Air Force One Needs New Refrigerators. They Cost $24 Million

SheikhDjibouti · Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:17 pm

Stitch wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
How about landing for the minimum time necessary to transfer the President to a deep underground bunker, obviating any further need for air-to-air refuelling, and with a facility to provide 3,000,000+ meals. What are the benefits in keeping him airborne in the first place?

If the airfield is next to said bunker, you can be sure that an SS-18 with a 25MT warhead was targeted. Probably more than one.

And if the bunker is well away from said airfield, then you need to get the President there. The Greenbrier, Raven Rock and Mount Weather are all many miles away from Washington and transit via road vehicle or even helicopter could be dicey during and after a large nuclear exchange.

Yes, let's make life easy for the enemy by only have one bunker adjacent to one airfield.
Or one helicopter flying him away from that airfield in just one direction.

Or..... prepare yourself for a radical idea.... construct several bunkers at several different airfields, plus a fair few dummy bunker entrances at others; fancy entrances at ground level that only lead to an insignificant hole in the ground.

Then arrange for Air Force One to briefly touch down at a selection of airfields, spending just enough time on the ground at each one to leave people asking themselves "Did anyone actually see the POTUS get off the plane before it took off again?"

And even if we did catch a glimpse of a tall man wearing sunglasses and an orange mop on his head, which one of the six helicopters did he get on board? Was he heading North, South, East, or West, or was he on board the other two helicopters that just flew round & round in ever decreasing circles until they disappeared up their own exhausts.....

And I got all this simply by googlng the word "decoy". :rotfl

How many SS-18s are you willing to waste chasing shadows and ghosts....?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy

Stitch · Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:21 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Yes, let's make life easy for the enemy by only have one bunker adjacent to one airfield.
Or one helicopter flying him away from that airfield in just one direction.

Or..... prepare yourself for a radical idea.... construct several bunkers at several different airfields, plus a fair few dummy bunker entrances at others; fancy entrances at ground level that only lead to an insignificant hole in the ground.

Then arrange for Air Force One to briefly touch down at a selection of airfields, spending just enough time on the ground at each one to leave people asking themselves "Did anyone actually see the POTUS get off the plane before it took off again?"

Consider for a moment what that level of infrastructure would cost to build.

And then remember we're complaining about $24 million... :biggrin:

FrmrKSEngr · Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:41 pm

Everyone is talking about 3,000 meals for the doomsday scenario, it is not. If you saw any of the documentaries on AF-1 you will see when they fly overseas they take their food with them from Andrews. No Host catering truck pulling up at the airport to restock. Go on a 10 day trip to 10 cities. 102 people (26 crew, 76 Pax) X 3 meals per day X 10 days.~ 3,000 meals. That is a worst case scenario.

Go doomsday and MREs would probably enter the mix like E-4B. Note that E-4Bs fly with Flight attendants who do a great job preparing fresh meals in a pretty spartan galley.

IPFreely · Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:43 pm

Aesma wrote:
I was thinking along the same line, why all the engineering cost, the fridges already exist, just make new identical ones, no engineering or certification needed.

The original ones were custom designed 31 years ago. They likely use many components that are by now obsolete and not available.

FrmrKSEngr · Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:18 am

iamlucky13 wrote:

However, the VC-137's could get away with being more basic, because the E-4's were in the works and then entered service in 1973. That's the 747 based airborne command post that the president would have transferred to if necessary. My understanding is the goal now is for the VC-25's and their replacements to be sufficient to handle the role the E-4's were designed for.

SAC had flying command posts before E-4s, EC-135 Looking Glass.. The initial E-4A was just a cross deck of EC-135 equipment into a modified 747. AF-1 comms have never approached EC-135 or E-4B. For starters no MILSTAR on AF-1 - no big hump. On all renderings of the AF1 replacement I have not seen a MILSTAR hump.

SheikhDjibouti · Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:53 am

Stitch wrote:
Consider for a moment what that level of infrastructure would cost to build.

And then remember we're complaining about $24 million...

