Project ‘Interim Command Post’: An Investigation into the Risks and Viability of Retrofitting a Foreign-Origin Boeing 747-8i for Presidential Transport

Executive Summary

This report investigates the Trump administration’s project to retrofit a gifted Qatari Boeing 747-8i. Our analysis concludes that this initiative creates an unacceptable level of danger for the President of the United States. It represents a grave departure from established national security protocols.

Foundational Security Flaw

The project’s core flaw is the aircraft’s foreign provenance. The airframe has operated outside of U.S. control for years, breaking the chain of custody. This makes it irretrievably compromised from a security standpoint.

The potential for deeply embedded, undetectable surveillance or sabotage hardware is significant. Any post-acquisition inspection process is insufficient to mitigate this risk. Therefore, a complete security certification is a logical impossibility.

Insurmountable Technical Gaps

The technical gap between the gifted VIP transport and a functional Air Force One is vast. A true presidential aircraft is a hardened military command center. The required modifications are not simple upgrades; they constitute a fundamental re-engineering of the aircraft.

These modifications include:

Aerial refueling capabilities
Defensive countermeasures
Secure, hardened communications
Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) hardening

Retrofitting these systems into a completed composite airframe is a task of extreme complexity. It carries a high probability of failure or a significant compromise in capability.

A Fictional Financial Narrative

The administration’s public narrative of a “free” or low-cost solution is a demonstrable fiction. The official cost estimate of “less than $400 million”¹ is contradicted by multiple data points. The official VC-25B program costs multi-billions,² and the prime contractor, Boeing, has a consistent pattern of massive cost overruns on similar fixed-price defense contracts.³

The low estimate appears to be a political tool. It seems designed to circumvent congressional oversight and appropriate funding. This masks a true taxpayer liability that will likely exceed $1 billion.¹

Conclusion and Recommendation

This project is driven by political expediency. It dangerously subverts the rigorous, security-first principles that govern the acquisition of critical national security assets. The likely outcome would be a “Presidential Transport” in name only. It would provide the illusion of security while lacking the core survivability features essential for its mission.

This aircraft is a Trojan Horse, not of foreign design, but of the administration’s own making. It would place the Commander-in-Chief in profound and avoidable danger.

This report recommends the immediate and permanent cessation of the project. We also recommend a full congressional inquiry into its authorization.

I. A Strategic Gift: The Political and Geopolitical Context

Is it a gift horse or a Trojan Horse?

The 2025 transfer of a Qatari Boeing 747-8i to the United States was presented as a cost-saving solution for the aging Air Force One fleet. However, this arrangement masks a cascade of unprecedented security, technical, and financial risks.

This report investigates the project’s viability. We conclude that the decision to circumvent the established Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program has set the stage for high-risk compromises. These compromises threaten the very mission the aircraft is intended to serve. Understanding the project’s political and geopolitical context is essential to appreciating its inherent failures.

A. The Political Rationale and Public Narrative

The administration’s primary public justification for accepting the aircraft was a response to delays in the official VC-25B program.⁴ The VC-25B program, designed to build two new Air Force One aircraft, faced significant schedule slips. Originally slated for a 2024 delivery, its completion was pushed to as late as 2029.⁴

This delay was a source of public frustration for President Donald Trump.⁴ The Qatari offer was therefore portrayed as a pragmatic and “fiscally smart” solution to this capability gap.⁵

President Trump personally championed the deal. He framed it as a “gesture of good faith” from a key ally and a victory for American taxpayers.⁶ On his social media platform, he presented the aircraft as a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE.”⁷ He compared its significance to the historical gift of the Statue of Liberty from France.⁸ This narrative aimed to preempt criticism and build public support for an unconventional acquisition process.⁷

The Pentagon formally accepted the aircraft in May 2025.⁹ Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed the acceptance and directed the Air Force to begin planning modifications.¹⁰ An Air Force spokesperson later clarified the aircraft’s intended role was for “Executive Airlift support.”⁹ This carefully chosen phrase avoided the official “presidential transport” designation while leaving its ultimate mission ambiguous.¹⁰

