It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Useless Air Force 1, isnt it?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
In movies, for example "Sum of all fears" the President of the United States and his company escapes with the Air Force 1 (presidents plane for serious times) out of Baltimore, after the explosion of the atomic bomb in the city.

Did the leadership of the USA really think that a plane is a safe place after or at a atomic war? Well there a lot of rumors about the secret weapons on board..but they are useless at a real atomic war, for example.

Am I right or am I wrong?




posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   

as posted by dacruz
Am I right or am I wrong?


Short and to the point, your wrong.
This might help:
How Air Force One Works



seekerof



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Ok, you are the Number 1 target your enemy wants to kill. They have nuclear weapons. They know the locations of all your bunkers and hideouts.

Where would you rather go, to a known location, or to an aircraft which can be ANYWHERE during the attack. Your bunkers will have pretargetted nukes dropped on them, but you cannot do that to an aircraft as it is a highly mobile target, that is why AF1 is the best place to be.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
thats a way to spend the taxes... but a very elaborate system! The only depend is the re-fuel of kerosene..hmm I would like to know how long this plane could be in the air without a re-fuel.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Another special addition is the in-flight refueling connection. As with the B-2 and other combat craft, in-flight refueling gives Air Force One the ability to stay up in the air indefinitely, which could be crucial in an emergency situation.


It will always have the capability of re-fueling, so that question isn't valid, IMO...


[edit on 13-12-2004 by elevatedone]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz
thats a way to spend the taxes... but a very elaborate system! The only depend is the re-fuel of kerosene..hmm I would like to know how long this plane could be in the air without a re-fuel.


For Boeing 747-400, the maximum fuel capacity (with optional tail fuel) is 216,840 litres. As each engine burns 3000 litres each hour at cruise, this stands around 18 hours from fully loaded.

The Airforce One duo of aircraft are actually 747-200 series jets, which have been updated to 400 block models, and it has increased fuel capacity, but less efficient engines, so Id reckon 18 hours is good for it as well.

They can also refuel inflight, so technically they can stay up as long as needed.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
okay thanks Richard!

that means: after 18 hours a/the war must end..when none of the refuelling machines are available..


[edit on 13-12-2004 by dacruz]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz
okay thanks Richard!

that means: after 18 hours a/the war must end..when none of the refuelling machines are available..


[edit on 13-12-2004 by dacruz]


Well, the war basically WILL be over by then
30 minutes for the missiles, 8-10 hours for the bombers, submarines after 12 hours of no contact. Everything will have been dropped/fired/launched well before 18 hours in an all out nuclear war, so it would be pretty safe (relatively speaking) for AF1 to land and transfer the President to something like Cheyenne Mountain, which would survive a nuclear attack.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

that means: after 18 hours a/the war must end..when none of the refuelling machines are available..


Nope, still wrong.

At the earliest stages of DEFCON, those refuelers are in the air and on a cycling basis...
I'm sure the exact number of tankers for supplying AF1 in such a scenario is classified, but my bet is that it could stay aloft for nearly a week or more....before a secured landing zone is created.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

that means: after 18 hours a/the war must end..when none of the refuelling machines are available..


Nope, still wrong.

At the earliest stages of DEFCON, those refuelers are in the air and on a cycling basis...
I'm sure the exact number of tankers for supplying AF1 in such a scenario is classified, but my bet is that it could stay aloft for nearly a week or more....before a secured landing zone is created.


whoof..thats get freakin complex in here, lol..these tankers must have the same advantage like the air force 1.."invulnerable" against atomic shaking..lets hope such scenario will never happen.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Surely it would safer to live on a Submarine? The latests ones can stay underwater for up to a year if pushed, 6 month average is the time, but if a war breaks out they can ration supplies for a year estimated.

But, your stuck in a sub, which kinda sucks more than a luxury jet which can land near a safe bunker...



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Everything will have been dropped/fired/launched well before 18 hours in an all out nuclear war...


Wrong. Plenty of reserves will be on hand to take care of the next duck stupid enough to swim accross the shooting gallery. Remember the sequence:

(1) target
(2) bomb
(3) assess (that's what the SR71 was for)
(4) do it again, if needed

They've got enough depth to do this to every potential aggressor on or off planet many times over. Mad, isn't it? Lets hope its MAD enough to deter any aggressor.

In the air is the best place to be in an earthquake. Kind of the same thing, no? I'm a pilot. If I were Bush, I'd hold court in AF1. You'd never get me home at night. She's a gorgeous bird.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Chakotay]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Are there any rumors what the Airforce One is equipted with for defenses?



