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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT

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


(And this covers the other mutual stance on all other comments). Who is to say. My comment was purely what WOULD have happened at the height of the cold war, what would happen now is anyones guess, but it sure wouldnt be pretty.




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...


Pretty much, 17,000 warheads is a lot of nuclear weapons, consider all primary airfields unusable. Sure, not all small town airfields or country dust strips would be hit, but they wont be large enough to land a b-52 on anyway, but these would be useful to disperse fighters to.




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.


Again, my comment was at the height of the cold war, when this scenario was much more likely. Breakthrough? Last I heard the Aqula was the fastest attack submarine, but thats beside the point.




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.


I didnt mean ICBMs, I meant refueling and rearming stations for bombers, fighters et al. The Russians did a good job of hiding whole cities from us under mountains during the cold war, they just had so much backl country compared to the US.



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...


I can guarentee both the US and the Soviet Union would have been bombing pretty much any target they thought a threat, and that included bases in foreign nations. Europe would have been a smoldering crater, japan the same. Do not think for a second that it would be politely kept to mainland US and USSR territories. Theres a reason its called Global Thermo Nuclear War.



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.


They do now, but back at the height of the cold war, both sides were evenly matched, the US had better technology in some areas, the USSR had nearly a third more nuclear warheads. This wasnt a simple game of chess. And as for me 'trying to spook' people, surely the threat of nuclear war would have done that anyway, I was just being realistic.




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:37 AM
link   


They do now, but back at the height of the cold war, both sides were evenly matched, the US had better technology in some areas, the USSR had nearly a third more nuclear warheads. This wasnt a simple game of chess. And as for me 'trying to spook' people, surely the threat of nuclear war would have done that anyway, I was just being realistic.


Fair enough... I think it would be safe to say that both our countries would be destroyed no matter who had the slight edge. Nowadays, if Russia and the U.S. where to ever exchange nukes (even though most of their nukes are non operational) it would be just as devastating. In the end it's who detect the launch or and who initiates it first.

Say Russia launched 15 and they where immediately detected, the U.S. would most likely respond with an unheard of response...

In the end, we would all be screwed.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   
How will sidewinders protect AF1 from persuers?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz
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?


Let me point out a mistake here! Air Force 1 is A VC-25 and is rutinly used to shuttle the president around. You mentioned an "Emergency Plane". The aircraft you are discribing sounds more like an E-4 National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP). They are both military versions of the 747,but they are very different aircraft! See:

E-4 NEACP

Air Force 1

Air Force 1 is design as a VIP transport for the president. the NEACP, on the other hand, is a hardened miltary command center. For the E-4 survivability and command capability are more important than comfort.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

[edit on 14-12-2004 by ghost]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be ironic if AF1/ACP were hit by an incoming MIRV?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
This is a little off topic, but didn't Bush use Airforce 1 for his campaigns?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Yes, he can use it to move around, he just isnt allowed to actually campaign on government property (so he cant campaign on military bases, on the whitehouse lawn etc etc). Im not sure how rigidly this is enforced, as presidents have been known to campaign from the Whitehouse residency and get away with it.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   

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.


Not that complex....when you consider that even the cruising altitude of a standard airliner isn't likely to feel the shudder of even most airbust nukes. Where do you think those aerial pictures of the blasts came from? Planes of course.... They aren't "immune" to it, just flying high above it....

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

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.


Not that complex....when you consider that even the cruising altitude of a standard airliner isn't likely to feel the shudder of even most airbust nukes. Where do you think those aerial pictures of the blasts came from? Planes of course.... They aren't "immune" to it, just flying high above it....

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Gazrok]



Hey! great discussion


Do you know, if the Air Force 1 is save against radiation?

When Bush visits other countries, he uses the AF1, thats right. But I didnt think that hes save, if some terrorists confronts the AF1 in a ambush. Just think, this plane could be so perfect, but what they do, if a whole squadron attacks it? or whats about a couple of SAMs (surface to air missle)?
Okay we know that the AF1 have flares and the other stuff, but a regular jet fighter has the same equipment, and without extrem maneuver, like the military jet fighter do+flares and stuff, the AF1 have no chance! What do you guys think about this operation conditions?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz



Hey! great discussion


Do you know, if the Air Force 1 is save against radiation?