B. The Geopolitical Dimension: A Gift Between “Strategic Allies”

The aircraft transfer cannot be divorced from the deep strategic alliance between the United States and Qatar. The U.S. designates Qatar as a major non-NATO ally.¹¹ Qatar plays a pivotal role in American military posture in the Middle East, most notably by hosting the Al-Udeid Air Base.¹²

The two nations share extensive economic links. The U.S. is Qatar’s largest source of imports and foreign direct investment.¹² This relationship is heavily weighted toward defense and aerospace. In the years preceding the gift, Qatar committed to purchasing tens of billions of dollars worth of American military hardware and commercial aircraft.¹¹

The “gift” of a Boeing 747-8, valued at approximately $400 million, must be viewed within this broader context.¹³ The specific airframe was a direct symbol of the Qatari state, previously operated by the Qatar Amiri Flight.¹⁰

The timing was also significant. It followed a 2019 meeting where Qatar pledged to expand its economic partnership with the U.S. It also followed a September 2025 executive order in which President Trump committed to the defense of Qatar.¹¹ This sequence suggests the aircraft was not an unsolicited act of generosity but a sophisticated element of statecraft.

By providing a high-value asset that addressed a stated frustration of the U.S. President, Qatar reinforced its status as an indispensable partner. This action serves as a powerful instrument of diplomatic influence.

C. Controversy and Unprecedented Legal Challenges

The announcement of the gift immediately ignited bipartisan criticism. It also raised profound legal and ethical questions.⁷

The central issue was the U.S. Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause. This clause explicitly forbids any person holding an “Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting any “present…of any kind whatever, from any…foreign State” without the consent of Congress.⁷, ¹⁴

“It’s not just bribery – it’s premium foreign influence with extra legroom.”

— Senator Chuck Schumer ⁷

Prominent critics swiftly condemned the arrangement as a blatant violation of this constitutional principle.⁷ The concern was that such a valuable gift could create a sense of obligation, consciously or unconsciously influencing presidential decision-making.

The Trump administration’s legal defense centered on a narrow interpretation.¹⁰ Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington reportedly argued the gift was permissible because the aircraft was transferred to the Department of Defense, not to Donald Trump as an individual.¹⁰

However, this justification was directly contradicted by the administration’s own plan. The plan was to ultimately transfer the modified aircraft to the private Trump Presidential Library Foundation after his term.¹⁰, ⁹ This planned disposition transforms the asset from a state-to-state transfer into a transaction that confers a significant personal benefit to the President.

This legal maneuvering represents a deliberate attempt to subvert the Emoluments Clause. The administration’s subsequent refusal to release the legal memorandum justifying the decision, despite FOIA requests, further suggests the reasoning cannot withstand public or judicial scrutiny.¹⁰

II. Airframe Security Risks: A Broken Chain of Custody

This web of political convenience is built upon a fatally flawed foundation: an aircraft whose physical integrity can never be guaranteed.

The project’s most fundamental risk is its compromised provenance. This risk is likely insurmountable. For an asset as critical as presidential transport, security cannot be an afterthought. It must be an intrinsic, verifiable property of the system from its inception.

The aircraft’s foreign origin creates a foundational security gap. No amount of post-acquisition inspection or retrofitting can definitively close this gap. From a national security perspective, the airframe must be considered permanently and irredeemably tainted.

A. The ‘Trojan Horse’ Threat Vector

The core security problem lies in the aircraft’s broken chain of custody.¹⁵

The official VC-25B program acquires new aircraft directly from Boeing. They are maintained under a strict U.S. government security umbrella from the start.¹⁷ In contrast, the Qatari jet has a long and opaque history. It was operated for years by the Qatar Amiri Flight and later by a private entity.¹⁰ During this time, the U.S. had no control or oversight of personnel with physical access to the aircraft.

This unverifiable history opens a severe threat vector. Security experts warn that this lack of control creates the potential for clandestine installation of malicious hardware.¹⁵

Such hardware could include:

Sophisticated, miniaturized listening devices or GPS trackers.¹⁵
Remotely triggered sabotage mechanisms intended for assassination.¹⁵

An adversary could have easily placed a small explosive charge on a critical wiring harness, a flight control cable, or a hydraulic line.¹⁵ The possibility that a hostile actor infiltrated the maintenance crews at any point is a risk that cannot be dismissed.¹⁵ The aircraft must be treated as a potential Trojan Horse.

B. The Impossible Task of Deconstruction

To mitigate these threats, the only viable course of action would be a complete forensic deconstruction of the airframe. This task is both monumentally complex and ultimately insufficient.

Experts state the aircraft would need to be “torn down to the studs” and “turned inside out” for a microscopic inspection.¹⁸ A Boeing 747 is a labyrinth of complex systems. It contains between 150 and 238 miles of wiring and thousands of structural components where a device could be concealed.¹⁶, ¹⁹

This inspection process would take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, erasing any notional savings from the “gift”.¹⁶

Even with such an exhaustive effort, there is no guarantee of success. The central challenge is accounting for “unknown unknowns.” A sophisticated state-level adversary would employ bespoke hardware designed to be undetectable. U.S. security teams would be forced to search for threats they cannot define.

A 100% clearance certification is a logical impossibility. Any declaration that the aircraft is “secure” would be a dangerous leap of faith.

C. An Unbridgeable Gulf in Provenance

The established protocol for acquiring a presidential aircraft is built on maintaining a guaranteed, unbroken, U.S.-controlled chain of custody.¹⁵, ¹⁷ This preventative approach ensures the integrity of the airframe from the very beginning. Security is built in, not bolted on.

The Qatari jet project represents a complete inversion of this principle. It begins with a compromised airframe and attempts to reverse-engineer security into it. This flawed approach creates an unbridgeable gulf in the level of security assurance that can be achieved.

By proceeding, the administration is redefining “security” for presidential transport. It is a decision to abandon a standard of guaranteed integrity in favor of a far weaker standard of best-effort inspection. This represents a dangerous degradation of a critical national security protocol.

III. Technical Chasm: From VIP Jet to Flying Command Center

Beyond the insurmountable security risks, the project faces an equally daunting technical challenge. The task of transforming a civilian luxury transport into a hardened, survivable, mobile military command post is monumental.

The technical gap between the delivered aircraft and the requirements for Air Force One is immense. A system-by-system analysis reveals profound retrofitting challenges. Some are so complex that they may be practically impossible to execute on a completed airframe without compromising structural integrity or mission capability.

A. Mission-Critical Systems Deficiencies

The existing Air Force One (VC-25A) is not merely an airliner. It is the world’s most sophisticated flying command center, designed to ensure the continuity of government during extreme national crises.⁹ The Qatari 747-8i lacks every one of the specialized military systems that define this mission.⁹

To highlight this vast technical chasm, the following table compares the capabilities of presidential aircraft against the unmodified civilian airframe.

Table 1: Presidential Aircraft Capability Comparison

Feature	Current AF1 (VC-25A)	Planned AF1 (VC-25B)	Unmodified Qatari 747-8i
In-flight Refueling	Equipped; provides virtually unlimited range ¹⁹, ²⁰	Initially cut for cost, but standard on VC-25A ²⁰	Not Equipped; must land to refuel ⁹
Defensive Systems	Full suite: Missile Warning, IR Countermeasures, Chaff/Flares ⁹, ¹⁹	Full Suite (Assumed per mission requirements)	None ⁹
EMP Hardening	Heavily shielded wiring and systems to survive nuclear blast effects ⁹, ¹⁹	Full Hardening (Assumed per mission requirements)	None; vulnerable to EMP ⁹
Secure Communications	State-of-the-art, multi-band, encrypted C2 suite (87 phones, SATCOM, data links) ⁹, ³²	Advanced C2 Suite (Assumed per mission requirements)	Standard civilian avionics and passenger In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) ⁹
Medical Facility	Full medical suite with operating table and pharmacy ⁹, ¹⁹	Full Suite (Assumed per mission requirements)	Basic first-aid kits only ⁹
Galleys/Endurance	Two galleys can serve 100 hot meals at once; self-sufficient food supply ¹⁹	Similar Capability (Assumed per mission requirements)	Standard airline galleys sized for passenger load ⁹

