Air Force Diverts Missile Funds To Modify Qatari 747... Money is being taken from Sentinel ICBM program, which is over budget.

[WKTaylor]

I feel like I am hallucinating this... participating in a on-going nightmare by buffoons who have no limits... and believe in fairytales and the impossible.

Air Force Diverts Missile Funds To Modify Qatari 747 - AVweb

Money is being taken from Sentinel ICBM program, which is over budget.

avweb.com

 

[ChorasDen]

Have you used the term TACO outside of a conversation about food, a midsized pickup truck, or a bent bicycle frame?

It's a pretty good description of a frisbee that gets stepped on or bladed into the ground, so yeah, imagine that, you can use that word in other ways.

 

[WKTaylor]

FWIW an empty 747 can easily land on a 2,000 metre long runway. I'd say that with maximum autobrake selected on a 747-8 the actual ground roll might be even half that.

Billzilla... from HK... the aircraft you are describing would be an empty/stripped-down plain vanilla 747. The Q747... aircraft modified for AF1... standards will have a substantially higher empty weight and drag.

Also remember... the airfield, taxiways and parking ramp would require special engineering and installation/construction to bare the dynamic/static weight and jet-blast and braking-loads of this aircraft. Not trivial.

 

[kontiki99]

I look at this thread and I'm not sure I ever really got the controversy. The way I see it, you can't send the POTUS traveling around on an Airbus. Totally wrong optics. All the engineering for all the POTUS related stuff is already developed for a 747, so the adaptive engineering is nominal. I think it's got kind of a good iconic look. I doubt a 777EX would even be as cool.

As far as where they come from, I see airlines sometimes operating fleets of lease returns. When it comes to the budget, acquisition and the color of money, who knows where that really flows from to.

 

[WKTaylor]

I look at this thread and I'm not sure I ever really got the controversy. The way I see it, you can't send the POTUS traveling around on an Airbus. Totally wrong optics. All the engineering for all the POTUS related stuff is already developed for a 747, so the adaptive engineering is nominal. I think it's got kind of a good iconic look. I doubt a 777EX would even be as cool.

As far as where they come from, I see airlines sometimes operating fleets of lease returns. When it comes to the budget, acquisition and the color of money, who knows where that really flows from to.

DO NOT MISTAKE Air Force1 aircraft as simply a 'dressed-up' 747.

Here is one the more detailed descriptions of AF1 that I have seen... although it pulls-up way short of a technical specification. Pages 1 thru 6... for a brief... non-classified... sniff check. OH yeah and while the entire crew is wears 'blues', all are hardened for combat... and trained for service and diplomacy... and maintenance crews are always on standby... along with a standby air Force combat cargo-jet for emergency evacuation at nearby MIL airfield.

Start here... How Air Force 1 works... https://people.howstuffworks.com/air-force-one.htm [follow the right => arrows for more pages]....

 

[TugboatEng]

Did you read that link? AF1 has fax machines and 19 televisions? Impressive!

Sorry, I get that there may be additional radiation hardening and maybe some countermeasures but that article is a fluff piece written for junior high students and doesn't really say anything.

 

[kontiki99]

I'm sure AF1 is a (Take Charge and Move Out) TACAMO aircraft with a press section. Another possible advantage for a 747 is the 4 engines. The company I work for operates 777s. We've seen an engine gearbox loose all of it's oil. At that point, you look for a place to land. I'm guessing a 747 with one engine out still has the range redundancy and power generation capacity to do what it does. You can't just dump the POTUS any old place. We did have one of ours spend a few weeks at Shemya Island (very last airfield on our side on the Aleutian Island chain) after an emergency landing maybe last year? You probably don't want to risk landing the POTUS some place like that. Again, what are you gonna put him in? I see the 747 as a clear winner.

 

[TugboatEng]

Nobody is arguing against the use of a 747. To add to your points, it's also fast. Otherwise, why not use a C17?

Some people here are upset about the source of the 747 and one of its potential occupants.

If I wanted to be upset I'd be asking about the cost to maintain a 1 off 747 instead of a 2 off like the current AF1's are. They aren't very current, though.

 

[WKTaylor]

I'm sure AF1 is a (Take Charge and Move Out) TACAMO aircraft with a press section. Another possible advantage for a 747 is the 4 engines. The company I work for operates 777s. We've seen an engine gearbox loose all of it's oil. At that point, you look for a place to land. I'm guessing a 747 with one engine out still has the range redundancy and power generation capacity to do what it does. You can't just dump the POTUS any old place. We did have one of ours spend a few weeks at Shemya Island (very last airfield on our side on the Aleutian Island chain) after an emergency landing maybe last year? You probably don't want to risk landing the POTUS some place like that. Again, what are you gonna put him in? I see the 747 as a clear winner.

This article simply exposes the uninitiated 'reader' to the superficial elements of AF1.

NOW, Try to visualize a dressed-up E-4B [747-200B]... NOT the MUCH smaller E-6B [which is actually a dressed-up 707-320]... Command Post Acft... and then try visualize what is under/behind every panel, carpet, bulkhead, the cockpit/upper-deck, wings, engines and stabilizers and wheel-wells. Ughhhh...

Now 'harden/make-redundant' every critical element: structures, engines, mechanical/electrical/electronic system to survive: CME, EMI, EMP, TREES, lightning, corona, ionizing-gamma-microwave radiation, thermal [heat] radiation [+800F], shock-wave blast/overpressure. AND have fuel tank 'inerting' systems and other MIL-grade fire/explosion suppression elements. AND have defensive-countermeasures for every other land-sea-air threat... radar or multispectral [or combination]... against attacking aircraft or guided AAMs, etc. OH... and survive sudden cabin depressurization events.

NOW add in redundant/secure electronics, computing, communication that is resistant to jamming/spoofing and has counter-jamming capability across the electromagnetic spectrum. OH and even the paint like likely a special low IR reflective coating system... and high thermal resistance.

OH... and have a dedicated supply/logistics system for support/repair... along with specially trained electro/mechanical technicians... including tech data for troubleshooting and maintenance, for every element of the aircraft. AND dedicated simulators for the cockpit crews and upper-deck combat crews.

Shallow vision/shallow thinking about AF1 makes converting the Q747-X to AF1X easy-peasy. On-the-other-hand all this could be made so much easier easier IF the Air Force isn't allowed any technical input on the modification; AND if a third party engineering and maintenance/modification shop 'magically' has the full rights and privileges to the Boeing engineering, drawings and manuals for that particular Q747-X aircraft. Hmmmm probably NOT.

But then, what could I possibly now about these crazy-modified aircraft [VC-25A, E-3C, E-4B, E-6B, E-8A]?