2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on May 13, 2025, 11:17:15 AM
-
In short,
Qatar is offering to give a luxury 747 for Trump to use as the new Air Force One as Boeing is way behind schedule on a replacement one. After Trump leaves officer the plane would be donated to the Trump Library. Trump is defending the gift arguing it is stupid to turn down a good deal while critics are raising concerns over ethical and constitutional issues.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5ell3gkxvo
The constitutional issue comes under the Emoluments Clause which prohibits the president from accepting foreign gifts and money without Congress' permission.
There are also security issues in ferrying the president around in an airplane gifted by Qatar. I don't think they would try to kill him but if they had surveillance devices they could gather all sorts of information to leverage.
My biggest concern is what is being expected in return for this "gift"?
-
I was expecting OP to post about this and to also post the limited info that he did. So predictable.
OP is also leaving out info.
-
it's okay to send trillions of our dollars and goods to foreign countries, but heaven forbid one of them reciprocate!! :shake:
The airliner is NOT a gift to Trump. It's a gift to the US President for his USE, not as a personal possession.
And just because the plan is to donate it to the Trump library doesn't mean that's the final word on what happens to it. The money to reimburse Qatar could make that jet the official AF1 going forward.
If Boeing can't produce a new AF1 before Trump is out of office, why can't he accept a "loaner" from Qatar? If Boeing ever delivers, we'd have 2 luxury airliners to swap between for Presidential and VP official trips.
It bothers me that people think Trump wants to accept this "gift" to "enrich himself" but then brush off the fact that Trump donates his salary to beneficial causes.
:crazy:
-
it's okay to send trillions of our dollars and goods to foreign countries, but heaven forbid one of them reciprocate!! :shake:
The airliner is NOT a gift to Trump. It's a gift to the US President for his USE, not as a personal possession.
And just because the plan is to donate it to the Trump library doesn't mean that's the final word on what happens to it. The money to reimburse Qatar could make that jet the official AF1 going forward.
If Boeing can't produce a new AF1 before Trump is out of office, why can't he accept a "loaner" from Qatar? If Boeing ever delivers, we'd have 2 luxury airliners to swap between for Presidential and VP official trips.
It bothers me that people think Trump wants to accept this "gift" to "enrich himself" but then brush off the fact that Trump donates his salary to beneficial causes.
:crazy:
As I predicted, OP is only parroting what he saw via the fake news.
-
Lets see if OP post what else we got.
-
Nothing is free, it's a bribe. If biden did this there would be outrage.
-
please prove it's a bribe...
Nothing is free, it's a bribe. If biden did this there would be outrage.
-
Nothing is free, it's a bribe. If biden did this there would be outrage.
You mean like hiring his son for millions of dollars to sit on a Ukrainian energy board, even though he has zero experience in that sector and region?
Or maybe the Chinese paying Hunter and the Biden Family $31M from 2018 through Joe's time as President?
https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/chinese-elite-have-paid-some-31m-to-hunter-and-the-bidens/
The Qatar "gift" would be transferred to the Department of Defense, so it's really not a gift to Trump personally. After he leaves office, the craft could legally be transferred to the Trump Library Foundation. There's also precedent for the government to sell the gifted craft and hand the proceeds to the US Treasury for the benefit of the federal government.
If the gift is accepted by Congress, then none of this matters. With a GOP Congress, I don't see much resistance to accepting it.
As for covert surveillance, anything the DoD and professional contractors find suspicious can be easily replaced with more trusted components.
Boeing was contracted to deliver a replacement for Air Force One in July 2018, with a deadline of last year. However, the company said it has experienced delays because of factors including the bankruptcy of a key supplier, staff turnover, and the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2018, the White House said Boeing would build two next-generation Air Force One planes at a fixed cost of $3.9 billion. Trump, backed by his officials, claimed his deal-making had made savings worth around $1.5 billion.
The delivery date for Boeing to replace the 41+ year-old Air Force One was 2024. Basically, Boeing accepted the revised contract in 2018, and 6 years later still wants more time.
The Qatar 747-8 would eliminate all the problems being reported with the current AF1 and give Boeing as much time as they need to deliver replacements.
It's really a shame people think Trump is gullible enough to accept a $400M 747 without realizing there may be favors asked in the future. But, that's why Congress is there. If Trump appears to be giving Qatar or any other nation unjustified favorable treatment, they have the power and duty to block him.
This comes down to the deep state and other Liberals trying to block any of Trump's successes for the sake of impeding his efforts to fix our broken government.
BTW, the contract Trump negotiated in 2018 with Boeing is for 2 747's at a fixed cost of $3.9 Billion. That's $1.95 Billion per plane. Compare that to the $400M plane Qatar is offering. I guess taxpayers were given the "US Government Special Price". There's going to be some money spent retrofitting it for AF1 use, but I doubt that costs $1.55B.
-
BTW, the longer Boeing takes to deliver, the more it's going to cost them -- that's just factoring in inflation alone.
Since the contract is fixed cost, Boeing will either "eat" those cost increases, or they will have to find ways to get the government to make change requests from the current design. Engineering changes are one way contractors justify increasing what they charge Uncle Sam.
If they have to eat the increases, they'll be tempted (forced?) to cut corners. I don't think we want AF1 to be less than top-of-the-line so Boeing can make a larger profit on the contract.
Does anyone think it's impossible that Boeing is intentionally delaying delivery? Maybe until they can get a new administration to pony up more funding? The longer the DoD has to maintain a 41 yr-old AF1, the more expensive it becomes. Since it's also a Boeing 747, any major repairs or upgrades are usually done by Boeing for the systems and subsystems they produced. I worked many years with the Boeing Corporation because the E-3 AWACS airframes were Boeing 707s. Every certain number of years, we had a "block" delivery which included fully refurbished and upgraded airframes, mostly done by Boeing. Boeing also produced, maintained and upgraded the flight and mission simulators since much of the hardware needed to be identical to the AWACS aircraft systems much of which was proprietary. I was writing software for the AWACS, so we needed to test on the same components as the mission hardware to ensure compatibility.
Then there's the technology aspect. Over 10 years of building a new 747 with all the comms, nav, and so on aboard AF1, those systems are stagnant. Meaning the technology can't be upgraded within that timeframe without engineering changes being proposed, analyzed, tested and approved. That means the new AF1 may be delivered with 10-year-old technology. it's just the way it is on complex government procurement projects. i once tested and accepted delivery of portable shelters that included workstations for each duty position. The original specs included IBM 286 compatible PCs. After the 3 year prototyping and manufacturing period ended, those computers were ancient by current standards. We attempted to replace the workstations with current 486 PCs, but even that was too slow. We wound up ripping out all the PCs and replacing them with DEC Ultrix workstations -- more powerful RISC processors running Ultrix (UNIX) O/S. Of course, the cost to field these shelters went through the roof, but we needed the computing horsepower that PCs just couldn't handle, and the DEC machines didn't even exist until after shelter delivery. The process can get very complicated -- and expensive.
When an airframe has a certain number of operating miles on it, the maintenance schedule includes more inspections, more parts being replaced, and eventually an entire retrofit with all new parts. It's usually cheaper to retrofit them than to order 100% new aircraft. If those models are no longer being manufactured, retrofitting can also start to get more expensive.
Procurement and management of aircraft like this is very complicated and expensive. If the aircraft continues to accomplish the mission it's meant for, trying to get a brand new bird with all the latest technology is hard to justify financially.
-
Nothing is free, it's a bribe. If biden did this there would be outrage.
Trillion dollar deal also signed. This must be part of the bribe too right?
