Do you think Air Force 1 should have in-flight refueling capability?

[usmbguest5318]

Do you think Air Force 1 should have in-flight refueling capability? If so/not, why or why not?

 

[Vastator]

Do you know that it doesn't?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you know that it doesn't?

Do I need to in order for you to have an opinion on the matter?

From timestamp 4:05

​

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Do you think Air Force 1 should have in-flight refueling capability? If so/not, why or why not?

In an extreme crisis it may be important to be able to keep AF1 airborne for periods that exceed it's max unrefueled duration.

And it appears the aircraft has the capability

Capable of refueling midair, Air Force One has unlimited range and can carry the President wherever he needs to travel

Air Force One​

 

[Vastator]

Do you know that it doesn't?

Do I need to in order for you to have an opinion on the matter?

From timestamp 4:05

​

It's foundational to the question... And "yes" it might be prudent. However; mid air refueling is quite risky. And when it goes wrong; it goes catastrophicly wrong.

 

[Mousterian]

They could stay in the air indefinitely, supported by the volume of hot air from the current President.

 

[iceberg]

Do you think Air Force 1 should have in-flight refueling capability? If so/not, why or why not?

at first thought - yes.
if i hate trump and need a new bullet, hell yes.

but to date, it's never been used. even bush flew around for 8 hours on 9/11 and it wasn't needed.

so tell me -
1) do you honestly think this is just a bad decision
2) it doesn't matter what trump says, you're gonna spin it negative
3) i need to shut up and let you hate

back to you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you know that it doesn't?

Do I need to in order for you to have an opinion on the matter?

From timestamp 4:05

​

It's foundational to the question... And "yes" it might be prudent. However; mid air refueling is quite risky. And when it goes wrong; it goes catastrophicly wrong.

It's foundational to the question...

??? What I know (or don't) about the plane's capabilities is foundational to your opinion on the matter? Seriously?

Do you think Air Force 1 should have in-flight refueling capability? If so/not, why or why not?

Do you know that it doesn't?

 

[OldLady]

Do you know that it doesn't?

Do I need to in order for you to have an opinion on the matter?

From timestamp 4:05

​

Of course, Xelor! Why would anyone have an opinion about this if the plane already had inflight refueling capabilities? Which I have heard it does. I believe I heard about it when immediately after 9-11, they had Bush flying around for hours.
The plane should have that capability if it doesn't already, but of course it matters if AF1 already has that capacity.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you know that it doesn't?

Do I need to in order for you to have an opinion on the matter?

From timestamp 4:05

​

Of course, Xelor! Why would anyone have an opinion about this if the plane already had inflight refueling capabilities? Which I have heard it does. I believe I heard about it when immediately after 9-11, they had Bush flying around for hours.
The plane should have that capability if it doesn't already, but of course it matters if AF1 already has that capacity.

I also think it should have that capability.

Why would anyone have an opinion about this if the plane already had inflight refueling capabilities?

Well, you know, I think that's a reasonable question. Were I answering it, I'd say, "Nobody outside the Air Force should have an opinion on that particular detail seeing as while the POTUS is on the plane, it would be tasked having to determine when, how, where, etc. to refuel if needed." I'd say that because as goes AF-1 operations, I know I don't "know more than the generals." (Or the colonels and majors, for that matter.)

Others, however, either don't feel as though the USAF's generals, colonels and majors know what they're doing and need as goes maximum flexibility, capabilities, and options available for the "Winged White House." To wit....In a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was heard the following testimony:

Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas asked Dunford what he made of the decision to cut mid-air refueling capabilities from the new Boeing 747s that are to serve as the primary presidential transports in the future.

"Strangely to me, the Air Force has just announced that the next version of Air Force One will not have in-flight refueling capability," Cotton said. "What do you make of that?"

Dunford responded: "Senator, I think that was a decision that was not made by the, by the Air Force, but made by the White House. And I think it had to do with fiscal constraints on the program. It will certainly be a limiting factor, and we'll have to plan accordingly."
​

So, what I glean from that is that Trump made a political promise to save money, and so compromising the functionality of future AF-1 planes (because the ones they're flying him on have in-flight refueling capability) is one of his cockamamy ways of dong so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think that Air Force One should have refueling capabilities for emergency use.

