The US's Air force ones currently uses Boeing VC-25s. There are many other models and aircraft used before the Vc-25. However, what I find interesting is that all images of Air Force Ones I've found so far do not wear a camouflage. Almost all military aircraft today have some kind of camouflage, so I'm wondering why Air Force Ones don't have one. Given that Air Force Ones carry the president, it is quite perplexing why these aircraft do not conceal themselves from potential enemy interception. They do have antimissile systems though, so it appears to me that they are designed for close quarter encounters and defense. Thus, not prepared to engage in close-quarter encounters as a reason for not having a camouflage is out of the question. Why not try to not be seen in the first place, instead of being seen and defending? So, do Air Force Ones really don't have camouflage, or is it just because my images are incorrect and incomplete? Also, if they really don't wear camouflage, are there any reasons for this? I'll appreciate any help.
-
6$\begingroup$ Military transports don't seem to go in for camouflage much, unless they are in a 'close support' role. Even combat aircraft don't go in for it much unless they too are in a ground-attack role. $\endgroup$– MikeBCommented Sep 5 at 15:50
-
$\begingroup$ @MikeB "Even combat aircraft no longer go in for it much..." It faded out with the emergence of non-visual detection and especially air- and surface- to-air missiles post WWII. But AF1's predecessors have been flying since the 30s, when camouflage was the norm for gun-range combat, and seemingly used more on transports too. While the Boeing 314 was sometimes painted in camouflage, I can't see any evidence that Roosevelt's Dixie Clipper was $\endgroup$– Chris HCommented Sep 6 at 9:32
-
8$\begingroup$ Frame challenge: By not being painted in a camouflage pattern a potential attacker/enemy won't be able to use the "We thought it was a normal military aircraft" excuse. It's like when Biden visited Ukraine, by informing the Russian command in case anything happened the "It was accidental collateral, we had no idea the President was there or we wouldn't have done anything" reasoning won't hold. (Not posting as an answer since it's just speculation on my side) $\endgroup$– John DoeCommented Sep 6 at 14:00
-
$\begingroup$ Normal camouflage colors make the aircraft hard to spot in jungles. How often does AF1 fly into jungles? $\endgroup$– BarmarCommented Sep 6 at 14:38
-
1$\begingroup$ If you're getting close enough to identify Air Force One visually, things have gone very wrong - for both sides, probably. $\endgroup$– user84304Commented Sep 7 at 20:52
7 Answers
They are camouflaged.
They spend most of their time operating from major airports alongside other airliners, so painting them to look unlike an airliner would make them more obvious.
Facetious answer aside, a big part of VC-25s is to project power and be seen, and making the aircraft hard to see would both defeat the purpose and indicate that there was fear of an adversary.
There is also a practical question of what scheme to use. Gray is used for aircraft intended to be hard to spot in flight, but is not particularly great when parked. Green/brown colours are used for aircraft where dispersal on the ground amongst terrain may hinder attack, but hard to see terrain/foliage that would hide a VC-25.
Then we have stealth black, which is not very useful during the day, and other more exotic schemes like pink or dazzle.
For all of these they have a situation where they are effective, and poor to terrible in others. So either a lot of repainting would be required, or accepting that a lot of the time the choice will be wrong. People are quick to make fun of and mock poor camouflage choices, and being mocked is not really the aim with the VC-25.
So a colour scheme that looks impressive, reasonably simple to maintain and not requiring additional certification from Boeing would seem a sensible choice for the VC-25s.
As a practical matter, a VC-25 getting into a close-quarter encounter where visual deception matters has already lost, given they will always be massively bigger than anything approaching them with ill intent. If this style of combat is possible you either want to charter an existing airliner, so you can look exactly like an airliner to visual inspection, or be stealthy on all wavelengths and ditch the 747 airframe, which may become a thing for traveling heads of state as high-tech weapon systems proliferate more.
-
21$\begingroup$ I don't agree that your first two paragraphs are facetious. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 16:15
-
4$\begingroup$ "a big part of VC-25s is to project power and be seen". That's the only phrase needed in the answer. $\endgroup$– RonJohnCommented Sep 5 at 20:16
-
1$\begingroup$ To emphasize the impressive argument, airandspaceforces.com/weapons-platforms/c-37 is for highest ranking generals, and while equipped with IR defense, still has similar colors. Israeli counterpart's Wing of Zion haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-12-14/ty-article-static/… have laser defense & similar colors. China lending a 747 to Kim Jong Un asiatimes.com/2018/06/… also counts as "impressive" factor. $\endgroup$– MartheenCommented Sep 6 at 5:58
Aside from the good answers about projecting power and radar, remember that it's very important to this country and its constitution that the commander-in-chief of the US military, the US President, is a civilian. Even though the president and the Secretary of Defense are in charge of the military it would be horribly inappropriate for them to appear with the troops or anywhere in a military uniform, and it would be inappropriate for their clothing, airplane, limo, hot-air balloon, etc to symbolize membership in the military.
Note that the distinction is not so important for other countries. Here is a picture of SecDef Lloyd Austin with his Chinese Counterpart. Both are retired generals, but Austin is wearing civilian clothing while Wei Fenghe is in military garb. In some places military juntas rule countries and govern in uniform to project power, but I hope that never happens in here in the US.
