Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Says "Cancel Air Force One!"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    That's comparing apples to oranges.

    A baseline 747 is a commercial passenger plane. A baseline C-17 is a military spec hauler. The specs to bring a 747 up to a C-17 standards is what will cost more than the baseline C-17.
    You're confusing my meaning. I specifically was talking about base COST. There is no reason to make a 747 into a C-17. After that what makes the price spike up is out fitting either for the use of the President. Those cost will be the same no matter what aircraft you pick. You can't direct a World Wide Nuclear exchange from a base C-17 nor from a base 747. From Air Force One you need to be able to. One example.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by andrewza View Post
      They still have a number of unsolded C17 and parts are not going to be s issue
      All "white tails" have been sold(and delivered to the end users).

      Please, can we dispense with any more C-17 discussion in relation to AF-1?

      It's over.
      "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
      "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

      "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
      — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

      Comment


      • #33
        Just adding that any time that POTUS flies over sease C17 go with
        you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

        CPO Mzinyati

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by andrewza View Post
          Just adding that any time that POTUS flies over sease C17 go with
          Yes, to carry the bullet proof limousines, not the President himself.

          Can we please stop now?

          Or do you need to get your post count up a bit more?
          "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
          "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

          "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
          — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            You're confusing my meaning. I specifically was talking about base COST. There is no reason to make a 747 into a C-17. After that what makes the price spike up is out fitting either for the use of the President. Those cost will be the same no matter what aircraft you pick. You can't direct a World Wide Nuclear exchange from a base C-17 nor from a base 747. From Air Force One you need to be able to. One example.

            I'm not confusing your meaning.

            A baseline 747 comes off the assembly line at $230 million by what you have posted.

            A C-17 comes of the assembly line at $218 million by what you posted.

            The C-17 is already hardened, it already has in flight refueling, it already has the LAIRCM, and it can operate from a lot more airfields than a 747.

            Before the electronics suite can be added to the 747, millions will have to be spent just to bring it up to C-17 capabilities.....and it still won't be able to operate from shorter airfields. The President would no longer be stuck to flying into large airfields, security would be greatly enhanced.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by At ease View Post
              Yes, to carry the bullet proof limousines, not the President himself.
              ....and the helicopters and multiple other equipment from HMX-1. Before the C-17 all of the helicopters and equipment would have to be staged at Andrews Air Force Base. Now C-17s land at Quantico and pick up the gear.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                I'm not confusing your meaning.

                A baseline 747 comes off the assembly line at $230 million by what you have posted.

                A C-17 comes of the assembly line at $218 million by what you posted.

                The C-17 is already hardened, it already has in flight refueling, it already has the LAIRCM, and it can operate from a lot more airfields than a 747.

                Before the electronics suite can be added to the 747, millions will have to be spent just to bring it up to C-17 capabilities.....and it still won't be able to operate from shorter airfields. The President would no longer be stuck to flying into large airfields, security would be greatly enhanced.
                No, they don't bring it up to C-17 capablities. C-17 has nothing to do with it. They bring it up to what the White House security people say to bring it up.

                The next AF-1 will not be a C-17. PE Trump is on the stick, he's already talked to the Boeing CEO, 'we'll work it out.' The PE was pissed at a editorial the Boeing CEO wrote. He used the power of his position to 'punish' Boeing. Simple and straight forward.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                  I'm not confusing your meaning.

                  A baseline 747 comes off the assembly line at $230 million by what you have posted.

                  A C-17 comes of the assembly line at $218 million by what you posted.

                  The C-17 is already hardened, it already has in flight refueling, it already has the LAIRCM, and it can operate from a lot more airfields than a 747.

                  Before the electronics suite can be added to the 747, millions will have to be spent just to bring it up to C-17 capabilities.....and it still won't be able to operate from shorter airfields. The President would no longer be stuck to flying into large airfields, security would be greatly enhanced.
                  You'd need air to air refueling because of the much shorter range. How much would the tanker stream cost over the life of the plane. There's no requirement for short, unimproved airfields. That's not where AF1 flies. It doesn't need to be brought up to C17 standards--it's an airliner, not something flying into a combat zone. Once again--do we want our POTUS flying in a cargo plane? Is the C17 even big enough?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    No, they don't bring it up to C-17 capablities. C-17 has nothing to do with it. They bring it up to what the White House security people say to bring it up.

                    The next AF-1 will not be a C-17. PE Trump is on the stick, he's already talked to the Boeing CEO, 'we'll work it out.'
                    You're confused, it isn't about bringing the 747 up to C-17 capabilities. The 747 needs to be brought up to these capabilities before we install whatever the White house security people say.

                    Millions will be spent to hardened the 747, to install in flight refueling, and to install the LAIRCM. After those additional millions are spent on the 747, then the cost of the electronics suite will be the same for both aircraft.

                    The 747 already started out costing $12 more, add on the additional costs to give it the ability to do what the C-17 already does and the price tag probably would go well over $20-30 million more per aircraft.
                    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      We need and aircraft that represents us, the people of the US and not an aircraft WITH SOME SUPER NARCISSISTS NAME ON IT'S SIDE.
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The C17 also needs to be upgraded. Among other things, it will need sound and heat insulation, a better heating system, probably a larger electrical system. I don't believe AF1 has ever used aerial refueling, although it is equipped for it. It's range is enough as it is.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                          You'd need air to air refueling because of the much shorter range. How much would the tanker stream cost over the life of the plane.
                          In flight refueling is already a requirement for AF-1.

                          Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                          There's no requirement for short, unimproved airfields. That's not where AF1 flies. It doesn't need to be brought up to C17 standards--it's an airliner, not something flying into a combat zone.
                          AF-1 doesn't fly to short airfields because it can't land on short airfields. If it could security would be easier and a lot less expensive. Also AF-1 is not an airliner, if it was it wouldn't need in flight refueling, LAIRCM, or a host of other defensive and offensive military applications.

                          If AF-1 was an airliner the President could just schedule a charter airliner out of Reagan Nation every time he traveled.

                          Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                          Once again--do we want our POTUS flying in a cargo plane? Is the C17 even big enough?
                          The C-17 would be painted as AF-1 not a cargo plane. 747s are used as cargo planes.
                          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Aerial re fueling is in the worst case scenario after a nuclear exchange.
                            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                              In flight refueling is already a requirement for AF-1.

                              The C-17 would be painted as AF-1 not a cargo plane. 747s are used as cargo planes.
                              1. A requirement that's never been used.
                              2. I'm talking about public and foreign perception. I can just see the giggling when it lands in Moscow or Beijing.
                              3. Using short fields cuts range terribly. Landing on them is not something you want to do but something the military has no choice on, sometimes.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                                The C17 also needs to be upgraded. Among other things, it will need sound and heat insulation, a better heating system, probably a larger electrical system.
                                As will the 747, remember, CE was talking about right off the assembly line.
                                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X