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

[Leadfoot]

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

[Gene Storey]

747.

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


"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
>
> 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

[Tex Houston]

"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?

Tex

[Gene Storey]

"Tex Houston" > wrote
> "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
>
> How about throwing the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center aircraft
> into the mix?

It spends all of its time off the coast of Langley AFB, and never goes anywhere.

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in
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.

Wouldn't it also sink into the pavement on many runways
when parked for more than a few hours?


Regards...

[Warren Okuma]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:mSTxb.2757$US3.885@okepread03...
> "Tex Houston" > wrote
> > "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
> >
> > How about throwing the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center aircraft
> > into the mix?
>
> It spends all of its time off the coast of Langley AFB, and never goes
anywhere.
>
>
I choose Air Force One!

[Tex Houston]

"Warren Okuma" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:mSTxb.2757$US3.885@okepread03...
> > > How about throwing the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center
aircraft
> > > into the mix?
> >
> > It spends all of its time off the coast of Langley AFB, and never goes
> anywhere.
> >
> >
> I choose Air Force One!

The E-4B unit is based at Offutt AFB. I think someone is confused and is
thinking about the USN TACAMO E-6B Mercury operated by Strategic
Communications Wing One.

Tex

[BOB URZ]

Tex Houston wrote:

> "Warren Okuma" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> > news:mSTxb.2757$US3.885@okepread03...
> > > > How about throwing the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center
> aircraft
> > > > into the mix?
> > >
> > > It spends all of its time off the coast of Langley AFB, and never goes
> > anywhere.
> > >
> > >
> > I choose Air Force One!
>
> The E-4B unit is based at Offutt AFB. I think someone is confused and is
> thinking about the USN TACAMO E-6B Mercury operated by Strategic
> Communications Wing One.
>
> Tex

Very true. I see them "Floating" over the Omaha area all the time doing
touch and go's and flyarounds.

Of course, E6's also haunt the area.

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Ragnar]

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

How would the tanker crews "know" who was on the C-17? There's no sign on
the tail, is there?

[Nick Coleman]

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

[user]

If I were the pres and I was making the decision, for obvious reasons,
I wouldn't want to go anywhere without AF-1 being within a Limo rides
distance!!!, Including stateside.

Pavement???
Most international airports (baghdad included) have cement parking
ramps just to avoid that sinking. Your right about parking on a 140
degree asphalt runway though.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:23:00 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> wrote:

>"Leadfoot" > wrote in
>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.
>
> Wouldn't it also sink into the pavement on many runways
> when parked for more than a few hours?
>
>
> Regards...

[Leadfoot]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in
> 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.
>
> Wouldn't it also sink into the pavement on many runways
> when parked for more than a few hours?

G5 is Gulfstream 5. occasionally used by the president.



>
>
> Regards...

[Leadfoot]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:ZBTxb.15791$o9.3280@fed1read07...
> >
> > 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.
>
> How would the tanker crews "know" who was on the C-17? There's no sign on
> the tail, is there?

Good point, I was a little tired when I wrote it.

>
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:%HTxb.2754$US3.2199@okepread03...
> 747.
>
> AF1 has IR jammers on the engines. The C-17 only has flares,
> and they wouldn't be good for stealth arrival.

R U sure there aren't a couple of C-17's equipped with IR Jammers? Seems
like it would be prudent to have a couple or so for spec ops.


>
>
> "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
> >
> > 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
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"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?

>
> Tex
>
>

[miso]

Since a British pilot spotted AF1, you have a good point about it
being a billboard. It's not a slam dunk decision, but AF1 is more
capable as a flying office than some generic C-17. I suspect that may
have been part of the decision process.

"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
>
> 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

[Brian]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:XRYxb.16304$o9.10698@fed1read07...
>
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:%HTxb.2754$US3.2199@okepread03...
> > 747.
> >
> > AF1 has IR jammers on the engines. The C-17 only has flares,
> > and they wouldn't be good for stealth arrival.
>
> R U sure there aren't a couple of C-17's equipped with IR Jammers? Seems
> like it would be prudent to have a couple or so for spec ops.