B. Retrofitting Challenges and Practical Impossibilities

1. Aerial Refueling

The ability to refuel in mid-air is a cornerstone of the Air Force One mission. It provides the “unlimited range” necessary to keep the President airborne and safe during a prolonged crisis.⁹, ²⁰

Implementing this capability on a transport-category aircraft is a major structural and systems engineering challenge.²¹ The modification would require extensive reinforcement of the forward fuselage. New, redundant fuel lines would need to be routed through the crowded airframe. The entire system would then require a rigorous and lengthy certification process.²¹

Executing such a major structural modification on a completed fuselage is vastly more complex than engineering it into the design from the outset.

2. Defensive Countermeasures

A presidential aircraft must have a comprehensive suite of defensive systems to protect it from missile attacks. This includes missile-warning sensors, infrared (IR) countermeasures, and chaff and flare dispensers.⁹, ¹⁹

Installing such a system is not a simple bolt-on procedure. It requires cutting into the airframe to mount sensors and dispensers. Furthermore, these systems are classified military hardware, regulated under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).²² Their installation requires a complex and time-consuming approval process and can cost millions of dollars.²², ²³

Without these systems, the aircraft would be a defenseless target.

3. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Hardening

The most critical and technically daunting modification is hardening the aircraft against an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A high-altitude EMP (HEMP) from a nuclear detonation can induce catastrophic surges in electronic systems, rendering a modern aircraft uncontrollable.²⁴, ²⁵

Proper hardening is a multi-layered, system-wide endeavor that must be designed into the aircraft from its core.

The process involves three main components:

Shielding: The entire fuselage must be turned into a Faraday cage—an enclosure that blocks electromagnetic fields.²⁴, ²⁶
Filtering: All conductive lines penetrating the shield must be fitted with specialized filters and surge protectors.²⁴, ²⁷
Isolation: Conductive copper wiring is replaced with fiber optic cables, which are immune to electromagnetic interference.²⁸ The current VC-25A contains approximately 238 miles of heavily shielded wiring for this purpose.¹⁹

This process is made exponentially more difficult by the Boeing 747-8’s construction, which uses a significant amount of composite materials.²⁹, ³⁰ Unlike aluminum, composites are largely transparent to electromagnetic radiation. To achieve a shielding effect, a conductive layer must be embedded into the composite structure during manufacturing.³¹, ²⁹

Retroactively adding this level of integrated shielding to a completed airframe is considered practically impossible. Failure to properly harden the aircraft would leave it completely vulnerable in the very nuclear crisis scenario that Air Force One is designed to survive.

4. Secure Command and Control (C2) Suite

The heart of Air Force One is its function as a mobile National Command Authority. This requires a state-of-the-art, fully integrated command and control suite. The system allows the President to receive real-time intelligence, communicate securely with military commanders, and direct the U.S. government from anywhere in the world.³², ³³

Installing this complex web of systems into the Qatari jet would be a wiring nightmare. It would involve routing hundreds of miles of new, heavily shielded cable throughout an existing, crowded airframe.¹⁹, ¹⁶ The sheer scale of this task is vastly more invasive and prone to error than wiring an empty fuselage during the initial build process.

The immense political pressure to meet an accelerated February 2026 delivery date creates a powerful incentive to cut corners.⁹, ³⁴ The likely result would not be a fully capable Air Force One, but a compromised “Presidential Transport” that lacks true survivability.

IV. Fiscal Reality: Deconstructing the Cost-Saving Narrative

The project’s immense technical challenges are compounded by a financial narrative that appears to be a deliberate fiction.

