# Is Air Force One literally an Air Force plane? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 7, 2016, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112 "2016-12-07T15:01:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/21 "2016-12-07T20:53:15Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There must have been a change in plan but I’ve never heard anything about it. As I understood it, the present 747-200Bs were to be replaced by 747-8s and they were supposed to go into service in 2017. Now it sounds like some entirely new plan is under development, perhaps still based on a 747-8, but not scheduled for service as you say until much later. Anyone have the scoop on this? Incorrect. The order for the 747-800 commercial aircraft from Boeing for the two VC-25A replacements will be placed in 2017. It then takes a couple years for the commercial aircraft to deliver to the Air Force, at which point they will enter the modification process. R&D on the modifications is scheduled to begin roughly a year from now. IOC is in the 2024 timeframe. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/22 "2016-12-07T21:01:39Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Interestingly, [there has been a Coast Guard Two, but never (yet) a Coast Guard One.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Guard_One) Still time for Obama to do another presidential first! > [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > …Previous Air Force One aircraft have been donated to museums, but the VC-25s are damn big planes. Have any museums expressed interest in receiving them? Yup - Wright-Patterson AFB’s National Museum of the Air Force (I’ve been there, and it’s awesome): [Museum leaders want to snare latest Air Force One for collection](http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/museum-leaders-want-snare-latest-air-force-one-for-collection/CS5P1kf7SidPh0fOGdOYhN/) > [@Ravenman](#): > > Incorrect. The order for the 747-800 commercial aircraft from Boeing for the two VC-25A replacements will be placed in 2017. It then takes a couple years for the commercial aircraft to deliver to the Air Force, at which point they will enter the modification process. R&D on the modifications is scheduled to begin roughly a year from now. IOC is in the 2024 timeframe. The President-elect may have other plans: [Trump wants to cancel Air Force One order from Boeing](http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/06/news/companies/trump-air-force-one-boeing/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/23 "2016-12-07T21:06:12Z")
Interesting, so the jets are delivered to the USAF \*before \*being modified. I would have thought the VC-25s would have fully undergone everything they needed to undergo - paint, modifications, EMP hardening, everything - before being delivered. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/24 "2016-12-07T21:10:53Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Interesting, so the jets are delivered to the USAF \*before \*being modified. I would have thought the VC-25s would have fully undergone everything they needed to undergo - paint, modifications, EMP hardening, everything - before being delivered. Most, if not almost all the extra modifications involve classified materials/equipment/construction. I doubt your average Boeing factory worker would qualify for the security clearance or know how to do the modifications. ETA: there’s also the problem of security in the Boeing plant. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/25 "2016-12-07T21:14:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Ravenman** : > > The United States Munitions List pertains to transfer of sensitive articles to other countries, not ownership by American persons or businesses. For example, if you invent a new form of encryption, or a new crew-served weapon, or various other technologies, you are not prohibited by the USML from possessing it. You are prohibited from transferring such things to foreign persons without permission. On the other hand, the law uses a broad enough definition of “transferring to other countries” that installing it on an airliner (owned by a company that employ some foreign-national pilots) might qualify. I know that when I was in grad school, some of the labs worked with “munitions”, and therefore not only weren’t allowed to employ any of our foreign grad students, but were required to have the windows on the doors papered over so none of them could even look in. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/26 "2016-12-07T21:27:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On the other hand, the law uses a broad enough definition of “transferring to other countries” that installing it on an airliner (owned by a company that employ some foreign-national pilots) might qualify. That wasn’t specified in the post I responded to, and I don’t even think it was implied. The other poster used the phrase “no civilian airliner” could carry such equipment. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/27 "2016-12-07T21:51:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The United States Munitions List pertains to transfer of sensitive articles to other countries, not ownership by American persons or businesses. For example, if you invent a new form of encryption, or a new crew-served weapon, or various other technologies, you are not prohibited by the USML from possessing it. You are prohibited from transferring such things to foreign persons without permission. This is (or was) true for the narrow case of encryption algorithms – I’m not sure if any are still under that ban. But it would surely not be true for physical secure communications equipment whose actual design was classified, nor for a lot of other equipment that may be aboard AF1 that we know nothing about, like supposed missile evasion and radar jamming tech that is also likely to be classified. You don’t get to buy classified technology just because you’re a US citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/28 "2016-12-07T22:01:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > This is (or was) true for the narrow case of encryption algorithms – I’m not sure if any are still under that ban. But it would surely not be true for physical secure communications equipment whose actual design was classified, nor for a lot of other equipment that may be aboard AF1 that we know nothing about, like supposed missile evasion and radar jamming tech that is also likely to be classified. You don’t get to buy classified technology just because you’re a US citizen. Being unable to purchase something is not the same as being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for installing something on an airplane. Had the other poster written, “You can’t buy these radios as an average citizen,” of course that is correct. But such a person isn’t going to be arrested for espionage if they somehow come across a particular radio in a legal manner, but attempts to install it on an airplane. That isn’t how the Espionage Act works. