Air Force Family Care Plan: Fill & Download for Free

Why is the US replacing their fleet Air Force One planes with 747s instead of more efficient 777s or 787s?Well, the first and most important point is that “efficient” wasn’t one of the criteria used to select the new presidential aircraft.As a minor aside, there is no such thing as a plane called “Air Force One.” Air Force One is the designation for any USAF aircraft carrying the president. If the President gets into a C-130, that C-130 is now “Air Force One.”Air Force One - Wikipedia.However, we all know that you are talking about these fellas:That there is a VC-25A, a converted 747 normally used to transport the president. One of only two in Air Force service.The new aircraft will be based on the 747–8 and will be known as a VC-25B. This makes sense since the 747–8 is simply the new version of the 747–200 which the VC-25A was based on.Now, as to other choices.The 787 would never be chosen because it’s simply too small. Much smaller than a 747. Remember that the president travels with an army. A larger aircraft is going to support that mission better than a smaller aircraft like the 787. The 777 would be a possibility if the 747–8 didn’t exist, but again it’s smaller than the 747. If the USAF cared about fuel consumption, the 777 would be a very likely choice. However, the USAF isn’t really concerned about that.Remember that the primary presidential transport used to be the 707 based VC-137C:The famous “SAM 2700”. This served presidents until 2001.And of course, the USAF operates other VIP aircraft, like the C-32A:Better known as the 757, this aircraft is commonly used to transport the Vice President and his family. This aircraft has also served as Air Force One when the President needs to fly into airports too small for the VC-25A.Getting back to the question…Fundamentally, the 777 would be an upgrade from the 707 shown above, but a major downgrade from the 747 based aircraft used today. It’s smaller than the 747 and is a single deck aircraft. Because the president normally travels on a 747, the USAF is used to this platform and it will be relatively easy to upgrade to a new 747 rather than changing platforms to a 777 derivative. While the planned VC-25B purchase is insanely expensive ($3.9B), it’s probably similar to or less than buying a new 777 and converting it to presidential duty.Notice something about the 707 and the 747? Yes, they are both four-engined aircraft. This has a major redundancy advantage. For an airline, economy is the most important thing and thus, two engine aircraft are becoming the mainstay of civil aviation. For the USAF, when flying the president, the only thing that matters is getting the president to their destination safely. Even if it’s more expensive, they’ll happily fly a four-engine aircraft for that extra margin of safety.As an interesting aside, the 747–8 is actually a bit larger than the 747–200. This means that the VC-25B will be significantly larger than the VC-25A:Notice especially that the upper deck has been significantly lengthened again. In the 100 it was actually pretty short and it got longer in the 300 and 400 variants. Now in the -8, it’s longer again. This will give a huge bump in interior space. Notice the -400 in United livery. I used to fly United from SFO to LHR on 747–400’s about once a month. A great ride upstairs. Also, note the very short SP variant that was the long haul champ before the 777. But, I digress.Where were we? Oh yes, decision criteria for a USAF presidential transport.Finally, the aircraft MUST be made in the USA. This is a political thing. The president can’t be seen in a “foreign” aircraft.So, why did the USAF buy a 747–8 to fly the president?It was an obvious choice. They just bought the shiny new model of the plane they already had.It has four engines. Safer than two, even if it’s not as economical.It’s big. Bigger than the 777 (a little) or the 787 (a ton), even bigger than the current VC-25A.It’s American. Probably the biggest reason, TBH.To be fair, the -8 is a great aircraft. It’s basically a supersized 787, using the same engines as the 787 and many of the avionics developed for that aircraft. In reality, the 747–8 was built as a hedge against the A-380. Once that aircraft failed, the 747–8 didn’t have a reason to exist as a passenger aircraft. It looks like Boeing will sell enough freighter variants to pay for the development (which was WAY cheaper than the A-380) but in the end, the 747–8 will not be an airplane you will see very often down at the airport. No major carriers will operate them and you may never get to fly on one unless you’re a guest of the President.Oh, BTW. In case you wondered how the USAF managed to get their hands on two passenger variant 787–8’s, which are relatively rare aircraft (most -8’s are freighters), the answer is, we got them from a failed Russian airline! Yes, the USAF bought a used 747 to fly the President on, they were stored in the Mojave desert before they were chosen to replace the VC-25A.New Air Force One Boeing 747s Come From Bankrupt Russian Airline Transaero - Simple Flying.

