Posted on 09/27/2017 3:52:26 PM PDT by JP1201
Exactly what I was thinking. I was under the impression that AF1 and AF2 were like the second offices for the President and VP when times were bad. Unless their strategy now has changed to fly to a place and go underground and they can get to that place anywhere in the world on a tank of fuel.
I am no plane jockey but I do not think that is feasible unless extra fuel tanks are designed into the frame
They can keep a spare can in the trunk.
I would imagine it will be capable.
Frankly, I don’t think any of its real capabilities should be discussed in open hearings
Thanks for passing the gas! A long time ago I flew missions where our on load was 150,000 lbs of fuel. It took a tanker and a half, (over Spain with another rendezvous later), 25 hour flight. We had to be scraped out of the aircraft. Pretty sight to see three tankers turning in front of our two bomber cell at the ARIP.
Those were the days.
Strategic misjudgment here.
Yeah, I can’t think of any time when AF1 might need to stay airborne.
//sarcasm
- Well, I DON’T how AF1 compares in range to a commercial airliner, but I do know there are versions of the 747 that can fly nonstop from Los Angeles to Sydney.
- I know there are engineering costs for the addition of the refueling hardware, controls, and probably software.
- I know there would be costs involved with training. The AF1 crews would need to be proficient in aerial refueling, so they’d have to practice flying this type of mission. Flying takes fuel. Flying means more maintenance.
- The aerial refueling practice would have to be done at times when POTUS is not on board, so “flights to nowhere”. When POTUS wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t want to spend half the time while the crew practices its refueling skills.
- In addition to AF1, you’d have to have tankers take off and fly to meet it. Flying takes fuel... Tankers hold a lot of fuel, therefore tankers are heavy, therefore tankers don’t get very good “mileage”, therefore tankers cost a lot. Tankers have crews as well and they may need special clearance to refuel AF1. Security clearances costs money...
- Areal refueling means the planes fly on a steady course together during the fuel transfer. This means the planes are more vulnerable during that time.
And that’s about all I know about that.
Just plain dumb.
No need for aerial refueling between Sarasota and Bossier City, nor between Bossier City and Omaha. By the time they could have gotten a tanker up from Bossier, he would have been about there anyway.
Thank you. I foresee a time when we may be under the threat of nuclear war.
A president may need to stay in the air for longer.
Seems to me you build in capabilities for any contingency.
You are so full of it, said a lot of nothing. I had over 20 years in USAF and refueled 10 of them and had the top cold war security clearance, just wait until someone screams for fuel and there we were. The cost and training amount to nothing compared to an emergency, these people have to fly to keep current whether the president uses AF1 or not.
Bad idea. International flights or emergency air refueling is a critical capability.
Give them some credit. At least they debunked the 9-11 “truther” idiots.
How much does this capability cost? Isn’t this technology almost “off the shelf”?
Now how in the world is President Trump going to
personally bomb Pyongyange with no inflight refueling?
I mean that’s what liberals are afraid of!
What size film? 8mm, super 8, 35mm?
“Proponents of the cut argue that aerial refueling is not necessary considering no president has ever used the capability, not even George W. Bush “
Air Force One air refueled when Bush made his surprise non-stop Thanksgiving day trip to Iraq.
It’s embedded in the story. Click on the link.
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.