Talk:Air Force One

Trivia (Moved from Main page)

The dirty Secret Service Agent in this movie is named Gibbs. In the NCIS pilot episode in which they investigate on Air Force One, Mark Harmon's main character (also named Gibbs) makes a couple references to this Harrison Ford movie.

Comment on HK94s

I changed the term 'cheaply converted' to 'converted', since "cheaply" sounded like an insult. And though it was a lot more economical to convert an HK94 at the time, the conversion process costs the same. MPM2008

Oh, I wouldn't want to insult anyone. I only made used that term to express the fact that the guns look like chopped HK94s, instead of MP5A3s (since they lack the proper trigger grip, magazine release, and barrel). It was the best adjective I could think of to describe their appearance. -MT2008

Blu Ray

I've replaced all screencaps with Blu Ray versions (plus some new screencaps I didn't use before). Enjoy.

Also, I know it's not related, but...

Wow, I forgot that Xander Berkeley has such huge hands! -MT2008 02:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at Harrison Ford's face, You'd think HE'S the one holding the Gun

Excellent job with the Blu ray screencaps! --Ben41 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another question...

I'm still trying to figure out what sort of attachment is fitted to the barrel of Gary Oldman's M4 carbine in this movie. Here is the best view of it:

Does anyone know what it is? These same M4s (in the same configuration) were also seen in Godzilla. -MT2008 03:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a Flashlight. I doubt it would be a Laser Sight. I don't think they ever used the 'attachment' in the movie.

I'm suddenly not even sure that it could be any kind of flashlight or laser sight. There's no visible pressure switch for activation anywhere on the M4's hand guards. It might be a barrel weight of some kind, though it seems rather unnecessary for a mil-spec M4. -MT2008 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd angle, possible AN/PEQ-2 IR Illuminator or previous generation model. (FNFl)

I think it is a MILES attachment. Why its on the gun? I dont know. -The Man with the Silver Gun

There's no way it's a PEQ-2; those are much bigger, and they also didn't exist when this movie was filmed. I don't think it's a MILES attachment, either, though, otherwise it would be on the muzzle, not the front sight. -MT2008 01:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to help a rookie out... What's a "MILES" attachment? -JAG1967 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Laser tag with real guns firing blanks. MILES stands for Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System. To me the attachment looks like a barrel weight/ harmonic stabilizer.-Ranger01 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an early version of the AR-2A Laser or something mounted on a Command Arms triple rail front sight, but I don't think so. On the white label can hardly read something like M*M. Perhaps MTM? That means Morovision, a brand of pointing devices... Hard to say.--Charly Driver 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone make out the writing on the top of it? Probably a valuable clue... --Stix

I know that Air Force One would be a special case, probably with thicker, armoured plating around the fuselage, but surely they wouldn't be using full power rounds, especially in the assault rifles? With thicker hull plates, the risk of a hole in the hull goes down but the risk of riccochet goes way, way up. Perhaps the doohickey attached to the barrel helps the gas system to cycle lower power rounds? --Stix

(1.) The idea that 5.56x45mm over-penetrates compared to 9mm in CQB is a myth; (2.) It's not totally implausible that rifles would be carried. If Air Force One ever has to crash-land in hostile/dangerous territory for whatever reason, the protection detail would probably establish perimeter defense outside of the aircraft, in which case, M4s would be preferable to MP5s. -MT2008 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

Used all Budget on new M4's?

I find it strange this film had brand new M4's, but still used HK94's as MP5's. HK94's were popular in the 80's and early 90's, but I think Air Force One is probably the last film to have used them, no? - Thomas 05:08, 17 October 2011 (CDT)

Air Force One is not the last film to use the partially-converted HK94s; they appeared again in Godzilla (which had the same M4s as this movie, because the armorer was the same guy) and The Siege (both from 1998). As for the M4s, those were probably just new in the Stembridge inventory at the time - there's no evidence that they were bought and converted just for this film (although Air Force One is, as we have documented, the first known cinema appearance of the M4). -MT2008 10:32, 23 November 2011 (CST)

I could swear I saw one as recently as last year in The Good Guys. --Funkychinaman 10:47, 23 November 2011 (CST)

I think they ran out of budget when they animated the scene of Air Force One crashing into the ocean... Compare to the other scenes in the movie, that scene looked really poorly animated...--Wildcards 23:49, 25 January 2012 (CST)

That's just 90s CGI. We are so spoiled by special effects of today Excalibur01 10:39, 21 July 2012 (CDT)

The CGI in Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, etc all looked better than the CGI from AF1, so don't blame it on 90s CGI lol.-Ranger01 13:29, 21 July 2012 (CDT)

CGI has ruined cinema, and this is probably the first CGI plane in a film that I can think of. I don't think it's budget will have been anywhere near the money that Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 had. --cool-breeze 16:37, 21 July 2012 (CDT)