I retired last year at age 66. I have a few aches and pains; but, fortunately, I am very healthy. I spent the last quarter century of my working career planning for my retirement. Due to my careful planning, my retirement income is about 150% of the median US Family income. That doesn’t even include the $62,000 in annual dividend income that my investment portfolio earns.I made sacrifices to contribute the maximum amount to my Roth IRA every year for twenty-five years, and make the maximum annual contribution to my TSP every year (TSP is the equivalent of a 401(k) plan for federal employees). I joined an investment club and taught myself how to invest. When I retired from the US Air Force in 2007, I rolled my TSP into a Rollover IRA. With prudent investing, the $104,000 that I rolled over from my TSP in 2007 is now worth more than triple that amount.My good health I can attribute to good genes and good luck. As far as my retirement income and investment assets, there was no luck involved. I made sacrifices during my working career to build up my investment portfolio and learned from my mistakes (and I made plenty of investment mistakes).I’m sharing this not to brag, but to share my message to those who are still working. Start planning for your retirement NOW. Start saving for retirement NOW. Start investing NOW. If you are depending on Social Security as your retirement plan, expect your Golden Years to be living from Social Security check to Social Security check and having to decide if you can pay for your medication or buy groceries at the end of the month. It doesn’t have to be this way!

This is a picture of me at work:As you may have noticed, I am astride an F-16. This is my favorite airplane, and has been since I was old enough to have a favorite airplane. I go into the reasons here Rick Scheff's answer to What are current-day fighter pilots’ preference, the F/A-18, F-16 or F-15? How do the F-22 and F-35 factor in? if you’re interested.The Air Force has a few hundred F-16s. The other branches combined have exactly 0. That aside, and knowing what I know now, I would still join the Air Force no matter the job for a host of reasons.First of all, the uniforms are better. I wear ostensibly pajamas to work. They have pockets everywhere, they’re super comfortable, they’re fireproof, they aren’t too hot, and they’re basically the pinnacle of functional style. Invariably other answers from the Navy and Marines will trot out something about girls responding to their uniforms, but a stylish nomex onesie trumps a suffocating dress uniform of any type any day in both comfort and sex appeal.Since a vastly higher proportion of airmen wear flight suits when compared with the other branches, that’s a plus.Secondly, the culture is superior. When people get too serious they sometimes have to be reminded that this is the Air Force, not the military. I have a strict no shaving on Friday policy. It gets me a jump on that nice, refined, weekend stubble. No one has ever commented on that policy. The one time I was on an Army base (for my little brother’s basic training graduation) on a Friday I got several comments. I’m not sure if people thought they were clever, or it was just a brainwashed response, but it isn’t clever. No one cares.Army pilots wear rank on their nametags. When I was at the graduation ceremony, sitting at the back with my family, one of the drill sergeants came up to me, looked at my nametag (no rank), couldn’t figure out what I was, and decided that the answer was to say, basically verbatim, “I don’t know who you are or what you think you’re doing but you’re required to sit up front with other active duty military.” I calmly informed her that I was an Air Force officer and I’d sit wherever the hell I wanted. She apologized, called me sir, and left.There are so many things wrong with that interaction. Had this been the Air Force, the home station airman would never have taken that tone, especially not knowing the rank of the person. He or she would have said “Hey dude, if you want to sit up front that’s cool, otherwise feel free to hang out here, thanks for coming” which is much more appropriate. He or she also probably wouldn’t have called me sir, which is correct.Thirdly, the bases are superior. My grandfather is a retired Army full bird colonel. He is very upfront about the fact that he always tried to do schools or other temporary assignments at Air Force bases because “the clubs are nicer, the golf courses are nicer, the housing is nicer, and the dorms are nicer.” Maybe you like crappy things just for the sake of saying you did something crappy, but I don’t. If I can choose between a nice officers club and a shitty one I’ll take the nice one.Fourthly, we do the coolest jobs. The USAF is primarily responsible for cyber warfare, which is one of, if not the most important domain for future wars. We (for now) are primarily responsible for satellites and space. We have these guys United States Air Force Pararescue - Wikipedia who are quite literally the guys that special forces from other branches call when they get in trouble.Lastly, the Air Force is truly the pinnacle of power projection. We control 2/3 of the nuclear deterrence plan (bombers/ICBMs). We have B-2s that could take off in an hour, employ nuclear ordinance, and come back tonight. We could literally erase a small enough country from the map before any other branch could even get everyone together to start planning a ground operation.On that topic, if the United States wants to put boots on the ground somewhere remote and by the coast they have two choices. Take boats (slow) or take airplanes. If the location is inland there’s only one. When vehicles and soldiers under parachutes land in the middle of a war the USAF brought them. You can watch a video like:and get lost in how badass paratroopers are (and they’re definitely badass) but without the USAF flying 4xC-17 representing 800,000 pounds of payload, flying 500 mph, and capable of reaching anywhere in the world non-stop that video would look a lot different.Like Winston Churchill said: Air superiority is the ultimate expression of military power. The Air Force brings you that, in the sexiest uniforms, with the chillist culture, at the nicest bases, and by doing the coolest jobs.That’s why I joined the USAF.Oh, and for this: