I have a couple of curiosities:
is that an aircraft based in Europe or was it flown in from the US?,
did previous Presidents (I think Bush and Clinton) travel the same way?
would it be possible for the POTUS to get a "ride'' with a foreign air force or would that be against security and/protocol?
Sorry if these are stupid questions but I am sure many of you can illuminate me
Ciao

Both VH-60’s Whitehawks were flown in by USAF C-17’s. Yesterday they were picked up again at Zürich Airport by two C-17’s.

I think there’s no law which forbids POTUS to fly with another air force, but why bother if you have your own cool gadgets? By the way, SECSTATE this year and last year the VP did fly aboard another air force, a chopper of the Swiss AF.

Cheers!

exaz wrote:

I have a couple of curiosities:
is that an aircraft based in Europe or was it flown in from the US?,
did previous Presidents (I think Bush and Clinton) travel the same way?
would it be possible for the POTUS to get a "ride'' with a foreign air force or would that be against security and/protocol?
Sorry if these are stupid questions but I am sure many of you can illuminate me
Ciao

Can't say if it would be against any security protocol, but this is the standard way to travel for the President of the United States and not some Trumpish spleen of grandeur. Obama did the same and so have all other (recent) Presidents.

You have to remember that all the presidential transportation modes, including Air Force One and that outlandishly oversized motorcade he rides in, are not just there for convenience and as security measures, but also to project America's status as the most powerful nation on the planet. They are a tool of intimidation and their aim is to make their prime passenger authoritative and majestic.

aviationaware wrote:

They are a tool of intimidation and their aim is to make their prime passenger authoritative and majestic.

Funny how different cultures view things differently.

In the Netherlands we like things more subdued. A limo, maybe one or two support SUVs and a few motorcycles to split traffic are all that’s needed to show authority. The longer the convoy, the more insecure they appear. And if I am not mistaken, this same point of view is held in most of northwest Europe.

Absolutely silly Secret Service nonsense.

GF

Nixon flew commercially at least once while in office. While president, Reagan flew on a British Air Force plane in Europe during a visit. Carter has flown commercially since leaving office.

You guys can complain when you put a man on the moon.

exaz wrote:

I have a couple of curiosities:
is that an aircraft based in Europe or was it flown in from the US?,
did previous Presidents (I think Bush and Clinton) travel the same way?
would it be possible for the POTUS to get a "ride'' with a foreign air force or would that be against security and/protocol?
Sorry if these are stupid questions but I am sure many of you can illuminate me
Ciao

That is the standard procedure, I believe there are 27?? white tops in total to be ready at multiple destinations if required.

Looks like Swiss airforce helis ferried quite a few other dignitaries as that area was buried in snow.

petertenthije wrote:

Funny how different cultures view things differently.

In the Netherlands we like things more subdued. A limo, maybe one or two support SUVs and a few motorcycles to split traffic are all that’s needed to show authority. The longer the convoy, the more insecure they appear. And if I am not mistaken, this same point of view is held in most of northwest Europe.

True, both there is probably a bigger threat to the US president. He is probably a target for more terrorists than most national leaders.

(That being said, I must admit I loved the picture of Mr. Rutte locking his bike before a meeting with the King!)

Florianopolis wrote:

You guys can complain when you put a man on the moon.

Could you do it today ?

Aside from that, you can spend your taxes however you wish !

CCGPV wrote:

Nixon flew commercially at least once while in office.

In a 11 years old thread, viewtopic.php?t=458565 :

"It was a United DC-10, IAD-LAX. It was right after the national speed limit was lowered to 55MPH, so he asked the pilot to fly more slowly than normal, which ended up using more fuel, since it took it longer to fly across the country. In the end, Air Force One was flown empty out to California to pick him up to return to Washington, wasting even more fuel."




David

POTUS needs some very special comms all the time. So it might come in handy to use his own hardware to travel. Another Blackhawk or two are no intimidation or sign of brute force to anybody else for sure.

Florianopolis wrote:

You guys can complain when you put a man on the moon.

Managed by some Germans.

We'd applaud when you put another guy on the moon. no return required.

Bostrom wrote:

(That being said, I must admit I loved the picture of Mr. Rutte locking his bike before a meeting with the King!)

Haha, indeed.



It backs the question, why lock it, when there are two military police standing nearby, chances of it being stolen should be minimal.

Florianopolis wrote:

You guys can complain when you put a man on the moon.