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/29 "2016-12-07T22:25:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Being unable to purchase something is not the same as being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for installing something on an airplane. Had the other poster written, “You can’t buy these radios as an average citizen,” of course that is correct. But such a person isn’t going to be arrested for espionage if they somehow come across a particular radio in a legal manner, but attempts to install it on an airplane. That isn’t how the Espionage Act works. Eh? You would surely be arrested for the unlawful possession of classified engineering documents describing the above-mentioned type of equipment. Yet you’re saying you could legally possess the actual equipment itself? I really doubt that. You’re positing someone “coming across” this sort of equipment “in a legal manner”, but that’s an impossible situation since anyone offering to make it available would be guilty of espionage. It’s a bit of a semantic quibble, like saying that something would be perfectly legal if only some major part of it wasn’t illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/30 "2016-12-08T00:19:04Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Eh? You would surely be arrested for the unlawful possession of classified engineering documents describing the above-mentioned type of equipment. Which law prohibits that? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/31 "2016-12-08T01:06:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Which law prohibits that? Perhaps the one under which Hillary Clinton’s email server became such a big deal. There appear to be several. There is USC § 798 _Disclosure of classified information_ which includes the prohibition “or uses [classified information] in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States” of which the straightforward interpretation would seem to include keeping such information or equipment in other than approved secure sites. There is also this: _USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information_ Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. > **[18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793)** ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/32 "2016-12-08T01:22:41Z")
When’s the last time a President flew commercial? Or rich-guy’s personal airplane? > [@wolfpup](#): > > Probably the most impressive museum-ization is the entirety of the 707 that served as AF1 for Reagan in the [Reagan Presidential Library](https://www.reaganfoundation.org/plan-an-event/locations/air-force-one-pavilion/). Apparently it’s also a commercial venue that can be rented for private events. A Presidential debate for Republicans would be great there. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/33 "2016-12-08T01:32:57Z")
Visited one of the early-generation JFK-era planes at Boeing’s museum in Seattle. Interesting to see the 1960s tech and accommodation standards. > [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > Probably the most impressive museum-ization is the entirety of the 707 that served as AF1 for Reagan in the [Reagan Presidential Library](https://www.reaganfoundation.org/plan-an-event/locations/air-force-one-pavilion/). Apparently it’s also a commercial venue that can be rented for private events. > > A Presidential debate for Republicans would be great there. [Well, yeah, except for that it was… \*\*\*this \*\*\*bunch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XRxChPrsw). It sure made for a grand opening shot, though. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/34 "2016-12-08T01:42:09Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > **When’s the last time a President flew commercial?** Or rich-guy’s personal airplane? > > A Presidential debate for Republicans would be great there. Nixon flew commercial right after the 55 speed limit went into effect to symbolically do his part for conservation by not using AF1. Rather wasted since AF1 then flew from DC to California to pick him up for the flight home. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/35 "2016-12-08T02:17:43Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > If the President hops on a private Lear Jet, is that flight now an Air Force flight instead of a civilian flight with the call-sign “Air Force One”? > [@running\_coach](#): > > Any airplane will use the call sign “Air Force One” when the President is aboard. > Exception: If, for some reason, the President is on a commercial flight, the call sign is “Executive One”. Any civilian airplane with the PotUS on board is “Executive One”, it doesn’t have to be commercial. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/36 "2016-12-08T04:09:35Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Visited one of the early-generation JFK-era planes at Boeing’s museum in Seattle. Interesting to see the 1960s tech and accommodation standards. > [Well, yeah, except for that it was… \*\*\*this \*\*\*bunch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XRxChPrsw). It sure made for a grand opening shot, though. I’m not even going to bother reporting this as a stupid political jab, because it was decidely stupid snark. ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/37 "2016-12-08T04:58:27Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > When’s the last time a President flew commercial? Or rich-guy’s personal airplane? Will he get to fly “Trump Force One” in the next four/eight years? What will he do with his 757? Sell it? Park it? Turn it over to the kids? [Comparision](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/10/so-which-is-nicer-donald-trumps-plane-or-air-force-one/) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/38 "2016-12-08T13:59:26Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There appear to be several. There is USC § 798 _Disclosure of classified information_ … > > There is also this: > [INDENT]\*USC § 793 … Thanks. Let’s review: someone claims that installing sensitive equipment on an airliner is illegal under espionage and arms control laws. I respond that arms control laws are about transfers of technology and items to foreign people. I also add that there doesn’t seem to be any prohibition on installing equipment if it can be legally obtained. I also point out that using such equipment could be a problem (due to unauthorized people using military communications). Despite all of that, I’ve clearly said that if one could legally obtain the equipment, the Espionage Act doesn’t say anything about installing it on civilian airplanes or whatnot. What you’ve quoted is exactly my point. The hurdle to clear is that obtaining sensitive equipment in a legal manner is a difficult proposition. But if in some universe, the equipment is legally obtained, the Espionage Act does not say anything substantive about POSSESSING classified information, or anything about civilian aircraft or whatnot. To repeat for clarity: I’ve said again and again that the original claim that installing a particular radio on a civilian airliner is not espionage despite the original claim. If your point is that _obtaining_ a piece of sensitive communications gear could risk espionage charges, I totally and 100% agree, as I have said before in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/39 "2016-12-08T14:21:16Z")
> [@Spiderman](#): > > Will he get to fly “Trump Force One” in the next four/eight years? > What will he do with his 757? Sell it? Park it? Turn it over to the kids? > > [Comparision](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/10/so-which-is-nicer-donald-trumps-plane-or-air-force-one/) Turn it over to the kids for four to eight years, I suspect. The Secret Service and Pentagon will probably insist he travel on Air Force One to be better-protected and more reliably-connected with the military in any crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112/40 "2016-12-08T15:19:42Z")
He’s the commander-in-chief. They can’t make him do it, though they can make him pay for modifications to the 757. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-air-force-one-literally-an-air-force-plane/774112.md?page=3)