-
-
Replying to @LokiJulianus
Uh, that's a 747. Looks like it could be an E-4 variant of some sort?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johnben_net @LokiJulianus
100%, that's an E-4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4 pic.twitter.com/H3RwkMqucO
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @LokiJulianus
“Nightwatch”? You mean the “Night Stalkers” (160th SOAR)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johnben_net
No, "Nightwatch" is a nickname for the E-4B mobile command centers: these are basically militarized 747s designed to provide continuity of strategic command during a crisis. All of our four active E-4Bs at the time were airborne prior to the Pentagon getting hit.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @LokiJulianus
Oh, that makes sense. Wasn’t aware of the E-4’s nickname. I’m sure in the event of any national emergency we scramble aircraft like that for continuity of govt., etc..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johnben_net
Ja except that the pilots/crew had no idea that there was an attack until they were already en route to Offutt. Had they been following emergency maneuvers protocol either Cheney or Rumsfeld would have been on that plane.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
The entire point of a mobile command center is that there is someone on-board who is in the chain-of-command, which nationally consists of a very short list of people, which is why these planes often "shadow" the VP or SecDef.
-
-
Replying to @LokiJulianus
So…what does this imply? That they intentionally ditched the VP & crew?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.