Why was Boeing kicked out of the Doomsday Plane competition?! 

I subscribed 2 years consecutively 2022-24. Trying different things out.

You definitely get the contract for the best explanation of the president's doomsday aircraft in my opinion , you have the facts to back up your statements

Comac C929🐸

2:40 That was a creative way to say the word which I didnt have anticipated XD

Can I offer a subject for a consideration for a future video? The proposals for the Concorde successor The Aerospatiale ATSF/BAE Alliance. A series of SST proposals from the 1980s-90 that if built would have resulted in an SST with a 200-250 seating capacity.

Shit ... I was going to ...

@@Hans-gb4mv Hahaha🤪🤣

Should have been "Animal sourced fertilizer hitting the circular rotating bladed device"

Because with all that experience, they still can't figure out how much it costs to modify one? 😂 Oh yeah I forgot, all the capable engineers are gone. Maybe they'll modify it and have it fly right into the ocean... Then blame the pilots. Lol

​@@umadbraThings were changing and have been changing since the start of the project. They're engineers, not mind readers or miracle workers.

roger that

@@jeffhaggarty9879 sorry you never heard of the term extras on the job. Let me know when you grow up and we'll have a conversation.

You remember that Boeing moved to Chicago in order not to meet those engineers? @@jeffhaggarty9879

Heck, even if they don’t have options on the airframes, they probably expect to pick up subcontractor work, without the fixed price risk.

Boeing is notorious about not being able to deliver anything on time, and nowhere near a fixed price. Petter mentioned some examples too. You, as a company with a fixed price contract toward the state and bearing all the responsibility, would you subcontract them?

So Boeing lost the Project Sunrise Contest for Qantas. Rumor was that they offered the 777-200LR as a loaner, to be replaced by the 777X. They would then sell the 777-200LR as converted freighters to UPS or FEDEX. I guarantee Boeing would offer Lufthansa, Korean, or UPS good discounts on the 777X to sell their 747-8’s. SNC doesn’t have that same bargaining chip. So, they’re going to pay a premium or go 747-400.

I didn't consider your scenario, but I think you're right. Boeing knows what they're doing. :)

And likely warned current owners they will not look favourably on them in the future if they sell to someone else.

They have no 747’s to sell.

@@bigstick6332 They identified to the USAF they identified the planes. Maybe Boeing is looking to be a middle man in the sale of the planes from the current owners to the eventual contract winner.

@@cjmillsnun maybe but that’s not going to make them a lot of money.

​@@bigstick6332it would make them more money than the Air Force One deal

​@@bigstick6332 : Not _much_ money, but it certainly will be _easy_ money. They'll call up their accounting branch, pull out most of the seats, and very little else. Boeing's part in such a transaction might even be finished in a standard work-week.

A secondary APU might be installed as a backup to provide extra electrical power, but that would add to the weight of the aircraft and an expensive redesign of the airframe to accommodate the unit.

Nonsense. Apu will boost

Shame we don't have the L-1011 anymore. A repowered Tristar would have the redundancy, range, capacity and with 3 engines, sufficient electrical power.

​@@michaelplunkett8059 A missile strike to the center engine would cause loss of rudder, rear pressure bulkhead, or even the entire tail section. I doubt DoD would accept either trijet design due to this risk.

This is not a problem at all.

I can’t see a turbo prop working. This aircraft needs to keep up with the VC-25 and other jets. Plus the C-130 is super slow compared to a 747.

the reason why they chose to increase fleet size was probably be because USN chose to go with C-130, note that turboprop has never met the demand for Nightwatch/Looking Glass missions, unlike TACAMO which had traditionally been C-130s during the cold war up until 90s -> USAF E-4 = Nightwatch | USAF EC-135 = Looking Glass | USN EC-130 = TACAMO 90s-now -> USAF E-4 = Nightwatch | USN E-6 = Looking Glass + TACAMO future -> USAF SAOC = Nightwatch + Looking Glass | USN EC-130 = TACAMO

Aside from being ponderous and slow, the C--130 is not even remotely big enough to fill the roll required. The C-17 and C-5 are big enough, but not likely to successfully meet the certification process requirements. They will basically have to use a converted 747 just by the requirements laid out. Unfortunately they aren't being manufactured anymore, so used airframes are also in the mix. One also can't imagine the US Air Force procuring European made airframes, thus Airbus won't make the cut either. Just not going to happen.

that's what i was thinking. or maybe the Galaxy. Should be cheaper, isn't it?

Not gonna happen. See the USAF Tanker debacle - even if you win the competition, the US is not gonna let a European company supply a mainstay of its operations, even if that means buying an inferior aircraft years later than they wanted them.

