The Air Force said Wednesday it picked Boeing’s [BA] 747-800 series commercial airliner to serve as the next presidential aircraft, commonly known as Air Force One.

“The Boeing 747-8 is the only aircraft manufactured in the United States that, when fully missionized, meets the necessary capabilities established to execute the presidential support mission,” Air Force Secretary Deborah James said in a statement.

Air Force One is currently a Boeing 747-200B. Photo: White House.
Air Force One is currently a Boeing 747-200B. Photo: White House.

Air Force analysis of the capability requirement concluded a four-engine, wide-body aircraft is required to meet the needs of the Air Force One mission. Market research determined there are two four-engine platforms that could meet the requirements: Boeing’s 747-8 and Airbus’ A380, which is manufactured in France.

Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick said Wednesday in an email the service plans to release the request for proposals (RFP) for the engineering manufacturing development (EMD) contract this year. The EMD contract is expected to be awarded in 2017, he said.

The Air Force cautioned that this was not a formal contract award, just an authorization to purchase by other than full and open competition. The next step in the program, Gulick said, is finalizing the acquisition strategy for approval by the Defense Department’s acquisition chief, Frank Kendall, and conduct risk reduction activities with Boeing.

Gulick said the acquisition strategy will detail the process by which the Air Force will procure and sustain the Presidential Aircraft Replacement (PAR) system. Following finalizing the acquisition strategy, the Air Force will enter into negotiations with Boeing to purchase the actual aircraft to be modified into the PAR configuration, Gulick said.

The Air Force plans to begin recapitalizing the new Air Force One, formally designated as VC-25, with the first aircraft being delivered for modification in 2018, Gulick said.  Initial operational capability (IOC) is expected during FY ’23, he added.

The Air Force intends to award a contract to Boeing; without competition; to design, integrate, modify, test, certify and deliver up to three PAR aircraft that meet the operational requirement, Gulick said. A separate RFP for the modification, he said, would be released this year. Gulick said a three identical aircraft fleet provides the ability for an identical secondary aircraft at all times (i.e. one aircraft is in periodic depot maintenance, while the remaining two support the president). 

The Air Force said it wants to own enough of the technical baseline to permit competition for the sustainment throughout the aircraft’s planned 30-year life cycle. Teal Group Vice President of Analysis Richard Aboulafia believes this is more of a tactic by the Air Force to leverage Boeing on price and terms. Boeing spokeswoman Kym Vandlac didn’t specify in a response to query whether Boeing intended to provide enough technical baseline for the Air Force to compete sustainment for the new Air Force one.

“This is such a big job, I can’t imagine it being in the hands of the prime contractors,” Aboulafia told Defense Daily Wednesday, as “integrating all of the specific components for Air Force One onto a jet that is already extremely complicated” would be difficult.

Aboulafia said he didn’t believe Airbus being a non-domestic company precluded it from competing for the PAR but that it simply wasn’t economically feasible since Airbus builds the A380 in France. Airbus assembles jets at a plant in Alabama, but Aboulafia said these are narrow body jets, not the massive A380.

“It costs a lot to be compliant with the supply chain,” he said.

A top Air Force official said in December the service was eyeing commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology to equip the next Air Force One in an effort to decrease costs. U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) chief Air Force Gen. Paul Selva said most of the seats found on the current Air Force One are hand-made, custom articles because the Air Force bought the last two airplanes off the assembly line without knowing what the aircraft would look like until after it was purchased.

Selva said commercially-available, first-class, lay-flat seats that provide the proper “creature comforts” for staff to operate on Air Force One for days already exist and are common capabilities.

“We ought to look at incorporating as much (COTS technology) as we can into the airplane,” Selva told reporters at a Defense Writers Group breakfast in downtown Washington. “I think affordability comes from commercial off-the-shelf capability on the airplane.”

The United States currently uses two Boeing 747-200B series aircraft to transport the president. Capable of refueling midair, Air Force One features hardened electronics, advanced and secure communications equipment and a variety of domestic capabilities.

The current editions of Air Force One were delivered in 1990, according to the White House. Boeing’s 747 models were first created in the 1970s.

Selva said the Air Force wanted to avoid being the only operator of 747-200s in the world, which he said would make them “exorbitantly expensive” to maintain and keep. The service currently has four 747-200s in active service as E-4Bs, which are used as the National Airborne Operations Center for the president, defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“We ought to look at those, and rather than building a one-off airplane, incorporate as much of that already commercially-certified and tested equipment onto the airplane as possible,” Selva said.

The head of Airbus North America, Allan McArtor, said in March the company would “probably not” be interested in competing for the next Air Force One because of the extensive modifications necessary and the small number of planes that would be required. But McArtor cautioned against any final decisions until an RFP is released.

Airbus spokesman Jamie Darcy said Wednesday in a statement despite the company’s belief of the superior capabilities of the A380, in the absence of a detailed requirement or RFP, it is impossible to evaluate whether there would have been sufficient competitive opportunity to justify submitting a bid.