Nope, wrong again.
This thread is about one aspect of Air Force One, costing $24 million.
My suggestion would save this $24 million, and a whole lot more.
Less requirement for air-to air refuelling
Less need to maintain a constant 400 nm square protective box all around AF1

It might even be the best way to save the President's life; do you care to put a price on that?

kanban · Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:07 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Consider for a moment what that level of infrastructure would cost to build.

And then remember we're complaining about $24 million...

Nope, wrong again.
This thread is about one aspect of Air Force One, costing $24 million.
My suggestion would save this $24 million, and a whole lot more.
Less requirement for air-to air refuelling
Less need to maintain a constant 400 nm square protective box all around AF1

It might even be the best way to save the President's life; do you care to put a price on that?

there are several underground bolt holes built during the cold war era that are maintained...
the main problem is the president (or President when we have one) doesn't just sit around in a convenient spot to escape to one or the other 70% of the time (and none are near a golf course in Florida)..

petertenthije · Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:50 am

kanban wrote:
(and none are near a golf course in Florida)..

I would not be so sure. I’ve got it from usually reliable sources that there are plenty of bunkers around golf courses. ;-)

SheikhDjibouti · Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:33 pm

petertenthije wrote:
kanban wrote:
(and none are near a golf course in Florida)..

I would not be so sure. I’ve got it from usually reliable sources that there are plenty of bunkers around golf courses.

Damn you for beating me to the best punch-line ever! :rotfl:

bikerthai · Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:39 pm

FrmrKSEngr wrote:
Everyone is talking about 3,000 meals for the doomsday scenario, it is not. If you saw any of the documentaries on AF-1 you will see when they fly overseas they take their food with them from Andrews. No Host catering truck pulling up at the airport to restock

I though that when POTUS travel, he usually have dinner at the Embassy or Consulate (if it's a long stay). But I guess even if you dine at the Embassy, it would be logistically cheaper to bring along their (per-screened) food as opposed to sending a staff over and acquire and screen local food. But if that is the case, wouldn't you be better sending the food over via a container freezer in a C-17?

bt

bikerthai · Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:48 pm

Just read the CNN article. The $24 mill is for replacing the existing VC-25's refrigeration units. The cost include engineering, built and support. So if you figure the engineering hours to spec out the units, release the retrofit kits and provide product support for X number of years, then the $24 mil is not nu-reasonable.
As Kanban has noted, the cost of making the units themselves are probably high but not exorbitant. Most of the money will go into the engineering and support side.

bt

FrmrKSEngr · Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:17 pm

bikerthai wrote:
FrmrKSEngr wrote:
Everyone is talking about 3,000 meals for the doomsday scenario, it is not. If you saw any of the documentaries on AF-1 you will see when they fly overseas they take their food with them from Andrews. No Host catering truck pulling up at the airport to restock

I though that when POTUS travel, he usually have dinner at the Embassy or Consulate (if it's a long stay). But I guess even if you dine at the Embassy, it would be logistically cheaper to bring along their (per-screened) food as opposed to sending a staff over and acquire and screen local food. But if that is the case, wouldn't you be better sending the food over via a container freezer in a C-17?

bt

Not every mission goes to the embassy, and you still plan for 3 hots per person per day (plus snacks). I do not know the logistics for eating on the ground, I just remember seeing that AF-1 does not generally take on food overseas.

As for the C-17 carrying provisions - I speculate that security is easier if the food is always in the possession of the 89th on AF-1.

zanl188 · Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:03 pm

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

Not every mission goes to the embassy, and you still plan for 3 hots per person per day (plus snacks). I do not know the logistics for eating on the ground, I just remember seeing that AF-1 does not generally take on food overseas.

As for the C-17 carrying provisions - I speculate that security is easier if the food is always in the possession of the 89th on AF-1.

Eating at the Embassy defeats the purpose of overseas travel - to meet with counterparts from other countries.

89th maintains the security of the food by randomly shopping at grocery stores in the DC metro area. This would be difficult/impossible while overseas so everything needed is loaded at Andrews before departure.

WIederling · Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:12 pm

Aesma wrote:
I was thinking along the same line, why all the engineering cost, the fridges already exist, just make new identical ones, no engineering or certification needed.

