Bush's Trip: 747 or C-17 Which would you Choose?

Nick Coleman wrote in message ...
Gene Storey wrote:

747.

AF1 has IR jammers on the engines. The C-17 only has flares,
and they wouldn't be good for stealth arrival.


Can you give me a few clues on this? I don't understand how IR jammers
would work. If the radiation is being emitted, then it is being emitted.
It's not like swamping a signal with a whole bunch of noise, like radar
jammers. IE the radar needs the discrete frequency returns to decode the
signal, but IR just needs IR emmissions from a point source and then zeroes
in on the point source.

Thanks,
Nick

See the JUNE/JULY 2003 issue of Air and Space Smithsonian for a
description. It has to do with the fact that the missiles use a
segmented, spinning disk (sort of like a pie with every other slice
removed) to determine which direction the IR source is from. It
creates a pulse pattern that the seeker then uses to read direction.
An IR jammer sends an alternate pulse pattern that overwhelms the
natural pulse pattern that would be created by an airplane in a
certain location.

The article has some diagrams and pictures that make it much more
clear than my word description. It may be at your local library. I
tried www.airspacemag.com, but it is not on there.

"Jim Baker" wrote in message
. ..
Ken,

Thought I would give you a link and copy of some material on that website
since you were assigned to the aircraft at one time. Good bit of info. At
the time I was involved with the NEACP/NAOC (1992-1995) it was assigned to
the JS which exercised Operational Control (OpCon) over the asset. ACC
was
the aircraft/aircrew manager and STRATCOM merely provided home basing
facilities. That may have changed over the past few years.

Funny how an STC would be issued for an airplane that does not exist.
Perhaps poor Baker only knows what is posted on the internet.

So Ken G., share with us some post MAD mobile command post sinerios; those
usually stir up quite a bit of flak here at ram. That old paranoia can make
for quite a postathon.

As i mentioned in my post, I left the USAF in '87 when (I think)
0124/0125 were (B) and 1676/1677 were (A). Indeed you are correct that
the B could not be mistaken for AF1. The discussion was, however, about
the paint scheme, which was similar.



Jim Baker wrote:
There are no E-4A aircraft. There are only E-4B. There was never one
painted in FEMA "paint", whatever scheme that could possibly be. I was in
the group on the Joint Staff responsible for setting up the mission for
FEMA, which is a secondary tasking, when the name of the aircraft was
changed to NAOC from NEACP and I have a few dozen hours on the aircraft as a
battlestaff evaluator.

E-4B aircraft are visually very distinct from the VC-25A. There is no
satcom antennae fairing, that large "bubble" on top of the E-4B, on the
VC-25A which makes them very hard to confuse.

JB

"KenG" wrote in message
. com...

Sorry to disappoint. I was unaware of paint changes made since I left my
flying position on them. I never saw the FEMA paint scheme. Can you
point to a picture som.... Hey wait a minute... Tarver??? Nevermind...

KenG

Tarver Engineering wrote:


"KenG" wrote in message
. rr.com...


It's not exactly the same, but unless you see both aircraft
side-by-side, you would swear they were the same.


No.

The E4As and E4Bs don't even have the same paint as each other, let

alone

the VC-25A.

There was even one in FEMA paint during the Clinton Administration.



KenG


Are you the Garlington spam bot?



Tex Houston wrote:


"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:2TYxb.16305$o9.9528@fed1read07...



"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...



"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:ZBTxb.15791$o9.3280@fed1read07...



Your in charge of flying the president to Baghdad

Your choices are a 747 or a C-17. The G5 is out since you have to

make



a



refueling stop which could blow security. Clinton flew to Kosovo in

a

C-17



How about throwing the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center

aircraft


into the mix?

Don't they have an identical paint job as AF1?


I don't think so. The blue and white paint scheme with "United States

of


America" on the two VC-25s is pretty distinctive. I haven't seen the

E-4


for many years however.

Tex

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Jim Baker" wrote in message
. ..

Ken,

Thought I would give you a link and copy of some material on that website
since you were assigned to the aircraft at one time. Good bit of info. At
the time I was involved with the NEACP/NAOC (1992-1995) it was assigned to
the JS which exercised Operational Control (OpCon) over the asset. ACC

was

the aircraft/aircrew manager and STRATCOM merely provided home basing
facilities. That may have changed over the past few years.


Funny how an STC would be issued for an airplane that does not exist.
Perhaps poor Baker only knows what is posted on the internet.