-
Trillion dollar deal also signed. This must be part of the bribe too right?
Yes selling our defense industries to the middle east might be connected to the bribe. You don't celebrate when China buys up our farm land.
-
lul
add "might" in there so you don't get called out
goalposts moved...
Yes selling our defense industries to the middle east might be connected to the bribe. You don't celebrate when China buys up our farm land.
-
I'm just trying to understand this. Is the current Air Force One broken? Is it dangerous to operate? I understand it is forty something years old and I agree a new one is needed.
But the current one Quatar is offering seems substandard and inferior. And if the US needs to add more things to it to make it functional as an Air Force One why couldn't they just do that to the original aircraft?
I'm just wondering, I have no qualms about Quatar offering it for the POTUS's use. Almost seems like Quatar is offering Trump a Toyota Corolla to use instead of his old BMW.
-
Tump's progress in the middle east seems to have scared the crap out of Iran
They are finally willing to come to the table.
https://www.econotimes.com/Oil-Prices-Slide-on-Iran-Nuclear-Deal-Hopes-and-Rising-US-Crude-Stockpiles-1710344
-
Yes selling our defense industries to the middle east might be connected to the bribe. You don't celebrate when China buys up our farm land.
please define what you mean by "defense industries." Selling an entire industry that large is impossible under a single administration.
There are laws in place that prevent certain weapons, technologies and other defense systems from being exported from the US.
Maybe brush up on those rules before acting like Trump is going to bypass those rules and do something detrimental to the nation.
https://www.trade.gov/report/2025-defense-export-handbook
-
I'm just trying to understand this. Is the current Air Force One broken? Is it dangerous to operate? I understand it is forty something years old and I agree a new one is needed.
But the current one Quatar is offering seems substandard and inferior. And if the US needs to add more things to it to make it functional as an Air Force One why couldn't they just do that to the original aircraft?
I'm just wondering, I have no qualms about Quatar offering it for the POTUS's use. Almost seems like Quatar is offering Trump a Toyota Corolla to use instead of his old BMW.
A new AF1 was supposed to be delivered by Boeing, but they're delayed. Not by a few weeks or months, which is understandable. But a year. See above Flapp post.
Also, when the contract was presented to the Trump admin, Trump was able to also slash cost by a lot.
I highly doubt that this Qatar donation would be used as AF1. There is too much things that need to go into installation. They should just use the current AF1 and ask Boeing on a more firm deadline. I assume they're close to finishing.
What this donated plane should be used for is other government official travels.
-
I was expecting OP to post about this and to also post the limited info that he did. So predictable.
OP is also leaving out info.
The real question should be why no one else was concerned about this enough to post the story.
But by all means, what info am I leaving out?
-
The real question should be why no one else was concerned about this enough to post the story.
But by all means, what info am I leaving out?
The reason nobody else posted this story before you is we don't frequent the same anti-Trump websites as some people here. This story wasn't trending before you posted, so nobody who follows the actual news had a chance before you jumped on it.
The real question is why you always have to turn your posts into attacks on those who don't think like you?
This isn't a political news site. It's a 2A forum. Just because you come here for your political arguments doesn't mean everyone else cares that much about bashing Trump 24/7/365.
I guarantee you someone would have posted this if you'd have waited a day or so. Most people with any common sense waits to see what the real news is before posting a knee-jerk reaction to what is often fake news intended to get clicks.
-
it's okay to send trillions of our dollars and goods to foreign countries, but heaven forbid one of them reciprocate!! :shake:
The airliner is NOT a gift to Trump. It's a gift to the US President for his USE, not as a personal possession.
And just because the plan is to donate it to the Trump library doesn't mean that's the final word on what happens to it. The money to reimburse Qatar could make that jet the official AF1 going forward.
If Boeing can't produce a new AF1 before Trump is out of office, why can't he accept a "loaner" from Qatar? If Boeing ever delivers, we'd have 2 luxury airliners to swap between for Presidential and VP official trips.
It bothers me that people think Trump wants to accept this "gift" to "enrich himself" but then brush off the fact that Trump donates his salary to beneficial causes.
:crazy:
Sure, Qatar can reciprocate but it needs to be approved by congress per the emoluments clause.
If it were not a gift to Trump but rather a gift to the USA then it wouldn't go to Trump's presidential library after he leaves office. The plane would stay in ownership of the government and when the government decides to replace it they get to decide what to do with it.
Pointing to Trump donating his salary is whatbaoutism and irrelevant, like a criminal who points out he volunteers at a children's hospital, both can be true. Not to mention comparing a $400,000 salary to a $400,000,000 airplane misses the mark quite a bit. It also assumes money as a motive when I think the motive, given Trump's character, is much more an interest in having the biggest and best of everything. Only Reagan's library has an old AF1, I think Trump wants it so he can have a big flashy library dedicated to him.
-
The reason nobody else posted this story before you is we don't frequent the same anti-Trump websites as some people here. This story wasn't trending before you posted, so nobody who follows the actual news had a chance before you jumped on it.
The real question is why you always have to turn your posts into attacks on those who don't think like you?
This isn't a political news site. It's a 2A forum. Just because you come here for your political arguments doesn't mean everyone else cares that much about bashing Trump 24/7/365.
#1 My post didn't attack anyone
#2 "Trending"?
#3 The story was in the news for at least a day when I posted it.
#4 Sounds like you want the Political Discussion section to be an echo chamber where no one says anything bad about Lord Trump. You paint any critical comments on Trump as 24/7 Trump bashing.
#5. There need not be an argument, I posted a news story, you can read it and move on if you don't desire to debate.
-
please prove it's a bribe...
I wouldn't use the term bribe (without evidence of criminal tit for tat) but no side gives that much money for nothing. We didn't spend billions in Qatar out of good will, we got something out of it. If we are getting something perfectly legitimate in trade for the "gift" then it would make sense to say so because that will make it look like a deal. Painting it as a gift, something for nothing, makes it look shady. That is why I asked what Qatar is getting out of it.
-
the deal was in the works for a year
which means it was started by the Biden administration...
The real question should be why no one else was concerned about this enough to post the story.
But by all means, what info am I leaving out?
-
#1 My post didn't attack anyone
#2 "Trending"?
#3 The story was in the news for at least a day when I posted it.
#4 Sounds like you want the Political Discussion section to be an echo chamber where no one says anything bad about Lord Trump. You paint any critical comments on Trump as 24/7 Trump bashing.
#5. There need not be an argument, I posted a news story, you can read it and move on if you don't desire to debate.
Wrong, and "trending' is English. Maybe take a remedial English Comprehension class at a community college? You can do that online.
-
the deal was in the works for a year
which means it was started by the Biden administration...
Have a source for that?
-
Wrong, and "trending' is English. Maybe take a remedial English Comprehension class at a community college? You can do that online.
::)
-
Have a source for that?
Try a web search. It pops right up in the results if you know how to use the search function.
US OKs $1B arms sale to Qatar
during key World Cup match
Published 10:35 AM HST, November 29, 2022
The Biden administration on Tuesday approved a $1 billion arms sale to
Qatar in a transaction unveiled during halftime of the key World Cup 2022
match in Doha between Iran and the United States.
The State Department announced it had signed off on Qatar’s purchase
of 10 defensive drone systems, 200 interceptors and related equipment just
as the second half of the US-Iran game began. Qatar, along with other Gulf
Arab states, faces threats from Iranian-backed proxies in the region.