Well, the USAF already has plenty of the latter. Thank god for the restraint.

The difference is that the KC135 has a service ceiling of 50,000+ feet (where all 4 engines are needed) whereas flight with two engines brings them down to pleb altitudes like 35,000 feet.

50,000 is officially confirmed but higher is likely possible. Biggest issues are pressure differential and reserve oxygen for crew (USAF mandates pressure suites above 50k)

And that's for an aircraft based on the Boeing 707.

Boeing is mature enough to know that one fake contract with fake national security clause can exclude them from international market, especially China. Why A380 went down the tube? I know the answer, do you?

the A340 is a crap plane. Also, did you listen to the video? They require an FAA civil certification of the platform which does not exist for an A340 equipped with LEAP engines. There is absolutely no way that Airbus and CFM would underwrite the certification of an A340 NEO for 10 airframes for the US DoD. It makes absolutely no sense.

@@charlottelanvin7095you’re saying absolute nonsense the A340 600 is an absolute beast of an aircraft pilots say that it’s too powerful sometimes lmao get your facts straight

What about US modified? Airbus has a big manufacturing plant in Alabama.

@@charlottelanvin7095why would you equip and A340 with LEAP engines. The A340-500/-600 have RR Trent 500 engines which are nearly twice as powerful as the CFM-56’s

I really hope this comment is sarcastic. The airbus A340 is literally one of the weakest airplanes in history. It takes almost an hour to even get to your cruising altitude because the engines are so weak. The engines were designed for the airbus a320. Of course with them being weaker, they thought adding 2 extra would help. While other aircrafts get to their cruising altitude in around 30 mins, the A340 takes 45 mins to over an hour depending on how heavy. If you were to take these statistics and add all the extra weight of what Air Force One needs, it could take 2 hours just to get to cruising altitude with all the extra special modifications. On top of that, the A340 has one of the most horrendous fuel Efficiency. The only good thing that comes from a A340 is the landing gear. I think it’s pretty cool and unique. But if we are talking about practicality, a CRJ-900 would be better than the A340. All joes aside, the A340 will never be picked for a category such as Air Force One.

It's not like the 747 line has been down for decades. They delivered the last one earlier this year and Boeing has been building 747s for half a century. I'm sure they've still got plenty of people around who know the 747 design and assembly process in great detail. Institutional knowledge certainly does erode over time, but not THAT fast.

Boeing said building the Air Force ones using existing planes ended up costing more due to disassembly and reassembly than purpose building them from scratch.

@@bullhornzz Indeed, but that wasn't due to loss of institutional knowledge of how to build the things. The line was still running when much of that work was done. I'm certainly not saying that the conversion won't have a lot of difficult work involved - it will - but rather just that loss of institutional knowledge shouldn't be too bad of an issue if they start work on this soon (granted, if it's 5 or 10 years down the road, that's another matter entirely.)

nate, your narrative totally cracked me up. the idea of the president being airdropped in a limo from a doomsday plane reminds me of dr. strangelove, but i'd guess that movie was well before your time. we might need to drop in tanks and paratroopers to help him get to wherever he would go in the limo.

@@billmcgahey1926 I haven't seen the movie. Nice to have a good laugh, but the President or VIP (and guests) would exit the limo and enter the pod after the door in the back of the plane closes. After that, they can even open the door again and back out the limo to reduce weight before takeoff. The pod is moveable, sliding on bearings and can be jettisoned, and parachute down. This would only likely happen if the airplane was hit, and not able to make a safe landing at a secure airport. All securing cables/chains can be released from within the pod. It would be protected against intense heat, impact of projectiles, and radiation, airtight/watertight and have its own air supply, and good filtration, after that runs out. It would also float just slightly, maybe 6-12" above the waterline. In a pinch, the pod could be put on any C-5 Galaxy, but with reduced capabilities (can't fly the plane from it). This might be useful if you are bringing in a VIP to a country at war.

@@billmcgahey1926 Having undergone MOPP (Anti-Contimination Warfare Apparrel) many, many times, I'd think not having to be exposed to radiation or biological agents would be a rather good idea instead of having to suit up, just to switch planes.

So why would they pick a turboprop over a jet?

@@KanyeTheGayFish69 the C-130 does a better job in that roll when on station. That is why.

In the UK it seems to work the other way, where a contract is given and a price agreed and then with continual changes and alterations to the original plan. The added costs of all the alterations blamed on the manufacturer and not the hapless government. Hence the demise of the UK Aircraft industry, as being to expensive!

