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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
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.


Thanks, but I'm pretty well read on AF-1. In a time of war it is meant to serve as a command post, but that capability costs untold amounts of money. It looks as if this is what's being dropped on the next iteration. In part.




posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic

originally posted by: face23785
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.


Thanks, but I'm pretty well read on AF-1. In a time of war it is meant to serve as a command post, but that capability costs untold amounts of money. It looks as if this is what's being dropped on the next iteration. In part.


The VC-25A is meant to serve as a command post in case of an emergency only if the President happens to be using it at that time. Big difference.
In any other circumstance, the National Command Authority will use the E-4Bs anyway.

IMO this is a non issue. Like Zaphod said, if they cant get a tanker up to refuel the plane they cant land it too.
And if not, who cares really. If things are so bad they cant get them down somewhere, country and government are done anyway.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I can remember a well rehearsed scenario where the president and NSC personnel are aboard a VC-25 while Sec Def (NCA) and others are aboard an E-4B. This falls under the two-man rule, as I'm sure you are aware. There are many instances where the Sec Def and POTUS are not in the same region and require AF01 to have a signifiant range and communications requirement. It doesn't need to be WWIII for this to occur. It happened on 9/11 and if the Korean peninsula heats up, it'll happen again. AF01 has been used as a wartime command post many times when not in a nuclear or national emergency to this date.

Secondly, after a preemptive attack AF01 has a major place in the continuity of government mission. If it's still alive. In which case, it will certainly require all it's comms and refueling capabilities.

I fully disagree that if AF01 can't land, no tankers can refuel it. There would be more cases than not, that we'd voluntarily keep AF01 airborne just in case of attack with tankers airborne and on standby. It's in the playbook.

I just want to show what we'd be loosing under this new dash 8 platform.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: mightmight

I can remember a well rehearsed scenario where the president and NSC personnel are aboard a VC-25 while Sec Def (NCA) and others are aboard an E-4B. This falls under the two-man rule, as I'm sure you are aware. There are many instances where the Sec Def and POTUS are not in the same region and require AF01 to have a signifiant range and communications requirement.
It doesn't need to be WWIII for this to occur. It happened on 9/11 and if the Korean peninsula heats up, it'll happen again. AF01 has been used as a wartime command post many times when not in a nuclear or national emergency to this date

Sure but nobody is arguing against neccessary communication systems to enable NCA operations. Just that mid air refueling is not neccessary in any realistic scenario.

Standard procedure in case of an emergency is for the President to board the NAOC, not AF01.
Obviously if there is a need to get him airborne/secure as soon as possible he might end up on AF01 instead. But so what? If the President is traveling abroad, an E-4B is always deployed as well.
They would switch planes if neccessary.
They didnt have an E-4B in Florida when 9/11- the alert plane was sitting at Andrewas and later showed up circling Washington DC - so the President boarded AF-1 instead. This probably changed since then.

As for the Secretary of Defense, sure, he could theoretically end up on an E-4B instead of the President during an emergency. I doubt there is a plan for it though. During 09/11 Rumsfeld stayed at the Pentagon even after it was hit.



Secondly, after a preemptive attack AF01 has a major place in the continuity of government mission. If it's still alive. In which case, it will certainly require all it's comms and refueling capabilities.

Comms yes, but why mid air refueling capabilities?
Even in the event of an russian out of the blue full scale nuclear attack, their would be many military and civilian airports left to refuel AF01 if for some odd reason, the President didnt board NAOC.
The 747-8i has a range of 8.000nmi. I cant think of a scenario in which this wouldnt be enough.
Asteroid strike? Alien invasion? Who would give a crap at that point?



I fully disagree that if AF01 can't land, no tankers can refuel it. There would be more cases than not, that we'd voluntarily keep AF01 airborne just in case of attack with tankers airborne and on standby. It's in the playbook.


Theres lots of stupid stuff in 'the playbook'. Sure, they probably plan to do everything to keep the President airborne on the inprobable notion that is unsafe on the ground. Meanwhile in the real world on 09/11 AF01 actually landed on Barksdale AFB and later at Offutt AFB.
There is such a thing as overdoing it with preperations for continuity of government. In the end, everyone is replaceable, even the NCA.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Copy many of your points. But just because we don't use the refueling capability doesn't mean it's expendable. It's there for a key reason and ridding it would be dangerous, in my opinion. Just because it's never been used is a dangerous precedent to get rid of it, when only in the worst scenarios it would need to be used.

My larger concern is that if they are ditching the continuity of government mission, which the air refueling capability is there for in the first place, what else are they going to dump on the aircraft to save money. And in that case, why even use a 787-8?

If NOAC is going to tail the president wherever he goes from now on anyhow, he could be on a much more economical platform to begin with. Or think of the money saved if the E-4 could stay state side and consolidate that platform into AF01. The E-4 isn't such a spring chicken herself......

To me the AF01 recapitalization is an opportunity to join the two missions (in a way). It's not a matter of the tech not being there.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic
They are actually planing to try to replace the C-32As ('Air Force Two'), the E-4Bs and maybe also the E-6Bs with a common platform. God knows if it will happen (probably not) but at least they are on the right track.
And if they manage to combine NAOC, TACAMO, Looking Glass, FEMA support and VIP Transport they'll save enough money for a decent AF01...

As for AF01, two engines will never happen. Too much prestige involved.



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join