New Presidential Helicopter $400M Each!

docmirror said:
Something did happen on 9/11 while the prez was away. What happened with the prez? He disappeared for a while.
Click to expand...
On his airplane -- where the USSS felt they could keep him real safe while he still maintained command/control communications. If he didn't have that plane handy, he'd've been a sitting duck.
 
Ron, I don't think we are going to win this battle. People chose to see it as nothing more than a giant waste of taxpayer dollars. What they fail to see, or aknowledge, is the strategic and security advantage of having a global mobility platform ready at a moments notice. No one has complained about the super-duper limos the POTUS drives arround in. AF1 is nothing more than his limo in the sky, ready to whisk the most powerful person in the free world away when the call comes. And as far as "W" disapearing for a while on 9/11, he did not disapear. He was in contact with everyone he needed to be in contact with minus the American Public thanks to the capabilities of AF1. That disadvantage has since been remadied. Concerning the "football", yes there is someone with the codes, but not a damn thing he can do with them without POTUS agreement.
 
AWACSEng said:
I think they meant third in line as in 1.POTUS 2.VP 3. SoH
Click to expand...

Actually, works either way. She is second in line behind the Vice-President for the office. POTUS already has the office. Just depends on perspective, I guess. I used to say 3rd in line, then I thought 2nd in line actually makes more sense after reading the article. POTUS isn't in line. :)
 
Sure he/she is, the front is still in line, right? ;)
 
docmirror said:
--snip--
He could've rented a Prius from Avis. There's a rental counter a few miles down the road, and a train that goes there.
Click to expand...

The image that created in my mind made me lol.
 
AWACSEng said:
Sure he/she is, the front is still in line, right? ;)
Click to expand...

heh heh.

Okay, okay, okay...here you go. If you're standing in line for, say, a bouncy house that only let's one person jump at a time (office of the president). The kid in the bouncy house is having the time of his life and you can't wait to get in there. There is one other kid in front of you, and then it's your turn.

Your mom calls you and says it's time to go. Do you say:

1) "Ah mom. I'm second in line...can't we just wait a few minutes?"

OR

2) "Ah, shucks. Okay, let's go. I'm third in line anyway."

:D
 
Touché. I guess I can see it your way. ;)
 
Last edited:
ted gilbertson said:
I don't know if anyone watched the documenty on airforce one on Nat Geo two weeks ago but it truely discusted me. Not only do they fly one 747 to haul the prez around, the fly a second one with it for back up.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh... No they don't. That was only for the Baghdad mission, so that in the event the first one had a mechanical or got shot up or something they could get him the hell out of there right away anyway. There's two of 'em so that when one is getting its very-frequent maintenance there's always the other one available.
 
docmirror said:
Well, a twin turbine helo ride to a 747 for a 150 mile jaunt to the country sounds juuuuuuuust a bit frivolous and anti-CO2 sensitive to me. Not what one would call a 'green' trip. Not much 'hope' or 'change' from the status quo if you ask me. He could've rented a Prius from Avis. There's a rental counter a few miles down the road, and a train that goes there.
Click to expand...

Without facts at hand, I'll give him a pass on this. The pilots for AF1 do keep current and practice at various places around DC. I once got a scare when I flew over Dover AFB (Delaware) with flight following and saw AF1 on the ground- I thought I busted a TFR & the prez was in town. turns out they fly the planes designated AF1 there for practice.

If they were going to VA anyway for practice, or were doing a live briefing with the new president how things were done, it makes sense to combine the trip and save a little money/fuel on it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My point is they're not that important (I don't think any one person is that important).
Click to expand...

To contradict what Ted said, originally the founding fathers had originally designed the gov't to have the executive branch on the bottom of the power wheel, and thats how it SHOULD be, yet Andrew Jackson decided to change this with the veto. Now it is only 1 person that holds very much power in the world (and as someone else said nuclear launch codes), so Id say that the president of the united states IS very important/powerful. Now you'd have to talk to some type of security expert to see if the security benefits to having an outrageously large fleet of aircraft outweighs the cost. Personally im just not sure if its justifiable though.
 
