USAF Seeks Air Force One Replacement 640
Tyketto writes "The United States Air Force has taken the first public step in the search for a replacement of the Boeing VC-25, also known as Air Force One, saying it is no longer cost effective to operate and modernize the two 19-year-old VC-25s, which are converted Boeing 747-200s. Airbus has already submitted data for the A380, and while Boeing has had the Air Force One contract for nearly 50 years, delays with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Boeing 747-8, as well as the KC-X Tanker competition, may see the USAF looking to Europe for its next presidential aircraft."
Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Interesting)
It is actually surprising how much is involved in transporting the POTUS. Last time the POTUS was in town [utah.edu] there was a considerable presence that travelled around with him and Air Force One is only a small part of that traveling circus. While the current VC-25 are starting to show their age, one does wonder just what sort of requirements creep are involved. It used to be that simple transport would be acceptable and in actuality, the 737 makes for a wonderful government transport in the C-40 [utah.edu] and in fact the current 747 design (though modified since) has been in place since just 1990. In some ways the 747-8 does simplify some systems, making maintenance easier and cheaper as well as possessing more efficient engines, but just playing an opposing advocate, do we really need a 747-8 or an A380? My bias would be yes for a number of reasons, but I also think it is reasonable to ask some harder questions about what is actually required.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure it receives a lot of special modifications. Here's what they do to protect a C130 from a heat seeking missile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmZDdvKAUOg [youtube.com]
I'd imagine the onboard "electronic warfare" package is also substantial.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what they do to protect a C130 from a heat seeking missile
Flares are not very effective against modern heat seeking weapons; and that was true at least one generation of seekers ago. Modern heat seeking missiles are actually pretty good at distinguishing between the sun and exhaust, and exhaust and flares. Modern anti-heat seeking counter defensive systems actually use lasers to destroy the uber sensitive sensors contained within this class of missiles. If you notice "disco balls" on aircraft, especi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm kind of intrigued to know what features it has in place should the plane outright fail for some reason, such as a catastrophic airframe failure or if for some reason all engines failed or even a fire on board.
What are the evacuation features for a plane like this? Does it really have a kind of escape pod? does it just use parachutes?
Anyone any idea?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"override any media coverage"
What does that mean?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"This is a test of the emergency broadcast system."
You're not going to get much media coverage once that particular button is pushed.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Informative)
Well Air Force One is suppose to be the ultimate warfare command center in the sky. Able to control the whole of the US armed forces and override any media coverage if needed. I think flares are just the tip of the ice berg so to speak.
Actually, while it's the top warfare command center when the president's on it, I'd hardly call it the ultimate, as AWACS planes have far more capability in that aspect.
There's a lot more than flares in there, but exactly what's in there is still classified. I imagine it has both commercial and military satellite communication methods, various air to ground radios, etc...
It's not designed to do hostile EW warfare. While I'm sure they can do telecasts from it, it can hardly 'override' ground broadcasts on it's own.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a former EW technician (F-15 TISS) and, while my knowledge is somewhat dated, I assume that AF1's EW will have the usual assortment of noise, RGPO [google.com] and VGPO and PGPO jamming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
9/11 sucked, but it wasn't a national emergency. It was an emergency in NYC, D.C. and a Pennsylvania field. Local authorities also have the authority to enact the Emergency Broadcast System, but I am not aware whether they enacted it or not. The only time I have ever heard the Emergency Broadcast System used in an actual crisis was during Hurricane Alicia, quite a long time ago.
EAS on 11 Sep 2001 (Score:5, Insightful)
"9/11 sucked, but it wasn't a national emergency. It was an emergency in NYC, D.C. and a Pennsylvania field."
We know that now. But at the time, I don't think it was especially obvious, especially given that the ultimate target of the UAL 93 hijackers presumably wasn't a field in PA. The government shut down all public US air traffic for three days, remember?
I think it's more likely that there was simply no useful message that could be put out on the EAS. Broadcast operators had already independently preempted practically every civilian broadcast channel for news programming. More to the point, there wasn't much individuals could do about it. In, say, a biological attack, you can give instructions like "boil water; avoid fresh food". What could have been said on 11 Sep 2001? "Planes are flying into buildings -- everybody duck!"?
