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.

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.

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 found it interesting how our gov trusted qatar enough to allow them to fly F15 escorts (unarmed) with AF1.

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.

so you are more of an expert on this than the air force?
did they cover this at the Academy?

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!!

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.

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

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.

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...

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?

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...

so  the guy that always accuses people of making a strawman argument is ok making one?
got it...