HawkEye007 said:
To contradict what Ted said, originally the founding fathers had originally designed the gov't to have the executive branch on the bottom of the power wheel, and thats how it SHOULD be, yet Andrew Jackson decided to change this with the veto. Now it is only 1 person that holds very much power in the world (and as someone else said nuclear launch codes), so Id say that the president of the united states IS very important/powerful. Now you'd have to talk to some type of security expert to see if the security benefits to having an outrageously large fleet of aircraft outweighs the cost. Personally im just not sure if its justifiable though.
Click to expand...

The office of the president has power. Does that mean that the individual is important? It seems we have many folks who want the job so finding a replacement isn't going to be difficult. Never mind that replacements are in place and the system has been tested in the past.
 
Clark1961 said:
The office of the president has power. Does that mean that the individual is important? It seems we have many folks who want the job so finding a replacement isn't going to be difficult. Never mind that replacements are in place and the system has been tested in the past.
Click to expand...

Ah fair point, its not the individual with the power, its the job with the power.
 
My point is they're not that important (I don't think any one person is that important), and don't need all those people with them.

If you don't think the assasination of the President would change the course of history, your mistaken. ( That is one important gig) Our grandchildren's future is already F....ed with the brilliance that comes out of congress anyway.
 
Clark1961 said:
The office of the president has power. Does that mean that the individual is important? It seems we have many folks who want the job so finding a replacement isn't going to be difficult. Never mind that replacements are in place and the system has been tested in the past.
Click to expand...
The problem is PELOZI is down that food chain somewhere !:frown2:
 
Ron Levy said:
That fleet is not there just to move the president back and forth between WH, ADW, and CD. They need quite a few helos to move the man and his support/security team as well as providing decoys, cover, and backup. Also, that fleet has other, much more comprehensive commitments in event of national emergency, and they need them all for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah Yeah I've heard all that before, but holy cow they damn near have their own airforce.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Uhhhh... No they don't. That was only for the Baghdad mission, so that in the event the first one had a mechanical or got shot up or something they could get him the hell out of there right away anyway. There's two of 'em so that when one is getting its very-frequent maintenance there's always the other one available.
Click to expand...

In the documentary, the presidential pilot clearly explains that they fly both jets on every overseas mission. The trip they filmed was for a multi-stop African tour. They used the second jet to find some clear air in the route Air Force One was taking. I can't remember what the problem was though. I think it was a storm or something. From the press release for the special:

With all the features of the Oval Office, the “flying White House” is unlike any other plane on Earth – with one exception: her twin. The Air Force operates not one, but two presidential jumbo jets on every overseas mission – the primary and an identical twin aircraft, serving as a back-up.
Click to expand...
 
They must really need those helos. I was told today that BHO took AF1 from Andrew's to Norfolk. Wonder if they even had to retract the gear?
 
I understand the new helicopters are being made by European concerns. I'm sure they will be nice but I wish an American company got the contract (Boeing or Sikorski)
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
On his airplane -- where the USSS felt they could keep him real safe while he still maintained command/control communications. If he didn't have that plane handy, he'd've been a sitting duck.
Click to expand...

But, what's your point?
 
HawkEye007 said:
Clark1961 said:
The office of the president has power. Does that mean that the individual is important? It seems we have many folks who want the job so finding a replacement isn't going to be difficult. Never mind that replacements are in place and the system has been tested in the past.
Click to expand...

Ah fair point, its not the individual with the power, its the job with the power.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree that it's the office, not the man that has the power, the man (whoever it may be at the time) is the embodiment of the office and a very recognizable symbol of America. While he would be replaced quickly, it would still have a drastic effect on the course of American and world history. Think I'm full of it? Explain to me how four airliners, two buildings in downtown NY, another in Northern VA, and a field in Central PA have tactical or governmental importance in the US. Nevertheless, they were the cause, or at least the explanation for a lot of changes in the US and around the world in the last decade. I find it very hard to believe that a sitting POTUS could be threatened or killed by forces from within or without the US and there not be ripple effects in our policies and way of life.

AdamZ said:
They must really need those helos. I was told today that BHO took AF1 from Andrew's to Norfolk. Wonder if they even had to retract the gear?
Click to expand...

Obama went to Newport News. Two or three weeks earlier, Bush went to Navy Chambers (about 15 miles or so from Norfolk Int'l).

docmirror said:
But, what's your point?
Click to expand...

In this day and age, the jet (and more over its strategic and communications capabilities) is a must-have item pretty much everywhere the POTUS goes.
 