Re:EAS on 11 Sep 2001 (Score:4, Interesting)
There is reason to believe that there were other buildings targeted in other cities, including the Seattle Space Needle and downtown Los Angeles. Supposedly, the other Al-Queida teams forgot to account for differences between time zones from one end of the USA to the next and the west coast groups never got into the air, or at least never were able to take over the cockpits like what happened on the east coast.
The rationale for not invoking the EAS on 9/11 was mostly one of the fact that all of the major news outlets had already interrupted programming on that day and were doing 24-hour coverage of the attack anyway. The primary message to the general public, don't bother going to the airport as your flight has been canceled, certainly was transmitted to nearly everybody that it impacted.
Is an A380 big enough? (Score:5, Funny)
Presidents tend to have pretty big egos, so maybe the space is needed.
On the other hand, the Senate scolded the American Big Three for their corporate jets. Maybe the Air Force should be a better role model, and go for something smaller.
I was thinking of something like this: http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/vehicles/little-nellie?id=002 [jamesbondmm.co.uk]
The President could have some real fun with that, and it would add teeth to his domestic and foreign policy.
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the Senate scolded the American Big Three for their corporate jets. Maybe the Air Force should be a better role model, and go for something smaller.
I understand the scolding in the context, but I still believe that after a certain point, a corporate or even personal plane makes sense. While a corporate plane might be a little slower in the air, it has the advantage that it can fly direct to anywhere in it's range, with extremely flexible takeoff times.
When somebody is that valuable, it makes sense. For the big three, a mid-point would have been if all three(and their assistants), had taken the same private plane.
For the president, he has to worry about presenting himself to 50 different states covering a quarter of the globe. He also has to represent the country to the world - adding in other areas. He's actually an active target for assassination, so security is very much a concern. He has to be contactable at all times for security and political reasons. You have to worry about the nuclear football.
This whole thing is that the current craft are 19 years old and pushing the uneconomical part of the maintenance spectrum; they have a lot of hours on them. Time to retire them and get new planes. Now they're doing the equivalent of new car shopping - which plane is the best for us?
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying AF1 isn't important, but it just seems like such government waste. It pisses me off that the president, OUR employee, can't make do with "adequate," that he's got to have a flying mansion with more amenities than most people will ever even see in their lifetimes.
I want the President to have his every need taken care of. I don't want him to have to worry about anything other than the business of the nation. Its why we give him servants, chefs, a $300 million house, and a state-of-the-art plane. The President's time is easily worth a million dollars an hour. True government waste would be for him to spend his time worried about any of the concerns which are now taken care of for him.
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
The President is a manager, not a monarch. I'd argue that the nigh-royal treatment whoever is currently occupying the White House receives has a been a big part of the rise of the "Imperial Presidency" -- the isolation of the President from public opinion, the autocratic decisions without regard to the law, etc. I'm not saying he should live rough, but neither should we have to cradle him in luxury that Louis XIV would have envied.
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
The President is a manager, not a monarch.
I think he's a little bit of both (I'm not just referring to W. but to all Presidents). The President is not only the leader of our government, but also the head of state. Like it or not, he is the personification of The United States, both domestically and abroad.
I don't think the, relative, luxury the President enjoys has anything to do with the recent rise of the "Imperial Presidency". The reasons you state, I think, have a lot more to do with it: "the isolation of the President from public opinion, the autocratic decisions without regard to the law".
I simply don't want my President wasting time cooking meals, ironing shirts, or worrying about wrinkling his suit when flying coach.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree... I think the president needs to be constantly reminded of the people he's working for, not isolated and treated like royalty.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you suggesting that POTUS's time is worth 8.7 TRILLION dollars a year?
$1,000,000 per hour * 8760 hr/year = 8.7 billion.
Yeah, I do. When a guy, with the stroke of a pen, can authorize (or veto) $700 billion in new spending, start wars which cost tens of billions a month, and negotiate trade deals (like NAFTA) worth trillions; then, yeah, I would say his time is worth a million dollars an hour.
Having basic amenities taken care of is not the same thing as hedonistic perks like a bowling alley in your basement.