When Bush visits other countries, he uses the AF1, thats right. But I didnt think that hes save, if some terrorists confronts the AF1 in a ambush. Just think, this plane could be so perfect, but what they do, if a whole squadron attacks it? or whats about a couple of SAMs (surface to air missle)?
Okay we know that the AF1 have flares and the other stuff, but a regular jet fighter has the same equipment, and without extrem maneuver, like the military jet fighter do+flares and stuff, the AF1 have no chance! What do you guys think about this operation conditions?


Uhm, no
It isnt. That would take quite a few tonnes of lead to do
Basically they try and avoid radiation clouds, but otherwise they are jsut as susceptable to radiation as we are, radiation proofing the entirety of AF1 would be too costly weight wise.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hi people, I was just reading what you have all put, and it is very interesting, all this radiation stuff and theorys on how the world will end, in 2 or 3 stages, and how air force one can be re-fueled. Well, heres what I think, for re-fuelers to work, they need access to an operational air feild, knowledge on how to find AF1, and fuel, in a nuclear war, apart from the so many hundred mile blast radius destroying large parts of America, the air feilds would be vapourized, so would fuel lines, and storgage places, and also the air craft will be either buring into small peices or in molecule size particles floating around in the air, also, you keep saying that AF1 can stay in the air indefinetly, one slight problem, how are you going to feed the president, throw a large fishing rod out the door at 10,000 feet and try and catch dinner! and you cant really survive without water, the thing that makes up a large percentage of our bodies, aircraft including AF1 can only carry so much, then you have to start thinking, hmm, not enough toilet paper, or plastic gloves are all gone and all of the paper for the printers etc has ran out, and so has stationary, oh look, no more female neccessitys i.e tampons, the first lady will more than likley accompany her husband along with other female white house staff. 15 warheads to America, I wouldnt be suprized if the blast went into the atlantic and pacific, canada, south america, you need to start thinking abit more on this subject, i.e more realistically, nuclear warheads dont have blast radius's of about the size of airfeilds! oh and another thing, since when could pilots or re-fueling aircraft stand intensive radiation, you have to take off in a radiated zone, unless of course the US have experimentle anti-radiation cream or something they havent told us about... also, in a radiated enviroment, how long would it take to re-build an airfeild with little or no resources, practically no power, little food and water??!!

[edit on 14-12-2004 by VoyagerNX23]

[edit on 14-12-2004 by VoyagerNX23]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
^^ You make some great points... there is however enough food for the president and others aboard AF1 for a great deal of time if rationed... They take on whole crates of fruits, veggies, and meat... Maybe an engine or two would fail when its all over...but it might still be flight worthy. Also, you guys should know that most nuclear weapons arent 'really' the end. There where studies done during the mid-late '80s in by the U.S. military just now being declassified that suggest that we could easily (relatively) make it out of a first strike and have enough to muster a second and devastating blow. It also talked about how most nukes would be detonated above the cities and wouldnt cause nearly the amount of destruction that most would believe either structurally or electronically. And in reality there arent enough fueled and assembled nukes to completely level the USA in an all out nuclear war. There would most likely be many untargeted or many failed targeted bases, bunkers, airfields, and supplies. There are just far too many and far too spread out. In the unrealistic case that every USAF and USN airbase where to be destroyed then civilian airports would EASILY serve as air stations.

And for communication purposes, during the Cold War, THERE was Looking Glass. There was at least one of these in the air at all times during the Cold War. There was not a second that passed that there wasnt one in the air... National Airborne Operations Center was to complement the Looking Glass in times of need be...
Looking Glass alone was enough to take control of almost all military operations in the United States in case of a National or Global emergency.
If we werent going to survive so was no one else.


[edit on 14-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
In charicteristics Air Force 1 and the E-4A/B are very similar. The main differences being the massive satilite dish hanging off the E-4 and different electronic counter measures, and flares, chaff etc. Air Force 1 does have weapons this is backed by and article in an earlier post, whats weapons remains a mystry but some sort of Air-Air weapon is my guess it wouldn't be a military aircaraft if it didn't. The endurance of Air Force 1 and the E-4 is the same the aircraft can be pushed to 72 hours in the air with Air-Air refueling. This is only due to the ammount of oil needed to MAKE THE ENGINES WORK. Another interesting fact is that the E-4 has a retractible VLF wire antenna 5 miles or 8 kn's long. It is rumoured that Air Force 1 has anti-matter weaponary and other top secret weapons.

NOTE: Air Force 1 is always escorted by military aircraft usaully F-15's although they may not always be visable they are always close to the aircraft.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   


NOTE: Air Force 1 is always escorted by military aircraft usaully F-15's although they may not always be visable they are always close to the aircraft.