I almost liken the benefit of AF1 with that of the E-4B. On the ground, it serves as a mobile command post which can do anything the POTUS could do in the WH.
 
Teller1900 said:
I find it very hard to believe that a sitting POTUS could be threatened or killed by forces from within or without the US and there not be ripple effects in our policies and way of life.
Click to expand...

We're using different definitions important.

Clearly the president has a lot of power and there would be dramatic repercussions in the event of the death of the president, especially an assassination. I'm not arguing that.

What I'm arguing is that people shouldn't care that much. No one person, regardless of who that one person is, should be considered that important by others.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What I'm arguing is that people shouldn't care that much. No one person, regardless of who that one person is, should be considered that important by others.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem. It doesn't matter if you think the man or the office should be considered that important. It also doesn't matter if he/it is that important.

The fact is that he/it is considered that important by people and entities both inside and outside the US and a successful attack on he/it will have multiple negative effects on the country.

It all boils down to the undisputable fact that he/it is that important because people think he/it is that important.
 
Last edited:
GigG601XL said:
It all boils down to the undisputable fact that he/it is that important because people think he/it is that important.
Click to expand...

And my point is exactly the opposite. People thinking that someone is important does not make that person important.

Clearly, we have different views on the matter.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And my point is exactly the opposite. People thinking that someone is important does not make that person important.

Clearly, we have different views on the matter.
Click to expand...


:) Then what makes a person or thing important if it isn't the collective belief that he or it is important?

Another example of this is our currency. We build banks to protect little pieces of paper that have no more intrinsic value than a piece of notebook paper. What makes a dollar bill worth a dollar is the collective belief that it is worth that. That's why the value goes up and down. That belief ebbs and flows.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
And my point is exactly the opposite. People thinking that someone is important does not make that person important.

Clearly, we have different views on the matter.
Click to expand...
Well, a person is important because s/he has an inordinate effect on others. A president's passing will have such an effect. This may be because others think the person is important, but it is still an effect. Ergo, that person is important.

Given the impact the death of an important person can have, it doesn't seem untoward to provide them some measure of protection. Just think of Lincoln and Kennedy for presidential assassinations. They still have an effect on the American psyche.

Note that importance is not necessarily the same as having a special gift, intelligence, or power, though those too can be sources of importance, again, because s/he has an inordinate effect on others.
 
smigaldi said:
Wow this whole thread is getting rather SZish!!
Click to expand...


beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
 
GigG601XL said:
:) Then what makes a person or thing important if it isn't the collective belief that he or it is important?
Click to expand...

My point is that no person or object is that important. There may be individuals or objects who/that are important to me as a person, but that does not make those individuals or objects important.

I don't expect you to agree with me, which is fine. It's just my opinion. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
...no person or object is that important. There may be individuals or objects who/that are important to me as a person, but that does not make those individuals or objects important....
Click to expand...

It's not the person or office. Allies and foes see the United States through the executive branch. We project power through the White House and when elsewhere, through AF1.

We could revert to the Carter days and have the president fly commercial, or have him travel in a donkey cart or Bot Bus, but it wouldn't say much for our success.

When negotiating, always approach from a position of power. And show that power through items like 747s.
 
AWACSEng said:
Ron, I don't think we are going to win this battle. People chose to see it as nothing more than a giant waste of taxpayer dollars. What they fail to see, or aknowledge, is the strategic and security advantage of having a global mobility platform ready at a moments notice. No one has complained about the super-duper limos the POTUS drives arround in. AF1 is nothing more than his limo in the sky, ready to whisk the most powerful person in the free world away when the call comes. And as far as "W" disapearing for a while on 9/11, he did not disapear. He was in contact with everyone he needed to be in contact with minus the American Public thanks to the capabilities of AF1. That disadvantage has since been remadied. Concerning the "football", yes there is someone with the codes, but not a damn thing he can do with them without POTUS agreement.
Click to expand...


The problem is Bill I just do not agree with the assessment that the President, ANY President, is THAT important. I am sorry, but the President is not King, nor Royalty, and yes, the lines are clearly defined we would do just fine in the event the POTUS was not available.
 
There is always a give and take concerning VIP security. The most secure is every time the President leaves the White House no one in the whole country flies, drives a vehicle, or even ventures outside while he/she is there.

Obviously, this is not practical, so the SS goes for this effect, but locally. They want a fleet of helicopters and multiple jumbo jets so their loss rate is zero.