Not sure how many have it, but they are equipping them with LAIRCM (Large
Aircraft IR Countermeasures) which is supposed to be a more powerful (laser
based possibly) version of Nemisis. I would think that any C-17 heading into
Baghdad would be equipped with such a system. I'm not sure the USAF is keen
on throwing a $100 Million plane and it's crew away.

[Brian]

"miso" > wrote in message
om...
> Since a British pilot spotted AF1, you have a good point about it
> being a billboard. It's not a slam dunk decision, but AF1 is more
> capable as a flying office than some generic C-17. I suspect that may
> have been part of the decision process.

I'm betting it also has a better suite of countermeasures. The C-17 can take
off at a rather steep angle though.

[Tex Houston]

"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

[KenG]

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

KenG

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
>
>

[Michael Williamson]

Nick Coleman wrote:
> 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

Most missile guidance systems don't work in quite that manner. They
have various algorithms for both aiming the seeker head and determining
the validity of the received IR source. IRCM techniques include both
fooling the logic of the algorithm as well as overwhelming or blinding
the missile's IR sensor itself.

Mike

[Tarver Engineering]

"KenG" > wrote in message
. 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
> >
> >
>

[KenG]

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
> . 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]

"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...

I havn't seen the picture of an E4 in FEMA paint since the Clinton
Administration.

You did know they are As and Bs?

Are you posting that you are the Garlington spam bot in "kook troll" mode?

[KenG]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "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...
>
>
> I havn't seen the picture of an E4 in FEMA paint since the Clinton
> Administration.
>
> You did know they are As and Bs?
>
> Are you posting that you are the Garlington spam bot in "kook troll" mode?
>
>
AS I SAID... "Sorry to Disappoint". BTW I left the program in '87, and
am not fully up on what transpired since then. At that time we had
both..... Son-of-a-Bitch, here I am trying to have an cogent
conversation with Tarver...Nevermind.

KenG

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in news:KMYxb.16302$o9.15166
@fed1read07:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Leadfoot" > wrote in
>> news:ZBTxb.15791$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.
>>
>> Wouldn't it also sink into the pavement on many runways
>> when parked for more than a few hours?
>
> G5 is Gulfstream 5. occasionally used by the president.

Ah of course, my bust.


Regards...

[Tarver Engineering]

"KenG" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "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...
> >
> >
> > I havn't seen the picture of an E4 in FEMA paint since the Clinton
> > Administration.
> >
> > You did know they are As and Bs?
> >
> > Are you posting that you are the Garlington spam bot in "kook troll"
mode?

> AS I SAID... "Sorry to Disappoint".

Oh I am, that could have been great fun.

> BTW I left the program in '87, and
> am not fully up on what transpired since then.

A lot of things have changed since '87.

> At that time we had
> both.....

Both what? :)

[Jim Baker]

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
> > . 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]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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.

That would explain our PMA for E-4A/E-4B/747-200 airplanes.

Thanks for playing.

[Jim Baker]

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.

If you search for VC-25A and E-4B, you'll see the obvious difference in the
aircraft. The paint scheme, if not identical, are very similar.

Regards,

JB

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/fs_99.shtml

"Background
The E-4B evolved from the E-4A, which had been in service since late 1974.
The first B model was delivered to the Air Force in January 1980, and by
1985 all aircraft were converted to B models. All E-4B are assigned to the
55th Wing, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb"


"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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
> >
snip

[Mike Zaharis]

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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[KenG]

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
. 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

[KenG]

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"KenG" > wrote in message
om...
>
> 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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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
> . 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>

[Nick Coleman]

Thanks for those replies, that makes sense,

Nick

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

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

[Matt Wiser]

"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!