Not to mention that the government pays when they get around to it -- leading to layoffs because the contractor doesn't have money to pay employees and then to production delays due to retraining both of perishable skills and because the best people found other jobs.

Too brutal.

He should have delayed construction for a year. The lack of urgency in getting the plans ready is a give away they weren't too concerned about the completion date. He should have had a clause stating he had the right to delay in the event the plans were late.

@@michaeledwards2251 You've apparently never worked for a government contractor. The government is 100% in charge and it doesn't matter how impossible or ridiculous their expectations, the contractor bears all the liability for everything and the government 0%

I'm pretty sure E-Systems/Raytheon/RTX people will be heavily involved in this project.

It’s not Raytheon anymore either… became L3 now L3/Harris. Nevertheless, if they’re not a player in this contract, it’s because they don’t want to be. Heck, they built the E-4’s. I’m sure they would be a good fit. I recall the original E-4 order was for 8 airplanes. Carter came into office and said something like, ‘We don’t need those things.’ It took E-Systems YEARS to get even 4 of them approved. So I’d bet L3/H is all over the bid. You just won’t hear anything about it. They learned their lesson… don’t talk about this kind of thing to ANYBODY you don’t have to, especially elected politicians, lol.

The facility in Greenville Tx is now L3Harris. Lifers at Greenville consider Raytheon’s management of the facility “the dark years” due to their mismanagement of the modification facility.

@@tlevans62it’s L3Harris in Greenville now. Raytheon sold the facility to L3Communication and got out of the rapid modification game. Serria Nevada Corp is bidding to be the primary contractor as they just built a new facility in Dayton Ohio, a stones throw from Write Patterson AFB, HQ Air Force Material Command.

Thanks. I was thinking there had to be overall EMP protection. Given a metallic airframe would presumably act pretty much like a Faraday cage, it would probably be the case that modern composites would definitely be off the menu. How were the cockpit windows protected? I wonder what magnitude of EMP is covered by design. Did they go into the size of warhead and altitude of the airburst designed to maximise the EMP?

And european.

Expensive isn't the issue. With airlines retiring A380s rapidly these days, they could probably get them quite cheaply, likely much cheaper than the 747-8, of which there aren't that many and which few, if any, existing operators are planning to retire. Modifying them to meet the Air Force's requirements and doing so without sharing some of the country's most highly-classified information with foreign entities is the much bigger problem. Also, 100% of the operators are not in the U.S. (or even in the Americas,) which adds more security issues with the acquisition. Also, while the A380 hull isn't nearly as composite-based as the 787 or A350, it's still made much more of composites than the 747, which makes it much more difficult to harden against EMPs. Using a fully-metal frame makes that job far easier.

@@vbscript2 Hmm, interesting thoughts. Composite planes, though, still have faraday cages built into the skin effectively, in the form of wire mesh for lightning conductivity, so I'm not so sure about the emp hardening problem. Also, my understanding isn't that they're being dumped by airlines, but rather that most airlines just didn't buy many, or even any. This is because in the time it took to design and certify it, almost all airlines had shifted focus from hub and spoke to point to point. The few exceptions are airlines in countries that only have one major airport, the key player being Emirates. They begged both Airbus and Boeing to keep making their super-heavies, and both are currently racing to complete stretched versions of their biggest wide-bodies to satisfy that demand. Until that happens, I believe they've been buying up any and all retired 380s to maintain and grow their fleet... Which I would assume would drive up their prices. As for security concerns, I'm not sure I follow. Technical specs are technical specs and while it may be nice to be able to consult with Airbus engineers in the modification process, there are many ways around that, from just trusting that the modifying company can figure it out to hiring former engineers who worked on it. Remember, _most_ of the top engineers who worked on the most top-secret project of all time were not only foreign, but came directly from our primary enemy. I doubt recruiting assets from _friends_ would be considered any more risky than that... As for security concerns in the planes themselves, no airliner has primary flight systems networked to any external comms in any way, to prevent hackers from causing enormous tragedies, so I don't see the issue there either. Which just leaves pride and a desire for "made in the USA" stickers. While I'm sure that would be an absolute deal-breaker for Air Force One, I'm less sure for non-diplomatic planes. Ah. But then I just though of a much more insurmountable problem: politics. No way would Congress approve the appropriation for such a thing from outside the country. Not enough pork involved, haha! So yeah... Probably not. Why not a large cargo plane though? Surely they're plenty big enough, and some have even more engines.

Their national pride wouldn't survive buying a foreign aircraft.