The department said in a statement the sale would “support the foreign policy
and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve
the security of a friendly country that continues to be an important force for
political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.”
https://apnews.com/article/iran-united-states-middle-east-qatar-doha-bf3b70dbd1cd743fbeb2bc7a8402e24e
Gee. Looks like the 747 "gift" is more of a "thank you" for prior support from the US than a bribe for future asks.
-
The real question should be why no one else was concerned about this enough to post the story.
But by all means, what info am I leaving out?
It's because others here know how to use logic based on the facts available.
Do you know something that the media is leaving out?
-
Try a web search. It pops right up in the results if you know how to use the search function.
US OKs $1B arms sale to Qatar
during key World Cup match
Published 10:35 AM HST, November 29, 2022https://apnews.com/article/iran-united-states-middle-east-qatar-doha-bf3b70dbd1cd743fbeb2bc7a8402e24e
Gee. Looks like the 747 "gift" is more of a "thank you" for prior support from the US than a bribe for future asks.
Thanks for the article but I was wondering where the 747 was part of the deal (the article doesn't mention 747, jet, or plane)
I thought Macsak was saying the 747 was the deal that started during Biden's administration since the whole thread was about the plane. He can correct me if I was mistaken.
-
It's because others here know how to use logic based on the facts available.
Do you know something that the media is leaving out?
Insult without an argument. You seem to not understand how winning debates works.
-
Insult without an argument. You seem to not understand how winning debates works.
Since you almost never win, I would be correct in saying,
"You seem to not understand how winning debates works"
-
Since you almost never win, I would be correct in saying,
"You seem to not understand how winning debates works"
Okay Charlie Sheen
-
Insult without an argument. You seem to not understand how winning debates works.
I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact. If you're not competent enough to realize this, then I apologize if I have made you think that you're dumb.
FYI, you don't know how "winning debates" work. Changing the subject, moving goal post, etc...doesn't work.
-
that post wasn't meant for you...
I wouldn't use the term bribe (without evidence of criminal tit for tat) but no side gives that much money for nothing. We didn't spend billions in Qatar out of good will, we got something out of it. If we are getting something perfectly legitimate in trade for the "gift" then it would make sense to say so because that will make it look like a deal. Painting it as a gift, something for nothing, makes it look shady. That is why I asked what Qatar is getting out of it.
-
Have a source for that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1T3iaNa5G0
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2025/05/14/qatar-747-trump/
Why The Qataris Are Happy To Dump Their 747 On Trump
-
I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a lie.
FIFY
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1T3iaNa5G0
Thanks.
I wish he gave a little more detail on the negotiation he referred to but at least I know what you are talking about. :thumbsup:
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2025/05/14/qatar-747-trump/
Why The Qataris Are Happy To Dump Their 747 On Trump
Qatar bought the 747 in 2012 and used it until 2020. That's only 8 years of service.
Meanwhile, the current AF1 has been in service for over 40 years.
No matter how anyone tries to paint this in a negative light, AF1 has been in service 5 time longer, and their 747 is ready to be delivered now ... not years from now.
-
FIFY
I see you're still in fairy tale land.
-
I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact. If you're not competent enough to realize this, then I apologize if I have made you think that you're dumb.
FYI, you don't know how "winning debates" work. Changing the subject, moving goal post, etc...doesn't work.
Wrong, try again.
-
Qatar bought the 747 in 2012 and used it until 2020. That's only 8 years of service.
Meanwhile, the current AF1 has been in service for over 40 years.
No matter how anyone tries to paint this in a negative light, AF1 has been in service 5 time longer, and their 747 is ready to be delivered now ... not years from now.
If it were from a close ally I wouldn't have any problem with it as long as it is approved by Congress or doesn't go to Trump's library
The risk is that of sabotage and intel gathering on the president is the biggest concern.
Being 40 years old really isn't that significant. The engines and key components will have been replaced multiple times since the airplane started service. There are still DC-3s flying around to this day and it hasn't been produced since 1947.
-
If it were from a close ally I wouldn't have any problem with it as long as it is approved by Congress or doesn't go to Trump's library
The risk is that of sabotage and intel gathering on the president is the biggest concern.
Being 40 years old really isn't that significant. The engines and key components will have been replaced multiple times since the airplane started service. There are still DC-3s flying around to this day and it hasn't been produced since 1947.
"If it were from a close ally I wouldn't have any problem with it "
The US established diplomatic relations with Qatar in 1972.
Qatar and the United States are strategic allies. Qatar has been designated a
major non-NATO ally by the United States. Qatar maintains an embassy in
Washington, D.C. and the U.S. has an embassy in Doha.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93United_States_relations
May 14, 2025 - Agreements signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and
Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani on Wednesday will "generate
an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion," the White House said in a
fact sheet, opens new tab summarizing some of the deals' details.
The agreements include a $96 billion deal with Qatar Airways to buy up to 210
Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 777X airplanes with GE Aerospace engines, the fact
sheet said. They also include a statement of intent that could lead to $38 billion
in investments at Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base and other air defense and maritime
security capabilities, it said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-qatar-deals-generate-12-trillion-economic-exchange-white-house-says-2025-05-14/
Do you bother to read anything at all before posting your baseless opinions?
-
Wrong, try again.
Which part is wrong?
-
interesting that you have a "biggest concern", but you doubt that the US government won't think about that while they are gutting/retrofitting the 747?
If it were from a close ally I wouldn't have any problem with it as long as it is approved by Congress or doesn't go to Trump's library
The risk is that of sabotage and intel gathering on the president is the biggest concern.
Being 40 years old really isn't that significant. The engines and key components will have been replaced multiple times since the airplane started service. There are still DC-3s flying around to this day and it hasn't been produced since 1947.
-
If it were from a close ally I wouldn't have any problem with it as long as it is approved by Congress or doesn't go to Trump's library
The risk is that of sabotage and intel gathering on the president is the biggest concern.
Being 40 years old really isn't that significant. The engines and key components will have been replaced multiple times since the airplane started service. There are still DC-3s flying around to this day and it hasn't been produced since 1947.
Wow, you're assuming that it's going to Trumps library. Has it gone there yet? For someone who claims they're objective what if he changes his mind and rejects it totally. What if the DOD just lets it sit at the airplane graveyard?
-
interesting that you have a "biggest concern", but you doubt that the US government won't think about that while they are gutting/retrofitting the 747?
Maybe he's a consultant for them about spy stuff? You're not being very objective.
-
"If it were from a close ally I wouldn't have any problem with it "
The US established diplomatic relations with Qatar in 1972.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93United_States_relations
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-qatar-deals-generate-12-trillion-economic-exchange-white-house-says-2025-05-14/
Do you bother to read anything at all before posting your baseless opinions?
Show me where I said they weren't an ally. I said "close ally", you even bolded if when you quoted me.
If you can't see the security concerns in getting a jet from a nation that hosted known terrorist leaders, like Hamas, then I don't know what else to say to you.
-
interesting that you have a "biggest concern", but you doubt that the US government won't think about that while they are gutting/retrofitting the 747?
I am sure they will think of it, I am not sure they will be able to find all of it.
And at the point they gut the airplane so thoroughly as so ensure security, what is the actual cost going to be? I question whether it will be worth it compared to just updating the old 747 for a few years.
-
Show me where I said they weren't an ally. I said "close ally", you even bolded if when you quoted me.
If you can't see the security concerns in getting a jet from a nation that hosted known terrorist leaders, like Hamas, then I don't know what else to say to you.
Show me evidence Qatar is NOT a close ally of the US.
"Qatar and the United States are strategic allies. Qatar has been designated a
major non-NATO ally by the United States. "
Major .... Close .... seems like there's no question.
