using their newest plane for the government: a Brand new A350 in Private Business Design. Over the next 2 years they will receive 2 More.
I would pick the modified 757 ALL DAY. I have never flown on it, or a 747, but I'm pretty sure that it would feel like a true commercial-sized sports plane 🙂😎
You should fly on both before you no longer can. 752 is a ROCKET and one of my favorite planes. 753 is a unique bird, we call it the "stretch" at work since its like a limo. Also respect the Queen, fly the Queen.
757 is a great plane to fly on. I've flown on a 747 also but barely remember since I was maybe 4 years old at the time.
@@Vanessaira-Retro That's what I plan to do the next time I fly. I will not move my butt unless I can get on one of those hot rods 😂
I cant see a reason to replace that plane. Airforce One is beeing replaced because getting spare parts is hard. There should be no shortage of 757 parts anytime soon.
The only thing that really limits the life of an aircraft is the cycles the airframe has.
A commercial jet has way more cycles then a military/goverment aircraft
the US goverment 757's have are low cycle aircraft in comparison to the commercial sisters who are soon to be withdrawn from service.
It seems the only refit it needs is a new more modern interiour
@@obelic71 Yes. Considering the KC-135s will have a service life of 6 decades there's no reason the "Air Force 2" 757s can't fly for another 20 years easily. The airframe will be OK, the only problem will be the avionics and all the specialized comm systems, etc. I wonder if it will be possible for one to be taken out of service for a couple of years for a major upgrade. IIRC the U.S. has kept some Hueys in service for an absurd amount of time by having the manufacturer strip them down and virtually rebuild them. Ditto for the A-10 Warthog.
If the remaining "2" is down for routine maintenance the VP could borrow one of the other C-137Bs the Air Force operates. I'm sure it has fairly adequate comm systems, etc. Or even go slumming it in one of the many C-37As, the ones used by the various service heads and State Dept.
@@donjones4719 comunications in the air is no problem. their are also flying command posts, ECM and awac aircraft enough to provide that.
Ok it has not the luxury of a buissines jet interiour but it gets the job done.
the good old workhorse of several nato airforces the C130 eats short runways for a living. They can miss one while its systems are being modernised.
AWACS aircraft where also updated during the coldwar when they were needed the most.
@@donjones4719 you are really out of touch, the VC-137s were retired almost 20 years ago; you may have meant C-37 or C-40
Delta has a stockpile of 757 spares & maintenance products that could be called on if needed.
Just to quickly make a correction: the call sign is designated as (branch of armed forces) 1 or 2. Should a president choose to fly on civilian aircraft, the call sign is Citizen 1. Same with the Vice President. It is determined by operator of the craft.
Exactly, came here to say this. This is why the helicopters that land on the south lawn of the White House are Marine 1 when carrying the president and the Lockheed S-3 Viking that transported President Bush was Navy 1.
The C-32 has supplemental fuel tanks in the cargo area. That feature could be used to significantly increase the range of whatever plane they choose to replace the C-32.
A new congress will get to work - that's a stretch LOL
I would pick the 787
I would pick the A350, Boeing are garbage now
@@ant2312 Completely incorrect
Simple Solution: Use a 787-8 as the base. Air Force 2 does not have to be a narrow-body aircraft. Yes,... the cost would be be higher that, perhaps, an engine replacement for a 757. A 787-8 would be accepted, politically. Plus, the Power to Weight ratio might allow it to fly into airports with short runways. The relative increased cost amortized over a 25-30 life would likely be okay. Just saying...
Air Force could do what they did with Air Force One and buy newer B757’s that were built up to 2005!
A 15year old commercial jet will likely be in worse condition and have more cycles on it than AF2.
They could repurpose the C17 for sorter range flights as a VIP transport. They have several that were made in the last decade. The could repurpose the KC-46 for longer range flights. Also when the president flies commercial aircraft the call sign is "Executive 1".
C-17 was also my first thought.
Fascinating topic! Re-engine the 757 I say!
They would need to do more than re-engine it to keep it up to date for the next 30 years.
Re-engine the 787-8 with the most powerful GEnx variant
Me too!
Yeah, and the CFM56 re-engine program to create the KC-135R started in the 1980s...not the 2000s. I knew others would have already have brought up the DC-8 error and the KC-135 vs. 707 misconception. The CFM has probably been brought up among the 1,465 comments already posted but I'm not wasting my time looking for it.
Good points! I think that unless some new aircraft from Boeing comes along in the next few years it will most likely be a 787 Variant.
Ahhh Coby’s Back!
Always a pleasure to catch another Coby ExPlanes;-(He is such an incredible studmuffin)!
