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.
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.
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.
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
Comms yes, but why mid air refueling capabilities?
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.