1 posted on
09/27/2017 3:52:26 PM PDT by
JP1201
To: JP1201
I'm no expert but refueling capability certainly can't hurt.
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.
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)
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.))
To: JP1201
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.)
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
To: 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
This sounds like a dumb decision. The whole point of specialized planes for the president is to give him the ability to stay aloft, out of dangerous situations and able to make important decisions for the nation in times of war and crisis - those planes aren't just fancy ways for a president to get around. Without refueling capability, these planes can only serve as crisis command centers until they run out of fuel - if that part of their mission is not taken seriously, I'd rather every president just flew coach or chartered a used 737.
To: JP1201
They can keep a spare can in the trunk.
23 posted on
09/27/2017 4:48:32 PM PDT by
AmusedBystander
(The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next)
To: JP1201
I would imagine it will be capable.
Frankly, I don’t think any of its real capabilities should be discussed in open hearings
24 posted on
09/27/2017 4:52:36 PM PDT by
Kakaze
(I want The Republic back !)
To: JP1201
Strategic misjudgment here.
26 posted on
09/27/2017 5:20:44 PM PDT by
ealgeone
To: JP1201
Yeah, I can’t think of any time when AF1 might need to stay airborne.
//sarcasm
27 posted on
09/27/2017 5:23:27 PM PDT by
Vermont Lt
(Burn. It. Down.)
To: JP1201
29 posted on
09/27/2017 5:39:21 PM PDT by
Hawthorn
To: JP1201
Bad idea. International flights or emergency air refueling is a critical capability.
33 posted on
09/27/2017 6:11:03 PM PDT by
Secret Agent Man
( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
To: JP1201
How much does this capability cost? Isn’t this technology almost “off the shelf”?
To: JP1201
“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.
39 posted on
09/27/2017 8:36:01 PM PDT by
oldbill
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson