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]?

 

[TugboatEng]

I'm not downplaying the complexity. I'm assuming the 747X would be stripped to an empty hull with engines and built from there.

I don't know, maybe I don't see the president as needing as much protection as some others might. We survived the last 4 years without a president. Maybe they aren't as important as we're told they are and they should fly on the same planes as the rest of us. It would certainly make them more polite in world politics.

 

[WKTaylor]

I'm not downplaying the complexity. I'm assuming the 747X would be stripped to an empty hull with engines and built from there.

I don't know, maybe I don't see the president as needing as much protection as some others might. We survived the last 4 years without a president. Maybe they aren't as important as we're told they are and they should fly on the same planes as the rest of us. It would certainly make them more polite in world politics.

Tug... of course You are down playing the complexity of 747s... and the Air Force 1 mission... that demands extra complexity... and the need to protect the president...

And Yes the AF1 'speckled trout' paint scheme projects the kindness and wisdom for the US in world politics... But never doubt... the president is in command and control of US conventional and nuclear forces at all times and all places...

To all others... I have said enough... without saying too much.

For Tug... He believes to be true what he prefers to be true... which violates every engineering principle I live by.

 

[TugboatEng]

Remember, McDonnell Douglass and Boeing merged in 1997, after the last AF1 was produced. We hear all of the time on this forum that Boeing has serious lack of talent issues today as a result of the merger. It's quite possible that Boeing is no longer able to produce such an aircraft.

Additionally, in rhe the last 30something years AF1 has only been used to ferry a person that has been deemed more valuable than the rest of us, while also proving themselves to be more replaceable than the rest of us of us, to various publicity stunts and vacations. What value did Trump flying to Texas bring with regards to flood recovery? What value did Biden flying to North Carolina provide?

Maybe Americans don't want such a special aircraft. Maybe we don't care about our politicians anymore. Perhaps making the president fly on a commercial grade aircraft will cause the administration to look more closely at the safety of commercial aircraft. Certainly that would benefit us.

Even in the event of nuclear war, what is the importance of the president being able to travel? Maybe you've been fully manipulated by the propaganda of the military industrial complex?