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

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

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

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

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.

Thanks for those replies, that makes sense,

Nick

"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" 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.