Sorry, we no longer know how to do those. :-)

What was it about styro foam in warheads that was forgotten how to do?

kanban · Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:21 pm

I suspect that only a couple refrigerators are used for the president and flight crew.. the food for the journalists and cling-ons is probably separate and of a much lower standard.. but then again how much space do you need for 10 days of McDonalds 1/4 pounders with cheese??? and what would they taste like after 10 days.

Florianopolis · Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:52 pm

WIederling wrote:
What was it about styro foam in warheads that was forgotten how to do?

I thought it was fine, but the old stuff had impurities that happened to be necessary to make it work, so the new stuff had to have the impurities added back.

zanl188 · Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:34 pm

kanban wrote:
I suspect that only a couple refrigerators are used for the president and flight crew.. the food for the journalists and cling-ons is probably separate and of a much lower standard.. but then again how much space do you need for 10 days of McDonalds 1/4 pounders with cheese??? and what would they taste like after 10 days.

Everybody on AF 1 eats off the same menu. .....

bikerthai · Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:52 pm

Saw another article on the NY Times quoting Defense One . . .

"Air Force One must be able to feed passengers and crew for weeks without resupplying . . ."

So they are bringing along a ton of food. And yes the $24 millions are just for a couple of chillers. Hopefully the same design can be used on the new 747-8. I suspect the specification will be as such . . .

bt

kanban · Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:40 am

Quick solution, separate menus (Coke, coffee and sandwiches packed in inert gases for steerage, burgers and soggy fries up front.. ). There are plenty of meals out there that do not require cooling.. just check out the local grocery. Question, if they're up there for two weeks, at what point do the service the lav holding tanks????? is there enough water on board for that time period?

DL757NYC · Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:12 am

77west wrote:
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
how long can AF1 stay aloft with aerial refueling? Until they run out of food and water?

I have heard oil consumption is the limiting factor as well. On a transpacific crossing (12-14 hours) on a 747 could requires a few pints per engine to top them up. Now extrapolate that over, say, 2-3 refuellings, and the VC25 probably would only get, maybe, 72 hours or thereabouts?

But they probably have bigger oil sumps and/or the ability to top up from onboard oil supplies, which a commercial jet does not.

72 hours would probably be more than enough though. If you need to stay up longer, I dare say there is no "World" to come back to at that point.

It remember hearing the plane can fly for up to a week. It may have a place to add oil to the engines from within the plane.

bikerthai · Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:34 pm

kanban wrote:
Question, if they're up there for two weeks, at what point do the service the lav holding tanks????? is there enough water on board for that time period?

Answer . . . They are not up there for two weeks. They are out there for two weeks. I guess potable water can easily be acquired and tested locally. And I guess in the long run, the up front cost of $24 mil to bring on supplies for two weeks would still be cheaper than re-supplying by C-17 over the life of the aircraft.

Also note that they still need to update the chiller. The quantity of meals have become irrelevant for the existing aircraft the cooler is already done. For the new PAR aircraft however, it is a relevant question to ask.

bt

kanban · Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:06 pm

bikerthai wrote:
kanban wrote:
Question, if they're up there for two weeks, at what point do the service the lav holding tanks????? is there enough water on board for that time period?

Answer . . . They are not up there for two weeks. They are out there for two weeks. I guess potable water can easily be acquired and tested locally. And I guess in the long run, the up front cost of $24 mil to bring on supplies for two weeks would still be cheaper than re-supplying by C-17 over the life of the aircraft.