You guys can complain when you invent your own language

I mean, come'on what are you are trying to prove, highly unlikely that you had anything to do with that in person, so you take credit for something you didn't do?

Dutchy wrote:

chances of it being stolen should be minimal.

In Rutte’s defence, the royal family has a lot of German ancestry.

petertenthije wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

chances of it being stolen should be minimal.

In Rutte’s defence, the royal family has a lot of German ancestry.

Touchee

(although a bit of an inside joke there)

WIederling wrote:

Florianopolis wrote:

You guys can complain when you put a man on the moon.

Managed by some Germans.

Indeed. Another one of those historical facts that seems to have conveniantly been lost in US history lessons ....

Mortyman wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Florianopolis wrote:

You guys can complain when you put a man on the moon.

Managed by some Germans.

Indeed. Another one of those historical facts that seems to have conveniantly been lost in US history lessons ....

That's true. They were all Nazis after all. It must have been the guilt and shame they felt working for the Germans that made them come to them. I bet they felt lucky enough not to be imprisoned for helping them develop weapons that killed many people.

Thankfully the Americans used their know-how for good instead of the way the Germans's did by, you know, slave labor and what not. But for some reason its the Americans as usual who are being denigrated.

CCGPV wrote:

Thankfully the Americans used their know-how for good instead of the way the Germans's did by, you know, slave labor and what not. But for some reason its the Americans as usual who are being denigrated.

The US would have employed Hitler himself if he had competence beyond locally available resources. Not well known : the US continued human experimenting done in KZs after the war. so you are neither on high nor on dry ground:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... eal-wounds
for more illegal interventions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_i ... ted_States

CCGPV wrote:

Thankfully the Americans used their know-how for good instead of the way the Germans's did.....

That's rich. Time for a proper history lesson methinks.

Wikipedia wrote:

Operation Paperclip recruited German engineers and Special Mission V-2 transported the captured V-2 parts to the United States.
This led to an eclectic array of experiments that flew on V-2s and paved the way for American manned space exploration
{so far, so good...but let's dig a little deeper}
The PGM-11 Redstone was the first large American ballistic missile. It was the first missile to carry a live nuclear warhead,
Redstone was a direct descendant of the German V-2 rocket, developed by a team of predominantly German rocket engineers brought to the United States after World War II as part of Operation Paperclip.

Is that "using German know-how for good"?

Of course we should have seen it coming.
Here's another chapter that modern history books conveniently forget;

Wikipedia wrote:

The United States reverse-engineered the V-1 in 1944 from salvaged parts recovered in England during June. By 8 September, the first of thirteen complete prototype Republic-Ford JB-2 Loons, was assembled at Republic Aviation. The United States JB-2 was different from the German V-1 in only the smallest of dimensions.
An envisioned 75,000 JB-2s were planned for production,

Just for comparison, the dastardly Germans, using this weapon in all it's evilness, only managed 12,000 launches.
What were the Americans going to do with their "peaceful" 75,000? Send food aid parcels and bibles?



I strongly suspect that if Germany had won the war, it would have been a German astronaut planting a swastika on the moon in 1969. And today instead of you, it would be them claiming the moral high ground and making bogus claims that ultimately their research was for peaceful purposes.

Guys, guys. Calm down. The moon landing was all faked anyway.

Tacitly defending Nazis... I guess you got me this time.

exaz wrote:

I have a couple of curiosities:
is that an aircraft based in Europe or was it flown in from the US?,
did previous Presidents (I think Bush and Clinton) travel the same way?
would it be possible for the POTUS to get a "ride'' with a foreign air force or would that be against security and/protocol?
Sorry if these are stupid questions but I am sure many of you can illuminate me
Ciao

When Clinton visited Denmark, then three Marine Ones were flown in a couple of days in advance on three C-5 Galaxy. Together with a lot of people and some cars, at least the big limousine and a big van with black windows and 36 inch wheel rims, which we called the war wagon. The three Marine Ones were used for his transport from CPH airport to the lawn in front of the Queen's summer cottage 25 miles out in the countryside, where the Queen was greeting him welcome. Those three choppers approached the summer cottage from three different angles roughly 120 degrees apart. Nobody knew on which Marine One Clinton was flying until one of them landed at the red carpet, while the other two landed fifty yards away.

He also used both VC-25As, so in total eight aircraft, 2 VC-25A, 3 C-5, and 3 choppers. He was one of the heavier backpacker tourists we had that year.

