Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Force One & Marine One  
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 10828 times:

Bloomberg has posted this article

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ir-force-one-presidential-jet.html

As much as I love to see new metal, with our current economy does it make sense to charge into this.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10768 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Thread starter):
As much as I love to see new metal, with our current economy does it make sense to charge into this.

Yes from the planning aspect. The article states an entry date of 2019. With 3 to 4 years between from time of purchase. Looks like we could be looking at a Sikorsky S-92 based Marine One and a 747-8i for Air Force One suggested by this article, but it's still a long ways out.

On a side note, I wonder if the "attic space" would be used on the 747-8i if it is chosen.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10738 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Thread starter):
with our current economy does it make sense to charge into this.

That's just the point - they are not charging into this.

The plan for the procurement has been around for years, and the planned new metal is near a decade away.

This is part of a very long process, the only impact on the 'current economy' is that some workers might get to keep their jobs because the procurement keeps on going with the planning.

Stopping the procurement process will have to effects. One is that a lot of people would lose their jobs, and the other is that the eventual replacement aircraft would cost a lot more.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10638 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Thread starter):
As much as I love to see new metal, with our current economy does it make sense to charge into this.

Procuring new Presidential aircraft will have negligible impact on our budget woes. Our problems have much more to do with entitlement spending, as is the case with most Western nations. Quite frankly, to me this isn't even a blip on the radar screen when compared to other budget challenges. The VC-25As are fast approaching the end of their service life and will need to be replaced, just as the Marine One aircraft will also need to be. I'm much more concerned that enough KC-46As are built to support our military goals. 179 seems a bit too low a number, but that's another debate...

The article has mentioned sole-sourcing Air Force One from Boeing, and that to me suggests that the 747-8i is the clear favorite. Marine One replacement will be interesting. I'd love to see at least two VH-22s procured for that mission.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 1):
On a side note, I wonder if the "attic space" would be used on the 747-8i if it is chosen.

Count on it. Avionics and communications equipment on-board existing VC-25A's are state-of-the-art and use every available nook and cranny. The same will be true of the new 747 replacement aircraft.

[Edited 2012-08-11 05:57:30]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10477 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 3):
The VC-25As are fast approaching the end of their service life and will need to be replaced,

What's the daily utilization rate of Air Force One? It's going to be a lot lower than your average 747 in airline use. You could keep those things going for another fifteen years easy.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10478 times:

They can keep it flying - but it is beyond maxed out on its infrastructure use.

Simply put, they need more electricity, and they cannot generate it on those 742s.

NS


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10469 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
Simply put, they need more electricity, and they cannot generate it on those 742s.

You put it that way and someone will have the brilliant idea of re-engining them for a mere $1 billion each.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10330 times:

The failure of the VH-71 program was as much a fault of the Secret Service and the White House as it was the USN (who would have bought the Marine-1 helios). So, before we start the program we have to set rules as to what all these entities can input into the program. If we don't do that, then we learned nothing from the VH-71 program.

The USAF has a pretty good grasp of what is needed by an Air Force-1 in the way of aircraft defenses, so let them run with that. The same can be said for the USMC in defending Marine-1.

Don't forget, these will be the first of a series of new VIP aircraft purchases. Soon after the new AF-1s are inplace it will be time to replace the C-32A/Bs, and just after those the C-40B/Cs and C-37A/Bs.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12961 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10319 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The failure of the VH-71 program was as much a fault of the Secret Service and the White House as it was the USN (who would have bought the Marine-1 helios). So, before we start the program we have to set rules as to what all these entities can input into the program. If we don't do that, then we learned nothing from the VH-71 program.

As for the helos, I think they need to put in the rule that they need to stay within the lifting capacity on the commercial spec sheet, minus 10% for growth, and same for its cabin volume. The problem with VH-71 was they kept adding more stuff to it to the point where we were paying to develop what was in essence a new model of helo bit by bit, which is what led to the massive cost overruns.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7658 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10289 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 3):
I'd love to see at least two VH-22s procured for that mission.

The Marines already have the Osprey in service, I thinkg the odds are good that a couple will be assigned to the unit who provides / flies the Presidential Fleet, whether POTUS will actually ride in one is another story, but the odds of them being there in a support capacity are high, support meaning they will ferry troops and other VIP but not be a part of the Official Fleet.
Rose Garden upgrades are not prudent during this fiscal crisis .


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9989 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
They can keep it flying - but it is beyond maxed out on its infrastructure use.

Simply put, they need more electricity, and they cannot generate it on those 742s.

If that's the actual case then all I can say is that's what mods are for.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9951 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 6):

You put it that way and someone will have the brilliant idea of re-engining them for a mere $1 billion each.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10):

Simply put, they need more electricity, and they cannot generate it on those 742s.

If that's the actual case then all I can say is that's what mods are for.

What is inferred is that the need for more electricity comes from the need for more equipment to be installed.
If you figure the additional cost of the new equipment, new engines (modified from existing engines) and all the associated wiring needed to be routed (new power cables from the engines and all the internal wiring from the new equipment, the cost of the airframes would not be a major driver. And by the way, what would POTUS be flying the 2 years or so required to do the mod?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9804 times:

The current AF1 aircraft have already been in service as the primary aircraft longer than any previous examples and with 6-7 more years, will be past 25 years as primary aircraft. SAM2600 acted as the primary aircraft for 10 years, then took on aback up role through 1998. SAM2700 spent 18 years as the primary aircraft, then some years as AF2, then time as a backup until 2001.

It's hardly wasteful to replace a mission critical aircraft as it approaches 30 years old. We are talking maybe $50M a year amortized cost, or 50 cents per taxpayer per year. The yearly cost to operate them is far more than the cost to buy them.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9708 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 11):
What is inferred is that the need for more electricity comes from the need for more equipment to be installed.
If you figure the additional cost of the new equipment, new engines (modified from existing engines)

You don't need new engines in order to get more power.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9697 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 13):

You don't need new engines in order to get more power.

True,

There are a variety of ways to get more electrical power. What came to my mind was adding generators to the engines or APU's.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1670 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9421 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 4):
What's the daily utilization rate of Air Force One? It's going to be a lot lower than your average 747 in airline use. You could keep those things going for another fifteen years easy.

From what I understand and I could be misinformed, even when not flying POTUS, they fly a few times a week, usually practicing approaches into Harrisburg IAP.

I have a friend in the PA ANG who's stationed there...I'll see if he can tell me anything.

Marc


User currently offlinedragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 9170 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
The Marines already have the Osprey in service, I thinkg the odds are good that a couple will be assigned to the unit who provides / flies the Presidential Fleet, whether POTUS will actually ride in one is another story, but the odds of them being there in a support capacity are high, support meaning they will ferry troops and other VIP but not be a part of the Official Fleet.

Last Marine aviation plan I saw had Ospreys coming to HMX-1 between FY 17-18. Only as the support aircraft of course.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9147 times:

The Osprey's interior dimensions are considered unfavorable for POTUS use; fine for the press corps, just not the POTUS. The USAF is open to any and all serious bidders, even if they don't go with Boeing as the prime. And keep in mind, the VC-25's may not have a whole lot of flight time relative to their age, (they do have an above average for the flight time and age,) but they do have an well above average number of cycles considering most 747's don't takeoff and land an hour later for a political rally or dinner.

User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9011 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 15):
From what I understand and I could be misinformed, even when not flying POTUS, they fly a few times a week, usually practicing approaches into Harrisburg IAP.

I have a friend in the PA ANG who's stationed there...I'll see if he can tell me anything.

Marc

Yes, they keep up on hours training....they fly into Newport News, VA, often.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8911 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 17):
The USAF is open to any and all serious bidders, even if they don't go with Boeing as the prime.

And exactly who else would bid? Airbus obviously read the writing on the wall and has already announced they will not participate in the VC-25A replacement program.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8849 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 19):
And exactly who else would bid?

AirRyan was talking about being prime. Even though the -8i may be the leading candidate, Boeing is not guaranteed of being prime. NG is a possibility. They have plenty of mod experience. The list of qualified prime may be small, but not limited to 1.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8775 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 20):
AirRyan was talking about being prime. Even though the -8i may be the leading candidate, Boeing is not guaranteed of being prime. NG is a possibility.