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I have heard that AF1 is equipped with 2 sidewinder missles that are stowed in the fusalage towards the nose of the aircraft. I have also heard that Air Force 1 never ever flies alone. I am pretty sure that these are just some of the aircraft that fly with it. F-15 (2), and a EA-6B for radar jamming purposes. If anybody has any other information on this..please post.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Wrong. Plenty of reserves will be on hand to take care of the next duck stupid enough to swim accross the shooting gallery. Remember the sequence:

(1) target
(2) bomb
(3) assess (that's what the SR71 was for)
(4) do it again, if needed

They've got enough depth to do this to every potential aggressor on or off planet many times over. Mad, isn't it? Lets hope its MAD enough to deter any aggressor.

In the air is the best place to be in an earthquake. Kind of the same thing, no? I'm a pilot. If I were Bush, I'd hold court in AF1. You'd never get me home at night. She's a gorgeous bird.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Chakotay]


Im talking nuclear weapons, Chakotay.

If they havent flown, they will be dead, its as simple as that. The Russians have all ICMB silos targetted, they are easy to spot from space. Even if they are empty, they *will* get hit, so there will be no second strike from your ground launched. The Russians can afford to drop quite a few babies on the silos, as they assume you have some method of quickly reloading them.

Your bombers will have their airfields targetted, probably by multiple warheads. No refueling, no rearming, no second wave. Fighters will be dispersed to dust airfields, secondary areas that cannot handle bombers. Chances are they will get hit as well, but anyways the runways will be unsuitable for bombers, and you cant turn around a bomber as you can a fighter.

The subs will launch after 12 hours of no contact, probably before that on presidential order. If they dont get taken out by roving Aqula attack submarines before that is. Once they launch, theyve been pinpointed, and if they are inrange then youve just lost them to roving Bear maritime bombers armed with nuclear depthcharges. Detonate one at 1000foot depth within 20 miles of a sub and the sub wont stand a chance. Empty or not, your subs cannot be counted on.

So, you are left with perhaps a couple hundred warheads left, maybe a B-52 base survived or some subs managed to stay silent and deep and get missed. You have no ICBMs left, thats for sure, tehre will be nothing but craters or scorched earth where they were. Chances are the USSR came off a lot better than you did, as they have a LOT more warheads, a LOT more places to hide secret bases, their heavy bombers were designed to handle dust field landings. But both sides would have taken massive civilian casualties, make no mistake.

There will be no SR-71 surviellence, the infrastructure to support these aircraft would be gone. Probably the aircraft themselves. Anyhow, that was not the SR-71s mission, it was built for pre war USSR fly overs. Nuclear war was supposed to be messy, a big splat, everything at the same time, it was assumed that the infrastructure wouldnt be there to launch a second strike.

Theres no such thing as a limited nuclear strike. Once youve launched, you are committed to everything, as the other sides just launched everything they have at you.

Sounds fun, doesnt it?

Please note that this post is not a 'The Russians are better ... The Americans are better ... The....' post, its simply a good idea of what a nuclear exchange would consist of. The exchange would consist of a 3 stage attack, as I said in my origional post, 30 minutes for the ICMBs, anything from 8 - 10 hours for the bulk of your bomber force to hit, and then the subs on order, at most 12 hours from last standdown order.

If a mistake has been made at stage 1, you have the option of recalling the bombers and subs, but the birds have flown so you are at least partially committed to the largest mistake in history. Maybe the people now in charge of both countries are negotiating, maybe it takes a sub launch to have one back down and recall the bombers. I dont know. Luckily it never happened.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I would just like to clarify something about AF1. Every airplane requires maintenance after every flight. Much of this includes adding more lubricants and other oils to the engine. I'm pretty sure after about 72 hours 747's are required to land to refuel on a lot of things besides jet fuel.

Somebody I know was a mechanic for United Airlines so I'll ask him for details and specifics.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by creamsoda
I have heard that AF1 is equipped with 2 sidewinder missles that are stowed in the fusalage towards the nose of the aircraft. I have also heard that Air Force 1 never ever flies alone. I am pretty sure that these are just some of the aircraft that fly with it. F-15 (2), and a EA-6B for radar jamming purposes. If anybody has any other information on this..please post.


No idea about the missiles (Id be extremely doubtful about it), but AF1 regularly flies alone without military escort. But they do scramble fighters from the nearest USAF base whenever an alert happens, or a friendly ally fighter base if they are out of range.

It has been confirmed before that AF1 has atleast flare and foil countermeasures, is ECM and EMP hardened.

For information, the AirForce One twin aircraft tail numbers are 28000 and 29000with Air Force designation VC-25A, and both were introduced in 1990. If the President was ever to travel on a civilian aircraft, that aircraft would not carry the Air Force One designation, it would carry the Executive One designation. The current 747s are due to be replaced in 2010.