Another story (personally witnessed) how it is sometimes done differently in Switzerland:
Exactly one week ago I entered a commuter train in Zurich. Once in the coach the entrance area was crowded and many people were standing around as they usually do when driving just a station or two. So a woman had to make way for me to pass. That woman was a Swiss Bundesrat (Switzerland does not have a president, but 7 Bundesräte). In the media later I found the event, where she attended that morning. She took the train just to hop to the next station...

rheinwaldner wrote:

Another story (personally witnessed) how it is sometimes done differently in Switzerland:

That's so very true. Here, our then-time foreign minister, waiting for a train in Newcastle... er, Neuchâtel: https://f2.blick.ch/img/incoming/origs3 ... -um-09.jpg


David

prebennorholm wrote:

exaz wrote:

I have a couple of curiosities:
is that an aircraft based in Europe or was it flown in from the US?,
did previous Presidents (I think Bush and Clinton) travel the same way?
would it be possible for the POTUS to get a "ride'' with a foreign air force or would that be against security and/protocol?
Sorry if these are stupid questions but I am sure many of you can illuminate me
Ciao

When Clinton visited Denmark, then three Marine Ones were flown in a couple of days in advance on three C-5 Galaxy. Together with a lot of people and some cars, at least the big limousine and a big van with black windows and 36 inch wheel rims, which we called the war wagon. The three Marine Ones were used for his transport from CPH airport to the lawn in front of the Queen's summer cottage 25 miles out in the countryside, where the Queen was greeting him welcome. Those three choppers approached the summer cottage from three different angles roughly 120 degrees apart. Nobody knew on which Marine One Clinton was flying until one of them landed at the red carpet, while the other two landed fifty yards away.

He also used both VC-25As, so in total eight aircraft, 2 VC-25A, 3 C-5, and 3 choppers. He was one of the heavier backpacker tourists we had that year.

That’s nothing! You should have seen the Clinton India and Australia trips. India had a “sideshow” lift of ten C-5 missions just to move the HH-53s helos from the UK in case he had a medical emergency beyond the reach of the Marines helos. Australia had a deployed squadron of tankers to position the equipment non-stop.

GF

I remember way back in June 2002 when at the time we had the G-8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta. This was the first major summit after 9-11 and needless say the area around the summit site was turned into an armed camp and the airspace around YYC becoming a no fly zone. The closest airport which was YYC was 116 km away from the summit site and most leaders flew in by helicopter. Most came in by CH-146 Griffon supplied by the RCAF with the odd leader arriving by ground (Putin). The CH-146 is in no way a VIP aircraft. When POTUS arrived they brought with them a couple of C-5s containing 3 CH-53s and 3 VH-60s. When Bush departed for the summit site it was quite the sight. 3 VH-60s followed by another 3 CH-53s and 6-9 Ch-146 Griffons all playing the shell game constantly switching places in the formation .

Dutchy wrote:

How many times has a Dutch Prime Minister been attacked or killed while in office?

Moose135 wrote:

How many times has a Dutch Prime Minister been attacked or killed while in office?

Pre-cisely!
It just goes to prove what we are all saying; if you go to work on a bicycle, you are far less likely to get assassinated.

I just knew y'all would come around to sensible way of seeing things, eventually.

And who is this innocent little old lady, boarding the 10:54 from Kings Lynn to London-Kings Cross (or KGX in a.net speak)



Beneath that cunning disguise... it's H.M. Queen Elizabeth II, waving her OAP Rail Pass.

Of course, just out of shot, you can be certain there is a major security detail shadowing her every move.
Except when Tom needs a toilet break and Dick is left holding the fort all by himself.

And you can bet they made sure the train was thoroughly swept before "Q" got anywhere near it. Swept for empty coffee cups, and the occasional spliff end.....


Hurry up everyone, get those mops moving, Queenie's on her way!

Florianopolis wrote:
You guys can complain when you put a man on the moon.

Could you do it today ?

Ah, the anti-American sarcasm, alive and well on A-net.

Actually, we're pretty doggone close. Orion will conduct a lunar flight in a year or so, either manned or unmanned. The main sticking point is the enlarged lander and the accompanying goodies that go along with it. Elon Musk and Jess Bezos have both made rumblings about sending out a free return shot within a year, as well, and since they partner with NASA it would be fair to call those potential missions NASA missions as least in part. My money would be on Musk, as he's been far more verbal about it, but that's just my view.