Emirates is nuts. That’s what too much money does to people. 😅

The US shooting themselves in the foot once again by not choosing the best, just so they can say it's made in america. I swear if the other superpowerbloc wasn't a bunch of murderous dictators.....

I bet that there'd be riots if that ever happens xD

Ah, there goes my dream of seeing an Airbus A400M Atlas in this role. 🙃

@@j_taylor A400M not fast enough. also not US produced.

Considering there are airworthy 737-200s and 727s out there. I don't think that's a big issue.

@@cjmillsnun The thing I don't think you realize is that the newer models of 747 can't be EM hardened to Air Force Standards , so they would have to take an existing 747-200 , which will be at least 32 years old , rebuild it and then keep parts and technical advice for the plane available for the next 40 years. The 747-200 has been out of production since 1991, and there are only 19 left, six of which are operated by the Air Force. I don't think Boeing wants to get locked into maintaining parts and training pilots Engineers and technicians for just six planes for the next 40 years. They want the Air Force to replace their 747-200s , not acquire another one.

Power could come from an APU, don't need a wing-mounted engine just for electricity.

The e-4 also keeps one or two engines running at all times when it's on the ground during operations

@@T_Mo271 Sure, but adding new APUs to an airframe isn't the easiest thing to do. They would need to be mounted in a place where they can both get air intake and have a place to expel their exhaust. Which means they need to be outside the pressure vessel. There's not a lot of unused space outside of the pressure vessel in a 747 (or virtually any other commercial airliner.) Easier to just use the main engines. If you didn't just use the main engines, you'd likely end up having to add pods under the wings for the new APUs anyway, which rather defeats the purpose of not just using the main engines and would require significant design costs.

Free range, naturally produced fertilizer hitting the bladed, mechanical air moving device.

Given the A380’s wing spar problems, I wouldn’t count on it.

There is exactly zero chance that Aribus is in this.

Plus, 380’s can’t even operate out of ‘normal’ airports. Sure, military bases ‘might’ work, but these things go lots more places than big air bases. Personally, I knew early on in the 380 program it would be a big bust. It has NO secondary market (the size thing again… it would be a decent freighter if it fit anywhere). It simply has zero operational flexibility. The 747 can pretty much go to ANY airport that will support its weight. With air re-fueling capability, it can operate light enough to go places you wouldn’t believe. I wouldn’t rule out Boeing building 8-10 more -800’s for something like this. As long as they don’t get into that goofy fixed bid world, who knows!? Disclaimer: I’m not a big Airbus fan. But I will admit, if the 380 was as monstrously successful as the 747, I’d love it. The 747 was a huge home run for Boeing, especially as an aftermarket freighter, flying billboard, delight to fly, passenger loving, President hauling American success story. It has outlived its economic usefulness in the passenger market but still has great value in others (as seen here).

what are those@@silaskuemmerle2505

How likely is it that the usaf would do a deal with a European company for a project such as this, when there is American contenders willing and able to do the job, I suspect they would be more inclined to keep it local where possible.

Hardly. Boeing has become absolute experts when it comes to ripping off the US govt while delivering an inferior product late, and over-budget.

The real problem is Boeing has mismanaged the both the Air Force One contract and the Air Force Tanker contract. FOD, errors, and non-responsiveness. Add on top of that, they originally lost the tanker contract to Airbus due to because of a corruption scandal, sued to get it back, then performed poorly once they got it back. Boeing used to perform on defense contracts but due to it’s current management, seems to not be able to get themselves together.

Nobody made Boeing operate at a loss; they managed that entirely on their own, by repeatedly failing at multiple programs over the last 10+ years.

@@bigd4366 Maybe. The government is notorious for introducing change after change after change. That gets expensive quickly. Don't know if that is what happened with AF1 or not. The tanker visual system has been a bottleneck from the start. Eyeballs worked just fine on KC-135s.

That's expected as newer tech makes sense to install on the go. ​@@dougball328

doesn't matter - it's the taxpayers' money, so it's unlimited, and spending doesn't need to have any regard for efficiency. There is zero accountability.

@@charlestoast4051 that’s not true at all. In fact, it’s the opposite. The reason Boeing withdrew was because of the requirement by law for the DoD to only sign fixed price contracts. That regulation was created by Congress to prevent projects from runaway costs and save the government money and improve efficiency. If money was unlimited and they didn’t care about efficiency, do you think they’d be flying 50 year old aircraft? Believe it or not, the budget is not unlimited and the U.S. military has a huge lists of financial obligations that don’t allow it to just blow money whenever and wherever it wants.