In November 2003, there was a minor controversy when Air Force One's crew lied to British air traffic control, informing them that the 150-ton 747 was an 85,000-pound Gulfstream V corporate jet, causing minor embarressment while the President was on route to Iraq for Thanksgiving. The Whitehouse initially denied it but later admitted it and apologised to LAT.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I would just like to clarify something about AF1. Every airplane requires maintenance after every flight. Much of this includes adding more lubricants and other oils to the engine. I'm pretty sure after about 72 hours 747's are required to land to refuel on a lot of things besides jet fuel.

Somebody I know was a mechanic for United Airlines so I'll ask him for details and specifics.


Not really. Nearly all modern aircraft can land, offload, reload, refuel and depart without having any maintenance done at all, for quite a number of flights - its just this kind of turn around that makes an airline money. The pilot/copilot or senior groundscrew will do an aircraft walkaround before the flight tho to check that nothings fallen off
(Its amazing actually what will fall off an aircraft and have the aircraft STILL pass the walk around, with damage noted and logged, and the aircraft fly as normal)

Its just like a car, your car can go for quite a few journeys without you changing the oil, checking the brakefluid levels or topping up the windscreen washer water. Just the same for aircraft, they dont eat oil or lubricants to any great degree.

Put it this way. Airlines generally wont let anyone outside their own qualified mechanics touch one of their aircraft, and most airlines do not keep a staff at every airport they fly too. And you can be damn well sure that the pilots wont get their hands dirty doing it



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   


If they havent flown, they will be dead, its as simple as that. The Russians have all ICMB silos targetted, they are easy to spot from space. Even if they are...



This stance is mutual... Who is to say that their national missile launch detection system is still working? Ours is in pristine condition.




Your bombers will have their airfields targetted, probably by multiple warheads. No refueling, no rearming, no second wave. Fighters will be ...


Are you sure Russia has enough working ICBMs to even target all primary airfields? Current stats that I have read a few months back suggest otherwise...




The subs will launch after 12 hours of no contact, probably before that on presidential order. If they dont get taken out by roving Aqula attack submarines before that is. Once they launch, theyve been pinpointed, and if they are inrange then youve just lost them to roving Bear maritime bombers armed ...


I'm willing to bet that we have more subs then Russia has Bears in usable condition.
Oh, so you expect Russian subs have a breakthrough in underwater speed technology? We also have attack subs that, will most likely, be patrolling a set zone around the ICBM capable fleet. Also, most of our ICBM capable subs are far from all being in Russian territory.




So, you are left with perhaps a couple hundred warheads left, maybe a B-52 base survived or some subs managed to stay silent and deep and get missed. You have no ICBMs left, thats for sure, tehre will be nothing but craters or scorched earth where they were. Chances are the USSR came off a lot better tha...


Once again, that 'statistic' is mutual... There are absolutely no 'secret' basses that Russia has to house ICBMs... All places where figured out during the Cold War era.




There will be no SR-71 surviellence, the infrastructure to support these aircraft would be gone....

The infrastructure that these systems run on have redundant bases in other countries. I'm sure Russia wont be bombing a dozen countries to ensure our destruction...

Sounds to me like you are trying to spook people... In reality, on paper the US has a far better chance at coming out of a nuclear war then Russia.


And last but not least. AF1 will not be staying in the air for more then a few days (strait) as each passing hour with no routine maintenance raises the chance of a major part failure greatly.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Not really. Nearly all modern aircraft can land, offload, reload, refuel and depart without having any maintenance done at all, for quite a number of flights - its just this kind of turn around that makes an airline money. The pilot/copilot or senior groundscrew will do an aircraft walkaround before the flight tho to check that nothings fallen off
(Its amazing actually what will fall off an aircraft and have the aircraft STILL pass the walk around, with damage noted and logged, and the aircraft fly as normal)

Its just like a car, your car can go for quite a few journeys without you changing the oil, checking the brakefluid levels or topping up the windscreen washer water. Just the same for aircraft, they dont eat oil or lubricants to any great degree.

Put it this way. Airlines generally wont let anyone outside their own qualified mechanics touch one of their aircraft, and most airlines do not keep a staff at every airport they fly too. And you can be damn well sure that the pilots wont get their hands dirty doing it


All though it is true that most modern aircraft can stay in the air for a long time I was simply trying to clarify that AF1 can not stay up indefinatly. You might be suprised at what can happen to an aircraft in one flight. If a nuclear war ever did break out, most likely most of the infastructure needed to support AF1 would be destroyed meaning that it could be a long time before a landing in a secure location is possible.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join