-
$\begingroup$ Personally I think this is the better answer. I'm also reminded of the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels. Just because an aircraft is military doesn't mean it's meant for combat. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7 at 12:49
-
$\begingroup$ Not sure this is really the reason. There's a difference between wearing uniform yourself and traveling on a "uniformed" vehicle (civilians flying on military aircraft isn't a terribly rare occurrence). Admittedly it's a bit different for the President's personal transport, but I'd it actually made a practical difference to the safety of the President, I'm pretty sure that would override all other concerns. $\endgroup$– user84304Commented Sep 7 at 20:49
-
$\begingroup$ UK bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2gle48845o independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/… is not run by a Juntu. But wearing the uniform of the commander in chief seems to have gone out of fashion after Washington si.edu/object/george-washingtons-uniform%3Anmah_434863 $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8 at 11:18
-
$\begingroup$ @user84304 What other reason could there be? The other answers point out there is no tactical reason for a camo paint job, and certainly if a president wanted the military livery it could be done, so it seems obvious neither the president nor the military wants it, and this is why. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8 at 23:50
-
$\begingroup$ @PeteKirkham Mr Starmer certainly got some blowback for his costume. Also he was not PM at the time. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9 at 0:00
There are a few good answers here but I think there is a simpler one: there is no point in visual camouflage for the VC AF1 or any other aircraft POTUS may be in. There are multiple layers of protection involved including unseen escorts, no-fly zones along the flight path, constant monitoring both locally on AF1 and reconnaissance craft on land/air/sea, and, likely, a few tricks that are highly classified. As a side note, while it is possible that an attacker may attempt to visually identify a target, RADAR is far and away the bigger threat. Even the newest military aircraft are easy to spot from a significant distance visually. The advanced features on these craft make them invisible, or at least much (apparently) smaller, to RADAR and other electronic monitoring devices.
Not a direct answer, but don't forget about the E-4B. The plane most people think of as "Air Force One", while quite capable, is more of a diplomatic transport. In the event of an all-out war, the president could use the E4-B, which has a less conspicuous paint scheme and stronger countermeasures. Of course, it still isn't "camouflaged", but it's also not a stealth plane. Anyone with basic radar or IR could find it easily anyway.
-
3$\begingroup$ Note that the paint scheme is entirely functional. It is called "anti-flash white" and is supposed to reflect as much (infrared) light as possible to prevent the airplane overheating in case a nuclear bomb with its intense infrared thermal radiation explodes in its vicinity. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8 at 8:22
Because of its mission role, AF1 is immune to lawful interception. Camouflage would actually *endanger* the aircraft.
Others have covered the PR reasons and other defensive measures AF1 has at its disposal, so we can take those as read. These are, however, subordinate to an important part of international law: Diplomatic Immunity.
Wherever they go, the President of the United States is a head of state. Everyone in their entourage, their immediate family members, and whatever infrastructure is necessary for the purpose of conveying them is therefore (at least de facto) part of a diplomatic mission.
From the Hague Convention:
An individual is considered a parlementaire who is authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who carries a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler, or drummer, the flag-bearer, and the interpreter who may accompany him.
When traveling abroad, and especially in hostile airspace, the President is acting as a diplomat and is subject to all of the protections attaching thereto - including immunity from interception and an absolute right to not be fired upon. AF1's livery is, therefore, the legal equivalent to the 'white flag of truce.'
Painting the aircraft in camouflage, or in anything other than a glaringly obvious "The President of the United States is on this plane" would actually raise the likelihood that an aircraft performing interception would mis-identify the aircraft as military in nature, and thus a legal target. This would, in turn, endanger the President of the United States - the exact opposite effect camouflage is supposed to have.
This is why a 'white flag' is how you request a ceasefire for parlay - it's highly visible, very unusual on a battlefield, and cannot be mistaken for an attempt to conceal. Trying to hide your 'white flag' so it can't be detected and fired upon by an enemy suggests that you're past the point where diplomacy is considered a realistic possibility... at which point the better protection for POTUS is to not be anywhere that could possibly be attacked like that. At which point, again, no camouflage needed (or, arguably, lack of being there is the supreme measure of avoiding detection - and therefore the very best camouflage).
"Sky is big"
Or, to put another way, the VC-25s are camouflaged when necessary. When then-President George W. Bush visited the troops in Iraq on his, now famous but then top-secret, surprise Thanksgiving trip in 2003, the VC-25A filed a flight plan as a privately chartered Gulfstream V. That's generally enough "camouflage" for an airplane that looks like a civilian airliner.
And that was enough for pretty much the entire world to be convinced that President Bush was still sitting at the dinner table at his ranch. Even most of his own Secret Service detail working at the ranch hadn't noticed that he was gone until they saw it on the news, after he had already left Baghdad again.
Air Force One is the callsign of any USAF aircraft carrying US President. Air Force will eliminate any threat before allowing POTUS to fly in their aircraft. Hence camouflage is not necessary since there is no threat to protect from. You would not like to have POTUS shot down on your watch.
.jpg){kind=link}
-
2$\begingroup$ I'm not sure this tracks given the extensive countermeasures it has on board. simpleflying.com/air-force-one-defense-systems-guide . I'm sure they're not expecting to get shot at but they've clearly prepared to be $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 17:12
-
1$\begingroup$ My understanding is those were in case of some nutcase with a shoulder fire missile hanging around near the airport. $\endgroup$– JoshuaCommented Sep 5 at 17:41
-
3$\begingroup$ While the first sentence is true, I don't think it's relevant in this context. There's a specific aircraft that is designed to be the President's normal transport, and that's what the question is asking about. $\endgroup$– BarmarCommented Sep 6 at 14:36