The bowling alley, and most of the other perks in the White House, was not paid for with taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By the time you finish adding the required countermeasures, refueling capabilities, distinguished visitor quarters, etc... The larger the plane, the longer the range, on average. You might as well go with the larger plane. It'd probably cost more to shoehorn everything into the smaller plane anyways.
Remember, impressing foreign delegates and heads of state(like oil sheiks) is still part of the president's job. Impressions of luxury is part of that.
Not to mention I agree with the argument that the presid
Re:Is an A380 big enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when the Big three were profitable companies, and the CEO functioned much like the president, it made sense. Even now, assuming the CEOs operated like they're supposed to, they should/would be quite valuable.
The CEOs time would be, much like the president's, be spent in high level analysis to plot the future course of the company, also auditing and motivation. Time on the factory floor, for a manufacturing company like GM/Ford, should be expected.
For that matter - Consider this. You can expect about 250 days of work out of an employee a year. Traveling commercially, for the most part, you can figure on losing two days of work whenever you fly him, due to connections, air port security, lack of direct flights to many locations, etc...
Now figure we have an extremely well paid employee - $1M a year. Not shabby, but not 'overblown CEO' level. Each If a (rental) private plane costs $2k but cuts this in half, it makes sense to rent a plane to ship him around when you have to. Why? You're effectively paying him $4k a DAY. The plane's cheap in comparison. Scale down if you have to send a team, scale up as the employee gets paid more(more valuable). Then consider that the Big three are global companies, with holdings all over the planet, including Asia, Europe, and South America. Even more time & effort can be saved when the CEO has to visit a foreign facility.
I also figure that while they might be dropping the CEO plane, they're keeping a number of their corporate jets in a 'pool' - normally used by troubleshooters, managers and such. For a company that large and spread around, having a few planes makes sense.
The driving stunt was more about making the CEOs bow down before congress to get their money than saving actual money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Offutt has E-4s, a 747 command post, which are not VC-25s
not scope creep - capability creep (Score:5, Insightful)
However, that's not a practical proposition and does contain some mutually contradictory requirements. The good news is that as aircraft get bigger, faster, more reliable and flexible the gap between the "do everything" that's being asked for is getting closer to what can be achieved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A 777 would probably due. The thing is going with a brand new design will mean that parts available and life span will both be longer. The 747-8 range and payload would also be handy. A 380 never, not going to happen.
Where to see Air Force One (Score:5, Informative)
To visit the aircraft, you have to arrive early at the museum and ask your way to the folks who dispense base tickets, as you'll need to take a bus from the museum to the base. Bring good ID, it's a military base and security is serious.
The museum is a great side-trip before or after the Dayton Hamvention. Definitely worth a day, you will find it difficult to see everything in that long.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You only needed your passport.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/questions/topic.asp?id=180 [af.mil]
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
I call BULLSHIT!
Now, I'm not going to assume that all /.'ers are informed but there is enough use of the term POTUS, SCOTUS, DHS, FBI, etc. here to either flag you as a me-tooing-get-on-the-opposing-bandwagon type or seriously uninformed. Your choice.
Me thinks you were looking for something snappy to post that would put you somewhere near the top of the comment page and you chose this poor saps post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they figured it out, they would then say, "Why don't you just say 'The president', you jackass?"
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't doubt that at all, however, he was posting to slashdot and the term POTUS, as well as SCOTUS, has been thrown around these parts for years. Slashdot is not really a gathering for average Americans. It does tend to attract geeks, nerds, and others with a multitude of esoteric knowledge. So while it wouldn't have been appropriate in the Christmas card to Aunt Bertha, it makes total sense here.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I've noticed that those of us who were actually in the military don't generally throw around acronyms like that at the drop of a hat. It's the Tom-Clancy-reading, FPS-playing, mil-porn 101st Fighting Keyboarders who never had the guts to get their hands dirty themselves trying to make themselves sound (they think) all tough and macho who have popularized the term.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever heard any newscaster say "Poe-tuss"? No, they say "president of the United States" or "president of the yew-ess" or simply "the president". A surprising number of people aren't watching the news everytime the letters "POTUS" are displayed on the screen. Is there a misunderstanding here? Because everybody knows what "president of the United States" is but some folks don't know what a POTUS is.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
You live too close to Hill AFB. The average layman dosen't know what POTUS means. You could have just said, "the president" which is only 4 syllables of smooth flow.