To any of you that would suggest an aircraft not from Boeing, its not gonna happen. You can't be a key leader in the American government and fly on a plane that is not the produce of an American company, its like a slap in the face to not support your country's own produce
tecnically, the A321 is an european plane but now Airbus Produces A321's and A321Neo's in the US
@@emf6866 i said that too, but now can be considered an American Plane (those fully made in Mobile)
Additional American aircraft manufacturers: Gulfstream (general dynamics) makes 19 passenger business jets. Cessna (not just single piston engine planes) makes 12 passenger business jets. Learjet which is now owned by Canadian company Bombardier, was founded by an American and makes business jets.
If the gov really needs long range and short runway capabilities they are looking at business jets in addition to passenger airliners
@@OwenValentine remember someting, they need a comm center inside the plane and the Learjet isn't an option for them, neither the gulfstream, the nearest replacement for the 757 C32B is another Boeing 757 or an A21NX
I would say, go with a 787-8. It's just a little bigger than the 757, while offering a more comfortable modern cabin for the VP. along with the crazy range of it. Boeing 787-8 requires a runway length of between 4,400ft - 5,000ft
11:00... definitely would choose the MD-11 😎 such a badass plane, I miss watching FedEx MD-11s land in my hometown as a kid.. 😊
Good luck finding a pilot to fly it. It’s a cool plane but it’s difficult to fly and one of the most difficult planes to land. Pilots really don’t like the MD-11 But I respect the choice.
My plane of choice would definitely be a 757!
If only Boeing would make a new 757, everyone would be happier
I know, right?
Boeing's problem and why they ended the programe was only 1050 were produced including the prototype over just over 20 years
I would chose the BAE 146 for my aircraft. Yes, I know it’s a regional aircraft, but the four engines are just so cool
Love it! And it would certainly get into and out of strips even a 757 couldn't manage. But of course it's not made by Boeing so would never be politically acceptable, even though it uses Lycoming engines.
The BAe 146 is now out of production. The most current airframes are twenty years old.
@@allangibson2408 So, no older than the 757. :)
But I guess, whatever the type, you'd want to find a low-mileage example. Nobody wants to repeat Aloha 243...
Is the replacement necessary to be exactly as large as the 757? If not, 737-8 or -7 could be used to get better takeoff and range than the -10
757 for me I feel the need, the need for speed.
I would be very happy with the 747-8s the United Emirates uses!!! Great and compelling video Coby!
I like 82% of this video. Keep up the good work!
But there acutally is an option, for the US Air Force to replace their C-32. It´s the Boeing 787-8. It also has a incredible short-field operating ability, and could fly in and out John Wayne Airport configured as a VIP-Aircraft without any problems. And its range as a BBJ is nearly unbeatable. Would love to see the Dreamliner in AirForceTwo Livery one day.
The Air Force is keeping B-52s from the 1950s flying. You periodically overhaul the engines to near-new specs. No need to re-engineer anything.
Yeah, but they knew how to properly _build_ shit back then! Everything now is planned obsolescence, built by the lowest bidder.
@@xheralt Wrong. The F-117-100 is old school tech that can take a lot of abuse. We'll be rebuilding them for the next 50 years.
@@adrianspeeder time will tell
I'd use Concorde! :')
Why not ,there’s a really bad TV movie where they use Concorde for the president and inside it’s like a 747 ? Must be a secret weapon that’s like the tardis in doctor who hehehehe
Concorde was a European built aircraft. US politicians would never allow one to be put into the fleet by then Air Force. Only US made aircraft are the only ones considered for the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Fleets.
Coby, what about the B787? It can be fitted with the technologies and get flying. It is big, but not 747 or 777 big.
I was with the 89th ALW at Andrews back in '97 (or was it ''98?,..sorry I've slept since then) when the 1st 757 AF2 (which I have been on btw) was delivered. God, how time has flown by since then.
This plane is fine. Does the job it’s supposed to. Plenty of parts. They can afford to wait for the 757 replacement in a decade.
A modified B1 bomber, 600 feet and super sonic speed would be a nice change of pace.
What about a Gulfstream G700? Huge increase in range, excellent short field capabilities, and unrivaled speed and trading off capacity/payload. Modern comms equipment saves weight so you can have nearly the same communication capabilities as AF1 which reduces your staff requirements.
The plane is too small. They domt want the vp rocking s buisness class jet.
Apparently replacement of the C-32A is now scheduled to happen no earlier than 2040. With the low number of flight cycles that this type is getting and with the availability of spare parts there is quite a bit of time to look for a good replacement. It wouldn't surprise me if it took quite a few years more than 2040.