MiG-29 scene

Quotation: "At one point in the film, several MiG-29 Fulcrums piloted by renegades loyal to General Radek intercept and engage Air Force One and the F-15's protecting it, the MiGs armed with Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 cannons as their secondary weapons. The MiGs fire their guns several times, causing heavy damage to Air Force One."
I really can't remember such scene in the film, and could also note, that according to the plot - Radek was not a general in the Russian Army, but a military dictator of the Republic of Kazakhstan, so "Radek's loyalists" were not renegades technically.... --RussianTrooper (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

Actually I think you're right about the cannons - I believe the air combat was all done with missiles, I don't recall seeing the cannon armament fired. I believe that fragments from one of the exploded jets were what hit AF1 in the film, not cannon rounds. StanTheMan (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

Wasn't the vertical stabilizer hit with cannon rounds? (Sorry, it's been a while.) --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

Actually the MIGs DID fire at AF1, but it still also got damaged by pieces of one of the exploding jets (the F15 that sacrificed itself), which is what I was thinking. But the MiGs did fire their cannons - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJS6icRaOq8 So yep, you're right FCM. StanTheMan (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

Wow, the film was sort of the last hurrah for motion control SFX, wasn't it? --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

Unfortunately, a lot of the film was done with bad CGI (especially the final crash). --Ben41 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2013 (EDT)

The Hind

I'm really impressed they were able to get a real Hind for this. It'd be one thing if they had shot the film in Russia or Eastern Europe, but most of the film was shot in Ohio. I know the US Army has a few Hinds it's "acquired" over the years for dissimilar training, but I never thought they'd lend it out for a movie. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (EDT)

In the DVD commentary, Wolfgang Petersen said even he didn't knew where the helicopter came from. --Ben41 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2013 (EDT)

DoD clearly provided a lot of support to this movie (i.e. the use of actual, operational Black Hawks for the opening scene in Kazakhstan and later when the Vice-President arrives at the White House), so it's not impossible. -MT2008 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

M4 barrel-mounted kajiggers

I've noticed that these actually resemble the range finder attachment in Ghost Recon Wildlands.

The G28 with an extended barrel, in Gunsmith.

Assuming said attachment is actually a range finder, could that be what they are in this film, too? Spartan198 (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

That thing in GRW is SilencerCo rangefinder. However, the thing in Air Force One is something else. --Nanomat (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2019 (EST)

I think it's definitely some type of laser sight. That's the only logical explanation - whether it's a visible or IR laser is the better question. There are two tubes on the design, so it's possible that one is visible, the other IR; or, one is a visible light laser, the other is a weapon light. Or...maybe one tube is the battery compartment, while the other is the laser. Here's yet another picture that might help ID them:

If you enlarge this picture to full-size, the laser seems to say, "CT" in red. Crimson Trace? However, I've searched their product line (past and present) and still can't make an ID. -MT2008 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2021 (EST)

I don't think they had the technology to have laser/light combos back in the 90s, back then laser sights were somewhat rudimentary. The second tube has to be a battery compartment. I'm somewhat skeptical about the Crimson Trace company as it was founded only in 1994 and is questionable whether they would have had widespread and commercialized products by the time of filming. This attachment is a complete mystery, I've googled a lot things like "vintage laser sight", "90s laser sight", "AR front sight laser" or even "AR barrel weight device" but there is nothing. It has to be some very obscure thing. --Nanomat (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2021 (EST)

I mean, I tend to agree with you that it's most likely some type of laser where the diode is contained on one side, the battery compartment on the other (similar designs are being produced in the present day by companies like Firefield). However, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that it's Crimson Trace simply because the company was only founded in 1994; after all, the M4 itself has only been around since 1994, yet you're seeing M4s in the movie just a few years after their introduction. (Also: I'm pretty sure that C-More first introduced the C-TAC red dot around that same time.) At the very least, any idea what else that red, "CT" on the laser might stand for? Or am I just mis-reading what it says?

At any rate, I've done a lot of the same Google searches as you, and I'm still coming up empty. I've also searched for products made by many older companies (e.g. Laser Devices and Imatronic), and haven't found anything yet. One other clue: I don't see where this laser gets activated. There's no visible switch on either the top or bottom, or on the sides where it attaches to the M4's front sight tower. It also doesn't seem to be connected to a pressure pad that is visible on the M4's handguard. So either it needs a pressure pad to actuate and the armorer didn't put one on, or maybe it activates from somewhere behind the front sight attachment mechanism. -MT2008 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2021 (EST)

I see the "C" but not sure about the "T". And yeah, the C-more sight was introduced in 1993. I'm starting to doubt that the thing is even real. As far as I remember nobody actually uses it in the movie and there is no functional laser beam to be seen at all. This combined with the fact you mentioned that there is no switch nor pressure pad makes me think it might be a fictional prop or something.