Sure, but then you'd have someone from Europe talking about how ignorant Americans/USians are for just saying "the president" and not being specific, since after all, other nations have presidents too. Then someone from the US would point out this is primarily a US discussion site, so people should just assume the US when not specified. Then someone from another country would say that slashdot isn't under ".us", and is thus global, and is globally accessible at any rate, so it is wrong to assume an original TLD is US-centric, and ICANN is evil. Then someone from the US will point out that the internet was invented by the US. Then someone else will point out that most of the internet is now outside the US, so it shouldn't matter, it's not like people respect the steam engine being from the UK originally.
So, in comparison, POTUS generated a pretty minimal debate.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of whether Slashdot is primarily a US-oriented discussion site, this particular story is about the American president. The only ignorance would be in not being able to derive, from context, which president is being discussed if someone were to say "the president". In a discussion about Russia's president, we'd all understand which presiednt was being discussed and I doubt you'd see any Americans whinging that we should say "POTRF" because it's too confusing or Russia-centric otherwise.
I realise you, specifically, didn't do this, but claiming that one must specify "of the United States" with every bloody reference to "the president" is absurd. Humans are allegedly good at contextual clues. Let's act like it.
When seeing acronyms in print, some people have a tendancy to read them as words, whether they should be read as such or not -- especially when the acronym is pronouncable, like "POTUS". Say it out loud and understand how silly it sounds. Beyond that, it just looks pretentious to use acronyms that are both non-standard and add nothing to the meaning. Using the ol' standby argument "it saves time" is just absurd -- we're talking about a few extra letters. If you can take the time to post you can certainly spare the additional milliseconds it takes to type an actual word, rather than barely-comprehensible acronyms, and come out looking a little more intelligent.
People who defend silliness like this are also some of the quickest to gripe about "txt speak", and really, what's the difference? Where do you draw the line?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is slashdot. It is not an audience of average laymen, and POTUS, along with SCOTUS, has been used regularly in posts for years. Blame Tom Clancy as much as anyone, but it is quite appropriate for the dot.
Re:Air Force One replacement (Score:5, Funny)
it is quite appropriate for the dot
"I was in the 'Dot, man! You don't know what it was like! You weren't there!"
Buy European? No chance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong. The helicopter replacing Marine One is European. Why wouldn't they do the same for Air Force One?
Incorrect. The VH-71 Kestrel is based on the US101 airframe, which is a derivative of the European EH101, but it's a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and AgustaWestland and it's being built here in the US by Bell Helicopter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's the marketing story, yes. Politics demand that any European defense contractor find a US "partner" for a major contract with the US military.
The patriotically-named "US 101" is an Augusta-Westland AW101 with some outsourced manufacturing (Bell & lockheed) and marketing (L
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:4, Informative)
The chances are extremely slim that the Airbus bid will involve an Airbus being built in the US.
There is a precedent: one of the two contenders for the USAF's next generation aerial tanker (KC-X project) is the Airbus A330, which would be assembled in the US in Northrop Grumman's factories. Airbus won the contract early in 2008, but Boeing (the other contender) has succeeded in torpedoing the procurement process so the USAF will have to make the decision again early this year.
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt you'll see the President flying on any twin-engine aircraft outside North America, due to redundancy concerns. The chance of an engine failure on a modern twin is actually somewhat lower than that of a four-engine jet, but with the twin you have to divert to the nearest airport. The quad can keep going on three engines. This isn't a problem for airliners, but the potential security nightmare of AF1 making an unplanned diversion to a foreign airfield would pretty much rule out a twin for overseas flights. Remember, too, that there's a greater-than-normal chance this aircraft will be shot at; seems to me four engines might give it more survivability.
Also remember that this aircraft needs to have all of the C3I gear the President might possibly need, plus support staff and all that. It pretty much narrows it down to the A380 or 747-8. I'm thinking 747 myself; not due to "buy American" concerns (though that will certainly play a part) but rather airport accessibility. The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Insightful)
The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.