Funny how you not knowing what else to say has never stopped you ... ever.
-
so you think they are incompetent?
got it...
I am sure they will think of it, I am not sure they will be able to find all of it.
-
the "old 747" is significantly older than the Qatari 747
and it also has to do with miles flown and takeoff/landing cycles
focus...
And at the point they gut the airplane so thoroughly as so ensure security, what is the actual cost going to be? I question whether it will be worth it compared to just updating the old 747 for a few years.
-
I think the best question is whether or not the modifications needed to turn the Qatar 747 into a VC-25B can be completed significantly before Boeing can deliver the VC-25Bs already on order. If not, then there's no reason to sink modification costs into the Qatar 747. No sense in spending the money to modify a third AF1 if it can't be completed well before the others are ready.
Of course, there would need to be a better commitment on Boeing's part on when their delivery will occur.
Right now, the most current delivery date given by the Air Force is 2027.
Boeing's CEO said in 2022 that he expects the company to realize a $660M loss on the VC-25B program after Trump renegotiated the contract. Sounds like a good excuse for dragging their feet on delivery while hoping the next administration eases their loses.
There are two VC-25As used as AF1.
They are both modified 747-200Bs.
The tail numbers are 28000 and 29000.
SAM stands for Special Air Mission. When not carrying the President, the call signs are usually SAM 28000 and SAM 29000.
-- Clinton and Bush used the tail numbers for their call signs when not designated AF1, but Obama used the call sign SAM 44 (44th president).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Mission#cite_note-4
Both VC-25As were manufactured in 1987 and placed into service in 1990.
Both VC-25As were scheduled for replacement in 2017.
The replacement modified 747s will carry the airframe designation VC-25B.
The VC-25B is a modified 747-8, the largest variant of the 747 family. It's a larger variant of the 747-400.
The Qatar gift is a 747-8, the same variant as the two being delivered whenever Boeing gets them completed.
-
The WH had a PC yesterday about this because the fake news still thinks it's an issue. They restated that it's a gift that hasn't been accepted yet. It will go thru all the correct procedures if/when they accept the gift. It is not Trumps personal plane, but the Air Force will have control of it.
Seems like the purpose of this thread started by the OP has and is still moot. 1 sided info provided and lots of stuff left out.
-
focus
https://www.google.com/search?q=qatar+747
HPD to comment as soon as his shift is over...
The WH had a PC yesterday about this because the fake news still thinks it's an issue. They restated that it's a gift that hasn't been accepted yet. It will go thru all the correct procedures if/when they accept the gift. It is not Trumps personal plane, but the Air Force will have control of it.
Seems like the purpose of this thread started by the OP has and is still moot. 1 sided info provided and lots of stuff left out.
-
focus
https://www.google.com/search?q=qatar+747
HPD to comment as soon as his shift is over...
My mistake. Wow, that was easy to admit.
-
According to the AP article:
Trump has presented no national security imperative for a swift upgrade rather
than waiting for Boeing to finish new Air Force One jets that have been in the
works for years.
:wtf:
An honest report would have mentioned the Boeing replacements were supposed to be delivered in 2017 and again in 2024 after several more delays. The USAF is anticipating delivery in 2027 -- two more years from now assuming there aren't any more delays.
"In the works for years?" Gimme a break!! Ignoring the original missed delivery estimate, if they had delivered in 2024 -- 6 or 7 years after the 2017 target -- this whole Qatar situation would have never been considered.
-
Show me evidence Qatar is NOT a close ally of the US.
"Qatar and the United States are strategic allies. Qatar has been designated a
major non-NATO ally by the United States. "
Major .... Close .... seems like there's no question.
Funny how you not knowing what else to say has never stopped you ... ever.
Nice red herring you are trying to make. You are going to nitpick my use of the word close to distract from the fact you are ignoring the serious security concerns in accepting a plane from a country that hosts terrorists.
-
so you think they are incompetent?
got it...
False dichotomy and non-sequitur.
If I install 1,000 surveillance devices and you find 999 of them, you have a job success rate of 99.9%, You could clearly not be "incompetent" but it would only take one listening device to get through for them to succeed.
-
the "old 747" is significantly older than the Qatari 747
and it also has to do with miles flown and takeoff/landing cycles
focus...
Of course but parts have life spans, so many miles, so many hours, etc. They get replaced. The body was made decades ago but the engines have been replaced, the tires, etc etc. Even panels on the body can be replaced. It is almost a ship of Theseus type question.
-
please show me where anyone on this thread is "ignoring serious security concerns"...
Nice red herring you are trying to make. You are going to nitpick my use of the word close to distract from the fact you are ignoring the serious security concerns in accepting a plane from a country that hosts terrorists.
-
so you are more of an expert on this than the air force?
did they cover this at the Academy?
Of course but parts have life spans, so many miles, so many hours, etc. They get replaced. The body was made decades ago but the engines have been replaced, the tires, etc etc. Even panels on the body can be replaced. It is almost a ship of Theseus type question.
-
Nice red herring you are trying to make. You are going to nitpick my use of the word close to distract from the fact you are ignoring the serious security concerns in accepting a plane from a country that hosts terrorists.
Please list all the specific security concerns that a 747-8 to VC-25B modification process is going to completely overlook.
-
False dichotomy and non-sequitur.
If I install 1,000 surveillance devices and you find 999 of them, you have a job success rate of 99.9%, You could clearly not be "incompetent" but it would only take one listening device to get through for them to succeed.
Are you under the assumption that there is no other way to "bug" a government plane being built on US soil? How come you don't mention this as a possibility too since you're the one who brought up the topic about Qatar bugging the plane? You're not being very "objective."
We have seen in recently that you don't even need to bug anything. All you need to do is claim that you heard from someone that the POTUS said something and now it's true. (Ukraine hoax).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvB4ftJRrg
-
False dichotomy and non-sequitur.
If I install 1,000 surveillance devices and you find 999 of them, you have a job success rate of 99.9%, You could clearly not be "incompetent" but it would only take one listening device to get through for them to succeed.
I don't think you know what "dichotomy" means.
Your hypothetical example is ridiculous. If I found just ONE surveillance device, not 999, I would refuse to certify the mission systems without a complete and total end-to-end inspection for other possible devices. I trust that we have the people, skills and technology to counter any surveillance devices anyone could place onboard the 747.
One is enough to prove the plane was used to attempt to compromise the President, his staff, the aircraft's functions, etc.
I would also do a thorough investigation into where the device came from. if the 747 was sitting on unsecured areas allowing anyone without permission to gain access, then that device could have come from China, Russia, Iran, Ukraine, ... There's no way to know without some sort of investigation. However, it appears you'd be quick to point the finger directly at Qatar without evidence because you believe they are not a "close ally" to the US.
Also, every nation in the Middle East has "hosted' designated terrorists/groups recently. Just because we label them as such doesn't mean every nation on Earth must follow our lead and treat them as criminals. The PLO was a terrorist organization for decades under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. In 1974, the PLO was recognized by the UN as the defacto government of the State of Palestine, although their links to terrorism continued. The United States designated it as a terrorist group in 1987, though a presidential waiver has permitted American–PLO contact since 1988.
So you can see, it doesn't matter if a country HOSTS terrorists. The government is separate and apart from anyone else residing in the country. The US permits communists and socialists to live and work in the US, some of whom are in US federal government (Sanders), Does that make the US a Socialist country?
Talk about red herrings!!
-
I don't think you know what "dichotomy" means.