Back then they didn't have such compact lasers, here are some examples. And here is the AN/PAQ 4C which is a typical laser module made in 1993-1999 fitting the movie's era, note that it's significantly bulkier than what is shown in the movie. Though there is the HK pulse beam model 100 which seems to be around the same size but don't know when this was made. --Nanomat (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2021 (EST)

I dunno, it strikes me as plausible that the laser was a functional unit. Solid state visible light diodes were a pretty mature and low-SWaP technology by 1996-97. In the firearms world, companies like Crimson Trace and Wilcox Industries were already selling very small lasers for pistols (see for example the laser grips that Wilcox provided for the SIG P228 in Virtuosity, which came out two years before this movie). The AN/PAQ-4C is not a good example because that is an IR laser, not a visible light laser, and it was also based on a Helium-Neon gas laser rather than a solid-state semiconductor diode (He-Ne lasers are always going to be larger than diode lasers, even today). A better example is the AN/PEQ-5C, which was just entering service with SOCOM when Air Force One hit theaters. I'd find it weird if the lasers in Air Force One were not real because the markings don't seem like something that whoever made them would include if it was a fake design. I'm actually wondering if C-More made the lasers? I also wouldn't be surprised if it was a prototype design from C-More or another well-known manufacturer that was loaned to the production but ultimately never released to the public. I admit that it's weird that the lasers don't get used, but then again, the M4s and the C-More sights themselves got surprisingly little visibility in the movie, considering that Air Force One was their cinema "debut." (There's probably more footage of the guns in use that was filmed, but which didn't make it into the theatrical cut.)

As for the C-TAC: Ira Kay was talking about the original pistol red-dot sight, not the C-TAC, which I believe came out in 1994-95 (after Colt introduced the M4A1 with the flattop upper receiver). The C-TAC denotes a specific model which includes a C-More red dot fitted into a chopped-up M4 carry handle. Side note: I just bought one (an old one made in the 1990s), and playing around with it has been interesting. I'm hoping to try it out on my Colt 6920 build soon. -MT2008 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2021 (EST)

After some further research, I'm starting to think that there's a possibility that the M4 lasers used in this movie may have been made by Applied Laser Systems (ALS), a now-defunct company that is better known for producing Glock lasers and also front sight tower lasers for the H&K90-series guns. Seen here is a Colt 9mm carbine with an ALS laser that has some design similarities to the lasers seen in the movie. Of course, that laser uses a totally different front sight mount compared to what appears in this movie - either it's another design, or Stembridge built a special mount for the guns used in this movie. More research to come. -MT2008 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the M4A1 really M4A1?

Are we really sure that the M4A1 is really M4A1? It could be M727 with the carry handle chopped off and the C-More mounted somehow. Could somebody provide a better pic where we can see the top rail for confirmation? --Nanomat (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2019 (EST)

Yes, I believe that those are actually M4A1s (or Colt Model 921s, if we're using the commercial catalog model number). They may also be M4A1 uppers which were fitted to existing M16A1 full-auto lowers from Stembridge's inventory, though I note that in the close-up of the rifle in the arms locker, the upper and lower receiver colors do not appear mismatched, so maybe not. (Also: The lower receiver looks to be an A2-style lower, not an A1-style.)

In the movie, the M4s are never seen with the C-More sight removed, so I can't get pics of the rail, but I believe that those rifles have actual factory Colt flattop receivers because the rail seems to be the right height above the handguard. In movies and TV series which feature M4A1s that were built by chopping the carry handles off of A1- or A2-style upper receivers, it's very common for the bolted-on Picatinny rail section to float (visibly) high above the top of the handguard (see for example: the M4s from Strike Back episodes that were filmed in South Africa). The reason for this is that the metal on the top of the receiver is very thin on most M16A1 and -A2-style uppers, so anyone removing the carry handle to convert it to a flattop has to cut high, just above the point where the carry handle touches the top of the receiver, and then put a small strip of metal between the carry handle base ends; otherwise, the screws used to attach the rail to the receiver won't have much threading to hold the rail in place. (In Larry Vickers' video on his SFOD-D Colt Model 723 setup for Forgotten Weapons, he mentions that the Unit's armorers discovered this problem when they were building their own custom flattop uppers in the early-90s, in days before they had M4s.) So, all this to say, I think that these are legitimate M4A1s. By 1997, when this movie was filmed/released, the M4 series were widely available on the commercial market (indeed, 1997 was the first year that M4s were widely issued in the U.S. military), so it is entirely conceivable that this movie's armorers could have acquired them. -MT2008 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2019 (EST)