Also note that they still need to update the chiller. The quantity of meals have become irrelevant for the existing aircraft the cooler is already done. For the new PAR aircraft however, it is a relevant question to ask.

bt

OK I over generalized. but with the extended flight time due to refueling and larger oil reservoirs, is there a point when they run out of water and waste tank space.. of course if they're of there because of nuclear war, I guess the S**T has already fallen so some more won't matter

bikerthai · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:41 pm

The point of the NY article and FrmrKSEngr is that the 3000 meals is not to support extended flights. They bring along that much food for when the president makes a one or two weeks trip abroad. I suppose the logistics of bringing that much food is much easier and cheaper than having to re-supply the plane as they go from one country to another.

bt

Buckeyetech · Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:06 pm

Contract cancelled. Looks like they will reboot the contract award.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... fleet.html

Nomadd · Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:29 pm

SpaceX has been going through this nonsense since they were born. The price for payload A/Cs at the pad was quoted at $6 million. When Musk asked "why", nobody could give him a real answer. They went to Home Depot and got a few $3 thousand units, did a few mods and they worked fine. The main thing you need to do is not have 16 generals in procurement add hundreds of requirements that serve little or no real purpose. Every non standard component has to go through 16 levels of custom design, fabrication and certification.

Spiderguy252 · Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:19 am

The US President (not necessarily Trump) should go the other extreme, retire both AF1 birds, and fly commercial whenever a travel requirement comes up.

It'll be great for PR too.

dtw2hyd · Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:09 am

Spiderguy252 wrote:
The US President (not necessarily Trump) should go the other extreme, retire both AF1 birds, and fly commercial whenever a travel requirement comes up.

It'll be great for PR too.

Why? Third world countries are spending $Billions on VVIP transport.

Spiderguy252 · Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:21 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
The US President (not necessarily Trump) should go the other extreme, retire both AF1 birds, and fly commercial whenever a travel requirement comes up.

It'll be great for PR too.

Why? Third world countries are spending $Billions on VVIP transport.

In an ideal world, all premieres will fly commercial. Anyway, 3rd world countries spend a fraction of the AF1 budget on their PMs/Presidents I'm sure.

The Sultan of Brunei may be an exception.

dtw2hyd · Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:54 am

Spiderguy252 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
The US President (not necessarily Trump) should go the other extreme, retire both AF1 birds, and fly commercial whenever a travel requirement comes up.

It'll be great for PR too.

Why? Third world countries are spending $Billions on VVIP transport.

In an ideal world, all premieres will fly commercial. Anyway, 3rd world countries spend a fraction of the AF1 budget on their PMs/Presidents I'm sure.

The Sultan of Brunei may be an exception.

India's VVIP fleet

2 x 77Ws - $580 Million
12 x Mi 17 V5s - $750 Million
3 x BBJs - $1 Billion
6 x E-Jets - $600 Million
4 x 744s - $1

Spiderguy252 · Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:29 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
India's VVIP fleet

2 x 77Ws - $580 Million
12 x Mi 17 V5s - $750 Million
3 x BBJs - $1 Billion
6 x E-Jets - $600 Million
4 x 744s - $1

Now can you compare that with the USA?

dtw2hyd · Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:44 pm

Spiderguy252 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
India's VVIP fleet

2 x 77Ws - $580 Million
12 x Mi 17 V5s - $750 Million
3 x BBJs - $1 Billion
6 x E-Jets - $600 Million
4 x 744s - $1

Now can you compare that with the USA?

Compare in terms of what?
25+ year old VC25s and ~60 year old white tops? (or) as a percentage of air force spending (or) as a percentage of economy size.

I forget 3 x NIB not yet assembled AW101s worth $250 Million India has.

Stitch · Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 pm

Spiderguy252 wrote:
The US President (not necessarily Trump) should go the other extreme, retire both AF1 birds, and fly commercial whenever a travel requirement comes up.

Well President Nixon did it once on 26 December 1973, flying a United DC-10 from IAD to LAX.

That being said, I am sure the other passengers on that flight would love all the extra security measures that would be necessary. Not to mention those not travelling on that flight, but departing or arriving at that terminal.

StarAC17 · Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:26 pm

george77300 wrote:
Air Force One is full of tech that’s ludicrously expensive and yet utterly pointless. The counter measure flares have never been needed and never will. Also the mid air refuelling capability was a real nuisance and expense to fit and yet that hasn’t been used either. The longest flight was when President flew around after 9/11. Even then they don’t need.

Does it also have CHAFF as well or was the 1997 movie lying to me :lol:

As a military aircraft why would it not need countermeasures? Would it be useless against a missile strike anyways?