The administration’s central argument for the Qatari jet project is that it represents a prudent, cost-saving measure. This claim collapses under scrutiny. An analysis of conflicting cost estimates, official budgets, and the contractor’s performance history reveals the financial narrative is demonstrably false.

The sub-$400 million cost projection is not a credible estimate. It is a political fabrication designed to bypass congressional oversight and mislead the public about the project’s true cost.

A. Anatomy of Conflicting Estimates

A stark conflict exists between the cost figures from the administration and those from independent experts.

In a June 2025 hearing, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink stated the retrofit cost would be “probably less than $400 million”.¹ This figure was immediately challenged. In the same hearing, Representative Joe Courtney countered that the true cost was likely to be “$1 billion or more”.¹ This higher figure is echoed by a consensus of defense experts and former officials.¹⁵, ³⁵

Secretary Meink’s justification for the lower estimate is fundamentally misleading. He claimed ancillary costs were already budgeted in the broader VC-25B program.¹ This argument deliberately ignores the largest cost drivers: the massive engineering, labor, and material costs for the complete teardown, inspection, and re-engineering of a foreign-origin airframe.

B. The VC-25B Program as a Cost Baseline

The most reliable benchmark for the true cost is the official Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program itself.

According to the Department of Defense’s December 2022 report, the total acquisition cost for two new VC-25B aircraft is $5.2 billion.³⁶ This averages to $2.6 billion per aircraft.

This official budget exposes the absurdity of the administration’s sub-$400 million claim. It is not credible to assert that the far more complex task of retrofitting a single, used, foreign-origin aircraft could be accomplished for less than 15% of the cost of building a new one under controlled conditions.

C. Boeing’s Systemic Failures on Fixed-Price Modification Programs

The credibility of the low estimate is further eroded by the performance history of The Boeing Company. Boeing’s defense division has sustained billions of dollars in losses due to its systemic inability to control costs on major, fixed-price modification programs.

This pattern of failure is the single best predictor of the likely financial outcome of the Qatari jet project.

Table 2: Boeing Fixed-Price Defense Program Performance (Selected Large-Scale Modifications/Developments)

Program	Original Contract Value (Approx.)	Cumulative Losses/Cost Overruns (Paid by Boeing)	Key Issues Cited
KC-46A Pegasus Tanker	$4.9B Development Contract ⁴²	Over $7 billion ⁴¹, ⁴²	Systemic wiring problems, fuel system failures, supply chain costs ³, ⁴²
VC-25B Air Force One	$3.9B Contract ³⁸	Over $1.1 billion (and rising) ³, ³⁸	Higher supplier costs, changing technical requirements, schedule delays ³, ³⁸
T-7A Red Hawk Trainer	Development Contract ³⁸	Over $1 billion ³⁸, ⁴⁰	Testing requirements, hardware qualification issues, supply chain disruptions ³⁸, ⁴⁰
MQ-25 Stingray Drone	$890M Development Contract ³⁹	Over $750 million ³, ³⁹	Additional testing, supplier quality issues, engineering challenges ³⁹

This data reveals a clear pattern. Boeing has repeatedly accepted fixed-price contracts, often with low bids, only to encounter massive technical challenges that lead to billions in losses.³⁸, ³⁹

Boeing’s own CEO has publicly expressed regret over taking the fixed-price deal for the VC-25B, calling it a unique set of risks the company “probably shouldn’t have taken”.³

This history creates a dangerous dynamic for the Qatari jet project. Any fixed-price contract would create a powerful incentive for the contractor to cut corners on quality, security, and capability to stanch the inevitable financial bleeding.

The sub-$400 million figure is therefore best understood as an instrument of potential programmatic fraud. By presenting a deceptively low number, the administration can initiate the project using discretionary funds, thereby avoiding the rigorous scrutiny that a realistic, multi-billion-dollar request would trigger in Congress.¹³, ³⁴

V. Conclusion: A Verdict on Presidential Safety

This deliberate fiscal misrepresentation supports a project that is, at its core, a threat to national security.