In this situation, especially with Boeing's long history with the Air Force, there's little chance they wouldn't be the prime contractor. Yes, is it possible that NG or LM would be prime? Of course, but this contract has Boeing written all over it IMHO.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 8729 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 21):
Of course, but this contract has Boeing written all over it IMHO.

I hope you are right . . . I would love to get on that project.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8464 times:

Neither NG, nor LM have an airplane already flying they could develope the VC-X from, Boeing does and Airbus does, but Airbus backed out.

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8378 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Neither NG, nor LM have an airplane already flying they could develope

No but the option is for the Air Force to buy the 747-8 BBJ from Boeing and fly it to NG or LM for mod.

Since only 3 or 4 frames are involved, it's hard to say who can do the work for the least amount of money or who has the most congressional political clout. I would assume the USAF and SS already have wthat electronic suite to be installed in mind.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8511 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
I would assume the USAF and SS already have wthat electronic suite to be installed in mind.

In broad concepts - yes. In details - no.

One of the lessons learned from 9/11 is that holding the AF1 electronics suite static causes the US President to fall behind available technology and unable to communicate efficiently. AF1 didn't even have a live TV capability on 9/11, and no video conferencing.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3864 posts, RR: 27
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 22):
. I would love to get on that project


I was on the both the 747a and the 757s.. count on long hours, headaches, and unreasonable senior managers with zip experience. Hopefully the P-8 'plug and play' will incorporated to make upgrades easier.

Next week we should start a new livery design contest      


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8515 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 25):
One of the lessons learned from 9/11 is that holding the AF1 electronics suite static causes the US President to fall behind available technology and unable to communicate efficiently.

But if you don't have the stuff pre-defined, you run the risk of mission creep (AKA Presidential Helicopter) or long development cycle.

I can see an open architecture for computing processing, but many of the other systems Communications, Datalink etc. . . should be already available on other Military aircraft.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8489 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's been said a few times on here that there will be 3 or 4 frames...I don't think there will be more than 2. The current fleet is two and the USAF would have to revamp it's spendy hangars that they made just for the current ones (they are NICE too). Plus after all of the TONS of $$$ spent on the now moth-balled YL-1A, that might be a factor on reaching for 2 at most. The YL-1A was a good "idea" but sadly it was just to costly.

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8496 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 20):
Boeing is not guaranteed of being prime. NG is a possibility. They have plenty of mod experience. The list of qualified prime may be small, but not limited to 1.

Exactly. The scenario where two new 747-8i's are taken off the line at KPAE and flown bare metal somewhere else for mod is indeed very possible, and the USAF would have zero problems with it that should Boeing not be the prime.

Boeing would be very unwise to take the USAF for granted, they already got a big bone with the KC-X award and USAF owes them nothing. Besides, Of course, Boeing can play it down by saying that at least it's their aircraft flying the President around. I readily expect Boeing to win the VXX bid next time around, even if they will be the prime on a European designed helicopter. (H-101)


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3864 posts, RR: 27
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 29):
The scenario where two new 747-8i's are taken off the line at KPAE and flown bare metal somewhere else for mod is indeed very possible


this has been discussed several times (threads) before. These planes are significantly different from the very beginning.. unlike a BBJ makeover, all the wiring would be stripped and replaced, a significant amount of structure removed and replaced, provisions for air-stairs require removing structure around the for and aft doors, revised floor beams, .. They only look like the production article. So why not make the changes during the production process? OK you could argue that some supplier could specify Boeing build it to USAF specs and then they would put in the interiors... Boeing would price the bird out of sight. So Boeing will build, outfit, maintain and upgrade just as it does today.

So why in several threads do you keep wanting to rehash this.. seems to me there was quite a bit of ill feeling toward Boeing in some posts...

The only way a company could convert a production unit cheaper than Boeing would be to buy all the components, skins, ribs, etc everything in kit form and try to assemble without tools or experience and make all the changes as they go... trouble is they could not get a production or airworthiness certificate.

On the other hand there was very little structural difference with the 757's.. the entire interior went in within the standard production flow. The communications gear was plug and play..


User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8433 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 28):
It's been said a few times on here that there will be 3 or 4 frames...I don't think there will be more than 2.