Nope. One design goal was that the A380 would be able to use precisely the same runways (or shorter) than the 747 and the goal was met. The A380 is, however, considered too big to regularly visit some airports that the 747 can use but that is due to gates and how it will congest taxiing but when did you last see Air Force One docked at a gate or other aircraft permitted nearby? Now, I do think that it will be a cold day in hell when Air Force One is an A380 but that's only because it's such an important national symbol. However, I also think that the A380 is a better aircraft than the 747-8 and the sales figures show it (only one airline order and that was by Boeing's most loyal customer, Lufthansa, and the latest rumors are that they'll exercise their opt-out clause since nobody wants to be a sole operator). Boeing hasn't put that much effort into it either because they've never believed that there's a market for such a giant aircraft as the A380 (let alone two).
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:4, Funny)
American plane, European plane; all parts made in Taiwan!
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:5, Funny)
Not Russian, Ukrainian (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Buy European? No chance. (Score:4, Insightful)
But a final assembly line is out of the question, not because of the 'subsidized' nature of the airbus (the loans get payed back no matter how Airbus makes its profit) but because it doesn't make economic sense. A second assembly line would only be practical if orders would rise to more than 60 or so per year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The little black bits inside missiles aren't supposed to be a symbol of Americanism. AF1 is.
When AF1 touches down you're supposed to think "America is in town!" (hurrah!)
So I'm with OP - Hell will freeze over before AF1 is non-Boeing.
What makes Air Force One (Score:3, Informative)
Technically, "Air Force One" is the call of any aircraft that has the US President onboard. He could get into a Cessna 172 and it would use that callsign.
The aircraft in TFA do not call themselves "Air Force One" when the prez is not aboard. I guess they just use their tail numbers then?
Re:What makes Air Force One (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What makes Air Force One (Score:5, Interesting)
Change (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See display of all of the old Air Force One planes (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not pimp out a C5 cargo plane? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since most of the important modifications for Air Force One have to do with armor, EMP shielding, extra fuel storage, etc., why not start with a military plane that's already got some of these features by design, and just retrofit it with couches and stuff?
One added benefit would be that it could transport the presidential limo/tank [go.com] in case there is fear of sniper fire at the airport. The president could just be driven from the cargo bay of the plane.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hope it is nothing like the Marine One replacement (Score:4, Interesting)
The Marine One replacement, the VH-71, saw its budget more than double and face enormous delays [washingtonpost.com].
One can only image what will happen to the Air Force One budget.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
I've had it with these --ing Presidents on this --ing plane!
What exactly is wrong with the VC-25 (Score:3, Insightful)
The VC-25 is not a Boeing 747-200. Yes, it is based on the Boeing 747-200, but it is very very heavily modified with everything from midair refueling capabilities to antimissile counter measures to additional fuel tanks.
It took nearly ten years to develop the VC-25 and untold millions of dollars.
The airframes are still extremely low in flight hours and have been overhauled a couple of times already.
What exactly is the point of getting a new aircraft? The 747-200 is not even an obsolete aircraft. Plenty of airlines continue to use them. The 747-400 is basically the same aircraft with a slightly stretched upper deck and a few minor changes. It's a perfectly modern aircraft for which parts are readily avaliable. The advantage of the A380 would be that it's somewhat larger. It's not like the current VC-25 is lacking space. The 747-8 would only add marginally more space.
One of the reasons for choosing the 747-200 is that it was a tried and true design that world airports could handle without trouble. The A380 would be far more limited as many regional aircraft can't accommodate it.
Re:What exactly is wrong with the VC-25 (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing's wrong with it now. It's just that this is the government we're talking about. If they haven't started the project yet, the VC-25 will be 30 yo by the time they finish.
How about if we get Pres. Obama (Score:4, Funny)
an F-22 Raptor?
That would one bad-ass mo-fo ride.
I would NOT want to mess with him in that.
Air Force One should be US Designed and Built (Score:3, Interesting)
As a US Citizen and an ex-USAF NCO I firmly believe that an aircraft "Representing the United States of America to the World" as Air Force One does, should be designed and built in the US, not some foreign aircraft with "United States of America" slapped on the sides...