@@FlyByWire1 And that fixed price sequence is biting boeing in the rear big time on the new af-1's. They have to strip and gut the entire airframe and rebuild it almost from scratch. Their hindsight is 20-20, not going to do that again. Taking a -400 or 8i down this path is in the same boat, you have to take it all apart and put it back together again.

@ Wait.... Isn't this somewhat normal for aviation? I honestly don't know, but for some reason I recall there being a 5 year overhaul or something for commercial aircraft that basically strips them to the frame and rebuilds them.

@ yep and that’s the hardest part about fixed price contracts. There will always be unforeseen costs that will arise in the project, we can’t predict the future. So whoever wins the contract will either have to come up with a plan to prevent that or just take the loss as Boeing has on previous fixed price contacts.

It’s all about profits. Boeing won’t commit to FFP because it’s too risky for the contractor.

Profits 📈 before patriotic duty. It's just the capitalist way. 😅

There are not enough of the A340-500 in airworthy condition left. And, as mentioned in another comment, the is absolut zero chance than any non-US made aircraft will ever be used for the signature functions of the USAF, like e.g. AF1, the doomsday A/C or even the tanker fleet. Even if a foreign airframer would win the bidding process, there would be massive interference from congress, even if that would mean that the USAF would get an inferior solution. It has happened before, and it will happen again. To think that will ever change is downright delulu.

@@MattBlue I guess I figured the production run for the -500 and -600 was greater, having seen a few around here at IAD. As for the rest of your comments - Airbus won the tanker contract that beat out the KC-46 (as mentioned in this video) but Boeing cried foul, and with their massive lobbying power in various branches of govt, they got their way. To say it's impossible isn't true though. And as far as that notion ever changing being "delusional" - I'm sure the folks at Lockheed know a bit more about this stuff than you and I, they thought it would be worth it to bid with Airbus on the next tanker acquisition. Of course they pulled out, but Airbus is still in it (likely because the USAF is absolutely furious with the KC-46 acquisition process so far.) The MRTT is (and was) already flying, and offered a much more advanced and cost-effective solution.

@@EstorilEm I stand by my comment. It won't happen. The "buy american" approach will always remain, and any Euro spent on an offer to the american government by AIrbus is a waste of money. I don't think that the next tanker contract will go to Airbus under any circumstances, even if the competive offer would be superior. If I'm proven wrong and the contract goes to Airbus, then we'll talk again.

USN planes aren’t bought under an USAF contract. Your reasoning is flawed. The USAF isn’t responsible for planning for USN air needs.

​@@matthewgaines10 Your logic is flawed, it's the other way around. Historically, USAF was the one that piggyback THEIR needs onto USN planes. STRATCOM quite explicitly states that USN E-6s are equipped for dual mission, both flying for USN TACAMO staff and for USAF Airborne Command Post battle staff in the Looking Glass role (in place of USAF EC-135). Now with the USN planes potentially being unable to fulfill the task USAF counted on them (because USN isn't necessarily responsible for planning for USAF needs), there is no reason that USAF would not be responsible for planning their own needs. Actually, see SEAD mission - they rely on joint operations now that USAF no longer has dedicated platform with the retirement of EF-111 (and no, F-16CJs are essentially just HARM shooters).

Yea, he seems to think that none of the branches run missions for the other. He'd be shocked to find out that Marines ride on Navy ships regularly and that the USAF flew drones and spy aircraft off of carriers... If it's not a mission the Navy sees as "sexy" like fighter jets they're not going to heavily fight letting another branch take the budget concerns and risk off of them for it.@@nikujaga_oishii

@@matthewgaines10He's right. There are actually two different USAF missions involved. 1) "Looking Glass" is an airborne command post capable of talking to pretty much everything that SAC HQ can talk to, including transmitting valid launch codes to ICBM silos (but not the USN's SSBNs). It started out in EC-135Cs, and when those got retired in the late '90s, the USAF managed to talk the USN into picking up the mission on its E-6Bs (which are also based on the -135), which were also taking on the TACAMO mission, the USN's version of Looking Glass (which can transmit launch codes to subs). 2) "Nightwatch" is a strategic command post for NCA (the President, or whichever survivor is highest on the succession list). It began on the EC-135J, then moved to the E-4. It's probably best to think of it as the "DEFCON 1 Air Force One"; the VC-25 is designed to support peacetime diplomatic missions, and allots a fair bit of space for guests, reporters, Secret Service ground teams, etc, plus a much higher level of comfort. Nightwatch trades all of those frills for more radios and radiomen plus a few generals and enough supplies to keep everybody fed and watered for up to a week in the air. That's why an E-4 usually follows AFO around, just in case. 3) "TACAMO" is the USN's version of "Looking Glass"; instead of talking to ICBM silos, it's designed to talk to SSBNs and carrier groups. The mission is similar, but more spread out over the world. Originally performed by the EC-130Q, which was replaced by the E-6A (later upgraded to B, which also picked up "Looking Glass" missions as a favor to the USAF). The E-6Bs, E-4Bs, and VC-25s have all been needing replacements for some time now; honestly, everything made from a 707 or old-model 747 needs replacing, but the money hasn't been there for decades, and the programs that *have* gotten money have been horrifically mismanaged (see: E-10, P-8, KC-46, VC-25B). As Mentour mentioned, the USAF wanted to go in with the USN on a new plane for all three of the above roles, but there wasn't money for it at the time. The USN has since gone its own way, with a plan to return to C-130s, which will leave "Looking Glass" without a home. That's why the USAF is looking at a larger buy of SAOCs, in order to have one platform that handles both "Nightwatch" and "Looking Glass" missions in order to save money and resources over time, and to ensure that there are always enough airframes available to carry out both missions.

