[1Old Pro]

Why does AF-1 have to be a heavy jet, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a small fast jet that can accommodate perhaps 2 dozen people and the rest can be spread out using hi tech coms?

[SkyDancer]

I don’t think that speed is best, staying power as in time aloft would be more advantages. IMHO

[glorgau]

Yep, shouldn’t AF1 be supersonic? Time is money.

[BwanaNdege]

“Why does AF-1 have to be a heavy jet, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a small fast jet that can accommodate perhaps 2 dozen people and the rest can be spread out using hi tech coms?”

Everything big enough to carry two dozen people is subsonic, like the 747 which cruises about 0.85 Mach. The Gulfstream G650 cruises about 0.92 Mach. The newest Boeing, the 787, also cruises about 0.85 Mach

Endurance, room for lots of support personnel, comm gear and ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) gear make the 747 a good platform.

[Salgak]

The sheer amount of comms equipment that follows the President everywhere precludes a small jet. Both on space required AND power needed.

Now, mind you, you could use a SMALLER jet, get rid of the press seating, etc.

[mountn man]

There are many reasons to have a 747 or similar.

Image is one of them.

The plane represents the United States.

No other head of state plane is a striking.

Konrad Adenauer-Germany A340

Air India One-India 747-400

France A330

Japan 747-400

Russia Ilyushin Il-96-300PU

Argentina 757-200
Azerbaijan 767-300
Bangladesh 777-300
Bahrain 747-400
Egypt A340-200
Iran A340-300
Iraq 767-200Jordan A340-600
Kuwait A340-500
Libya A340-200
Mexico 787-8

Point being, In a world where image is important, Having a plane like a 747 is important.