VC-25B

[ASCTU744]

Can't wait! Hope they'll stick with the blue livery though

[B767300]

The Bridge aircraft has the other livery..... not terrible imo. Oh and TIL that the real B's won't have AAR, something about it being harder to mod on the -8 compared to the -200's?

[ASCTU744]

😅I'm glad it's just the bridge. Heard they wanted to rely more on the E-4B/C's that will have AAR during defcon 1, scary stuff. I doubt it's actually harder to modify the -8's fuselage, they didn't use carbon like on the 78 right?

[United__744]

I heard the weight wasn't worth how little they actually use it. They decided it was better to get rid of it and simplify things. The -8 already has excellent range.

[ASCTU744]

i heard it was never used in the a's operational lifecycle😅 and if kc135's can takeoff to refuel you, why not just land there. Do you have any idea why the e4c's will have AAR?

[Hardy Heinlin]

I guess, air-to-air refuelling capability has, for this type of aircraft, the purpose to stay at high altitudes for several days or months during a nuclear war.

[ASCTU744]

I guess, air-to-air refuelling capability has, for this type of aircraft, the purpose to stay at high altitudes for several days or months during a nuclear war.

that does sound useful, but again something the vc25b should have aswell, it's the Presidential transport.....

[United__744]

I guess, air-to-air refuelling capability has, for this type of aircraft, the purpose to stay at high altitudes for several days or months during a nuclear war.

The practical limit, like subs, is food and water for the crew [I know nuclear subs make their own drinking water].

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I wonder how much they could actually do to make the jet's systems this resilient. Even if they keep them maintained as if just out of a C-check, running a jet engine for 72 hours seems a stretch in terms of oil capacity etc. It's a commercial engine after all. You can only do so much.

[United__744]

I wonder how much they could actually do to make the jet's systems this resilient. Even if they keep them maintained as if just out of a C-check, running a jet engine for 72 hours seems a stretch in terms of oil capacity etc. It's a commercial engine after all. You can only do so much.

There are easy solutions to those problems. As for reliability, an engine that isn't shutdown is more reliable than one that sees lots of cycles.

[ASCTU744]

I'd say that 48 hrs would be sufficient, the US has 800 bases overseas (so not counting the ones on US territory).