Except the Navy has NEVER USED the E-6...🤡

ELF

thanks for repeating what the video said

The "five mile antenna" is not an antenna - it is a ground plane for the long wire antenna.

The long wire is for sending EAMs to the boomer subs to initiate fence-grabbing time.

Extremely low frequency

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too!

That already happened a year or so ago…

Thank you!

That's possible

and with SNC as the sub contractor to do most of the work

It’s almost pure usury at this point.

@@johnstreet797 Or a joint/partial bid together with SNC, where Boeing's responsibility is limited to eg. the procurement and refurbishing of the planes. This would allow SNC to be entirely focused on the Upgrade and Modification process...

A fuselage is already a Faraday cage (even if there are quite a lot of holes that limits the upper working frequency). To harden a plane against EMP you need to ensure that every piece of the fuselage make a good electrical contact all around with the frame and with the other fuselage pieces (the classic glue is not electrical conductive, you need something else to ensure the contact) and you need also to plug any holes to avoid EMP ingress (for example, the windows are made with electrical insulating material and, even if the doors are made with metal, they not ensure a proper electrical contact all around the seam so are still considered as holes; a special conductive gasket placed all around the seam is required to made the joint RF-tight). Finally, you cannot run a cable outside a faraday cage otherwise it will carry the RF energy inside (the outside portion of the cable act as an antenna to pick-up the RF enrgy and the inside portion of the cable also act as an antenna to radiate the RF energy inside the shielded environment!)... all cables that runs outside the fuselage must be filtered and shielded properly. In any case....... a Faraday cage that blocks 100% of the radiation is almost impossible to build (specially if there are size, weight and strict cable management requirements!) so a little part of the RF radiation is supposed to seep inside and the electronic equipments are supposed to be hardened and withstand this noise. BTW, hardening a devices that uses low integration is simple because the bigger is the component the higher is the working voltage and the lower is the input impedance... and the higher is the working voltage and the lower is the input impedance the higher should be the RF pulse in order to generate an issue. Also, you can't damage what doesn't exist. Analog equipments (but also simple digital hardwired equipments) contains less but bigger components than modern equipments (that may contains millions of microscopical transistors enclosed in a very small chip). I work as electronic designer for medical devices..... i'm used to design devices with quite a lot computer-aided bells and whistles but for the safety and emergency part of the device i prefer to stick with plain old analog electronics, plain old simple and hard wired digital electronics and even electromechanics too!

Bet they have a couple of valve radios too, just in case

@@teslacoiler Military aircraft have ITO conductive coatings on windows as standard.

Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you, too!

Esp when they can change requirements or make new ones up at any time. One of the things that really makes these contracts such a nightmare is that on the government side their is commonly a 3 year rotation, meaning the people you start negation with often are not the people who you end on, and are even less likely to be the people that implement the contract.

I don't see the US military relying on the EU for these planes.

The A340 is far too underpowered for all that additional equipment and reliability.

Beautiful aircraft. Too late to the party.

@@TacticaLLRA340-300, yes. Looks like the A340-600 has upgraded engines.

@@msromike123 I agree you there and there’s also there’s a federal law that will forbid the US Air Force buying European made aircraft to protect our command structure

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you, too!

Don't know much about it, but that is what I was wondering. Whether an existing military cargo aircraft could be a contender. Especially given that support/ parts from the commercial side for the 747 will be reducing considerably over this aircrafts lifetime, particularly if it will be anything like the current e4

They haven’t made any airframes in decades, not to mention they are very valuable for the Air Force. There are a lot of ex civilian 747-8 about to be available, and they’re all new.