My personal preference would be something from Boeing, but my requirement would at least be something from the US.
(This is above and beyond the security aspects of any aircraft systems designed or manufactured by a potential enemy - and ANY country other than us is a potential enemy...)
--
Tomas
Re:I have to ask (Score:4, Interesting)
I would say he needs the smallest plane that can fly over the Pacific. Or the plane that can land on the shortest runway possible. I think, especially with this new President coming in to office ten days from now, there will be more trips to developing countries. Countries that do not have the runway, airport, and infrastructure that the Western world has. Sure, other arrangements can be made, but there would be nothing like having Air Force One fly into their country. Think of the PR. I think it shows more respect, too; which is something our Government needs to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the president flies into a country, he does it on Air Force One. It doesn't matter if it is a freaking two-seater.
Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.
Re:I have to ask (Score:4, Informative)
Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.
Exactly. Just off the top of my head:
1. Should be able to take his family. 4 including the president.
2. Security detail. 4-8 Secret Service
3. Presidential staff. 3 aides
4. Be able to haul a Secretary along(like 'of state). 3 more people
5. Contain extensive communication abilities
6. Have transcontinental range
7. Mount defensive equipment normally seen on military craft
8. People to run the plane. 8 more people (dedicated EW and comm people bump it up some).
I get 26 people. While a 747 in most configurations can seat over 300, we don't really know how much space all the comm and defensive equipment take up. The 300 figure also doesn't figure in actual cooking areas, a medical facility, office space, etc... They added the ability to aerially refuel. Heh - the 26 people is just the crew, the actual plane has a 76 passenger capacity. They also upped the max speed a touch.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, it's illegal to make threats against the president of the USA...
Or did they finally fix the V22 ?
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet the Queen of the UK or the British Prime Minister can fly using scheduled air travel?
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Funny)
Please. I know from extended studies of Dr Who that the British don't even notice when their prime minister is abducted by blubbery, farting aliens.
Re:I have to ask (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the same power the prime minister of Britain has, or the president of Russia, or the president of France for that matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the top man is out of contact and presumed lost, or incapacitated, then command works its way down the chain. This is by design and is robust.
If its so robust, then who was in charge after Reagen was shot? He was in surgery, and incapacitated, for at least three hours. The President never formally gave up control; and the Cabinet never took it from him. Reagen wasn't dead, so power never passed automatically to the Vice President. So, who, at that time, could have responded to a Soviet nuclear strike? (Remember, no one knew at the time the assassination attempt was not part of a larger plot.)
I agree that we have a fairly robust system in place to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The queen does not fly by scheduled air travel. She has access to Royal Air Force aircraft for any purpose she desires.
The Royal family can fly by RAF jets for state purposes (at the queen's discretion. This was discussed in the movie The Queen. Prince Charles obtained his mother's permission to use an RAF jet to fly to Paris and pick up the body of Lady Diana.)
Sometimes though they will charter an aircraft for state purposes (Prince Charle's most recent trip to the US was on a chartered British Airways 777
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do not use phrases like "military and civilian government." There is one government, and the military is a component of it.
Saying "military and civilian government" is the thin edge of a wedge, IMO, toward considering it acceptable that there would be a military not attached to the office of the executive. If you were so inclined, you should explore situations in history in which that has happened.
And we, the electorate who put into office the civilian government, are responsible for the military actions taken during their administration.
I have to ask-more than meets the eye. (Score:5, Funny)
You left out it's also a transformer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought I saw on the History Channel that two of them serve to scout ahead for actual on-scene weather or to serve as decoys or a backup in case the real Air Force One has a problem.
Re:19 isn't THAT old (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that, as with fighters, the electronics and defensive systems are what is driving the replacement. Being able to fly the old bird until the new one is built eliminates the downtime of rebuilding the old aircraft.
Re:19 isn't THAT old (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:19 isn't THAT old (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, commercial airliners are operated at a much higher frequency than the VC-25s are, usually two or three times a day - commercial airliners have a lot more stress placed on their airframes than the VC-25s do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll add that the primary form of stress on airframes is the cabin pressurization each time it flies at altitude. Unlike steel, aluminum does not have a regime where it does not suffer metal fatigue. That is, with steel, if you make it a certain strength, you can subject it to cyclical stress loads an infinite amount of times and it will still hold. But with aluminum, each cycle weakens it (fatigues the metal) no matter how strong you make it, and it eventually fails.