Your hypothetical example is ridiculous. If I found just ONE surveillance device, not 999, I would refuse to certify the mission systems without a complete and total end-to-end inspection for other possible devices. I trust that we have the people, skills and technology to counter any surveillance devices anyone could place onboard the 747.
One is enough to prove the plane was used to attempt to compromise the President, his staff, the aircraft's functions, etc.
I would also do a thorough investigation into where the device came from. if the 747 was sitting on unsecured areas allowing anyone without permission to gain access, then that device could have come from China, Russia, Iran, Ukraine, ... There's no way to know without some sort of investigation. However, it appears you'd be quick to point the finger directly at Qatar without evidence because you believe they are not a "close ally" to the US.
Also, every nation in the Middle East has "hosted' designated terrorists/groups recently. Just because we label them as such doesn't mean every nation on Earth must follow our lead and treat them as criminals. The PLO was a terrorist organization for decades under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. In 1974, the PLO was recognized by the UN as the defacto government of the State of Palestine, although their links to terrorism continued. The United States designated it as a terrorist group in 1987, though a presidential waiver has permitted American–PLO contact since 1988.
So you can see, it doesn't matter if a country HOSTS terrorists. The government is separate and apart from anyone else residing in the country. The US permits communists and socialists to live and work in the US, some of whom are in US federal government (Sanders), Does that make the US a Socialist country?
Talk about red herrings!!
I found it interesting how our gov trusted qatar enough to allow them to fly F15 escorts (unarmed) with AF1.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I found it interesting how our gov trusted qatar enough to allow them to fly F15 escorts (unarmed) with AF1.
Qatar's government is not the problem. The entire Middle East is. We have to form alliances with whomever we can in the region if we ever expect change. Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-US sentiment throughout the region. But, i think Qatar is more trustworthy than countries like Turkey even though we have bases there. Turkey is a NATO ally, but that doesn't mean much given our history. they've been part of NATO since 1952.
We have 3 US bases in Turkey plus several other sites we use such as airfields, naval facilities and intelligence gathering sites.
The US and Turkey have a complex and at times strained security relationship
rooted in their membership in NATO. Turkey is a crucial ally in a volatile region,
but disagreements over issues such as US support for Kurdish groups in Syria
and Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems have created
friction.
This complex relationship directly impacts the US military presence in Turkey.
Any significant deterioration in relations could jeopardize the continued operation
of Incirlik and other facilities, forcing the US to re-evaluate its strategic posture
in the region. Conversely, closer cooperation strengthens the rationale for maintaining
a robust military presence.
https://thegunzone.com/how-many-us-military-bases-are-there-in-turkey/
Turkey is a great example of why people (EEF) can't just use labels like "close ally" as the definitive test for who we trust in that region.
-
so you are more of an expert on this than the air force?
did they cover this at the Academy?
Are you?
I am not making an argument that the old 747 needs to be replaced, you are.
-
I don't think you know what "dichotomy" means.
Your hypothetical example is ridiculous. If I found just ONE surveillance device, not 999, I would refuse to certify the mission systems without a complete and total end-to-end inspection for other possible devices. I trust that we have the people, skills and technology to counter any surveillance devices anyone could place onboard the 747.
One is enough to prove the plane was used to attempt to compromise the President, his staff, the aircraft's functions, etc.
I would also do a thorough investigation into where the device came from. if the 747 was sitting on unsecured areas allowing anyone without permission to gain access, then that device could have come from China, Russia, Iran, Ukraine, ... There's no way to know without some sort of investigation. However, it appears you'd be quick to point the finger directly at Qatar without evidence because you believe they are not a "close ally" to the US.
Also, every nation in the Middle East has "hosted' designated terrorists/groups recently. Just because we label them as such doesn't mean every nation on Earth must follow our lead and treat them as criminals. The PLO was a terrorist organization for decades under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. In 1974, the PLO was recognized by the UN as the defacto government of the State of Palestine, although their links to terrorism continued. The United States designated it as a terrorist group in 1987, though a presidential waiver has permitted American–PLO contact since 1988.
So you can see, it doesn't matter if a country HOSTS terrorists. The government is separate and apart from anyone else residing in the country. The US permits communists and socialists to live and work in the US, some of whom are in US federal government (Sanders), Does that make the US a Socialist country?
Talk about red herrings!!
You are obfuscating the point and you know it.
Of course if bugs were found they would try to find the origin, that has nothing to do with my point.
By "host" I didn't mean have them over for peace talks or something like that. I mean Qatar allows leaders of known terrorists organizations to live and operate out of Qatar. Now if you want to play devils advocate and paint Qatar as a neutral third party who will allow people from any side for the sake of peace that's fine but I am still saying the security concerns in using a plane from Qatar are much greater than if we accepted a jet from somwhere like the UK or Japan.
-
please show me where i made the argument "that the old 747 needs to be replaced"...
Are you?
I am not making an argument that the old 747 needs to be replaced, you are.
-
Are you?
I am not making an argument that the old 747 needs to be replaced, you are.
Well, I happen to be an expert. Five years directly supporting the USAF Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) E-3A and E-3B Sentry.
I was assigned to the 552d AWACS Division (Wing) in the Mission Support Deputate, Tinker AFB, OK. I was first assigned tot the Executive Programming Section, then the Software Integration Section. I then worked in the Test and Evaluation Section and became the Chief of the Division Software Integration Section.
Most of my early work was in simulators, but then I deployed to Saudi Arabia several times for operational support. I worked closely with Boeing, Westinghouse and other top contractors doing testing, analysis and certification of radar, communications and computer systems.
I created the magnetic tapes that contained the operating system and utilities for the airborne missions. I received, analyzed, tested and certified changes to the systems provided by many contractors including Boeing. While Boeing was paid to do many of the upgrades, our maintenance personnel did the majority of the hands-on work with contractor oversight. Our program was the only one in the Air Force with zero class 3 mishaps -- meaning there had never been a US AWACS crash .... ever. One NATO AWACS landed in a shallow water landing, but that wasn't a US maintained bird.
The US AWACS were stationed at Tinker AFB, OK, Kadena AB, Okinawa, and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. We also helped our allies in Europe and Saudi Arabia by selling them E-3 AWACS aircraft and training their flight and mission crews. The US also provided 4 E-3s to Saudi Arabia on a rotation schedule along with crews until they received full delivery of their aircraft. I was fortunate to catch an E-3 rotating back home twice. Much more comfortable than a C-141, plus we got to stay overnight since the trip exceeded the crew duty day. C-141's would land for a couple of hours for fuel and to swap out crews. I spent one night in England, and anohter in Germany.
AWACS aircraft normally perform 16-18 hour missions which the majority is spent flying a race track pattern in a fixed location. Since it carries no defensive weapons or countermeasures, they are usually escorted by fighter jets. Midair refueling by KC-135 and DC-10 tankers extended their capability for mission and transit distances.
We took pride in knowing our jobs and improving them. When I first reported for duty there, the computer process that created the Airborne Operational Computer Program (AOCP) tapes took a month. My boss was able to reduce that time to 7-10 days. When I was given the task, I reduced it further to a single overnight computer job from start to finish. That process used mostly individual tasks that Boeing created. We just added intermediate processes to daisy-chain them one after the other and with intermediate jobs we wrote to verify success of each step before proceeding. This gave us more days for auditing, testing and fixing problems while still delivering a certified tape in less time than before.
Be careful who you complain about being incompetent or "not an expert." That's an opinion with absolutely no experience upon which to base it.
I'm not saying my AWACS experience is the exact same as AF1. I can guarantee you that program is more strictly managed with tighter security though. Being selected to work on these programs means you already have the skills they need. Most are the top of their field, as are many of the contractors. I don't have the same degree of disdain for them as you seem to have.
