Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

ptplauthor wrote:

I saw a special on AF1 on the History Channel, all the fuel comes from pre-tested USAF stocks, and the bowsers are guarded when they get to the destination, I know you probably know that already though, it was a great piece...kinda neat to see the amount of precision that goes into each flight.

On the 25th, National Geographic Channel will have the unclassified details of how AF1 made it's most recent visit to Iraq.

F-16.net Sponsor

TC, ask and you shall recieve. I have been on a few AF-1 support missions, and it's amazing how many people and planes that it takes just to get the president anywhere. I have never AR'ed AF-1 but I do get the chance fairly often to do it's smaller brother the E-4B. My presonal opinion is that they should pick either the latest version of the 747, or the 787 to satisfy the envoronmental crowd.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

boff180 wrote:

Guysmiley wrote:

Eh? The A380 is a ridiculously over-sized monster, sure.

The 380 is not that big, after seeing one close up and in the air a couple of times, it not all that bigger than a 747-400.

Is it too hard to believe the new AF-1 might be European? The new Marine-1 is........

Andy

It's 400,000lb heavier than a 747 at MTOW. I'm not talking physical dimensions, I'm talking about airport (and taxiway) weight limitations.

I'd also like to point out that--I too--have seen the Harrison Ford movie a few too many times.

Quote:

Is it too hard to believe the new AF-1 might be European? The new Marine-1 is........

And look at what kind of Charlie Foxtrot the VH-71 is, not to mention its enormous price tag, This isn't the right thread, but they should've thought about the CH-53 if they wanted a bigger bird...(I can hear the RWR beeping, I KNOW I'm gonna get shot down on this Smile

)

Quote:

all the other AF1s I've seen had 4 engines

All the regular ones do, there are some exceptions, a C-20C (Gulfstream III) serves as a backup to AF1

PT, and Bunny, I thought the Russian airliner safety discussion was veering this thread off somewhere into Aeroflot Land, so I branched off your discussion to the Mishaps page here:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=142357#142357

ptplauthor wrote:

a C-20C (Gulfstream III) serves as a backup to AF1

Actually, the Gulfstream is AF-2 for the Vice President, and also serves as the First Lady's transport, when she goes on her own trips.

The backup jet for the VC-25 (aka, "AF-1") is another VC-25.

However, technically ANY AF plane can serve as AF-1. The only requirement for a plane to become AF-1 is for the President to step on board. Harrison Ford at least got that part correct. Wink

Quote:

The backup jet for the VC-25 (aka, "AF-1") is another VC-25.

From what I read, it was the backup's backup--but has a combat plane (anything but a C-series, I mean) carried the Air Force One callsign?

No, but the only time an aircraft has ever carried the callsign "Navy One", it was the S-3 Viking that carried Dubya onboard the Abe Lincoln. This is the only time that the President has ever flown on board a tactical aircraft. Bush had originally requested an F-18, but the Secret Service would not allow it, because they could not be on board the plane with him in that scenario. However, Bush did want a combat-capable aircraft, and so the compromise was made with an S-3.

BTW, the "Army One" callsign has not been used since 1976, when the Marines took over sole responsibility of transporting the President by helicopter.

It was actually "Army One", not "Marine One" as often erroneously reported, which Nixon boarded after resigning from office. It's the same helicopter, but was flown on that mission by an Army crew.

"Coast Guard One" is an available callsign, but to date, has never been used.

Quote:

No, but the only time an aircraft has ever carried the callsign "Navy One", it was the S-3 that carried Dubya onboard the Abe Lincoln.

And the only plane to carry "executive One" was a United Airlines DC-10 that went from Dulles to LAX in 1973--to supposedly set an example during the energy crisis--which is BS--the normal VC-137 followed behind in case of emergency--a bigger waste of taxpayer money than just flying the -137s.

I think some of one of my posts got nuked in the transfer so I'll just repost it.

Basically, I feel the aircraft should be an American aircraft and not an Airbus. That's not a slam on our European friends, it's just that AF1 is a great big shining example of America and the thing you see before him. It represents the people, the military (since they're escorting it), and the prez. It also says something about us if we don't have enough faith in our own aircraft to have it transport the Pres. It's a matter of national pride, I would think the European leaders would also want to fly in Airbus's since that somewhat represents their countries'.

As for what's called AF1... have you ever seen the movie Air Force One? Razz

No, TC started a new thread on Aeroflot's safety record--check the mishaps board

Guysmiley wrote:

boff180 wrote:

Guysmiley wrote:

Eh? The A380 is a ridiculously over-sized monster, sure.

