Talk:Boeing E-4/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing nuclear survival info

Quick note, this page has been repeatedly edited by someone appaerently from Offutt AFB, removing information about nuclear survival capabilities. --Ikarus 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Second most expensive?

The VC-25A seems to be more expensive (by about a hundred million dollars) than this E-4. Albeit they are of similar class... ....And the F-22 Raptor.

I've removed the entire statement as it's no longer factually accurate. Sperril 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Please note that this is neither an introduction nor a sentence:

The Boeing E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post, with a project name of "Nightwatch".

Would somebody please give this article a real introduction? Thanks. --Voidxor 03:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Fanra 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Mystery Plane

So I just watched this video from CNN, complete with film of an unidentified jumbo jet over the white house on 9/11. CNN identifies it as an E-4. Now I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories here, epsecially theories I don't believe, but it does seem to imply that an E-4 is now stationed on alert at Andrews again. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.7.78 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Owing to the fact that a very reputable news organization has done a report on this, I think it's perfectly justified to include it in this article (with the report cited, of course) so I have done so per WP:BOLD. As an aside, CNN's report makes some pretty convincing findings that it was an E-4, though it doesn't mean any sort of conspiracy. All it means is that, probably for good reason, the E-4 was scrambled when the reports of the first attacks were received. But all this is speculation and not for the article, of course. 68.146.41.232 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I checked out the CNN report. They don't say that the aircraft was definately an E-4, just that it bore striking resemblence to one. There is no proof that an E-4 was flying around the White House on 9/11. Recommend rewording this blub to state something to the effect of "Speculation exists that the "9/11 Mystery Plane" was a military E-4."76.113.112.59 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nightwatch

I've restored an earlier paragraph describing the origin of the aircraft's name. I do think it's necessairy to have something in the article explaining this, as the name is not typical of a U.S. military aircraft. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it is not referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to note the name is reminiscent of the painting (though probably not relevant here at all); it's quite another to claim the arcraft was named for the painting, and by a certain USAF officer. Such claims need to be sourced to be in the article per WP policies, which is why it was removed in the first place. Remember, the threshold in Wikipedia is Verifiablity, not truth. One may know for a fact that something is absolutely true, but personal knowledge is not verifiable by others. The normal time to allow a fact tag is one to two weeks, after which the entry is subject to removal. - BillCJ (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at this, as I've always thought the name to be "common knowledge". It's certainly called "Nightwatch" in all the reference books I have, though no one has yet written a book specifically about the aircraft. I've read about the source of the name on two occassions in "Air Force" magazine, once when an airman wrote in asking about it, and another time when discussing the aircraft's history, though I don't currently have those volume and issue numbers handy. The first squadron commander apparently even displayed a print of the painting in his office during his time at Offutt. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not common knowledge to most people though. Nobody said it is wrong, just that it needs a reference. This should not be hard to do. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Fnl. A lot of AF and AFA Magazine content in online, as are other sources, so it should not be too hard to track down a solid reference or two. - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can not find any official sources online that has Nightwatch as the popular name for the aircraft, the official air force data sheet makes no mention of the name. The more common name associated with the aircraft in a few sources is the E-4B NAOC (for National Airborne Operations Center). Some hobbist websites (not reliable for wiki) indicate that Nightwatch is the radio callsign for the NAOC and that Nightwatch 01 is the airborne or on watch E-4B. As it appears to be related to the mission and not the aircraft perhaps we should remove it from the infobox at least. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

An article "Doomsday 747s: The National Airborne Operations Center" in December's Air International on the E4 does briefly mention the "Nightwatch" name: "...the definative E-4Bs. also known as Nightwatch." Hope this helps.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FAA regulations for aircraft priority state "Expedite movement of NIGHT WATCH aircraft when NAOC (pronounced NA-YOCK) is indicated in the remarks section of the flight plan or in air/ground communications. NOTE-The term "NAOC" will not be a part of the call sign but may be used when the aircraft is airborne to indicate a request for special handling. REFERENCE-FAAO JO 7610.4, Para 12-1-1, Applications." See also chapter 12, section 1 of FAA Order 7610.4K, Special Military Operations Miken32 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I spent 11 years as a crew member on the E 4B, and the truth is the program name was Nightwatch, not the aircraft. While we commonly referred to it as Nightwatch, the aircraft name is officially the E4B AABNCP (Advanced Airborne Command Post). The story about the painting is true, and it still hangs in the south end of the main hallway in the 1ACCS building. While the mission is now called NAOC, it started out as NEACP (National Emergency Airborne Command Post. It was sometimes called the Doomsday Machine, but that nickname was never officially endorsed. (Mike Whittaker, USAF Ret)173.57.29.218 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Eyepatch

