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.

 

The New AF-1 may lack midair air refueling

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
THe USAF in an attempt to match presidential tweets with reality is considering nix'ing the midair refueling capability of the new AF-1 to cut costs. I have to admit I'm kind of on the fence about this one. The 747-8i has pretty decent endurance already but midair refueling would allow AF-1 to stay up in the air as long as the engine oil holds out. Lavatory capacity may also be an issue as well.

The BBJ version of the -8 has a designed max range of 8800 miles. Its unclear how much weight the modifications would entail versus a BBJ version (given how much gold people put in their VIP jets it may not be a big difference) On the otherhand the E-4's will need replacement at some point and they may want an midair refueling capacity in those so the development money wont be wasted.

www.thedrive.com...




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Honestly, they don't use the capability now nearly as much as you think. It really wouldn't be a major loss if they do eliminate the capability, and it would save a ton of money. Right now, they'd have to tear the aircraft down and install the system and plumbing. All for something that they don't use often to begin with.

One of the things that he apparently missed in writing that article is that the President probably will be using the E-4B or something else in the event of an emergency. That's one of the reasons one is kept near the President when he travels.
edit on 9/9/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

Honestly, they don't use the capability now nearly as much as you think. It really wouldn't be a major loss if they do eliminate the capability, and it would save a ton of money. Right now, they'd have to tear the aircraft down and install the system and plumbing. All for something that they don't use often to begin with.


But wont they want that with the E-4 replacement? assuming its a 747? So now or then your going to have to spend the development money



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Yes, but these won't BE an E-4 replacement. When the E-4 replacement is done, one of the requirements will be for an IFR capability. The odds are the replacement won't be a 747 though. Right now they have a three year backlog. If the Turkish deal for 8 goes through, that's not going to push it out all that far, even if they cut it way down to 3 a year. It also wouldn't need that much development cost for the system. It would be similar to what's on the E-4B and VC-25 now. With the VC-25 replacement, it's a matter of installing it that would cost.


edit on 9/9/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/9/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

But rather than insisting that the design specifications were largely locked down by the unique requirements of Air Force One – namely the need for an airplane that can safely transport the president and his staff in the middle of a doomsday scenario while keeping them in constant, secure contact with the outside world so that the United States government can continue to function throughout...


I remember reading somewhere Airforce 1 was 'lost over America' and out of communication with the White House...



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT
"The New AF-1 may lack midair air refueling


As long as they retain the ground air refueling capability, it shouldn't be an issue.


Seriously though, all things considered I would prefer they keep it capable of refueling in midair. It's a great point by Zaph that that's what the E4 is for, however what if an emergency breaks out while they're in the air in AF1? Sure you can try to find a secure place to land and switch planes, but we could go all night on what if scenarios. In certain areas, like this one, I'm ok with what is on its face a waste of money just to have the capability for that one crazy scenario where it would save the day. That's just my 2c.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Will it have an escape pod? Sorry just couldn't help that one



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
Will it have an escape pod? Sorry just couldn't help that one


The old Harrison Ford movie? Ah, the good old days when Hollywood could make a patriotic movie. Now they consider patriotism racist.

Edit: Even better, just imagine a movie like Rules of Engagement coming out today.
edit on 12 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

See, that's what people don't think about though. Let's say that something happens while he's flying somewhere that would require him yup stay airborne. One of two things is going to happen:

A.) It's going to be something so bad that the chances of getting a tanker airborne, or having a tanker survive is going to be remote.

B.) It's not going to be that bad, and your tankers are going to have a secure field to operate from. Which means that there's going to be a secure field they could land and either refuel, or switch to another aircraft.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's a good point. Maybe he should always bring a tanker with him too!



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

One tanker isn't going to do that much good though. With aircraft that size, you need multiple tankers. We used to launch three and put two into a C-5, with the third a spare.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I know first hand those 747/VC-25s can suck up a lot of fuel haha they were always a nightmare for us when we had to truck them. According to Wikipedia, the KC-46 will be able to transfer about 207K to a receiver aircraft. While that's well short of getting AF-1 to a full tank, it would significantly extend it's range would it not?

Side question: Do you know how much the KC-10 can transfer fully loaded? I've seen them take over 300K before, but I would imagine they always keep a certain amount on board for their own engines.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Believe it or not, depending on the situation, that's not a whole lot more than what they offload from a -135. They would launch them on missions for Iraq and Afghanistan and offload close to 200,000. Back in the 90s we'd put 220 on an R model for them to offload close to 200 into a group of fighters they were dragging back to CONUS.

Max load on a -10 is about 350, depending on receiver and range, they're probably looking at between 300 and 315 offload.
edit on 9/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah when I was in Qatar the standard loads we were putting on 135s was between 190 and 210. Do you see my point though? According to Boeing's website the current AF-1 can hold around 350K. Even if you can only give them an extra 200K in an emergency that's gonna let them stay aloft a considerable amount of extra time/distance. All things considered, I'd rather have the capability and not need it than need it and not have it.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

No, I see your point, but if you can get a tanker airborne and to them, you can get them on the ground. And a 747-8 with a full fuel load is going a hell of a long way, even without refueling in flight.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was looking at it from the bring a tanker with you perspective still. Bring 2 in case one breaks.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

That adds a lot to his retinue. And with the demands on the tankers, it might end up biting you in the ass.
edit on 9/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Wonder if they ever thought about going for a Longreach?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

If they're ditching the refueling capability makes you wonder what other parts of the cont. of govt. mission they're going to drop. If they're not counting on this being an around the clock nuclear command post, a lot of the comms gear can go too.

However, I've always hoped AFONE would really simply be a diplomatic ferry anyway. In fact, I'm not sure they need an -800 to begin with. Actually, I know they don't need an -800 but since presidential aircraft is basically a **** measuring contest they wouldn't ever go with what's economical. Really a shame.

Less command post and more mobile white house.
edit on 13-9-2017 by aholic because: IPA



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

AF-1 really isn't his command post. I suggest you go back and read the thread from the beginning, there's a lot of good info in it.







 
5

log in

join