| Warbird Information Exchange https://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/ |
|
| Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question https://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=48090 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | The Inspector [ Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
I have noticed that no matter where Air Force One lands from New York to East Yomamastan, it appears that the same Ford F-550 truck mounted air stairs are present for the POTUS to deplane/enplane on. Is this support equipment the same vehicle and does it have its own C-17 to drag it around the world? Enquiring knows want to mind 
|
|
| Author: | shrike [ Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
Four C-17's is what I've heard. Airstairs, Limos-including backs ups and decoys, the SS's black Suburbans, and all sorts of other stuff |
|
| Author: | The Inspector [ Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
shrike wrote: Four C-17's is what I've heard. Airstairs, Limos-including backs ups and decoys, the SS's black Suburbans, and all sorts of other stuff  YEW RAWK!!
|
|
| Author: | CAPFlyer [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
The actual number of aircraft required varies depending on how many stops the POTUS is making and where he is going. When he makes domestic trips, there is usually only 1 or 2 C-17s or a C-17 and a C-130 because there isn't as much support equipment needed since they're "local" and the local/regional Secret Service office can deploy some of the equipment they use. I know when Bush 43 visited Fargo back in early 2001, there was Air Force 1, 1 C-17, 1 chartered 757, and a C-130. The C-17 brought the motorcade, the C-130 brought the comm equipment and additional security personnel (Secret Service, USAF, and USMC), and the 757 brought the media. When they're on longer flights (like an international one) the size depends on how many stops are being made and how close together those stops are (in time). They have to have enough aircraft and equipment on the ground to support the stop on the ground and in place before he gets there, so the faster the stops are, the more equipment has to be prepositioned. |
|
| Author: | muddyboots [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
Puts me in mind of how the Kings of old used to travel around their country all the time. They'd move from fiefdom to fiefdom with all their followers, so that they didn't strip the countryside bare. It was like an army of courtiers all needing to be fed, so if they stopped in one place for more than a couple of days, they would eat everything 
|
|
| Author: | The Inspector [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
muddyboots wrote: Puts me in mind of how the Kings of old used to travel around their country all the time. They'd move from fiefdom to fiefdom with all their followers, so that they didn't strip the countryside bare. It was like an army of courtiers all needing to be fed, so if they stopped in one place for more than a couple of days, they would eat everything Trying to figure out how a question about portable airstairs morphed into a trip in the 'Way Back Machine' to 14th Century France. 
|
|
| Author: | muddyboots [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
Have I ever claimed to be sane?
|
|
| Author: | The Inspector [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
muddyboots wrote: Have I ever claimed to be sane? No, I lived in New Orleans and had friends who lived in ole Miss, so I understand- |
|
| Author: | JDK [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
The Inspector wrote: Trying to figure out how a question about portable airstairs morphed into a trip in the 'Way Back Machine' to 14th Century France. I'm with Muddy here. It's all about making sure the king's kit is right, and everyone is appropriately awed by the entourage and its widgets. |
|
| Author: | The Inspector [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
JDK wrote: The Inspector wrote: Trying to figure out how a question about portable airstairs morphed into a trip in the 'Way Back Machine' to 14th Century France. I'm with Muddy here. It's all about making sure the king's kit is right, and everyone is appropriately awed by the entourage and its widgets. I sort of figured it was a security move, you know the equipment, you know the driver is one of your folks and there will be no surprises. The POTUS would look awkward clamboring down a rusty old yellow B-4 maintenance stand to greet the waiting El Supremo Presidente of Grunt Junction. I recall how embarrassed Idlewild Airport (hows THAT for old timey?) was when Kruchev showed up in a TU-114 and there wasn't a stand tall enough to reach the cabin threshold and they finally had to lash a ladder to the standard at the time DC-7/CONNIE sized airstairs. 
|
|
| Author: | JDK [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
The Inspector wrote: I sort of figured it was a security move, ... Sure, and there's also definitely no pomp & circumstance at all around the processing of the president.  Regards, |
|
| Author: | CAPFlyer [ Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
Double-edged sword. I've always loved how people talk about the "paranoid" Black Helicopter-types and yet ignore that the most paranoid people in the world are the guys in the Black Helicopters.  BTW, I'm not putting down the Secret Service or Presidential Details of the various services because it's their job to be absolutely, totally paranoid about keeping the POTUS safe. He is a big target, and there are real threats, but yes, sometimes you do wonder if all the security around his travels is really necessary, but all it takes is one guy getting through and you do major damage to one of the most influential countries in the world with one act. Not saying that other leaders aren't targeted for attacks, but the US takes the brunt of them for all the reasons you can list, legitimate or not. |
|
| Author: | cco23i [ Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
I know when the POTUS would come to Phoenix we supplied the airstairs and fuel trucks. The trucks are quarenteened for 24 or 48 hours after the Secret Service tests the fuel (to avoid tampering) and we all had to be briefed by the service guys and away we went.  Scott |
|
| Author: | JDK [ Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
Thanks cco23i, for an relevant comment in the thread. Cheers. Interesting, CAPFlyer. Off the cuff, I think the US President would be the head of state of a first world country with most assassination attempts (certainly in the 20th Century) where the attempt was either successful, or a shot was fired with a real chance of killing him. So the effort in protection is clearly needed. The last (and only) British PM assassinated was Spencer Percival in 1812. Australia's best effort was to lose a PM while swimming at sea, and then name a swimming pool after him (Harold Holt). Heads of state of the UK, and Aus have been untouched for some time. However there is always a degree of pomp too, for the US President (as, in a sense there should be - it just amuses me that people try to pretend it doesn't exist; yet how far and when the sleeves get rolled shows how codified it is) and it matches up remarkably to the that of a royal head of state, as does that of the French President, say. Notably the status of genuine actual Royal representatives (or substitutes) the Governor Generals of Canada, Australia et al. is much more low key, though still very much there. Off Topic Regards, |
|
| Author: | TROJANII [ Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sort of an 'Off the Wall' question |
JDK wrote: Thanks cco23i, for an relevant comment in the thread. Cheers. Interesting, CAPFlyer. Off the cuff, I think the US President would be the head of state of a first world country with most assassination attempts (certainly in the 20th Century) where the attempt was either successful, or a shot was fired with a real chance of killing him. So the effort in protection is clearly needed. The last (and only) British PM assassinated was Spencer Percival in 1812. Australia's best effort was to lose a PM while swimming at sea, and then name a swimming pool after him (Harold Holt). Heads of state of the UK, and Aus have been untouched for some time. However there is always a degree of pomp too, for the US President (as, in a sense there should be - it just amuses me that people try to pretend it doesn't exist; yet how far and when the sleeves get rolled shows how codified it is) and it matches up remarkably to the that of a royal head of state, as does that of the French President, say. Notably the status of genuine actual Royal representatives (or substitutes) the Governor Generals of Canada, Australia et al. is much more low key, though still very much there. Off Topic Regards, I remember when I was in Panama and the elder Bush visited, C-5's were used, and they were carrying helos too. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|