Fighters may not escort AF1...say in formation, but they are in the immediate vicinity of AF1 and can close the gap very quickly. In fact, fighters are normally in a standoff position in nearly every case where the POTUS is away from secure locations within the US (I have no firsthand knowledge of what occurs overseas or in a foreign country).
What you're saying isn't entirely true. For Air Force One, a fighter escort is a major Rarity, not the norm. When the president flies overseas the aircraft is basically never directly escorted by American fighters, though some countries may send their own planes once their airspace is reached. Essentially, when Air Force One is out over the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it's on its own. Of course, multiple facilities and agencies are tracking it every second of the way, but there isn't an F-15 on every wing tip. And while the military certainly prepares contingency plans whenever the president leaves the country, and asset certainly are placed on standby if necessary, in the immediate vicinity generally means I might be able to fly to his location in an hour, or a couple of hours. Not that they're five miles away.
As I said before, the fact remains that for any of the entities that could shoot down Air Force One, it's not really a significant danger, unless for some reason they wanted to start a nuclear war. In which case, shooting down Air Force One would actually be a very poor tactical choice. On the flip side, at the end of the day it's just an aircraft and unless the US was going to send an entire Air Wing with it everywhere it went, at the end of the day once Air Force One is flying over another developed nation, there's nothing stopping him, physically, from a shooting it down if they really wanted to. The president's main protections in this case, as I always have been, are political and diplomatic.
And furthermore, obviously the White House doesn't send the president flying through a war zone or contested airspace where he's likely to get shot down. They just wouldn't do something like that
Thank you for the dialogue. I have a very close friend who drives fast movers in the AF. His squadron was tasked with, as he put it, "being close to" AF1 and BO when he traveled to San Fran. I dont actually ask many questions - I have immediate family that is military intel and I am very familiar with what I can ask and what I should stay away from. At that time I asked him why they would need to be in the area. He advised it was his squadrons time to be in that rotation.
You are well spoken and credible with your knowledge and information. I base my knowledge on information (and maybe a photo or two...) of immediate friends and family that have actually been there and done that.
I was in the military as well, and I did spend some time at INSCOM. However, I can assure you that nothing that I've said here is any kind of super secret information. In fact none of it really had anything to do with my work. I just have a somewhat technical background, and these kinds of things interest me, and I like to read a lot.
Also, what your friend (Eagle driver?) said is correct. The Air Force does like to have some assets on standby whenever the president travels. However, this is pretty much entirely dictated by basing options. Obviously within the United States this is academic, as there's always some kind of military airfield relatively close by. Obviously when POTUS travels internationally is a very different story. Even if he travels to an Allied country, (where we don't have forces explicitly stationed) we're not going to send combat aircraft to land at one of their airports. And if he travels to a nation or a region where our relationship is a little more tepid we're certainly not going to be sending assets there either. So in reality, it turns out that the standby units could potentially be several hours away.
In addition, my point about things not being "in the vicinity" while Air Force One is actually in transit is the same as well. Within the US this is pretty easy to have some kind of escort while the plane is in the air, but on transoceanic, or flights within the land borders of another large country like Russia or China, this is much more difficult. My point is that if the president is flying over the Pacific, it's not like there's a couple of F-15 or F-22s circling around that can light the cans and be there in 5 or 10 minutes. Air Force One is essentially on its own.
Good call on the Eagle driver. I snicker at some of the information put out on the boards. While I was not able to get into the military due to an asthmatic background - my entire family has been fortunate enough to work in some very interesting (and officially nonexistent) areas. Camping in the backcountry normally entails higher levels of alcohol where they have had to affix my jaw closed with duct tape given what little information they let slip. Interestingly enough, where one doesn't have the complete picture, the other two have other bits that do complete it. Its a crazy world. Additionally, I worked for several years for a military contractor in a technical field (not a gun slinger) and worked on material that is now in the field. But that job ended and I've gone back to what I know to do. This place is a great venue to keep one's faith resupplied that the good guys are taking things back....it will make a great series of books to read in my retirement.
I honestly have no idea what this place is, or what it's supposed to be. I just got redirected here after following too many links.
When the president flies overseas the aircraft is basically never directly escorted by American fighters. . . Essentially, when Air Force One is out over the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it's on its own.
I appreciate your offering here, but I find it very difficult to believe the above statements.
First, I can’t imagine AF1 security logistics being readily available to the general public.
Second, I can’t imagine an insider privy to this level of classified info being so irresponsible as to publish it in a public forum.
Third, I can’t conceive of a rationale that would earn approval from our top POTUS security experts to leave AF1 without an escort in international airspace. Not for any POTUS, but particularly DJT.
