Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Cuts Aerial Refueling From New Air Force One
Popular Mechanics ^

Posted on 09/27/2017 3:52:26 PM PDT by JP1201

General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking military officer in the nation, yesterday told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the White House decided to remove aerial refueling capabilities from the new Air Force One requirements, rather than the Air Force. Dunford was testifying to the committee during a hearing on his reappointment to the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as reported by Military.com.

(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: af1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

1 posted on 09/27/2017 3:52:26 PM PDT by JP1201
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JP1201
I'm no expert but refueling capability certainly can't hurt.
2 posted on 09/27/2017 3:55:06 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (ObamaCare Works For Those Who Don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I think this is a really bad idea as a former Boom Operator on KC-135 and KC-10 tankers. In the event of a National Emergency the capability to stay airborne for an indefinite amount of time an/or increased range due to air refueling capability is a nice option to have.


3 posted on 09/27/2017 3:58:55 PM PDT by KC-10A BOOMER (Cry Havoc and Let Slip the Dogs of War!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JP1201
General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "that was a decision that was not made by the Air Force, but made by the White House. ...it had to do with fiscal constraints on the program. It will certainly be a limiting factor, and we'll have to plan accordingly."

"Plan accordingly"...I guess that means we need to win the next war in 18 hours or less.

4 posted on 09/27/2017 4:00:07 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

If we’re talking about a situation like the one President Bush found himself in, on 09/11/2001, that refueling capability is a must.

We’re hearing so much minutia these days. It almost causes one to question if what we are hearing is true.


5 posted on 09/27/2017 4:00:25 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (John McBane is the turd in the national puch-bowl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
I'm no expert but refueling capability certainly can't hurt.

Well, it doesn't hurt exactly but it does costs money on a plane that has tremendous range anyway. And then there's the training/practice for the crews. You wouldn't want to practice while the President is on board so that means "flights to nowhere" just for refueling practice.

6 posted on 09/27/2017 4:01:55 PM PDT by libertylover (We EXPECT RESPECT for the flag and anthem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC-10A BOOMER

Agree.


7 posted on 09/27/2017 4:03:38 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

It almost causes one to question if what we are hearing is true.

With Pop Mechanics, I wouldn’t trust them. I cancelled my script 20 some years ago when they found religion, global warming.


8 posted on 09/27/2017 4:03:56 PM PDT by eyeamok (Idle hands are the Devil's workshop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Thanks for the mention. Hadn’t realized they’d gone that route.


9 posted on 09/27/2017 4:06:06 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (John McBane is the turd in the national puch-bowl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KC-10A BOOMER

It does not make sense. Sounds more like fake news.


10 posted on 09/27/2017 4:06:39 PM PDT by Bruce Kurtz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
From the article:

Proponents of the cut argue that aerial refueling is not necessary considering no president has ever used the capability, not even George W. Bush who loitered over the Gulf of Mexico in Air Force One for eight hours after the 9/11 attacks.

11 posted on 09/27/2017 4:07:08 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

What do you know?


12 posted on 09/27/2017 4:10:25 PM PDT by boomop1 (Term limits is the only way to change this failed government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KC-10A BOOMER
I think this is a really bad idea as a former Boom Operator on KC-135 and KC-10 tankers.

Well,you sound like an expert to this Army Personnel Specialist (71 Hotel).Assuming this report is accurate I wonder whose idea it is.Perhaps DJT would be wise to heed advice he might get from top Generals (and others).

13 posted on 09/27/2017 4:11:15 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (ObamaCare Works For Those Who Don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Kurtz
It does not make sense. Sounds more like fake news.

There's a film clip of the Senate hearings. Was that faked?

14 posted on 09/27/2017 4:11:57 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JP1201

I find this short sighted. This is supposed to also serve as a flying command post in case the balloon goes up, and the President is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.


15 posted on 09/27/2017 4:14:22 PM PDT by Fred Hayek (The Democratic Party is now the operational arm of the CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JP1201

Considering the new presidential transports will not be completed for years, it is not yet clear whether they will be able to take on fuel during flight or not.


Well, that last sentence makes a lot of sense... NOT!


16 posted on 09/27/2017 4:16:33 PM PDT by samtheman (As an oil exporter, why would the Russians prefer Trump to Hillary? (Get it or be stupid.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JP1201

Stoopit.


17 posted on 09/27/2017 4:20:42 PM PDT by Ken Regis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JP1201

Odd decision. Made by an obama holdover?


18 posted on 09/27/2017 4:21:22 PM PDT by bk1000 (I stand with Trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JP1201

There’s NEACP, and AF-1 doesn’t have nearly the communications capabilities but I agree this seems like foolish economy.

Put the disloyal, lying propagandists of the fake news press in blow-molded plastic commuter seats and feed them popcorn and tap water if money is that tight.


19 posted on 09/27/2017 4:27:59 PM PDT by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Maybe they increased the onboard fuel capacity to kinda split the difference.


20 posted on 09/27/2017 4:29:55 PM PDT by Palio di Siena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson