Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
China ordered something like air force one from Boeing about 20 years ago for their president Jiang Zemin. They found 27 bugs on the plane and never ordered again.
I suppose Obama was bugged too.
Whatever the mechanics of it, Trump isn't a king or a dictator and doesn't get to cancel Air Force contracts on a whim. He thinks just because he stops paying contractors when doing his private business that he can shout "Cancel the contract!" and it's done.
This is just the daily example of Trump being a horse's ass to distract from something stupid he's done, like appointing Carson as head of HUD.
Yes. This is exactly what's up.
Only, his tweets now affect the stock exchanges. He's a horse's ass.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I find it interesting that some in government are saying that the current Presidential 747s are 25 years old, and it would cost too much to upgrade them.
I guess they don't know much about aircraft.
How old are the current B-52s that are flying? How many times have they been upgraded?
Also, what upgrades are needed on the current Presidential aircraft? How many ADs (Airworthiness Directives) are in effect that must be done? What inspections are recommended for continued airworthiness? Do the wing spars need X-rayed or replaced? Are the engines high-time and need replaced? If so, are there upgraded engines available that would give more power or economy?
As a retired A&P mechanic I do believe the current aircraft could be fully inspected and certified for continued use much cheaper than buying two new ones, even if the communications gear needs complete replacement (they will buy all new commo gear for the new ones anyway!).
By the way, those aircraft are only referred to as "Air Force One" when the President is aboard, and "Air Force Two" when the Vice President is aboard.
I find it interesting that some in government are saying that the current Presidential 747s are 25 years old, and it would cost too much to upgrade them.
I guess they don't know much about aircraft.
How old are the current B-52s that are flying? How many times have they been upgraded?
Also, what upgrades are needed on the current Presidential aircraft? How many ADs (Airworthiness Directives) are in effect that must be done? What inspections are recommended for continued airworthiness? Do the wing spars need X-rayed or replaced? Are the engines high-time and need replaced? If so, are there upgraded engines available that would give more power or economy?
As a retired A&P mechanic I do believe the current aircraft could be fully inspected and certified for continued use much cheaper than buying two new ones, even if the communications gear needs complete replacement (they will buy all new commo gear for the new ones anyway!).
By the way, those aircraft are only referred to as "Air Force One" when the President is aboard, and "Air Force Two" when the Vice President is aboard.
The Air Force seems to think they need a higher level of security that cannot be achieved with the current planes. I doubt they think the planes themselves have entirely outlived their usefulness or they would not be in use.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The VC25 is at the end of its 30 year lifespan. Yes they can be retro' but there reaches a point where that becomes cost prohibitive. They're already over 100m a year to keep in the air.
Let me see if I have this right. A military contractor bumps the price of a $350 million commercial plane to $4 billion, an increase of 11x, in order to meet contract requirements. The president-elect says that's too much for a fancy plane just to haul the president around. And the liberals explode for saying a "military contract" is out of control and we should reign-in spending and hold the contractor accountable. Is that about right?
Not even remotely close, but I'm sure you'll keep on believing every word of it until the day you die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Do we know this at this point. It's my understanding that most of this is speculation at this point?
Every damned word of it is speculation, since it's all based on that fantasy figure of "$4 billion" that Trump clearly made up out of thin air, because nobody else on the entire planet who owns a calculator has even come close to being able to confirm it. But we have 25 pages of Trumphead cultmembers having orgasms about how the Great Donald is saving us 4 billion dollars.
You people will believe ANYTHING as long as it dribbles out of that buffoon's mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
The Air Force seems to think they need a higher level of security that cannot be achieved with the current planes. I doubt they think the planes themselves have entirely outlived their usefulness or they would not be in use.
Plus, while all those 50- and 60-year old B-52s are still perfectly mission-capable, their mission is not to carry the President of The United States and (if necessary) act as the mobile command center for the entire country in case of war. They're held to slightly different standards, and I don't think the two examples are comparable.
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 12-06-2016 at 10:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
