Forum: Off-topic

I just watched the president take off from Austin Straubel here in Green Bay.

Seeing this raised a few red flags, maybe someone can shed a tad bit of light on these. I'm not looking for a technical explanation or anything that will violate OPSEC.

But:

I've looked up the specs on the 747, and NONE of the civilian versions it seems can take off or land at our airport, where the longest runway is 8700 feet.

So that leads me to think "thrust reverser" but then it still seems reckless that they would come in on such a short runway for the plane.

But then that still leaves taking off, and I know that the "required T/O length" isn't actually what's needed to get the plane in the air, but wouldn't it be smarter to use a C-32 owing to the smaller plane's ability to operate in smaller fields?

Is it too much to ask that the president save the taxpayers a few dollars by not flying the biggest bird in the fleet on a mission that could have easily been handled by a smaller jet?

If I remember correctly, Bush didn't come here on the VC-25, and Cheney flew in on a -32.

Or is it that the SOB just wants to show off his toys?
I guess he's a Man of the People as long as they're named Gates. Trump, Wozniak, or Allen.

They should enact a law that says the VC-25s shouldn't be used when a C-32'll do just fine, and since he's going back to DC, he doesn't need a plane with intercontinental range.

Though the plane was pretty cool, if anyone ever served in the 89 AW, ya sure got some pretty birds.

F-16.net Sponsor

He did slum it in the Gulfstream when they had the taxpayer funded "date" night in New York. Of course he had to take 2, because he's gotta have the entourage.

Quote:

1. I've looked up the specs on the 747, and NONE of the civilian versions it seems can take off or land at our airport, where the longest runway is 8700 feet.

2. So that leads me to think "thrust reverser" but then it still seems reckless that they would come in on such a short runway for the plane.

3. But then that still leaves taking off, and I know that the "required T/O length" isn't actually what's needed to get the plane in the air, but wouldn't it be smarter to use a C-32 owing to the smaller plane's ability to operate in smaller fields?

4. Is it too much to ask that the president save the taxpayers a few dollars by not flying the biggest bird in the fleet on a mission that could have easily been handled by a smaller jet?

5. Or is it that the SOB just wants to show off his toys?

#1. is an incorrect and incomplete statement.
#2. is an incorrect statement.
#3. it appears from the post that "smarter" is a relative term.
#4. Do you know the cost per flight hour of each of the 89th's aircraft?
#5. is just a stupid, inflammatory statement.

OL

PT, I'm with Outlaw on this one. You must remember that the VC-25 is not a stock 747.

The engines have a higher thrust rating than the civilian birds up to and including the -300's engines.

T-Rs are deployed anytime the VC-25 lands. It doesn't matter if it's Chicago-O'Hare or Dogpatch, Arkansas Municipal. They aid in slowing the aircraft down, without putting so much strain on the brakes and landing gear.

As long as the crew can get the TOGA and vBO numbers that they need, then they can safely take off and land from that field. The crew will look at all of this when they mission plan. If they can't get the numbers with the configuration and fuel, then they will try again with different cargo and fuel numbers. If they still can't get what they need, then they will plan for a larger airport. BTW, the VC-25 landed at, and took off from Tallahassee Regional Airport, FL (8,000 ft. rwy) with no problems whatsoever.

Just because the President says he wants to go somewhere doesn't mean that the AF1 crew will allow it. If the Prez's wants or needs cannot be met under the AF's and FAA's rules and regulations, then the AF will tell the White House to recoordinate their plans. And yes, the FAA does play a role during coordination of where AF1 can go. The FAA and the USAF are well aware of what airports are and are not VC-25 capable.

Also, the President can't always readily take the smaller aircraft. He has a lot of people who are required to fly with him who need to make the trip, plus all of their equipment. Hence, a big reason Bush Sr. upgraded to the 747 from a 707.

Again, it's not just about showing off bling. The usage of the VC-25 and all supporting AMC aircraft are based upon the needs of the Air Force, the Secret Service, and the Executive Branch. Each time AF1 flies, it is an official Air Mobility Command Special Air Mission. Each mission is thoroughly planned, briefed, and coordinated in advance with all necessary agencies, including making arrangements with the destination airport.

Quote:

PT, I'm with Outlaw on this one. You must remember that the VC-25 is not a stock 747.

Okay, I apologize. I'm not attempting to dis the guys of the 89th AW, they have to fly the POTUS whether they like it or not, and I'm sure there are always personnel that don't like the person holding the office but still do their best for the good of the country/service/people. The pilot did a great job (and he flew right over my house FTW! ).

This President has said he's environmentally conscious, then I think an environmentally conscious President should insist on flying a more economical plane. The Air Force doesn't need to haul all them newsies.

If there isn't space on a C-32 for the Press Corps, too bad. They make enough money to fly anywhere commercially. The US wastes jet fuel hauling around windbags in style (at least windbags that aren't a part of the government).

The lightbulb just went "click": next time Obama's in Iraq or Afghanistan, if there's any soldiers waiting for a lift stateside, they should get first priority over newsies. If the newsies want Freedom of the Press, let 'em fight for it for a while and then ride FRED home, or swim.

Ironically folks, I was thinking of becoming a newsie myself for a while...

I've seen the documentaries they did on AF1 and all the hard work that goes into getting a POTUS anywhere. I'm just making a guess that since the 747 is the biggest aircraft in the 89th's VIP fleet, it's the most expensive of the bunch. 4 engines, more passengers, I wouldn't care who the President was, this seems wasteful to me. He could have even saved all the money and done the announcement from the Oval Office.

yeah, Outlaw, I know #5 was inflammatory but I meant it to rattle a few cages.

I recall W flying to many a place in VC-25... it's something presidents do.