The cumulative evidence leads to a clear and unequivocal conclusion. The project to retrofit the gifted Qatari Boeing 747-8i is a dangerously flawed endeavor. It constitutes an unacceptable threat to the safety of the President of the United States.

The project is founded on a compromised asset. It is beset by insurmountable technical hurdles. And it is justified by a fraudulent financial narrative. Driven by political optics, it systematically dismantles the foundational security principles that govern the protection of the nation’s Commander-in-Chief.

A. Synthesis of Unacceptable Risks

The investigation has identified critical failures across every domain of the project.

Security Failure: The aircraft’s foreign provenance and broken chain of custody create a permanent and unmitigable risk of embedded espionage or sabotage hardware.
Technical Failure: The technical modifications required are profoundly complex. The project is unlikely to ever produce an aircraft that meets the minimum survivability standards of the Air Force One mission.
Financial Failure: The administration’s cost-saving narrative is demonstrably false. The true cost will likely exceed $1 billion, and the project’s structure incentivizes the contractor to prioritize cost control over safety.
Schedule Failure: The accelerated timeline is a political goal, not an engineering reality. Meeting it would require waiving the very security and technical requirements that define the presidential transport mission.

B. The Illusion of Speed and Savings

The project offers an illusion of a faster, cheaper alternative to the official VC-25B program. However, this illusion is achieved only by discarding the rigorous, security-focused acquisition protocols that exist for a reason.

By circumventing this process, the administration is not engaging in smart fiscal management. It is engaging in reckless endangerment.

The result would be an aircraft that looks like Air Force One but lacks its soul. It would be a hollow symbol, endangering, not protecting, its primary occupant and the chain of command he represents.

C. Recommendations

Based on the overwhelming evidence of unacceptable risk, this report makes the following urgent recommendations:

Immediate Cessation: The Department of Defense must immediately halt all work related to the modification of the Qatari airframe (registration N7478D). All funding allocated to this project should be frozen.
Congressional Inquiry: The relevant congressional committees must launch a full and immediate investigation into the executive branch’s decision-making process. This inquiry should scrutinize the legal justification for accepting the gift, the formulation of fraudulent cost estimates, and the officials who authorized this high-risk project.
Asset Re-evaluation: The Department of Defense should conduct a formal analysis to determine an appropriate, non-command and control use for the airframe. Options include converting it for standard VIP transport, re-purposing it for cargo, or selling the aircraft on the open market.
Reaffirmation of Protocol: Congress and the Department of Defense should issue a joint policy directive reaffirming the inviolability of the established acquisition process for critical national security assets. This directive should explicitly prohibit the use of gifted, foreign-origin platforms for such missions.

The safety of the President and the stability of the nation’s command structure demand nothing less.