Anyway, plan on NASA launching Orion on a 21-22 day probably unmanned lunar orbital mission in late 2019, if the schedule holds up. Plan on a lunar landing mission some time after that, assuming the enlarged lander remains on schedule. Personally, I'd rather see an uprated Saturn V with improved F1s than SLS, but that's me, stuck nostalgically in the past. Heck, let's build Nova like we should have all along. The Saturn V damaged buildings miles away with its rumbling. I can't even imagine what Nova would have done.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Orion

Orion is a crew capsule that sits on an ESA ATV "chassis".

Um, yeah, you're referring to the ESA/ESM module that's behind schedule and struggling with meeting its goals, right? The ESM is the problem child and what's slowing the project down. Orion is on schedule, SLS is fine, but its the European Space Agency's ESM (European Space Module) that is currently behind schedule.

Some background. What became the ESM (essentially the modern equivalent of Apollo's service module) was originally to have been an all-US made construct, and indeed the original design work was all US-done by Lockkeed-Martin. However, in order to spread costs the ESM was "farmed out" to the ESA. I don't mean to make that sound demeaning to the ESA or our European partners since they are valuable and experienced friends and colleagues, but it is basically the truth; it was an economic decision, not necessarily a practical one since the ESA has experienced a number of troubles with the design. It is behind schedule in a number of areas, including mating and integration. This has been a bit problematic for NASA as a huge amount of the design work was already done in the USA and one would think that the ESA wouldn't be experiencing these issues.

In sum, the ESA as originally designed and planned was an all-US design. Lockheed-Martin was all good to go. Cost savings suggested the ESA route.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Um, yeah, you're referring to the ESA/ESM module that's behind schedule and struggling with meeting its goals, right? The ESM is the problem child and what's slowing the project down. Orion is on schedule, SLS is fine, but its the European Space Agency's ESM (European Space Module) that is currently behind schedule.

Some background. What became the ESM (essentially the modern equivalent of Apollo's service module) was originally to have been an all-US made construct, and indeed the original design work was all US-done by Lockkeed-Martin. However, in order to spread costs the ESM was "farmed out" to the ESA. I don't mean to make that sound demeaning to the ESA or our European partners since they are valuable and experienced friends and colleagues, but it is basically the truth; it was an economic decision, not necessarily a practical one since the ESA has experienced a number of troubles with the design. It is behind schedule in a number of areas, including mating and integration. This has been a bit problematic for NASA as a huge amount of the design work was already done in the USA and one would think that the ESA wouldn't be experiencing these issues.

In sum, the ESA as originally designed and planned was an all-US design. Lockheed-Martin was all good to go. Cost savings suggested the ESA route.

sure, ESA lagging while NASA twiddles the goal posts:
Dettman said another issue forcing the delay resulted from a reassessment by NASA of the stresses the service module needs to be capable of handling in orbit. These “in-orbit load” specifications have recently been tightened. But any design modifications will not affect the service module’s core structure, he said.
ref: http://spacenews.com/europes-orion-serv ... ee-months/
I still remember waiting for NASA getting the 747SP into shape for SOFIA.

I still remember waiting for NASA getting the 747SP into shape for SOFIA

It is. Its been flying as the SOFIA lab for quite awhile now, and is currently undergoing a check in Germany to keep it flying for a long time to come.

Aptivaboy wrote:

I still remember waiting for NASA getting the 747SP into shape for SOFIA

It is. Its been flying as the SOFIA lab for quite awhile now, and is currently undergoing a check in Germany to keep it flying for a long time to come.

1997 to 2007 : 10 years of fail, stop and go on NASA's side. I am well aware of where the checks are done and what issues they had to fix.

Yes, there were cost issues that caused the SOFIA program to be palced under review. However, it wasn’t all NASA’s fault. Several contractors went out of business, slowing the program. UAL had agreed to support the plane, but then backed out (the bird is an ex-UAL plane). All of this and other issues slowed the program. I once knew someone who worked on the NASA DC-8 (I think he still does, but don’t quite me on that as we haven’t spoken in awhile) and he was clear that while NASA had mismanaged some aspects of the SOFIA program, it was also a victim of a perfect storm of many things going wrong all around the same time. He loved talking about that ‘ol DC-8 and the other NASA birds oftentimes came up.

Anyway, we’re getting a bit far afield from the original purpose of the thread. Have a great evening.