I am much more concerned about the air conditioning at Congress. I think that it should all be removed so Congress wont stay in session as much.

No mans liberty, property or life is safe while Congress is in session.

 

[OldLady]

Do you know that it doesn't?

Do I need to in order for you to have an opinion on the matter?

From timestamp 4:05

​

Of course, Xelor! Why would anyone have an opinion about this if the plane already had inflight refueling capabilities? Which I have heard it does. I believe I heard about it when immediately after 9-11, they had Bush flying around for hours.
The plane should have that capability if it doesn't already, but of course it matters if AF1 already has that capacity.

I also think it should have that capability.

Why would anyone have an opinion about this if the plane already had inflight refueling capabilities?

Well, you know, I think that's a reasonable question. Were I answering it, I'd say, "Nobody outside the Air Force should have an opinion on that particular detail seeing as while the POTUS is on the plane, it would be tasked having to determine when, how, where, etc. to refuel if needed." I'd say that because as goes AF-1 operations, I know I don't "know more than the generals." (Or the colonels and majors, for that matter.)

Others, however, either don't feel as though the USAF's generals, colonels and majors know what they're doing and need as goes maximum flexibility, capabilities, and options available for the "Winged White House." To wit....In a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was heard the following testimony:

Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas asked Dunford what he made of the decision to cut mid-air refueling capabilities from the new Boeing 747s that are to serve as the primary presidential transports in the future.

"Strangely to me, the Air Force has just announced that the next version of Air Force One will not have in-flight refueling capability," Cotton said. "What do you make of that?"

Dunford responded: "Senator, I think that was a decision that was not made by the, by the Air Force, but made by the White House. And I think it had to do with fiscal constraints on the program. It will certainly be a limiting factor, and we'll have to plan accordingly."
​

So, what I glean from that is that Trump made a political promise to save money, and so compromising the functionality of future AF-1 planes (because the ones they're flying him on have in-flight refueling capability) is one of his cockamamy ways of dong so.

Ah hah! The reason for the thread becomes clear!
Do you think they'll let him get away with that? After all, that new AF1 will be used by Presidents in the future, not just him.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you know that it doesn't?

Do I need to in order for you to have an opinion on the matter?

From timestamp 4:05

​

Of course, Xelor! Why would anyone have an opinion about this if the plane already had inflight refueling capabilities? Which I have heard it does. I believe I heard about it when immediately after 9-11, they had Bush flying around for hours.
The plane should have that capability if it doesn't already, but of course it matters if AF1 already has that capacity.

I also think it should have that capability.

Why would anyone have an opinion about this if the plane already had inflight refueling capabilities?

Well, you know, I think that's a reasonable question. Were I answering it, I'd say, "Nobody outside the Air Force should have an opinion on that particular detail seeing as while the POTUS is on the plane, it would be tasked having to determine when, how, where, etc. to refuel if needed." I'd say that because as goes AF-1 operations, I know I don't "know more than the generals." (Or the colonels and majors, for that matter.)

Others, however, either don't feel as though the USAF's generals, colonels and majors know what they're doing and need as goes maximum flexibility, capabilities, and options available for the "Winged White House." To wit....In a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was heard the following testimony:

Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas asked Dunford what he made of the decision to cut mid-air refueling capabilities from the new Boeing 747s that are to serve as the primary presidential transports in the future.

"Strangely to me, the Air Force has just announced that the next version of Air Force One will not have in-flight refueling capability," Cotton said. "What do you make of that?"

Dunford responded: "Senator, I think that was a decision that was not made by the, by the Air Force, but made by the White House. And I think it had to do with fiscal constraints on the program. It will certainly be a limiting factor, and we'll have to plan accordingly."
​

So, what I glean from that is that Trump made a political promise to save money, and so compromising the functionality of future AF-1 planes (because the ones they're flying him on have in-flight refueling capability) is one of his cockamamy ways of dong so.

Ah hah! The reason for the thread becomes clear!
Do you think they'll let him get away with that? After all, that new AF1 will be used by Presidents in the future, not just him.

Do you think they'll let him get away with that?

I would hope not.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

From a cost benefit analysis perspective, no.

 

[JimBowie1958]

From a cost benefit analysis perspective, no.

But from a risk management perspective, hell yes.

IF the time ever comes that the POTUS has to stay in the air for that long it will damned well be worth it.