If true, this is really embarrassing. Have security standards really fallen that far, that we can't protect the US president in a more dignified way? That this story is even out there at all is an embarrassing low point for US competence and security. Amidst a ton of other incompetence and general displays of weakness from the US.
The Secret Service has a lot more to be embarrassed about in its recent history than this decoy maneuver, which seems to have been executed fairly well. And I really doubt it was a “cart” - it was probably the room sized catering containers that trucks lift up to the side of the plane.
It was, and the picture even demonstrates the size of these carts. The article even mentions as follows:
"The president reportedly boarded the old Air Force One jumbo jet in view of television cameras, and then was secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane via an airport catering truck typically used to load meals and other supplies preflight, a US official told the Post."
TFA says Clinton did something similar. I'm sure it happens more than we're told. The Secret Service is paid to be paranoid. Decoy flights and vehicles are out of the standard playbook.
The embarrassing thing isn't using an unmarked flight like Clinton did. That's totally normal, and not something I'd find unusual in the least. It's that shuttling around in a catering cart... Why would anybody ever admit it, even if true? Just baffling bad idea to leak that part of a detail.
Airports are an easy target especially with all that jet fuel around the place. If they dont get you on the ground they only have to wait a few moments and they can easy get the plane as it taxis or takes off.
The new technology wars should make it obvious that there is a considerable inbalance between missiles or other projectiles and systems to counter them.
> When asked later by reporters why they had to keep their shades shut during the [decoy] flight, Trump said it was because they were “probably on a dangerous flight”. He went onto say: “But if I go, you go. Right?”
Is that... "go" as in travel, or "go" as in die alongside the Pharaoh in his tomb?
I assume it's "as in travel". Sounds like the usual Trump ego thing. "It's dangerous, but I know you have to follow me because that's your job to report on what I'm doing, so now you're in danger."
So all the news outlets are crowing about the old and the new "Air Force One", but security/aviation wonks all know that "Air Force One" (and "Marine One") is a callsign, not an aircraft designation.
So if the President snuck into a smaller decoy aircraft, what callsign did these planes use? Does "Air Force One" keep up the ruse over the radio as well? If this is the case, and considering how difficult it is to keep secrets secret, then how large of a circle needs to be "read in" about the true situation, in order to protect the right aircraft? What contingencies do they have if one of them is actually attacked... keep up the ruse?
Yes, I admit, we've all seen too many action/adventure films with complex decoy scenarios. It would seem that doing them in real life would just induce headaches.
Also, my father is totally convinced that Qatar loaded-up the new aircraft with bugs and surprises, and they won't in a hundred years sweep them all clean. I feel like maybe Qatar wouldn't be that nakedly stupid. I mean, the Russians were really coy about their gift of The Thing!
Echoes of Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn smuggling himself from Japan in a music equipment box while on bail for financial crimes
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57760993
That must have been a rather large cart.
Why would they admit all this?
Probably because they used a secret third method and don't want anyone to know.
Presidential security is a fascinating topic. See also the presidential motorcade's operating procedures: https://people.howstuffworks.com/presidential-motorcade.htm
If true, this is really embarrassing. Have security standards really fallen that far, that we can't protect the US president in a more dignified way? That this story is even out there at all is an embarrassing low point for US competence and security. Amidst a ton of other incompetence and general displays of weakness from the US.
The Secret Service has a lot more to be embarrassed about in its recent history than this decoy maneuver, which seems to have been executed fairly well. And I really doubt it was a “cart” - it was probably the room sized catering containers that trucks lift up to the side of the plane.
It was, and the picture even demonstrates the size of these carts. The article even mentions as follows:
"The president reportedly boarded the old Air Force One jumbo jet in view of television cameras, and then was secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane via an airport catering truck typically used to load meals and other supplies preflight, a US official told the Post."
Is it, though? It was highly effective with basically zero downsides, and well executed. I’m honestly not sure what the problem is.
TFA says Clinton did something similar. I'm sure it happens more than we're told. The Secret Service is paid to be paranoid. Decoy flights and vehicles are out of the standard playbook.
The embarrassing thing isn't using an unmarked flight like Clinton did. That's totally normal, and not something I'd find unusual in the least. It's that shuttling around in a catering cart... Why would anybody ever admit it, even if true? Just baffling bad idea to leak that part of a detail.
Someone has been watching too many movies.
Airports are an easy target especially with all that jet fuel around the place. If they dont get you on the ground they only have to wait a few moments and they can easy get the plane as it taxis or takes off.
The new technology wars should make it obvious that there is a considerable inbalance between missiles or other projectiles and systems to counter them.
I don’t know what Iran expected for trying to assassinate Trump back in 2024: https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/iran-assassination-pl.... Of all the people who weren’t just going to let that slide. Maybe they thought he wouldn’t win?
Remember this administration never passes up a lie about anything when the truth would do. There is no credibility.
> When asked later by reporters why they had to keep their shades shut during the [decoy] flight, Trump said it was because they were “probably on a dangerous flight”. He went onto say: “But if I go, you go. Right?”
Is that... "go" as in travel, or "go" as in die alongside the Pharaoh in his tomb?
It’s more clearly meant as “die” given the quote used by the NY Times:
> “I’m number one on their list, before you,” he told the reporters. “But if I go, you go. Right?”
DIE is cast.
Let's cross the Rubicon.
I assume it's "as in travel". Sounds like the usual Trump ego thing. "It's dangerous, but I know you have to follow me because that's your job to report on what I'm doing, so now you're in danger."
Was it serving oreja de cerdo?
So all the news outlets are crowing about the old and the new "Air Force One", but security/aviation wonks all know that "Air Force One" (and "Marine One") is a callsign, not an aircraft designation.
So if the President snuck into a smaller decoy aircraft, what callsign did these planes use? Does "Air Force One" keep up the ruse over the radio as well? If this is the case, and considering how difficult it is to keep secrets secret, then how large of a circle needs to be "read in" about the true situation, in order to protect the right aircraft? What contingencies do they have if one of them is actually attacked... keep up the ruse?
Yes, I admit, we've all seen too many action/adventure films with complex decoy scenarios. It would seem that doing them in real life would just induce headaches.
Also, my father is totally convinced that Qatar loaded-up the new aircraft with bugs and surprises, and they won't in a hundred years sweep them all clean. I feel like maybe Qatar wouldn't be that nakedly stupid. I mean, the Russians were really coy about their gift of The Thing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)