While this sounds logical I dont think that this is 'always' the case over US soil. Also, I'd like to know what squadrons overseas escort AF-1 as being that domestically based F-15Cs cant make it overseas without a tanker even with FAST packs and AF-1 doesnt fly routinely with a refuler.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Ive just found a plan about the air force 1, a funny thing about it: the presidental suite is straight at the "nose" of the af1, hear something about the fact that jet fighter try to knock out the radar first..and the radar is located often at the "nose" of the plane..
..they must love the president..

Air Force one Plan

and a other thing...they have a own force, crazy..for the future you have to look at the "policemans medal"..if you find a officer with that one, tell ats!


AF1 Security Forces

[edit on 15-12-2004 by dacruz]

[edit on 15-12-2004 by dacruz]

[edit on 15-12-2004 by dacruz]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

When Bush visits other countries, he uses the AF1, thats right. But I didnt think that hes save, if some terrorists confronts the AF1 in a ambush. Just think, this plane could be so perfect, but what they do, if a whole squadron attacks it? or whats about a couple of SAMs (surface to air missle)?
Okay we know that the AF1 have flares and the other stuff, but a regular jet fighter has the same equipment, and without extrem maneuver, like the military jet fighter do+flares and stuff, the AF1 have no chance! What do you guys think about this operation conditions?


Again, they are above the radiation really... The real problem comes about a couple of weeks later when they need to land. If really an issue, you're probably talking about an emergency sea jump, and retrieval.

As for a squadron attacking, when over the US, there are nearby aircraft that can respond quickly. When overseas, it has a fighter escort (varying number according to threat I'd imagine). In addition to this, AF1, and the mobile command center is said to have both electronic and other countermeasures on board.

EDIT: Here's a great link on all of this...

people.howstuffworks.com...

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The flares etc are a great tactic to keep away heat seeking missiles, but I'm curious about evasive manuevers.

We've all seen videos of Air Force jets doing some pretty crazy manuevers like rollovers, loops, and I do remember seeing a video of a jet going completely vertical to avoid a threat or chase etc.

Is a plane the size of a 747 capable of doing those manuevers at it's weight and lower speed? I'm assuming the 747 style plane would not be able to acheive the speeds of an F-15 for example.

I know there's lots of members with an amazing knowledge of aircraft, anyone know what this one is capable of in that sense?



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   


Is a plane the size of a 747 capable of doing those manuevers at it's weight and lower speed? I'm assuming the 747 style plane would not be able to acheive the speeds of an F-15 for example.


Are you asking if a 747 can do a barrel role and or loop? Yes, a regular 747 is able to do those (dangerous). I, nor does anyone else know what type of flight control systems are aboard AF-1. The FCS may limit what the pilots can tell the aircraft to do... Also, I am unsure of the weight of AF-1 due to its defensive shielding and systems so I dont know it would be capable of a loop. Any aircraft if capable of a barrel role though.

Any no, there is no airliner besides the Concord (still slower) that can reach regular operating speeds of an F-15A-E


[edit on 15-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
There is no way that a 747 airframe would withstand a barrel roll, the wings would sheer right off because of the huge induced stresses caused by trying it, have you seen how the wings on very large aircraft such as the 747 flex on take off and landing? It is also impossible for this aircraft to build up enough momentum to carry it through a loop, even if the airframe was stressed for it, its just too damn big and heavy. The Avro Vulcan, about half the size of a 747, or even less, caused a sensation when one was barrel rolled at the Farnborough airshow, the Vulcan also had very thick strong wings as it was expected to be manouverable in its remit.

Airliners, especially massive ones, are not expected to be manouverable and are not designed to be or they would be uneconomic to build and impossible to sell.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Came up with this:



The consensus at Boeing seems to be that a 747 would probably survive a barrel roll, but to try it would be, and I quote, "an extremely foolish action."

there's some doubt as to whether a 747 or a DC-10 could achieve enough forward speed to deliver the extra shot of lift that a loop would require. Boeing suspects its planes could make it, but since no one has ever been silly enough to try, there's no way of knowing for sure.


from www.straightdope.com...

You can do various aerobatical manoeuvers in smaller aircraft, the 707 and 737 have both been barrel rolled, and the A318 and A320 have been looped. And the B-52 has been barrel rolled as well, on one of its first flights, and the Boeing execs watching had to be rescucitated after it



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join