Jayafe · Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:54 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
The US President (not necessarily Trump) should go the other extreme, retire both AF1 birds, and fly commercial whenever a travel requirement comes up.

It'll be great for PR too.

Why? Third world countries are spending $Billions on VVIP transport.

So you suggest the US to take example of 3rd world countries? Well, that’s already in progress...

Jayafe · Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:44 pm

Seabear wrote:

I see what you're doing, and I raise:

Seabear · Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:45 pm

Jayafe wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
The US President (not necessarily Trump) should go the other extreme, retire both AF1 birds, and fly commercial whenever a travel requirement comes up.

It'll be great for PR too.

Why? Third world countries are spending $Billions on VVIP transport.

So you suggest the US to take example of 3rd world countries? Well, that’s already in progress...

FrmrKSEngr · Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:24 am

kanban wrote:
OK I over generalized. but with the extended flight time due to refueling and larger oil reservoirs, is there a point when they run out of water and waste tank space.. of course if they're of there because of nuclear war, I guess the S**T has already fallen so some more won't matter

VC-25 cannot top off oil in flight but E-4B can. One of the E-4B's limits for endurance is in fact the toilet capacity, but there were direct overboard urinals on E-4. Not to be used on the ground.

FrmrKSEngr · Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:28 am

bikerthai wrote:
kanban wrote:
Question, if they're up there for two weeks, at what point do the service the lav holding tanks????? is there enough water on board for that time period?

Answer . . . They are not up there for two weeks. They are out there for two weeks. I guess potable water can easily be acquired and tested locally. And I guess in the long run, the up front cost of $24 mil to bring on supplies for two weeks would still be cheaper than re-supplying by C-17 over the life of the aircraft.

bt

Potable water for Lav and probably galley use can be loaded at remote locations, but drinking water is carried from Andrews. Lots of water bottles.

bhill · Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:36 pm

MRE's.....good enough for the troops...good enough for the Commanders. And they are a shit ton lighter than "chilled" anything...

This is bullshit....have a fridge for items that must be kept cold...like medications if needed, but stop the bullshit.

smithbs · Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:38 pm

bhill wrote:
MRE's.....good enough for the troops...good enough for the Commanders. And they are a shit ton lighter than "chilled" anything...

This is bullshit....have a fridge for items that must be kept cold...like medications if needed, but stop the bullshit.

MREs must be kept cold to extend their shelf life. You just can't let them sit out at room temperature. And they are not good enough for troops either - when I was in Afghanistan, I never saw a MRE and that was fine with me. But I ate lots when I was in the lead-up training in New Jersey, ironically. And the last thing I want is for my President to shake hands with another leader while having a major case of constipation because he ate the omelette MRE.

MREs require refrigeration and are bulky for what you get, so not a great logistical choice for an airplane. They are also not very good for your system. It's best to be choosy with your MRE. Pick out the parts you want and trade away the rest. If you can get a couple hundred people with MREs, there will be a good secondary market going.

Nomadd · Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:58 am

smithbs wrote:
bhill wrote:
MRE's.....good enough for the troops...good enough for the Commanders. And they are a shit ton lighter than "chilled" anything...

This is bullshit....have a fridge for items that must be kept cold...like medications if needed, but stop the bullshit.

MREs must be kept cold to extend their shelf life. You just can't let them sit out at room temperature. And they are not good enough for troops either - when I was in Afghanistan, I never saw a MRE and that was fine with me. But I ate lots when I was in the lead-up training in New Jersey, ironically. And the last thing I want is for my President to shake hands with another leader while having a major case of constipation because he ate the omelette MRE.

MREs require refrigeration and are bulky for what you get, so not a great logistical choice for an airplane. They are also not very good for your system. It's best to be choosy with your MRE. Pick out the parts you want and trade away the rest. If you can get a couple hundred people with MREs, there will be a good secondary market going.

Can't be worse that C-Rations.

bhill · Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:59 pm

smithbs wrote:
bhill wrote:
MRE's.....good enough for the troops...good enough for the Commanders. And they are a shit ton lighter than "chilled" anything...