Works Cited

Albon, Courtney. “Air Force pegs cost to modify Qatar-gifted plane at ‘less than $400M’.” Defense News. June 5, 2025.
Rogoway, Tyler. “‘Air Force One’ 747s Now Cost $177k An Hour To Fly.” The War Zone. February 4, 2022.
Gould, Joe. “Boeing CEO regrets Air Force One deal amid big quarterly losses.” Defense News. April 27, 2022.
Losey, Stephen and Noah Robertson. “Pentagon accepts Qatari jet for Air Force One.” Defense News. May 21, 2025.
Miller, Zeke and Will Weissert. “Trump defends the prospect of Qatar gifting him a plane to use as Air Force One.” Orillia News. May 11, 2025.
“WATCH: Asked about Qatar’s gift of luxury 747, Trump says ‘We give free things out, we’ll take one, too’.” PBS News. May 12, 2025.
Yang, Maya. “Trump says planned gift of luxury plane from Qatar is a very ‘transparent’ deal.” The Guardian. May 11, 2025.
Gulka, Matt. “Bipartisan pushback to Trump’s potential Air Force One gift from Qatar.” YouTube. May 14, 2025.
Doran, Michael. “US Air Force Begins Modifying Qatar-Gifted Boeing 747-8 For ‘Executive Airlift’.” Simple Flying. September 16, 2025.
“N7478D.” Wikipedia. Accessed October 17, 2025.
“Qatar–United States relations.” Wikipedia. Accessed October 17, 2025.
U.S. Department of State. “U.S. Relations With Qatar.” January 20, 2021.
Saxena, Akshita. “Trump’s ‘free’ Qatar jet will cost billions and be impossible to finish before 2028, report claims.” The Independent. August 8, 2025.
Stening, Tanner. “In accepting a luxury jet from Qatar, would Trump be violating the emoluments clause?” Northeastern Global News. May 13, 2025.
“What challenges would arise in converting a foreign government’s plane into a presidential aircraft for the U.S. President?” Quora. May 25, 2025.
“What challenges would arise from retrofitting a donor plane to meet the security standards required for Air Force One?” Quora. May 25, 2025.
“VC-25B Presidential Aircraft.” Govtribe. Accessed October 17, 2025.
Finfrock, David. “Corruption and a Security Catastrophe, In Plane Sight.” Doomsday Scenario. May 13, 2025.
“Boeing VC-25.” Wikipedia. Accessed October 17, 2025.
“Technical factors to consider for retrofitting aerial refueling for commericial.” Aviation Stack Exchange. Accessed October 17, 2025.
“Is it possible to retrofit commercial aircraft to receive fuel in the air?” Aviation Stack Exchange. Accessed October 17, 2025.
“Private Jet Defense Systems: Can You Armor a Private Jet?” Stratos Jets. Accessed October 17, 2025.
“Why don’t civilian planes have defensive systems against military weapons?” Quora. Accessed October 17, 2025.
WBDG Staff. “High-Altitude EMP (HEMP) Effects and Protection.” WBDG Whole Building Design Guide. September 21, 2020.
HDIAC Staff. “EMP Hardening of Critical Infrastructure.” Homeland Defense & Security Information Analysis Center. October 29, 2019.
“Faraday cage.” Wikipedia. Accessed October 17, 2025.
CISA. “EMP Protection and Resilience Guidelines for Critical Infrastructure and Equipment.” February 5, 2019.
CISA. “EMP Protection and Resilience Guidelines for Critical Infrastructure and Equipment.” February 5, 2019.
SAE International. “Electromagnetic Protection Hazards on Composite versus Metallic Aircraft.” April 8, 2013.
DTIC. “The Impact of a Composite Fuselage on the Electromagnetic Environment of Avionics.” March 1981.
“EMP/Lightning proofing airplanes.” Reddit, r/aerospace. August 2022.
“7 Jet-Setting Secrets of the US President’s Air Force One.” SPYSCAPE. Accessed October 17, 2025.
“The Ultimate Guide To The Surveillance Aircraft Available To Help Safeguard The Inauguration.” The War Zone. January 15, 2021.
“Questions Over Air Force One Timeline.” AVweb. August 7, 2025.
Marcus, John. “Pentagon asks to move $150m to speed up Air Force One by two years.” Defense One. July 22, 2025.
U.S. Department of Defense. “Selected Acquisition Report (SAR): VC-25B.” December 2022.
U.S. Department of Defense. “Selected Acquisition Report (SAR): VC-25B.” December 2022.
Katz, Justin. “Boeing Has Military Problems, Too.” The Cipher Brief. May 14, 2024.
Hitchens, Theresa. “Boeing defense programs hit with $400M in cost overruns.” Breaking Defense. July 27, 2022.
Montalbano, Vanessa. “Boeing’s fixed-price contracts with the Air Force are still burning cash.” Inside Defense. April 24, 2024.
Hamilton, Scott. “Boeing’s new fighter award moves away from money-losing fixed price contracts.” Leeham News. March 24, 2025.
RAND Corporation. “Lessons from the Past for the Future of the KC-46A.” September 22, 2015.