-
please show me where i made the argument "that the old 747 needs to be replaced"...
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=56696.msg502498#msg502498
-
i don't think your superiors at HPD HQ would be very impressed with your investigative prowess on this
funny how your "proof" of me saying something doesn't not contain me saying anything of the sort...
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=56696.msg502498#msg502498
-
still waiting...
please show me where anyone on this thread is "ignoring serious security concerns"...
-
Well, I happen to be an expert. Five years directly supporting the USAF Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) E-3A and E-3B Sentry.
I was assigned to the 552d AWACS Division (Wing) in the Mission Support Deputate, Tinker AFB, OK. I was first assigned tot the Executive Programming Section, then the Software Integration Section. I then worked in the Test and Evaluation Section and became the Chief of the Division Software Integration Section.
Most of my early work was in simulators, but then I deployed to Saudi Arabia several times for operational support. I worked closely with Boeing, Westinghouse and other top contractors doing testing, analysis and certification of radar, communications and computer systems.
I created the magnetic tapes that contained the operating system and utilities for the airborne missions. I received, analyzed, tested and certified changes to the systems provided by many contractors including Boeing. While Boeing was paid to do many of the upgrades, our maintenance personnel did the majority of the hands-on work with contractor oversight. Our program was the only one in the Air Force with zero class 3 mishaps -- meaning there had never been a US AWACS crash .... ever. One NATO AWACS landed in a shallow water landing, but that wasn't a US maintained bird.
The US AWACS were stationed at Tinker AFB, OK, Kadena AB, Okinawa, and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. We also helped our allies in Europe and Saudi Arabia by selling them E-3 AWACS aircraft and training their flight and mission crews. The US also provided 4 E-3s to Saudi Arabia on a rotation schedule along with crews until they received full delivery of their aircraft. I was fortunate to catch an E-3 rotating back home twice. Much more comfortable than a C-141, plus we got to stay overnight since the trip exceeded the crew duty day. C-141's would land for a couple of hours for fuel and to swap out crews. I spent one night in England, and anohter in Germany.
AWACS aircraft normally perform 16-18 hour missions which the majority is spent flying a race track pattern in a fixed location. Since it carries no defensive weapons or countermeasures, they are usually escorted by fighter jets. Midair refueling by KC-135 and DC-10 tankers extended their capability for mission and transit distances.
We took pride in knowing our jobs and improving them. When I first reported for duty there, the computer process that created the Airborne Operational Computer Program (AOCP) tapes took a month. My boss was able to reduce that time to 7-10 days. When I was given the task, I reduced it further to a single overnight computer job from start to finish. That process used mostly individual tasks that Boeing created. We just added intermediate processes to daisy-chain them one after the other and with intermediate jobs we wrote to verify success of each step before proceeding. This gave us more days for auditing, testing and fixing problems while still delivering a certified tape in less time than before.
Be careful who you complain about being incompetent or "not an expert." That's an opinion with absolutely no experience upon which to base it.
I'm not saying my AWACS experience is the exact same as AF1. I can guarantee you that program is more strictly managed with tighter security though. Being selected to work on these programs means you already have the skills they need. Most are the top of their field, as are many of the contractors. I don't have the same degree of disdain for them as you seem to have.
Strawman, there is no need for this dishonesty in debating whether we should use a Qatari 747.
I have expressed no disdain for anyone who works on any aspect of AF1.
Someone searching for surveillance bugs needs to be successful every time, a spy/terrorist only needs to be successful once, that is the point. Of course someone could sneak into Boeing or into the Air Force and plant a bug on the plane but I think the risk is substantially larger for a plan from Qatar. Do you disagree?
-
i don't think your superiors at HPD HQ would be very impressed with your investigative prowess on this
funny how your "proof" of me saying something doesn't not contain me saying anything of the sort...
So talking about the number of miles flown and landing/takeoff cycles was not an argument that the old one needs to be replaced? Doesn't seem to be one arguing we should keep the old one.
-
Strawman, there is no need for this dishonesty in debating whether we should use a Qatari 747.
I have expressed no disdain for anyone who works on any aspect of AF1.
Someone searching for surveillance bugs needs to be successful every time, a spy/terrorist only needs to be successful once, that is the point. Of course someone could sneak into Boeing or into the Air Force and plant a bug on the plane but I think the risk is substantially larger for a plan from Qatar. Do you disagree?
"I think the risk is substantially larger for a plan from Qatar."
I do not agree. If you are given a used car, are you going to trust everything is in top shape, or are you going to inspect it and maybe take it to a mechanic to inspect? would you use the same level of scrutiny on a car you bought brand new from a dealer?
Same thing here. if we get an aircraft from Boeing that's certified, we still check it out before using it for operational missions. If, however, the plane comes from Qatar, we will spend more time, possibly calling upon top experts, before we certify it for use.
You're making a false assumption -- that we'd use the same level of care inspecting the aircraft as if it came from the Boeing factory.
-
so the guy that always accuses people of making a strawman argument is ok making one?
got it...
So talking about the number of miles flown and landing/takeoff cycles was not an argument that the old one needs to be replaced? Doesn't seem to be one arguing we should keep the old one.
-
so the guy that always accuses people of making a strawman argument is ok making one?
got it...
You forgot. He reads our minds. No need to wait for the actual thoughts to be posted before arguing against them.
-
so the guy that always accuses people of making a strawman argument is ok making one?
got it...
Wrong. How else is your statement in response to my statement supposed to be viewed? It sure seemed like a counter argument to my argument.
-
Wrong. How else is your statement in response to my statement supposed to be viewed? It sure seemed like a counter argument to my argument.
now he's saying only his interpretation of your words are correct -- not what you say you meant.
Strange, considering he demanded a policy of innocent until proven guilty one thread ago. I guess he gets to tell us what's to be interpreted and what's to be proven first.
-
"I think the risk is substantially larger for a plan from Qatar."
I do not agree. If you are given a used car, are you going to trust everything is in top shape, or are you going to inspect it and maybe take it to a mechanic to inspect? would you use the same level of scrutiny on a car you bought brand new from a dealer?
Same thing here. if we get an aircraft from Boeing that's certified, we still check it out before using it for operational missions. If, however, the plane comes from Qatar, we will spend more time, possibly calling upon top experts, before we certify it for use.
You're making a false assumption -- that we'd use the same level of care inspecting the aircraft as if it came from the Boeing factory.
I was not referring to the airworthiness of the plane here, I am concerned with surveillance devices being hidden on the plane, which is something harder to address than mechanical issues.
-
I was not referring to the airworthiness of the plane here, I am concerned with surveillance devices being hidden on the plane, which is something harder to address than mechanical issues.
Show me where I excluded ANY systems onboard and focused solely on airworthiness.
I'm a mission support professional, not a pilot. My whole focus has been on the mission systems which are separate from the flight systems.
I don't think you comprehend the words i'm using due to lack of experience with anything in the military especially the Air force.
-
Show me where I excluded ANY systems onboard and focused solely on airworthiness.
I'm a mission support professional, not a pilot. My whole focus has been on the mission systems which are separate from the flight systems.
I don't think you comprehend the words i'm using due to lack of experience with anything in the military especially the Air force.
I was explaining my specific concerns so that they would not be confused with other aspects of the aircraft. I am not worried that mechanics would be unable to make sure the airplane flies safely.
-
it's supposed to be viewed as stated
not what it "seemed" to state
FOCUS...