This is bullshit....have a fridge for items that must be kept cold...like medications if needed, but stop the bullshit.

MREs must be kept cold to extend their shelf life. You just can't let them sit out at room temperature. And they are not good enough for troops either - when I was in Afghanistan, I never saw a MRE and that was fine with me. But I ate lots when I was in the lead-up training in New Jersey, ironically. And the last thing I want is for my President to shake hands with another leader while having a major case of constipation because he ate the omelette MRE.

MREs require refrigeration and are bulky for what you get, so not a great logistical choice for an airplane. They are also not very good for your system. It's best to be choosy with your MRE. Pick out the parts you want and trade away the rest. If you can get a couple hundred people with MREs, there will be a good secondary market going.

Fine, put them in the unheated cargo spaces....if needed vent the space to keep cold....They can be stored just as flat as the boxes they come in..just like C rations were...They are not up there to be comfortable...they are waging war...besides...pretty sure that AF1 will be one of the first aircraft targeted....lot of good all the counter measures will do against a hyper sonic missile..

JohnM · Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:32 pm

MREs DO NOT require refrigeration. If kept cooler (below 60 deg F) they can last close to 10 years. If stored in a hot area (over 90 deg F), they will last several years. They work just fine, keep in mind each one is close to 3,000 calories. We always carried a case of them in our UH-60s in Iraq. The aircraft go so hot that water stored in the helicopter could cook a cup of noodles, but the MREs did fine in those temps. Try not eating for a day or two, and they will look pretty good...

ThePointblank · Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:57 am

JohnM wrote:
MREs DO NOT require refrigeration. If kept cooler (below 60 deg F) they can last close to 10 years. If stored in a hot area (over 90 deg F), they will last several years. They work just fine, keep in mind each one is close to 3,000 calories. We always carried a case of them in our UH-60s in Iraq. The aircraft go so hot that water stored in the helicopter could cook a cup of noodles, but the MREs did fine in those temps. Try not eating for a day or two, and they will look pretty good...

They should be kept cool, per this test:

http://www.dla.mil/TroopSupport/Subsist ... mpmre.aspx

There are a number of items within a MRE that are highly temperature sensitive; the cheese spread and the applesauce are two things of note. Some of the other stuff is shelf-stable at higher temps, but it is not recommended to maintain good quality.

Also, officially, MRE's only offer a 3 - 5 year shelf life on average if properly stored. If heat stressed, that can rapidly drop down to 1 month. Freezing them is also not recommended; it could delaminate the packaging, compromising the quality of the food, if not outright making it unsafe to eat.

bikerthai · Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:45 pm

bhill wrote:
Fine, put them in the unheated cargo spaces....if needed vent the space to keep cold.

The lower lobe of a commercial airline is not un-heated. While not a warm as the main deck, the lower lobe do get circulated air from the main deck and kept at a reasonable temperature for live cargo. The same would be true for the presidential aircraft.

bt

strfyr51 · Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:25 am

JannEejit wrote:
$24 million still seems far fetched to me. Do these refrigerators run 24/7 and are they stocked with meals continuously ? Maybe they need more beef jerky ?

The Refers run from the time Air Force 1 leaves Andrews to until it returns to Andrews.. Those chillers are 2-3 times the size of any airline's B747 chiller.
and Probably 4-5 times the cost. Some things you can't cheap up on. Though they could use the spare chillers from Sand 28000 or 28001 until they can find an acceptable spare.. But?? Why would you "Nickle and Dime" Air Force 1 in the first place?

bikerthai · Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:58 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Those chillers are 2-3 times the size of any airline's B747 chiller.
and Probably 4-5 times the cost.

At the quantity involved <20 vs >2000 you'll be lucky if your unit cost is 10X as opposed to 100X those of a commercial airline chiller.

bt

FrmrKSEngr · Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:16 am

I have tried to source large refrigerators for VIP jets. And by large I am talking a little smaller than 2 galley carts. There are not many out there.

smithbs · Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:04 am

ThePointblank wrote:
JohnM wrote:
MREs DO NOT require refrigeration. If kept cooler (below 60 deg F) they can last close to 10 years. If stored in a hot area (over 90 deg F), they will last several years. They work just fine, keep in mind each one is close to 3,000 calories. We always carried a case of them in our UH-60s in Iraq. The aircraft go so hot that water stored in the helicopter could cook a cup of noodles, but the MREs did fine in those temps. Try not eating for a day or two, and they will look pretty good...