So Ken G., share with us some post MAD mobile command post sinerios; those
usually stir up quite a bit of flak here at ram. That old paranoia can make
for quite a postathon.


Sorry, Never got involved with the operational aspects.
KenG

"KenG" wrote in message
news

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Jim Baker" wrote in message
. ..

Ken,

Thought I would give you a link and copy of some material on that
website
since you were assigned to the aircraft at one time. Good bit of info.
At
the time I was involved with the NEACP/NAOC (1992-1995) it was assigned
to
the JS which exercised Operational Control (OpCon) over the asset. ACC

was

the aircraft/aircrew manager and STRATCOM merely provided home basing
facilities. That may have changed over the past few years.

Funny how an STC would be issued for an airplane that does not exist.
Perhaps poor Baker only knows what is posted on the internet.

So Ken G., share with us some post MAD mobile command post sinerios;
those
usually stir up quite a bit of flak here at ram. That old paranoia can
make
for quite a postathon.

Sorry, Never got involved with the operational aspects.

It was nice posting with you, bye.

"KenG" wrote in message
om...
As i mentioned in my post, I left the USAF in '87 when (I think)
0124/0125 were (B) and 1676/1677 were (A).

Yes, Baker is a nutcase, but he seems to be a real bone operator.

Indeed you are correct that
the B could not be mistaken for AF1. The discussion was, however, about
the paint scheme, which was similar.

Paint changes.

Jim Baker wrote:
There are no E-4A aircraft. There are only E-4B. There was never one
painted in FEMA "paint", whatever scheme that could possibly be. I was
in
the group on the Joint Staff responsible for setting up the mission for
FEMA, which is a secondary tasking, when the name of the aircraft was
changed to NAOC from NEACP and I have a few dozen hours on the aircraft
as a
battlestaff evaluator.

E-4B aircraft are visually very distinct from the VC-25A. There is no
satcom antennae fairing, that large "bubble" on top of the E-4B, on the
VC-25A which makes them very hard to confuse.

JB

"KenG" wrote in message
. com...

Sorry to disappoint. I was unaware of paint changes made since I left my
flying position on them. I never saw the FEMA paint scheme. Can you
point to a picture som.... Hey wait a minute... Tarver??? Nevermind...

KenG

Tarver Engineering wrote:


"KenG" wrote in message
. rr.com...


It's not exactly the same, but unless you see both aircraft
side-by-side, you would swear they were the same.


No.

The E4As and E4Bs don't even have the same paint as each other, let

alone

the VC-25A.

There was even one in FEMA paint during the Clinton Administration.



KenG


Are you the Garlington spam bot?



Tex Houston wrote:


"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:2TYxb.16305$o9.9528@fed1read07...



"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...



"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:ZBTxb.15791$o9.3280@fed1read07...



Your in charge of flying the president to Baghdad

Your choices are a 747 or a C-17. The G5 is out since you have to

make



a



refueling stop which could blow security. Clinton flew to Kosovo
in

a

C-17



How about throwing the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center

aircraft


into the mix?

Don't they have an identical paint job as AF1?


I don't think so. The blue and white paint scheme with "United
States

of


America" on the two VC-25s is pretty distinctive. I haven't seen the

E-4


for many years however.

Tex

Thanks for those replies, that makes sense,

Nick

Leadfoot wrote:

: Your choices are a 747 or a C-17. The G5 is out since you have to make a
: refueling stop which could blow security. Clinton flew to Kosovo in a C-17

I presume the C-17 has fewer people on board. It is
best to risk as few lives as possible on a pre-election
photo-opportunity.

I'm afraid that this has set a precedent and we will
now see a queue of politicians eager to join the
"Bagdad Club" and have their picture taken. As if the
security forces don't have enough problems as yet.

Emmanuel Gustin

"Leadfoot" wrote:
Your in charge of flying the president to Baghdad

Your choices are a 747 or a C-17. The G5 is
out since you have to make a
refueling stop which could blow security. Clinton
flew to Kosovo in a C-17

Which do you choose and why.

Points to ponder.

The C-17 will require several aerial refuelings.
AF1 may or may not need to
refuel in the air. The more tanker crews the
more people who know the
president is going somewhere.

AF1 is a giant Billboard on the ground saying
GWB is here. The C-17 is much
more discreet



Air Force One (VC-25). IRCM and EW suite is the best in the world. Enough
said.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!