SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - 'Blair Force Ones'

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - 'Blair Force Ones' (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94793)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Anyway, back to BlairForceOne...well, I do think I've discovered a picture of a trial run carried out last year in the MoD archives:
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/9924/af1014zs.jpg

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

There are a fleet of several planes all modified to carry the US president, all with specific and extensive modifications. Whichever one of the planes the President is currently on is AirForce One. All of the planes in the fleet have undergone complete customization, though some may have systems that the others do not. If the president were to use any other plane it would obtain the designation "airforce one" even if its not one of the usual fleet. However, it would be extremely rare for this to happen. At least one of the fleets planes stay within reach of the president at all times, following him to the nearest available airport and ready to lift off at any time.

For some interesting FYI, the same "call designations" apply for any craft that president is on. Whenever the president is on a USMarine helocopter the helo is called "Marine One". Whenever the president is on a navy ship (like an Aircraft Carrier) its called "Navy One"... whenever the president is one a Army Transport (though that's pretty rare and I can't remember a time when this was seen... at least publicly that is) its called Army One.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Yes, and I'm sure whoever invented calling the plane the President is flying on "Airforce 1" predicted he'd get his laughs in the future by the confusion it would cause on an internet forum.

Let's put it another way. If a guy had a gun to your head and asked you which plane the Pres was on, would you answer:

a) Airforce 1
b) The actual plane

grrrrrrrrr......:stare:

What I mean is...to the public, aviation enthusiasts and people to whomever it may NOT concern...go ahead...call any plane the pres is on Airforce 1. When national security is at stake and you're someone that matters...you wont pussyfoot about with this ridiculous protocol and just go ahead and refer to KNEECAP as KNEECAP whether the pres, Marylin Manson or Briana Banks (pornstar) is on board or not!!!!!!

You just aren't willing to admit you were wrong eh? That's ok i can respect that, however the public, aviation enthusiasts and unconcerned people can call it anything they want, including the "Presidential Pimp Mobile". That, however, does not make it accurate.

Looks like Tony Blair has got something even faster, due to the fact our Trident Missiles are to be scarped for the latest new one's.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/1...mage0025no.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

Looks like Tony Blair has got something even faster, due to the fact our Trident Missiles are to be scarped for the latest new one's.

That's interesting... what missile is going to replace the Trident?

NO information yet here's the news item.

Quote:

Brown backs Trident replacement

Trident will be decommissioned by about 2024

Gordon Brown has signalled that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.
Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen.
Mr Brown's intervention has enraged critics, who say Trident has no use now the Soviet Cold War threat is over.
Labour had a manifesto commitment to retain an independent nuclear deterrent but it only applies until the next general election.
Mr Brown, seen as the most likely next prime minister, has sparked new debate on the issue by highlighting his personal commitment to replace Trident.
In his Mansion House speech in the City of London, He said Britain would show a "national purpose" in protecting its security.
"Strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent," he said.
"In an insecure would we must and we will always have the strength to take all necessary long term decisions to ensure both stability and security."
'No moral reason'
It is thought Mr Brown wants anti-nuclear campaigners to know he is just as committed to replacing Trident as Tony Blair.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown's words would take the heat off the prime minister, who could have produced "uproar" if he had made the same announcement.

When we face no nuclear threat, to decide on a new Trident replacement is beginning a new nuclear arms race
Kate Hudson
Chairwoman, CND

The government's position is that decisions on updating or replacing Trident are likely to be needed during the current Parliament.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "No decisions have been taken on the replacement of Trident, either in principle or detail."
But the decision is expected to be taken in months rather than years.
Anti-nuclear groups, Labour backbenchers and trade unionists voiced their alarm at Mr Brown's words.
Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: "We were hoping that any potential future prime minister would stick by the commitments made last year by then Defence Secretary John Reid for a full public and parliamentary debate.
"Our feeling is statements like this from someone as significant as Gordon Brown pre-empts that debate."
Statesman's spin?
Ms Hudson said this was the moment to start multi-lateral disarmament talks.
"At this point, when we face no nuclear threat, to decide on a new Trident replacement is beginning a new nuclear arms race," she said.
Labour MP Ian Gibson, an opponent of Trident, said many young Labour backbenchers had been weaned on CND and had not lost those early political views.
"So it may not be as easy [to agree to replace Trident] as people might think because the chancellor says so," he told BBC News 24.
Another Labour backbencher, Gordon Prentice, asked: "How are we going to persuade other countries not to go for nuclear weapons when we are spending millions of pounds not disarming but upgrading our nuclear weapons?"
Keith Sonnet, deputy general secretary of Unison, the country's biggest trade union, also urged Mr Brown to think again.
'Smothering debate'
The Conservatives accused Mr Brown of "spin" designed to make him look statesmanlike when he was in fact just repeating Labour's 2005 manifesto.
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "The chancellor is reheating an old pledge to retain the current nuclear deterrent but he is not committing to replacing the independent nuclear deterrent when it reaches the end of its current life."
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: "Gordon Brown's posturing on Trident is smothering the national debate that this government promised to the British people," he said.
Earlier, Tony Blair promised the "fullest possible debate" on Trident, but stopped short of promising a vote.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...cs/5103764.stm

Published: 2006/06/21 21:32:01 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

I'm not wrong. And I'm not saying you lot are wrong either. All I'm saying is that the PROTOCOL of using Airforce 1 for the plane is on is not used by certain people i.e. the ones that count. Because that's all it is...protocol.

Now...in your job, do you follow protocol to the letter? I'm sure you don't. Nobody does. Thanks and goodnight. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Where's your source of information? Besides a hollywood movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Well no, it's a call sign, which like any other call sign is used for identification purposes in radio communication. The US military feels the presence of the POTUS on board an aircraft, ANY aircraft, is worth using a special callsign. The second he steps off the aircraft that call sign changes to whatever it was before he got on.

Using that call sign as the name of a particular aircraft, without the President being on it, is just wrong, plain and simple, a fact which any real aviation enthusiast who knows his stuff will tell you.

Quote:

Now...in your job, do you follow protocol to the letter? I'm sure you don't. Nobody does. Thanks and goodnight. ;)

Why yes, I do, :yep: as I was the one who wrote the protocols in the first place. I designed the course I teach from the ground up so why wouldn't I?

Winner match AF1 : August :up:

Ok, here's a little game for all of you. You have to find the missing President. He's lost in one of these planes. There are 3 planes to choose from:

Plane 1) Is a Cessna 172
Plane 2) Is his 747 he uses for official visits (AKA Airforce 1)
Plane 3) Is his 747 Emergency Command Post (AKA KNEECAP)

The only clue you have is...he's on Airforce 1.

...your job and national security depend on it. Have fun.

:cool:

Shoot all three down and search the wreckage! :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Shoot all three down and search the wreckage! :up:

AIM, WAIT FOR IT..........FIRE

Over to you Oberon get searching. :roll:

And the country wonders where all the money goes. I really want to give him a good kicking now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

This can't be explained any simpler than it already has been. There are no "Airforce 1s" unless a he is one the plane (if the president is not on it, then it would not be called his "AirForce Ones" just the presendential fleet). And if someone needed to talk to him, they would patch into the command communication network and say, I need to talk to the President... that's it. The plane that the president is on would then be connected to them and it won't be some sort of stupid guessing game, because the plane that the president is on would let the command network know already that "hey, the president's onboard". And the president doesn't just jump on random planes.

That's about as simple as it can be explained.