Each time you pressurize the cabin,
Emergency landings and fuel dumps (Score:3, Informative)
"That's why you see commercial jets dump or burn off fuel before an emergency landing."
Landing weight is a concern. However, they also dump fuel so there's less fuel to burn if the fuel tanks are breached in the landing attempt. In emergency landings that actually make it to the "landing" stage, fire and smoke kill more people than blunt force trauma due to impacts. In emergencies, aircraft without fuel dumping systems will prefer to circle, to burn up fuel with the engines. Only if they must land immediately will they skip that. (Contrary to expectations, not all emergencies require imm
Even if it's second best, buy American! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
quite frankly, one plane every 20 or so years is not going permit any company to be lazy.
Re:We're Americans, for gods sake... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, he didn't get a Concorde because, while it can fly faster and higher than a 747, it is *very* small compared to the jumbo, so has no room for all the advisors, radars, communication equipment, etc etc, and also requires considerably more fuel stops than a 747, so it is either hobbled anyway by having to fly near to (or between) tanker aircraft, or it has to keep landing.
No, there's far more sensible reasons not to use a Concorde as a flying command station that doubles as an airtaxi, and none of them are "it's not made by America!".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When the head of state travels, he represents the country. What would it say about the US aircraft industry if he travelled in a foreign airliner?
Meh, the heads of state of just about every other country (except maybe France and Russia) travel in foreign-built airliners all the time. We'd get over it.
That said, the A380 feels like overkill. I had one in factory grey taxiing behind the F70/F100 I was on in Lyon, and the difference in scale, yeeesh. It was like "OMG it's gonna EAT us."
Re:We're Americans, for gods sake... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they were our nazis.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So long as there are message boards, there will be "First Post!!!" messages in second and third position on them.
I'm sure there's a name for this law, "Law of first moron" seems appropriate.
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:5, Informative)
It won't fit at most airports due to its dimensions. I suspect that would be too limiting for Air Force One.
The problem with A380s is with jetways for boarding and disembarking. As Air Force One doesn't use jetways - they use the tarmac stairs - that's not a problem.
Any runway that can take a 747 can take an A380, even if the terminal can't handle the dual deck.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Ground_operations [wikipedia.org]
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:4, Informative)
The A380 can land and take off from any landing strip a 747 can use (this is by design). So it can land at any airport where the current presidential craft can land. It needs the dimensions of the runway a 747 needs, and even though it has a higher total weight, it also has more wheels so the pressure per wheel is less than a 747. The tarmac won't be damaged by the A380 if it can handle a 747.
What it can not do (and in case of Air Force One doesn't need) on all those airports is connecting to the gates. The presidential plane will always be parked on a safe location in the airport, not at a gate.
Re:A380 is not likely (Score:4, Informative)
Sure minor runway signage and lighting may need to be moved at some airports, but major issues such as the A380s size and weight (it's got more wheels so ground pressure is reduced) aren't as big a problem as was first made out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh you dumbass, you are talking logic and rational thinking in a GOVERNMENT project!
The government, especially the military doesn't work like that. Here, let me guide you:
1) First of all some lame clerk comes up with a simple cheap way to build a new AF1.
2) His superior, afraid of budget cuts, pads it up by 300% to include laser-guided TV remotes.
3) The senate committee adds more pork by adding a military base and hands it for signature
4) The military invites closed bids for the same and awards it to the HI
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The A380 is too big and heavy for the vast majority of runways in the world.
Too "Heavy" is an unusual problem for a concrete runway
What you mean is that runways are too short for the A380, but of course it can take off and land in the same space as a 747, the only adaptations for the A380 are to the terminal buildings to handle the double decker. This isn't an issue for Air Force One as the president just walks down a set of stairs that are rolled up to the plane.
There are no technical challenges for AF1
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The A380 can land anywhere a 747 can. The double-decker has problems with airport gates, but the President doesn't use gates, he uses tarmac stairs.