How much will it cost to refurbish the existing Air Force 1 versus retrofitting the new jet to become the new Air Force 1?
Executive summary
The choice breaks down into two price bands: the Pentagon and White House estimate that converting the donated Qatari Boeing 747 into a functional presidential jet will probably cost under $400 million, while the program to replace the aging VC-25As with two new, specially modified VC-25B aircraft has been contracted at roughly $3.9 billion for both airframes (about $1.9–2.0 billion per aircraft depending on accounting) — and some independent reporting and experts argue true retrofit costs for the Qatari jet could rise into the high hundreds of millions or even exceed $1 billion [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What “refurbish the existing Air Force One” actually means — and what it costs now
The long-running VC-25 replacement program — the government contract to modify two Boeing 747-8s into VC-25B presidential transports — is cited as a $3.9 billion program, a figure that has been used publicly to describe the cost of procuring and modifying the two new planes ordered during the prior administration [3] [6]. Reporting that summarizes the program’s sticker price and repeated delays shows that the fully missionized VC-25B work is a multi-billion-dollar, bespoke military procurement rather than a simple interior refresh, and that accounting for per-aircraft costs depends on whether one divides the $3.9 billion by two or folds in program-level sustainment and integration expenses [3] [6]. Sources note the program’s long timeline and schedule slips, underlining that keeping the planned VC-25Bs on track carries both high sticker prices and time risk [7] [3].
2. The “free” Qatari jet and the Pentagon’s price tag for retrofitting it
When the White House and Air Force staff discussed accepting a gifted Qatari 747, the Air Force secretary told lawmakers that transforming that luxury jet into a secure, mission-capable presidential aircraft would likely cost “less than $400 million,” a number repeated across Pentagon briefings and contemporary reporting [1] [2] [8] [9]. The Air Force framed that estimate as covering necessary security, communications and defensive upgrades, while declining to provide classified technical detail in public hearings [1] [2]. Several outlets picked up the under-$400 million estimate as the Pentagon’s official baseline [8] [10].
3. Why outside analysts put a much higher price on a retrofit
Contrary reporting and expert commentary argue that a commercial luxury 747 would need “billions” in upgrades to meet hardened presidential standards — encrypted, redundant communications; electronic warfare and missile-defeat systems; structural and sustainment modifications; and integration with DoD command-and-control — and that timeline and unexpected technical fixes could push costs far above the Pentagon’s cited figure [5] [4] [6]. Those analyses stress that some retrofit expenses are comparable to buying new capability, and they frame the gifted-jet plan as fiscally and operationally risky relative to completing the VC-25B program [6] [4].
4. Reconciling the gap: plausible ranges and politics
A direct apples-to-apples comparison therefore yields a range: refurbishing or delivering the VC-25B capability via the contracted program is embedded in the known $3.9 billion program price for two aircraft (roughly $1.9–2.0 billion per jet on headline figures) [3] [6], while retrofitting the Qatari 747 has an official Pentagon estimate of under $400 million but independent reports and expert warnings place credible upside risk into the high hundreds of millions or into the billion-plus territory if extensive classified systems and schedule overruns are required [1] [2] [5] [4]. The gap between official Pentagon estimates and external skepticism appears driven by differing assumptions about classified security requirements, scope of integration, and who pays for long-term sustainment.
5. What the reporting leaves unanswered and why it matters
Public sources document the headline $3.9 billion VC-25B contract and the Air Force’s under-$400 million retrofit claim, but they cannot publicly verify classified technical needs, detailed line-item retrofit quotes, or lifecycle sustainment costs; consequently, any definitive bottom-line that fully reconciles the two options remains unknowable from available reporting [3] [1] [2]. The budgetary choice is therefore as much political — about accepting a high-profile foreign gift, schedule risk and messaging about taxpayer cost — as it is technical [7] [5].