Based on what I've read and a few folks I've spoken with, it sounds line the Air Force wants at least three. That way when one goes into extended heavy maintenance there is still a primary and backup available. Of course, in this fiscal climate it may be difficult to justify the cost, especially if the the VC-25As are kept active and available as backups.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8261 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10):
If that's the actual case then all I can say is that's what mods are for.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 13):
You don't need new engines in order to get more power.

It cannot be done. That aircraft is totally maxed out.

The infrastructure of the plane would need to be ripped and replaced and they would still be out of space for the gear they want.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 14):
There are a variety of ways to get more electrical power. What came to my mind was adding generators to the engines or APU's.

Both of which very obviously have them already.


I am right on this guys.

NS


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8195 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 30):
seems to me there was quite a bit of ill feeling toward Boeing in some posts...

You're arguing the same thing Boeing is to the USAF, that there is no other way. But there is, the USAF would not be opposed to certain other companies taking the prime - sort of like NG on the KC-30 in an Airbus. Three aircraft? no problem. For starters, look for vendors who have experience with 747 VIP mods.

"How much for one rib?"
http://sedislogistic.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/zwischenablage021.png


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8165 times:

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 31):
it sounds line the Air Force wants at least three. That way when one goes into extended heavy maintenance there is still a primary and backup available. Of course, in this fiscal climate it may be difficult to justify the cost, especially if the the VC-25As are kept active and available as backups.

Currently there are the two VC-25. There are also four E-4B aircraft which can be used as backup when one of the VC-25 is unavailable.

The E-4B are planned to stay in service to near 2015-2017. When they are gone there will not be a third aircraft for backup on overseas trips if one of the new AF-1 aircraft is down for major maintenance.

The VC-25 will be retired soon after the new aircraft come on line. They are not reconfigurable for other usage, and they will be too expensive to maintain as ready use backups.

While the planes are costly, it would be much more cost efficient to procure three in the initial order than just two, and determine late that a third is needed.

Also, as far as fiscal climate - we are talking about spending the majority of the money in 4 to 7 years. These procurements put millions of dollars into the pockets of workers in the United States.

Frankly, I find that a better use of government money than a lot of current projects, even in DOD.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7861 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 29):
Boeing would be very unwise to take the USAF for granted, they already got a big bone with the KC-X award and USAF owes them nothing. Besides, Of course, Boeing can play it down by saying that at least it's their aircraft flying the President around.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 29):
The scenario where two new 747-8i's are taken off the line at KPAE and flown bare metal somewhere else for mod is indeed very possible, and the USAF would have zero problems with it that should Boeing not be the prime.

Even if that happens, the public will know these as Boeing built airplanes if they are B-747s. The public really never knows, or cares who puts in the interior fixtures.

Even if Boeing only builds the bare bones airframes, I believe they will have many of the unique features the VC-25s have, such as duel APUs, and left and right side cargo doors with air stairs and an air refueling capability


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7437 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
I believe they will have many of the unique features the VC-25s have, such as duel APUs

You haven't seen what Boeing charge for Engineering hours.  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7399 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
such as duel APUs

Not sure about "duel" APU's (do they not get along?), but AF1 does have "dual" APUs.  



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Air Force One & Marine One
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force One And Orlando 1/19/12 posted Wed Jan 18 2012 05:16:38 by Plainplane
Air Force ONE To Hawaii posted Fri Dec 23 2011 12:15:19 by audidudi
Inside Air Force One - The Independence (Video) posted Tue Nov 8 2011 14:21:55 by rohanghosh
Air Force One And President Obama At NCE For G-20 posted Tue Nov 1 2011 05:50:21 by MadameConcorde
Air Force One Incident @ LAS This Week posted Wed Oct 26 2011 07:48:38 by mattya9
Air Force One At LAX Today, 10/24 posted Mon Oct 24 2011 14:03:14 by bonusonus
Air Force One And Orlando 10/11/11? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 20:59:24 by Plainplane
A380 To Replace Air Force One In 2017? posted Wed Sep 28 2011 14:38:58 by simplikate
Air Force One At EWR On Sunday 9/04 posted Sat Sep 3 2011 04:59:05 by Alibo5NGN
C-32 As Air Force ONE To KSC posted Fri Apr 29 2011 12:18:23 by WF2BNN

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format