this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
556 points (99.1% liked)

politics

23497 readers
2911 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Air Force Dumb

Qatar is gifting Trump a $400 million luxury 747 to serve as a temporary Air Force One, but experts warn that retrofitting it to meet presidential security standards could take years, cost hundreds of millions more, and risk national security due to potential embedded surveillance.

The current VC-25s aren't just repainted 747s. They're a pair of flying fortresses that must be capable of allowing the president to run the country, survive wartime conditions (even nuclear), and be totally secure from outside influence or intrusion. While the precise details of the current airframe are a tightly guarded secret, some details are included on government fact sheets or have been revealed in various media reports. For a start, it must have an in-flight refueling capability so the president can go anywhere in the world and stay up as long as needed. Retrofitting this to an existing 747 would be very expensive, as the feds would need to strengthen portions of the hull to handle the refueling system and reconfigure the fuel tanks to handle trim issues.

Then there's the hull, which is known to be armored, and the windows are also thicker than you'd find on a normal flight. The government would also need to build in weapons systems like the chaff rockets used against radar-guided missiles, flares against heat seekers, and AN/ALQ-204 Matador Infrared Countermeasure systems, or similar to try and confuse incoming missiles. Next up, the engines and electrical systems would have to be replaced. The electronics in the current VC-25s are hardened as much as possible against an electromagnetic pulse that would be generated by a nuclear detonation. There are also claims that the aircraft have extra shielding in the engines to help against missile fragments should a physical attack happen.

Next up are communications. Air Force One has air-to-ground, air-to-air, and satellite comms systems that are thought to be the equal of what's in the White House. There are at least two separate internal phone systems - one open and the other highly secure - that would need to be installed and checked as well. Then there are incidentals. Contrary to what films will tell you, there is no escape capsule on the current Air Force One, nor a rear parachute ramp, but there is a medical suite with emergency equipment and space for a physician which would already need to be installed, as well as a secured cargo area designed to prevent tampering or unauthorized access. As for the threat of embedded surveillance devices, Richard Aboulafia, managing director of aircraft consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, said: "You'd have to take it apart piece by piece to stop a professional operator putting in lots of equipment to confuse things, like spare sensors and wiring."

"It wouldn't be in the air before 2030 at the earliest, long after he's left office and probably later than the existing planned replacements," said Aboulafia. "It makes no sense on any level, except that he wants a free 747 for himself. Nothing else makes any sense."

"What's sort of annoying about the whole thing is I'm not sure what's wrong with the current Air Force One," Aboulafia said. "Maybe if they gave it a gold makeover, he'd like it more."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hikuro93@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Not only that - and the fact that it's not a free gift at all, since it'll absolutely come with strings attached and it'll cost millions upon millions of taxpayer money to retrofit Trump's personal Airforce 1 - but Trump also stated:

We give free things out. We'll take one, too

No, Donnie. Not "we". Other administrations, and indirectly taxpayers give "free" things out, and not even then, because even foreign aid is a form of securing power and influence abroad - an investment, to speak in your corporate terms. You do not give anything for free, being the so-called "transactional President" you are so proud to be - there's only grift, free lux planes, free weekly golf trips to Trump courses and tax cuts for your class when you're the one in the Oval Office. Like you love to claim that "We aid Ukraine", when the previous administration was the only one to actually help, while as soon as you took office you started undermining and weakening Ukraine's position in the war.

You mean "The US gives out while I cut all forms of aid and reinforce corruption, but I get to benefit from it more than anyone else." FTFY. Imagine Obama or Biden, who certainly did not grift even nearly at your level, and at least did their jobs even if imperfectly, going "We give things out, so we'll get some as well", as they accepted millions-worthy gifts for their personal use during and after their terms.

Not american, btw, but I know the way I wrote might lead some to that conclusion. Not my intent to lead anyone to wrong assumptions.