Wrong. How else is your statement in response to my statement supposed to be viewed? It sure seemed like a counter argument to my argument.
-
I was explaining my specific concerns so that they would not be confused with other aspects of the aircraft. I am not worried that mechanics would be unable to make sure the airplane flies safely.
I wasn't talking about flight safety either.
Funny how we can be talking about the same exact things, and you STILL have to start an argument! :wacko:
-
I wasn't talking about flight safety either.
Funny how we can be talking about the same exact things, and you STILL have to start an argument! :wacko:
I didn't say you were talking about flight safety.
Funny how you have to argue about things like that rather than address the key issue which is whether technicians would reliably find and remove all possible bugs.
-
I didn't say you were talking about flight safety.
Funny how you have to argue about things like that rather than address the key issue which is whether technicians would reliably find and remove all possible bugs.
Funny how you are dismissive of facts in favor of your own hypotheticals.
-
Funny how you are dismissive of facts in favor of your own hypotheticals.
I am dismissive of no facts. Show me anywhere it is a fact that technicians would find every surveillance device possible.
Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"? Pretty sure if it were Biden accepting a 747 you wouldn't be so dismissive.
-
Pretty sure if it were Biden accepting a 747 you wouldn't be so dismissive.
Depends if his son was given a CEO position in return.
-
I am dismissive of no facts. Show me anywhere it is a fact that technicians would find every surveillance device possible.
Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"? Pretty sure if it were Biden accepting a 747 you wouldn't be so dismissive.
"Would find' is an imaginary outcome that may or may not happen in the future.
You asking for proof of something that has never happened is no different than me asking you to prove they would not find every surveillance device possible.
It's an argument for pure argument's sake. You have your paranoid and unsupported, layman's opinion, and I have my expert opinion.
:stopjack:
-
"Would find' is an imaginary outcome that may or may not happen in the future.
You asking for proof of something that has never happened is no different than me asking you to prove they would not find every surveillance device possible.
It's an argument for pure argument's sake. You have your paranoid and unsupported, layman's opinion, and I have my expert opinion.
:stopjack:
Swoosh
I asked you for proof of the position you claimed I took. You can't produce it and avoided the question I posed to you.
So again,
Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?
-
Swoosh
I asked you for proof of the position you claimed I took. You can't produce it and avoided the question I posed to you.
So again,
Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?
Why are you so quick to entertain imaginary concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?
1. Given the expertise already applied to the existing VC-25A as well as the follow-on VC-25B, I will state that we have the skills needed to keep a donated plane from Qatar from passing valuable information to our enemies. The plane is a 747-8, no different than the two already on order from Boeing. All the same modifications added to make it serve as AF1 will also have to be done to the Qatar 747. That process is very invasive and would override anything Qatar might want to install. Any software will be updated to match the VC-25B software. hardware will be swapped out with the latest versions to match the VC-25B.
2. This is not a gift to the President. So your 2nd concern is immaterial.
Security people are paranoid to the extreme. Anything Qatar might try to slip past them will either be swapped out, written over or found before it's certified. I'd be more concerned that a Boeing employee might install malicious code or hardware in the VC-25Bs already on order. As a former integration and testing officer, there are a slew of tools and audits to be done to verify that the right code and changes are present, and any anomalies with the hardware are reported to maintenance for in-depth diagnostics and possible repair or replacement.
-
Why are you so quick to entertain imaginary concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?
It leaves him room to wiggle out of the original false concern.
-
Why are you so quick to entertain imaginary concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?
1. Given the expertise already applied to the existing VC-25A as well as the follow-on VC-25B, I will state that we have the skills needed to keep a donated plane from Qatar from passing valuable information to our enemies. The plane is a 747-8, no different than the two already on order from Boeing. All the same modifications added to make it serve as AF1 will also have to be done to the Qatar 747. That process is very invasive and would override anything Qatar might want to install. Any software will be updated to match the VC-25B software. hardware will be swapped out with the latest versions to match the VC-25B.
2. This is not a gift to the President. So your 2nd concern is immaterial.
Security people are paranoid to the extreme. Anything Qatar might try to slip past them will either be swapped out, written over or found before it's certified. I'd be more concerned that a Boeing employee might install malicious code or hardware in the VC-25Bs already on order. As a former integration and testing officer, there are a slew of tools and audits to be done to verify that the right code and changes are present, and any anomalies with the hardware are reported to maintenance for in-depth diagnostics and possible repair or replacement.
Imaginary concerns? Now that is a stretch, everything is imaginary until it happens. Terrorists hijacking airplanes and using them as missiles to attack buildings was an imaginary concern until someone did it.
The ethical issues aren't even imaginary, the jet was accepted, if Trump plans to get the plane for his library like he indicated, that is an ethical issue. That isn't immaterial, saying it isn't a gift because Trump says it isn't a gift doesn't make it not a gift. It walks like a gift, talks like a gift... but its not a gift? Saying that the Air Force will decide when to retire the jet from Qatar is a meaningless rebuttal since the president is head of the Air Force, he can order it to be retired conveniently at the same time he is about to leave office.
As for your first point, I don't doubt that the Air Force and/or its contractors will go from nose to tail, I question whether they will be able to get every bug. You are a tech guy, you, I assume, know how well a surveillance device can be installed and hidden. You must know how a device can remain dormant to a specific period in time so that it won't get caught sending any signals. If you stripped the plane completely down to skin and bones maybe you could ensure enough were removed but then at that cost, it isn't a free airplane anymore, it is now something we are spending a large amount to bring up to snuff.
-
Imaginary concerns? Now that is a stretch, everything is imaginary until it happens. Terrorists hijacking airplanes and using them as missiles to attack buildings was an imaginary concern until someone did it.
The ethical issues aren't even imaginary, the jet was accepted, if Trump plans to get the plane for his library like he indicated, that is an ethical issue. That isn't immaterial, saying it isn't a gift because Trump says it isn't a gift doesn't make it not a gift. It walks like a gift, talks like a gift... but its not a gift? Saying that the Air Force will decide when to retire the jet from Qatar is a meaningless rebuttal since the president is head of the Air Force, he can order it to be retired conveniently at the same time he is about to leave office.
As for your first point, I don't doubt that the Air Force and/or its contractors will go from nose to tail, I question whether they will be able to get every bug. You are a tech guy, you, I assume, know how well a surveillance device can be installed and hidden. You must know how a device can remain dormant to a specific period in time so that it won't get caught sending any signals. If you stripped the plane completely down to skin and bones maybe you could ensure enough were removed but then at that cost, it isn't a free airplane anymore, it is now something we are spending a large amount to bring up to snuff.
Maybe theres a terrorist hidden in a compartment on the plane with months of food and water and a bag to store waste. Why haven't you brought that possibility up? Do you not care about this from happening? Or are you in on it and are aware but want to hide it from everyone else?
-
I would have to assume that if even one piece of “surveillance” equipment was found Qatar would be fucked and the plane would not be accepted.
-
I would have to assume that if even one piece of “surveillance” equipment was found Qatar would be fucked and the plane would not be accepted.
When I was with the AWACS program, all E-3 aircraft were parked in secure areas with armed guards. Nobody was allowed to enter the roped area without proper ID and authorization. "USE OF DEADLY FORCE" signs were posted on the perimeter. And, since the air field was almost always on a military facility, you had to have access to the base or field before you could even get close enough to get shot.
Since we are talking a 747, not all air fields and airports are able to accommodate them. The ones that can are also well guarded. Air travel both commercial and private are high priority assets when it comes to airport security.