They should be kept cool, per this test:

http://www.dla.mil/TroopSupport/Subsist ... mpmre.aspx

There are a number of items within a MRE that are highly temperature sensitive; the cheese spread and the applesauce are two things of note. Some of the other stuff is shelf-stable at higher temps, but it is not recommended to maintain good quality.

Also, officially, MRE's only offer a 3 - 5 year shelf life on average if properly stored. If heat stressed, that can rapidly drop down to 1 month. Freezing them is also not recommended; it could delaminate the packaging, compromising the quality of the food, if not outright making it unsafe to eat.

Put your military hat on and think like a supply sergeant. In Afghanistan my supply sergeant was offered a few boxes of MREs for our unit and he wouldn't touch them. No, not because it's a bad way to eat, but he didn't have a fridge and didn't want to try to find a fridge. He felt he had to refrigerate them - if they spent an Afghan summer out in a warehouse, they'd probably spoil and he'd be on the hook for it and risk getting a dent in his record.

So yes, you can leave MREs out for a little while, but you'll accelerate the spoilage rate and if your signature was on the bottom of the slip for those, do you want to have to explain to the CO why several thousands of his dollars just got pitched in the trash? So you refrigerate them.

JohnM · Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:15 pm

smithbs wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
JohnM wrote:
MREs DO NOT require refrigeration. If kept cooler (below 60 deg F) they can last close to 10 years. If stored in a hot area (over 90 deg F), they will last several years. They work just fine, keep in mind each one is close to 3,000 calories. We always carried a case of them in our UH-60s in Iraq. The aircraft go so hot that water stored in the helicopter could cook a cup of noodles, but the MREs did fine in those temps. Try not eating for a day or two, and they will look pretty good...

They should be kept cool, per this test:

http://www.dla.mil/TroopSupport/Subsist ... mpmre.aspx

There are a number of items within a MRE that are highly temperature sensitive; the cheese spread and the applesauce are two things of note. Some of the other stuff is shelf-stable at higher temps, but it is not recommended to maintain good quality.

Also, officially, MRE's only offer a 3 - 5 year shelf life on average if properly stored. If heat stressed, that can rapidly drop down to 1 month. Freezing them is also not recommended; it could delaminate the packaging, compromising the quality of the food, if not outright making it unsafe to eat.

Put your military hat on and think like a supply sergeant. In Afghanistan my supply sergeant was offered a few boxes of MREs for our unit and he wouldn't touch them. No, not because it's a bad way to eat, but he didn't have a fridge and didn't want to try to find a fridge. He felt he had to refrigerate them - if they spent an Afghan summer out in a warehouse, they'd probably spoil and he'd be on the hook for it and risk getting a dent in his record.

So yes, you can leave MREs out for a little while, but you'll accelerate the spoilage rate and if your signature was on the bottom of the slip for those, do you want to have to explain to the CO why several thousands of his dollars just got pitched in the trash? So you refrigerate them.

I must admit I'm not a supply guy, but in my 30 year military career, I never saw, nor heard of MREs being refrigerated, plus that is not possible most of the time. Maybe part of the story is that when there is a decent consumption rate, they don't hang around for months/ years to go bad. Also my OIF experience is that was no concern or worry about accounting for or usage of expendable items such as MREs, fuel, and ammo. If you needed any of the above, you just pick up what you needed, no questions asked. For example the peacetime worry about turning brass in is out the window. If some MREs turned nasty, nobody would care, just get more...no worries. My high temp MREs were never a problem.

When C-5s have long or out of the way 3rd world missions, they sometimes carry MREs in the balls hot cargo compartment. This has happened off and on for more than the last 20 years. Believe me, a case or MREs will not fit in a C-5 refrigerator, the "good" stuff goes in the fridge.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net