Balance this by the fact that we're footing the bill, and all this costs gobs of money. No one here is saying that GWB or BHO or whoever doesn't deserve the security. We certainly won't want them to be moving targets. But the SS is dealing with threats of diminishing likelihood (IMHO) and should probably be reined in by someone, otherwise they have no accountability.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
It's not the person or office. Allies and foes see the United States through the executive branch. We project power through the White House and when elsewhere, through AF1.

We could revert to the Carter days and have the president fly commercial, or have him travel in a donkey cart or Bot Bus, but it wouldn't say much for our success.

When negotiating, always approach from a position of power. And show that power through items like 747s.
Click to expand...

So power is best demonstrated by flaunting one's ability to waste money irresponsibly? That may be how Americans look at it, but not a good portion of the rest of the world. I'll still stick to my previous statement. We have far too much focus on material goods and on "bigger is better". That's a very American attitude, and one that the rest of the world looks down on us for. I can't say I blame them.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So power is best demonstrated by flaunting one's ability to waste money irresponsibly? That may be how Americans look at it, but not a good portion of the rest of the world. I'll still stick to my previous statement. We have far too much focus on material goods and on "bigger is better". That's a very American attitude, and one that the rest of the world looks down on us for. I can't say I blame them.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with material goods? Surrounding ourselves with material goods that make life more comfortable (air conditioning, automobiles, airplanes, etc.) is the way of life we choose because the type of government and economic system we built and have fought to preserve has enabled us to do so. Not ashamed of that at all. We've offered to show other countries how it's done, but at the end of the day, they can live in mud huts if they choose.

If this is a very American attitude, I'm glad to be part of it, and if as you say, the rest of the world looks down on us, remind me why I should give a damn?
 
There is a theory that our being rich causes others to be poor. I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure I don't buy it.

Always remember that political power frequently comes from telling "the people" that you sympathize with their plight, and giving them someone (else) to blame for it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So power is best demonstrated by flaunting one's ability to waste money irresponsibly? That may be how Americans look at it, but not a good portion of the rest of the world. I'll still stick to my previous statement. We have far too much focus on material goods and on "bigger is better". That's a very American attitude, and one that the rest of the world looks down on us for. I can't say I blame them.
Click to expand...

That outlook didn't seem to sway your decision in buying your airplane. Is it a life or death necessity? No? Then you may be perceived by others as flaunting your ability to waste money irresponsibly. Not how many of us see it, but you obviously know that attitude exists in other parts of the world.

As for the POTUS transport debate, no other head of state in the world has as much attention focused upon them, both good and bad, thus making him or her a target to enemies both foreign and domestic. On the positive side, nothing says "we're here!" like the big blue and white with "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" emblazened on the side. To many, that is a sign of hope, promise, or relief. To others, as you noted, it may say "here they are again, those egotistical americans". See it how you wish but to me, many of my coworkers, and a good bit of the american public it is the symbol of the free world, second only to the flag displyed on it's tail.

And a final note to all those that don't like or agree with the American image, there are plenty of other places in this world that would welcome your right to speak freely against the government of your country and it's way of life. Take a look at some of the friendly nations arround the world. Iran, N. Korea, and pre OIF Iraq come to mind.

That's enough of this topic.
 
I worked pretty closely with this guy for about fifteen years. As he grew older, he kept his hair. It was thick and for some reason looked good even when he didn't comb it. He never got a gut either. He had one of those wives that was good looking when he married her, and got better looking as time went on. He built this beautiful house with his own hands, and even rented a backhoe and dug a hole in the back yard and made a pool. People used to ask me how I could stand working with him for so long. I thought that he was a great guy, but everyone else seemed to think the opposite. One day we were sitting by the pool drinking some drinks and he asked me why everyone hated him so much. I told him just to look at himself. He lived good, looked good, dressed well, had a full head of hair, and a beautiful wife. What was there not to hate. I always thought that was the way the rest of the world looks at Americans. It isn't our fault we have it so good.
 
Last edited:
Max, I agree with your observation. But what I find odd is how some European folks look at Americans with disgust while living a similar lifestyle. "Hello Pot, this is Kettle. You are black." As for the rest of the world, screw 'em. It's not my fault I was born here. I enjoy the life that has been provided me and choose to continue living the way I do. You are right, the rest of the world is jealous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top