That whole security envelope is the first line of defense for any 747, especially for high profile government officials and their families -- i.e. the current users of the Qatar aircraft. I'm sure no physical security measures are 100% foolproof, but it's not as if the 747 is sitting on a city street for anyone passing by to monkey with.
That means we have to be at least a little trusting of the people giving the 747 to the US in their protection of the plane and their own people.
I'm sure there is no way to calm EEF's fantasy fears. I mean the plane hasn't even been received and already he's having nightmares of spies planting listening devices that can somehow transmit data and conversations to someplace else while the aircraft is aloft and all without detection.
Anything EEF can imagine, the Air Force will have already thought of and then some. If they overlook something, heads will roll. That's why i'm sure there's no chance of anything being covertly installed and overlooked. As I said, I'd be more concerned with someone at Boeing trying to sabotage the Qatar 747 simply because they are being blasted for taking so long for the VC-25B delivery, and possibly because of their politics.
-
I would have to assume that if even one piece of “surveillance” equipment was found Qatar would be fucked and the plane would not be accepted.
That would be the safest course of action. Afterall the plane was "free" so finding one bug and then getting rid of the plane wouldn't be much of a loss.
I think the government should just auction it off now and use the money to pay down the debt.
I don't know what Qatar would be screwed at all though. They would probably get an intense finger wag from us and things would continue. Qatar's influence goes quite deep into our country, I think they would get off quite lightly.
-
Anything EEF can imagine, the Air Force will have already thought of and then some. If they overlook something, heads will roll. That's why i'm sure there's no chance of anything being covertly installed and overlooked. As I said, I'd be more concerned with someone at Boeing trying to sabotage the Qatar 747 simply because they are being blasted for taking so long for the VC-25B delivery, and possibly because of their politics.
And that is how the FBI prevented the plot to crash airliners into buildings.... oh wait
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/air-force-pegs-cost-to-modify-qatar-gifted-plane-at-less-than-400m/ar-AA1Gachw?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=4ffcc918f3a34142976410bdef5a097e&ei=47
-
And that is how the FBI prevented the plot to crash airliners into buildings.... oh wait
That makes absolutely no sense.
Just arguing to argue.
-
That makes absolutely no sense.
Just arguing to argue.
Do you really need me to explain to you how 9/11 involved people who had not thought of everything? When Hamas attacked Israel the plan had been discovered but were overlooked.
Why take the risk at all, we have working 747s, why take the risk of a technician missing a surveillance device hidden somewhere or a bit of dormant computer code?
-
Do you really need me to explain to you how 9/11 involved people who had not thought of everything? When Hamas attacked Israel the plan had been discovered but were overlooked.
SWOOOOSSSHHHHH
-
Do you really need me to explain to you how 9/11 involved people who had not thought of everything? When Hamas attacked Israel the plan had been discovered but were overlooked.
Why take the risk at all, we have working 747s, why take the risk of a technician missing a surveillance device hidden somewhere or a bit of dormant computer code?
Im interested in your explanation of the people involved in the attacks that occured on Sept 11, 2001. :popcorn:
Also can you give an example of 'dormant' computer codes?
-
Im interested in your explanation of the people involved in the attacks that occured on Sept 11, 2001. :popcorn:
Also can you give an example of 'dormant' computer codes?
Dude. BRB, getting gas cause the range too far.
-
Im interested in your explanation of the people involved in the attacks that occured on Sept 11, 2001. :popcorn:
Also can you give an example of 'dormant' computer codes?
Let me jump on that last part.
Boeing and the Air Force have extensive configuration management tools and procedures. When I worked on AWACS software, one of my main positions was Configuration Management -- Software Integration and Testing. We performed audits that counted every single byte in every program installed on the mission computers. The audit compared those counts plus checksums to see what in the software was changed. When a programmer submitted documentation for their code changes, it included the number of bytes increase or decrease (or zero) for every software package, We also did a line by line comparison of the hexadecimal dump for every line of code.
If anything was changed and not documented, or if the comparisons showed something unexpected, we'd deep dive into the source code to see whether the code or the documentation was wrong. Usually it was the programmer's error by submitting source code they tested. Sometimes to fit larger code into existing system software to test, they had to remove unnecessary sections, and sometimes they forgot to replace what they removed. Other times, they didn't compile the code properly, so we provided the most current libraries and operational code to use for their tests.
Configuration Management (CM) performs a very important function. Most people don't realize that the bulk of mission software (including for AF1) is stored on magnetic media, The compiled software is loaded onto the computer/s before every mission. Because of this, it's impossible for any "covert surveillance bug code" to exist. Once the aircraft lands, the crew does a wipe of all the data so the next sortie will again have a fresh installation of the latest tested software.
Even systems like secure comms have their firmware removed and replaced frequently.
So, I find it highly unlikely that anything that could snoop on AF1 communications or data would exist beyond the initial reloading of the operating system and databases.
The software I maintained was classified SECRET. if we left the software loaded while the plane was parked for extended periods, the chances of corruption or compromise becomes higher. Wiping the storage and rewriting the memory many times over is the only way to make sure the mission systems can't be monkeyed with or stolen.
In layman's terms, every time you leave work for the night, you back up your data files to a server, then do a complete disk wipe on your PC. Each morning, you would reinstall the operating system and applications from an image of a working PC. If the PC is stolen, a new replacement is easy to load and have running 100% in a few minutes by restoring the O/S image.
I hate when people assume they know everything when they have zero experience working with actual computer systems like the one in question.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml-gJ1AY3rQ
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml-gJ1AY3rQ
I dunno. I'd like to think that this is just a gift and nothing more than a gift. Like the article said, a win-win situation, making an ally happy while they are happy to get rid of a high maintenance and irrelevant aircraft.
But I've always, throughout my whole life, maintained the idea that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and it has served me well in my own affairs.
-
I dunno. I'd like to think that this is just a gift and nothing more than a gift. Like the article said, a win-win situation, making an ally happy while they are happy to get rid of a high maintenance and irrelevant aircraft.
But I've always, throughout my whole life, maintained the idea that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and it has served me well in my own affairs.
I was told to never look a gift-horse in the mouth. Unless there's evidence this was gifted with an expectation (or promise) of reciprocation, then we should be grateful for such a generous gift. If boeing had delivered on time, I believe the gift from Qatar would have been accepted and used for something other than AF1.
Qatar is a wealthy nation, so they can afford to offer the US a 747, especially if they already plan to replace it -- maybe with a fleet of smaller luxury jets?
The economy of Qatar is one of the highest in the world based on GDP per
capita, ranking generally among the top ten richest countries on world
rankings for 2015 and 2016 data compiled by the World Bank, the United
Nations, and the International Monetary Fund. The country's economy has
grown despite sanctions by its neighbors, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Qatar
US, Qatar deals to generate $1.2 trillion in 'economic exchange',
White House says
May 14, 2025
May 14 (Reuters) - Agreements signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and
Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani on Wednesday will "generate
an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion," the White House said in a
fact sheet, opens new tab summarizing some of the deals' details.
The agreements include a $96 billion deal with Qatar Airways to buy up to 210
Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 777X airplanes with GE Aerospace engines, the
fact sheet said. They also include a statement of intent that could lead to $38
billion in investments at Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base and other air defense and
maritime security capabilities, it said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-qatar-deals-generate-12-trillion-economic-exchange-white-house-says-2025-05-14/
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/qatari-donated-747-will-fly-as-air-force-one-in-summer-2026/ar-AA1UPwsm?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=6973bea8813c4f38afc826e6fa07e6b8&ei=15&cvpid=6973bf2b44884a3e98c25f0ef9da3193