I read somewhere that the pilot of this aircraft (or it may have been Looking Glass) would always wear an eyepatch, so that if there were a surprise nuclear airburst in front of him at some point, he would not be blinded and incapacitated; he could just take off the eyepatch and keep flying with one good eye. If anyone can find a reliable source for this, it would make a good flavorful piece of data for the article. Tempshill (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Eye patches were used by nuclear bomber crews, to protect their eyes from flash-blindness. However, most aircraft have blackout curtains that are pulled shut to protect the crew. Flying is then done by instrument and radar, since you can no longer see where your going. They were never used by the E4 crews, and the E4 never carried weapons, offensive or defensive... except for small arms carried by the security crew complement. (Mike Whittaker, USAF RET)173.57.29.218 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle staff numbers: 5+5+2=15?

One section of this article lists members of the battle staff as follows:

"The battle staff comprises force status controllers (3), emergency action controllers, operations controller, communications controller, intelligence planners (4), operations planners (4), logistic planners (4), chief of battle staff, airborne launch system officers (2), weather officer, reconnaissance planner, damage assessment officer and administrators (2), a total of 26; and communications operators (5), radio maintenance men (5) and switchboard operators (2), a total of 15."

Are there other unknown crew members missing from the list, or is this simply a matter of poor addition on the part of the author? --M. Schneider [Schneider anc] (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The USAF fact sheet lists "Up to 112 (flight crew and mission crew)". Anyway I tried to shorten that to a general description type list. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fact or Fiction: Another thought to consider for the article

The article says this plane was designed to remain airborne for at least a week. Maybe someone knows of, or can find any published sources that mention any research and development into a more advanced emergency-command craft: An airplane that would have ability, while in flight, to launch itself into space, and maintain orbit around the planet? That would be far more efficient, and possibly safer than trying to stay re-fueled and out of the path of enemy ordnance. marc s. dania fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is for improvements to the article per WP:Talk page guidelines. Your post seems to be more of a hypothetical discussion for a forum site. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What part of "Maybe someone knows of, or can find published sources that mention... ...." did you not understand? Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw that. Is that really related to the E-4 and this article? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

you "saw that." But what part of it did you not understand? Marc S. Dania Fl206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii

Why does it apply to Hawaii? does it also apply to Alaska? are there any cultural or political reasons for that? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, since the cited source says nothing specific about this practice. Alaska is in North America, however, while Hawaii is alone in the middle of the Pacific, so that might be part of the reason, assuming the info is even correct. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

On a subsonic jet, Hawaii is ~5 hours, minimum, from the nearest points in the continental US. Deploying the E-4B to Hilo puts it ~45 minutes from Honolulu. In the event that Air Force One were ever compromised while parked in Honolulu, that's a big difference. I've added another reference about the E-4B being in Hilo - don't know whether this will placate those who feel there should be a more detailed explanation of highly sensitive military/presidential security practices... ;) Dan (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Decks

Mainly for my own curiosity I wanted to find out where the information on the decks came from. The material about what equipment is on what deck was added in bulk by an IP anon in March 2006.[1] Is this a copy paste from a book or something? Is it even true? --Dual Freq (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure; I guessed the text originally came from an older USAF fact sheet or similar web page. The deck descriptions seem overly detailed to me. They probably should be shortened or summarized. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mishaps

I also found numerous UPI articles telling about a bird strike incident in which one of the E-4Bs lost two engines. I didn't put it in mainly because it didn't result in a hull loss, but a dual engine loss on a 747 must be a fairly rare occurrence and I see some hull losses in the 747 list that happened after losing two engines. Maybe it's notable, if someone thought it was worth adding, the link is listed above. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I also found several class A mishaps in the 2000s. May 2002 HF antenna failure, $5.1 mil damage, Feb 2004 engine failure, $3.4 mill damage, Summary - May 2010 tail striking runway on landing, $3.1 mil damage (Full narrative). --Dual Freq (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disputing Cost of Flight

In the Design section, the following line is used:

The E-4 is the most expensive aircraft in the Air Force inventory to operate, even more than the B-2 stealth bomber, costing $155,000 per flight hour.[12]

Although I am not disputing the cost per flight hour, the line stating that "The E-4 is the most expensive aircraft in the Air Force inventory to operate..." is shown to be incorrect. According to documents from the Department of The Air Force Headquarters Air Mobility Command, Air Force One has an associated cost of $228,288.00 per flight hour. The document in question was a response to a FOIA request from Judicial Watch and is available here.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the page to list the E-4 as "one of the most expensive..."?

Meurode (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really notable so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)