The 380 is not that big, after seeing one close up and in the air a couple of times, it not all that bigger than a 747-400.

Is it too hard to believe the new AF-1 might be European? The new Marine-1 is........

Andy

It's 400,000lb heavier than a 747 at MTOW. I'm not talking physical dimensions, I'm talking about airport (and taxiway) weight limitations.

I'll just quote Boeing on this one Wink

Boeing wrote:

The 747-8 Intercontinental is the only jetliner in the 400- to 500-seat market, stretched 5.6 m (18.3 ft) from the 747-400 to provide 467 seats in a three-class configuration and a 14,815-km (8,000-nmi) range. Using 787-technology engines, the airplane will be quieter, produce lower emissions, and achieve better fuel economy than any competing jetliner. The 747 Intercontinental will provide nearly equivalent trip costs and 11 percent lower seat-mile costs than the 747-400, plus 26 percent greater cargo volume. Operating economics will offer a significant improvement over the A380. The 747-8 is more than 10 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 19 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 4 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at most airports worldwide.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747fam ... round.html

To coin an old phrase: "If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going!" Laughing

TC wrote:

ptplauthor wrote:

a C-20C (Gulfstream III) serves as a backup to AF1

Actually, the Gulfstream is AF-2 for the Vice President, and also serves as the First Lady's transport, when she goes on her own trips.

The backup jet for the VC-25 (aka, "AF-1") is another VC-25.

However, technically ANY AF plane can serve as AF-1. The only requirement for a plane to become AF-1 is for the President to step on board. Wink

I think I know where PT is going, but according the the USAF we're talking about C-20B models; during trips a C-20 or C-37 is often "about" the president somewhere if a VC-25 isn't. I remember when when a former president did a train tour, the C-37 was nearby so that he could make a speedy departure if/when needed. It is far easier to stash a C-20 or C-37 in a hangar than a VC-25 that is for sure!

The VP (among others) use the C-32s (AKA B575)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90
...and the C-37As (AKA Gulfstream V)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=91
...or the C-20B (AKA Gulfstream III)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=88

Now if TEG was inaugurated president, we would have a Viper AF-1 in a matter of hours. Cool

(Not to mention a the rest of the DoD fleet over the next few years, just for fact finding; perhaps even some NASA-1 missions?)

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Quote:

think I know where PT is going, but according the the USAF we're talking about C-20B models; during trips a C-20 or C-37 is often "about" the president somewhere if a VC-25 isn't. I remember when when a former president did a train tour, the C-37 was nearby so that he could make a speedy departure if/when needed. It is far easier to stash a C-20 or C-37 in a hangar than a VC-25 that is for sure!

That's what I was trying to say--it would make sense to have a backup that won't stick out quite like a sore thumb.

I double-checked GlobalSecurity--No C-20 Charlie variant

Quote:

Now if TEG was inaugurated president, we would have a Viper AF-1 in a matter of hours. Cool

Forget voting on the issues, you have my vote in 2012--whaddaya say, a TEG/TC ticket in 2012?
But like what was said earlier--keep one of the Gs in reserve.....who knows--The Gambia might not like seeing the POTUS fly over their country in a jet that is 500x as potent as their lone Su-25

But keep me in mind for an Ambassadorship to Canada.... Very Happy

There's really nothing wrong with the VH-71. Fact of the matter, is that Sikorsky just didn't put out the better product, and Boeing simply phoned in their half-@$$ed proposal with the $h!thook.

Many believe it was simply arrogance on Sikorsky's part. After years of having the responsibility of manufacturing the helicopters used for Marine (and Army) One, they just assumed that they would be a shoe in for the contract. Westland/LM/Bell came in, and pulled the rug out from underneath them.

For the uber-Patriots, never fear, the VH-71 is being built in the US. There are some components being built in the UK (rotors) and Italy (gearbox), but the main portion of the aircraft and assembly will be here in the States, built by American Defense contractors, and, more to the point, American Union workers.

The only thing I really don't like about it, other than it being a helicopter, is the price tag. Word is, that Obama doesn't like the price tag either, and may cancel it.

UPDATE: From a Reuters article: EADS says it won't bid on new AF1.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/tnBasicIn ... 28?sp=true

I'm glad, an American president should only fly on an American-designed aircraft--would the French president fly on a Boeing?

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

AFMC begins search for new Air Force One