@@KanyeTheGayFish69 so they will never produce more of them or anything similar that they could share an airframe with?

You both misunderstand the point I tried to make, that Lockheed Martin and Skunkworks have made some crazy planes over the years. Boeing doesn’t make airframes also, thay haven’t for years, all airframes are made by external companies. And the C-5 Galaxy might look a lot like a 747, but it a complete diverent design than the 747. In I believe around 2010 C-5 Galaxies where completely overhauled, with new avionics, cleaner engines that burn less fuel. These kind of program’s take time, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there are still some C5’s to be undergo a complete overhaul.

@@benmac940 no. C-5s will be in service for many more decades, but they haven’t been produced since the 70’s. It’s extremely expensive to develop a whole new airframe.

That WOULD be interesting. Not to mention, surprising!

Not going to happen😂

One can dream at least.

A modified An-225 Mriya would be even more interesting. Unlikely, but interesting.

They could try to pay Antonov for the design and build them in the US, effectively making Antonov a US company.

And then a door plug goes on a MAX9.

I was thinking globemaster as an alternative, they're just old airframes but they are built as military vehicles so have some advantages. I think used airframe is simply because 747 is out of production. Any airframe more than a handful of years old is going to have a shorter life and bigger maintenance requirements so 747-8 does seem like the intended aircraft.

Ah, but it (C-17) is a Boeing product, unlike the C-5.

you mean antonov?

That BIG Antonov was destroyed early in the invasion by Russia. SHAME! Ukraine had great capabilities, but their infrastructure to do this no longer exists.

I don't think ukrainian manufacturers are going to be handed the contract for a US doomsday plane anytime soon

all they need to do is rebuild from ruins and adapt designs to western engines and electronic getting past current and future ukraine security issues

Wonder if efficiency comes into play.

I initially thought the same thing, but the certification process would be cost prohibitive and it's doubtful you could get either airframe certified as designed regardless of modifications made. In fact the modifications required to convert it from military transport to flying command post full of personnel and equipment may make the certification process even more impossible.

I bet it is easier to start from scratch and with an airframe that will have greater longevity with the newest C-17 and C-5 eight and 30 years old respectively.

@@vanguard9067 There would have to be a business case to build such a plane. A clean sheet design through certification is a decade-long process and there would have to be more than 10 planes built (think several hundred minimum) for this to make any sense. The Airbus A380 is considered a business failure because the program lost money since the plane didn't sell i the numbers expected or required to meet break-even revenue. The A-380 couldn't be used as a freighter so it's market was limited to just passenger airlines. A clean-sheet design for a maximum of 10 airframes is a complete non-starter. And there is no current market for 4 engine super-jumbo airframes or Boeing and Airbus would still be building them. And there isn't enough demand to cover the production costs of the few freighters ordered and sold every year.

@@andrewg.spurgeon1736 I totally agree about a clean sheet design. I think ultimately they’ll scrounge up some lower mileage 747’s and some contractor will build out the doomsday planed]s, I have a hard time believing any contractor will do the work FFP because the government does not have a firm set of requirements.

It’s also really cool whenever I visit my brother to see the E-4B doing touch and gos

While that sounds great, it probably would not be the military's preferred aircraft. For starters, it would limit the airports and air force bases that the doomsday plane can operate out of. Some airports that were able to accommodate the 747 had to be modified to handle A380s. Also, if the military is willing to use it, and if there are plenty of airports and airbases that can accommodate the a380 doomsday plane, there is the matter of relying on a manufacturer headquartered in Europe and with a good chunk of the assembly line located in Europe, or else outside the US. Given it's a critical and also highly confidential project, relying on a European manufacturer is probably another downside the military will see in an Airbus-made doomsday plane

I listened to that multiple times 😂😂😂

what would really be interesting is if maybe the Air force considered the C5M or C17 as possible solutions. They’re already militarized to the highest standard with midair refueling, rugged landing gear for unimproved runway n temp airfields plus buckets of spare parts & frames for ages to come & they could easily be further modified for EMP etc for its mission set. So essentially it’d be just civilizing the interiors for conference rooms, coms stations, berthings, briefing rooms, vvip accommodations etc.

Modified C-17 would require the government to ditch the FAA certification requirement. No way that would happen for a C-17 for so few airframes. Especially since the C-17 is made by... wait for it... Boeing.

Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you too!

Not unless they drop the FAA certification requirement.

Or big mutha

The US Government can purchase one of the privately owned A380s from a Saudi Prince 😂

I had the same thought. Not an aircraft expert, but you might even be able to pull some old C-5s from the bone yard if you wanted even more size.