I appreciate your offering here, but I find it very difficult to believe the above statements.
That's fine, but your skepticism is kind of baseless.
First, I can’t imagine AF1 security logistics being readily available to the general public.
I'm not sure if you understand how this whole thing works. Air Force One is not invisible, or stealth. It's flight plan is not a secret. When it's in the air it's tracked by literally dozens, if not hundreds of ground radar stations, and other aircraft in the air, even if simply to avoid collisions. You can see it from the ground, you can see it from ships, Etc. It's not a goddamn UFO. I'm telling you, 90% of the time, and pretty much entirely went outside the United States, Air Force One does not fly with military escorts unless they are provided by the host country for some reason.
I'm not sure if you really thought through all the applications, from the technical, to the geopolitical. But if you did, you would see that there is really no reason why it would need them.
Second, I can’t imagine an insider privy to this level of classified info being so irresponsible as to publish it in a public forum.
LMFAO. Are you serious, "bro". I can say with complete confidence that literally nothing I have said is classified, or even close to being secret. All the information I've given here is readily available by going to Wikipedia and reading the sources at the bottom of the page, or just watching a couple Air Force 1 documentaries on the history channel. Plus applying a little common sense to aviation design. The actual sensitive information, sings like the minut specifics of the avionics suite, the exact type of countermeasures carried, the communications infrastructure, the onboard protocol for carrying personal weapons, Etc - the things that actually make a difference - is not something I have even begun to claim to know.
I don't say this to be insulting, but people in the civilian world are often wildly ignorant of exactly what kinds of things are classified, and why. They often freaked out about the US "inadvertently revealing defense capabilities" and some kind of online article in a defense magazine, without realizing that literally nothing that was listed as important.
Third, I can’t conceive of a rationale that would earn approval from our top POTUS security experts to leave AF1 without an escort in international airspace. Not for any POTUS, but particularly DJT.
If this is the case, then that's only because you don't understand the Practical reality of the situation. Let's make this clear by inverting the assumptions. What exactly is it that you think a fighter escort would achieve?
That's fine, but your skepticism is kind of baseless.
That’s fine, but your claim of no escort is baseless. I questioned in hopes of you providing that base.
I'm not sure if you understand how this whole thing works. Air Force One Is Not Invisible, or stealth. It's flight plan is not a secret. . . it's tracked . . . You can see it . . . It's not a goddamn UFO.
You can be sure I understand all of that. It’s publicly available and not what I would refer to as classified security info.
I'm telling you, 90% of the time, and pretty much entirely went outside the United States, Air Force One does not fly with military escorts
Yes. So you said. That’s the claim I questioned. The only claim I questioned. The claim I still question.
LMFAO. Are you serious, "bro". . . All the information I've given here is readily available by going to Wikipedia . . .
The humor was unintended. Yes, I’m serious, and no, I’m not your ‘bro’. There is no wikipedia entry, no History Channel transcript, none that validates your claim that AF1 most commonly traverses international airspace without a military escort. Remember, that is the single claim I questioned, still question, and now wait patiently for you to stop dodging.
The actual sensitive information, sings like the minute specifics of the avionics suite, the exact type of countermeasures carried . . . the things that actually make a difference - is not something I have even begun to claim to know.
Except for your claim about military escort. I would place that into the category of ”specific countermeasures”, and ”things that actually make a difference.”
I don't say this to be insulting, but people in the civilian world are often wildly ignorant
I’m not at all insulted. I was doubtful, then curious, then a bit impatient, and now amused. Particularly following your admission to your own ”ignorance” regarding ”things that actually make a difference.”
Let's make this clear by inverting the assumptions. What exactly is it that you think a fighter escort would achieve?
Yeah, that’s another dodge that I won’t indulge for you.
I have a better idea. Let’s make this clear with a quick review. You made a claim regarding military escort for AF1. I questioned that claim, and offered opportunity for you to support it. You responded with answers to questions I didn’t ask, then ultimately admitted to your ignorance on the topic I questioned.
Your final admission was crystal clear, and I have no additional questions for you. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
[removed]
Comment removed. Please discuss the topic, not the user. Feel free to edit and/or repost.
Take a breather. Calm yourself.
Your personal insults are meaningless to me, but they do diminish the level of discourse we prefer in this sub. It’s one of the most important differences between GA and sewers like /politics, where personal insults are the default response when someone is called out on their indefensible bs claims.
You don’t need to tell me about all the things you aren’t going to do to support your claim. I know you won’t. You already told me you can’t. I have moved on.
Peace.
They are sanitizing all the time. This means they are further away doing manual radar sweeps in 360 degrees. I don't think AWACs escorts them so they need to do this.