One other thing to ponder: the office of the POTUS is arguably the most powerful position on the planet. When he takes a trip somewhere, domestically or abroad, the jet itself becomes a symbol of the office and a dominant representation of America. It's rare, nigh unheard of, for both 25s to be unavailable at the same time but if that were the case and something came up requiring the POTUS' presence quickly, the smaller jets are more than able to take up the load.

There are also security issues to consider. Even tho the C-32s and G5s have sophisticated secure comm suites of their own, they may not be adequate for the current threat level should something go down during the trip that the POTUS needs to address. What if Uncle Kim pops a nuke over Tokyo while POTUS is meetin' farmers in Nebraska? Could he coordinate with his military and diplomatic people with the gear on the 32s? Dunno. Probably. Which is why I'm not paid to pick the proper jet for the job. Wink

Link is definitely on the right track here. The VC-25 has certain capabilities that the other DV aircraft do not have, in regard to responding to an imminent crisis situation.

I'll leave it at that, but suffice it to say that, just because the mission is fragged to go from DC to Podunk, Kansas and back, doesn't necessarily always mean that this will be the case.

ptplauthor wrote:

I think an environmentally conscious President should insist on flying a more economical plane.

Apart from the other reason stated above, it is more economical to fly all of the necessary personnel and their equipment on one VC-25 flight, rather than fragging multiple C-32s for the same mission.

Note that I said "necessary" personnel. Totally disregarding the press, AF1 still needs to carry White House staffers, convoy drivers, a flying MX crew (AF1 does all of their own maintenance), plus the Secret Service, USAF Security Forces personnel, a mission commander, up to 23 cabin crew members, at times, the Marine One crew, and, if necessary, an additional AF1 flight crew, and all of their baggage and required equipment. Sounds like a lot of folks doesn't it?

ptplauthor wrote:

if there's any soldiers waiting for a lift stateside, they should get first priority

Not just any service member is allowed to fly on board AF1. Plus, these guys don't wait around, hitchhiking on the ramp at Baghdad or Bagram for a ride home.

If you're doing a troop movement, it has already been scheduled, and we take home more troops than AF1 would be able to hold anyway (especially with many of those folks I just mentioned already on board).

Besides, those guys like to have a place in the floor to roll out their sleeping bags anyway.

ptplauthor wrote:

the 89th's VIP fleet

The AF term is "DV". VIP is a Navy term.

ptplauthor wrote:

4 engines, more passengers, I wouldn't care who the President was, this seems wasteful to me.

Again, it's about doing more with less. One VC-25 flight, vs. several C-32s, C-37s, or C-40s, plus accomodating all of those aircraft and the Presidential Support aircraft (C-17s) at the destination airport, and all of their crews, support personnel, etc. We don't want to MOG out an airport with just the President's aircraft and support personnel. When you look at it from those numbers, the VC-25 is a much more common-sense approach.

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

:Post edited by moderators. Let's keep the focus on Air Force One and not political discussions. Thank you.:

Quote:

The AF term is "DV". VIP is a Navy term.

Sorry about that. I realized that last night while reading Sum of All Fears.... Doh

And I was under the impression from the documentaries that the escorting C-17/C-5 had the convoy guards and a majority of the Detail, as well as the Marine One guys.

Quote:

Not just any service member is allowed to fly on board AF1. Plus, these guys don't wait around, hitchhiking on the ramp at Baghdad or Bagram for a ride home.

If you're doing a troop movement, it has already been scheduled, and we take home more troops than AF1 would be able to hold anyway (especially with many of those folks I just mentioned already on board).

Besides, those guys like to have a place in the floor to roll out their sleeping bags anyway.

Yeah, but after reading all the stuff about how loud AMC transporters are supposed to be on the inside, I think our troops should be flown in something with more creature comfa. If I was President, it'd be different, but don't ever count on me being POTUS.

I wasn't delsionally thinking AF1 would be able to hold as much as a Globemaster or even a Herc, it's got less seats than the 737 I took to San Diego, but it'd be in total style, and THAT's what I was thinking of.

ptplauthor wrote:

I was under the impression...that the escorting C-17/C-5 had the convoy guards...

We carry their equipment, and escorts, but not always the full compliment of personnel. Without delving too far into who flies with whom, I will say that the USAF Security Forces Ravens, and Presidential detail Secret Service guys fly with The Boss.

ptplauthor wrote:

after reading all the stuff about how loud AMC transporters are supposed to be on the inside...

If you're going home from the AOR, does the volume really matter? The sound isn't unbearable, and we give you ear plugs, room to roll out your sleeping bag, and tons more leg room than any airliner. We let you sleep and eat at your leisure, and there's a flushing toilet. Besides, many troop movements terminate in Germany, where they get on an actual airliner for the trip home.

Compared to the stuff most soldiers have to deal with, they think flying on the C-17 is like riding in a Rolls Royce.

Quote:

ear plugs

I hope they're good ones.

Quote:

Besides, many troop movements terminate in Germany, where they get on an actual airliner for the trip home.

Yeah, here I was imagining flying 13 hours from Baghdad to stateside, somewhere in there I forgot Germany.

Last edited by LinkF16SimDude on Jun 14, 2009 - 06:25 AM; edited 1 time in total

TC wrote:

...and, if necessary, an additional AF1 flight crew,

Which reflects it's great endurance. But does anyone know if in-flight refueling has ever been utilized on an official trip? Or is that more for contingencies than regular usage?

Perhaps Elliboom will see this and jump in. I believe he's AR'd AF1 before.

PT, the ear plugs are foam. They're the same ones that aircrews wear under their helmets and/or headsets.

I use 'em on regular commercial flights. Dang near completely kills the aero noise yet still let's ya hear the FAs reasonably well.

Forum: Off-topic

Obama's Green Bay Visit