I think a converted C-17 is a brilliant idea. I'd never thought about that!

@@ahndeux No need to be a douchebag. The KC-46's are new-production aircraft, they aren't "converted 767s."

@@ahndeux You're the one wordsmithing. Calling it a converted 767 is disingenuous. That implies Boeing / the USAF is buying civilian 767's to convert into tankers. That is simply not true. They are brand new aircraft having never served a different mission. They are purpose built tankers- NOT conversions. Business Insider has to make it digestible for simpletons like yourself. Business insider is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to Aeronautical information.

@@ahndeux What the fuck are you talking about?

My take as well. Boeing is doing the right thing here, they need to stay away from this one.

defence projects are fun

This is what happens when you put bean counters to lead companies like Boeing. Bring the engineers back to the decision makers of budgeting for R&D and suppliers and subcontractors selection process.

Yeah, they will likely have a place here, but not be responsible for the overall risk.

Yes, they probably could. Many people seem to think that the plane manufacturer is the only one who can win the contract when that’s far from true. There are many companies, SNC for example, that are very capable of acquiring the aircraft’s and then reengineering them to add all the necessary components.

Yup, I was thinking some end of the line 744s would be ideal.

Thank you, Merry Christmas to you, too!

Guess moving corporate HQ to Arlington, VA doesn't mean anything about their government acquisitions??

Add to that the frequent rotation the.. crap.. now I can't recall what the people who actually manage the contract are.. but anyway, they often have a 3-5 year rotation, so the people in charge of deciding what the government 'really' wants are not the same people who wrote the original spec.

A government needs to be able to require changes made to keep up. It's not that they want to be bad customers but military demands are vastly different from commercial aircrafts.

@@charisma-hornum-fries while there are good reasons for why they behave as they do, they still make terrible customers.

Add 2 engines to a 777X

Not impossible

Old, much farther out of production, and reliability is much worse than commercial aircraft.

problem is the C-5s all have a lot of hours on their airframes

Cost per flight hour on a C-5 would put it out of the competition.

@@seanwright7960 No reason you can't fit them with more efficient engines.

Plenty of A380s available, but this will either be a 744 or a 748.

@@cjmillsnun Most likely low hours 747-8's.. trying to find a low hours 747-4's would be a challenge.

@@bubbavonbraun and where can you buy 747-8? They are young and still in service

​@@misterXPlayereasy just offer current owners an offer they can't refuse. Offer Atlas air $30 million more than what they paid few months ago for new/last 747 delivery they would do it in a heart beat.

@@misterXPlayer There are a couple out there. Wouldnt take much for Lufthansa to hand a few over or KAL.

You make it sound like they haven't been working on that for well over half a century. That's pretty funny.

@@TheEudaemonicPlague yeah, and it is always hard and has to be redone over and over as parts age out of production.

Optic fibre for the cable runs. Multiple redundant digital controls and hardened control modules. Expensive to develop and more expensive to get certified. Keep in mind that FADEC runs modern engines. Hardening that alone is not trivial. I doubt that $8bn would cover a "proper" development. There will have to be compromises in performance and reliability to leave to profit. Then there is always the hope of ongoing support contracts, beyond the initial supply.

C-17 Fly by Wire = hardened. Much more complex than just FADEC. Also mil spec data bus. Designed years ago.@@BerndFelsche

I think not doing them is a smart move. The big problem, especially with such a small fleet, is that it is impossible to predict costs of such a project. One bad year with high inflation and you're going from profit to loss.

They are specifically avoiding fixed price development contracts. Fixed price production is fine.

​@@Hans-gb4mvbro, it's government contract. The only people losing are the tax payers.

​@@umadbraWell, by cynical if you like, but Boeing is probably underwriting 30% of the new Air Force One. While you may not agree where some of the money is spent, the system is far cleaner that it was 50+ years ago in the age of smoke-filled rooms. Lots of graft and pork then. Today, we are so concerned about being fair etc, that process costs us a lit and sometimes the old baptism agreements actually produced good results. Pretty tough to get anything done when no one can agree on almost anything.

@@henrivanbemmel their money was spent on CEO pay and golden parachute. Tell me I am wrong. Tell me they didn't give the guy a ton of money after they lost 2 planes to bad pilots. Lol

why is it called boxing day? is that the day when one opens the boxes?

@@snorttroll4379 well it was traditional for the king or queen in the UK to give boxes back to people who did service in the year. Its also been used by big landowners in the same vein back in the day. So a nice thankyou in a way.