Talk:Air Force One: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:00, 30 July 2023

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...

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

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:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

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)

One MiG took out an engine with cannon fire. The stabilizer was damaged by debris from Halo 2. Either way, we still include them as "gun platforms." As far as the F-15 sacrificing itself, the odds of being able to be in the right place at the right moment are slim to none. But it's noble, which is what the filmmakers were going for. Wish we could have a president like Marshall or Whitmore IRL :( Spartan198 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, the crash was downright terrible* CGI, but the dogfight between the F-15s and MiGs still holds up pretty well today, IMO. Spartan198 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

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:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

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)

Did some research on this trail. Here is apparently what the AR version of ALS laser looks like. Looks different from the movie thingy. Anyway, here is some more info on it: reference 1, reference 2. --Nanomat (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh my God you found it on TexAgs. That is some serious research.--AgentGumby (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So I've had a minor breakthrough - while browsing the Heritage Auctions web site for screen-used guns to add to IMFDB pages, I came across the screen-used Mossberg 590 that was used by Howie Long in Broken Arrow. I didn't notice until now, but that shotgun apparently had a laser sight attached to its magazine tube, and as far as I can tell, it's the exact same type (or at least, same brand/series) that appears on the M4s in this movie. Here's one of the images that came from the auction listing (which I've now added to the Broken Arrow page):

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Unfortunately, the pics still don't indicate what brand it is, and the label in the close-up only contains a warning, not a brand name. But at least we now know the following:

1. The label indicates that this thing is definitely a visible light laser (630 nm = red wavelength in the EM spectrum), as I suspected all along, not an IR laser or anything else.

2. The laser does appear to be actuated by switches attached to the tailcap (hence the laser light marking). It was also apparently designed to be ambidextrous - those switches are on both the left and right sides of the laser. I still can't tell whether one tube is the diode and the other is the battery compartment, though.

3. Whatever this laser is, it wasn't designed to be used only on AR-15s, since it clearly fits a Mossberg 590 as well. (It probably has an adjustable base that accommodate multiple barrel diameters.) So now, I know that my Google Image searches shouldn't focus on "AR-15 barrel lasers" (or anything to that effect).

4. It's almost surely not a prop that was invented just for use on the M4s in this movie, and it did probably exist as a consumer product in the 1990s (albeit one that has now been forgotten by the Gunternet).

I will keep digging. -MT2008 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Great find! I also tried some research based on your latest info searching things like "90s shotgun laser sight", "old gen shotgun laser sight", "90s 5mw 630nm laser sight" and various combinations and even searched for the entire text of the label but got nothing. I also tried searching for these on duckduckgo as it returns somewhat different results sometimes. I even translated these into Japanese and searched since there are great many Japanese tacticool blogs dedicated to OG US gear from the past but still nothing. I'd recommend digging into such alternatives as you'll be surprised what you can find. The only thing I found is this auction here which offers more views of the laser.

According to it, the shotgun is a non-firing rubber prop which makes me think that there is possibility that the laser is also made up. Now let's compare arguments in favor of and against that:

Laser is real:

The thing looks rugged as a proper military hardware
Label text is too detailed for mockup
The gunternet could have forgotten it or we simply haven't found the info yet

Laser is mockup:

It is used with a rubber prop gun
It is too miniaturized, I'm skeptical they had such tech back in the 90s
No info on the net
No buttons to turn on/off???
No brand name, manufacturer etc. Never seen military hardware lacking these

This is all I can add for now, and that this thing haunts me. --Nanomat (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Very good extra find! I missed that iCollector listing. Here's the close-up that they posted showing the other side:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Now I know what the label on the other side of the laser says - the Heritage Auction didn't show it, so I was wondering if there were better pics somewhere. Sadly, still no brand name. I don't agree with you that the laser is not real - I think that they just added a real (functioning) laser to the rubber shotgun. Rebuttals:

It is used with a rubber prop gun - This means nothing; I see real steel accessories used on rubber guns in Hollywood all the time (e.g., I recently saw on Movie Armaments Group's IG account some rubber prop MP5s fitted with real Surefire lights that they made for a show).

It is too miniaturized, I'm skeptical they had such tech back in the 90s - Trust me; they did have lasers this small back in the 1990s (I'm old enough to have been around and remember them). Solid state visible light laser diodes have existed and been widely available for civilian uses on the commercial market since the early-90s. (Infrared lasers are another story - those didn't start to get compact until early/mid-2000s.)

No info on the net - Valid - another possibility (that I mentioned to you years ago) is that these are a manufacturer's prototype laser sight design that they never wound up putting into production, and that they sold to the movie industry to recoup some development costs.

No buttons to turn on/off??? I mentioned in my last post - there is a button. It has ambidextrous pressure switches - that laser warning symbol (in bright red) is where the switch is located.

No brand name, manufacturer etc. Never seen military hardware lacking these - The brand name might be somewhere that we can't see. We know that the lasers on the M4s in Air Force One have a white label on top (which is hidden beneath the barrel on the Mossberg from Broken Arrow, and not visible in the auction photos). Unfortunately, we just can't read it without higher-resolution pics.

Otherwise, I agree with you that ID'ing these lasers is haunting me, too. -MT2008 (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that the markings on this laser - particularly the over-use of the laser warning symbol - appear to have been very common on the packaging of laser sights manufactured by Laser Devices, Inc. (now Steiner), which makes me think that this is an LDI laser of some kind. Still coming up empty on search results, though. I tried using Wayback Machine to look at LDI's web site in the late-90s, but not seeing a model that matches - the earliest AR-2 lasers (predecessor to the Steiner AR-2A, which is still produced today) looks kinda similar to the lasers in Air Force One, and has a similar mount, but it's still mounted vertically, not horizontally, and it also doesn't have the same style of tailcap switch. See here for a picture. I might try emailing Steiner and seeing if their customer service can refer me to the product team and provide an ID. It's possible that this is some type of prototype LDI-manufactured laser sight that was never widely produced, but if it wasn't put on the market, I don't know why it has those warning labels (those labels are a requirement that the U.S. FDA imposes on manufacturers for all eyesafe consumer lasers - if this thing wasn't sold as a consumer product on the U.S. market, it wouldn't have them). -MT2008 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (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)

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ::Wasn't the vertical stabilizer hit with cannon rounds? (Sorry, it's been a while.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 17:59, 24 September 2013 (EDT)
+:::One MiG took out an engine with cannon fire. The stabilizer was damaged by debris from Halo 2. Either way, we still include them as "gun platforms." As far as the F-15 sacrificing itself, the odds of being able to be in the right place at the right moment are slim to none. But it's noble, which is what the filmmakers were going for. Wish we could have a president like Marshall or [[Independence Day|Whitmore]] IRL :( [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 ::::Wow, the film was sort of the last hurrah for motion control SFX, wasn't it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 18:19, 24 September 2013 (EDT)
 :::::Unfortunately, a lot of the film was done with bad CGI (especially the final crash). --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 17:27, 25 September 2013 (EDT)
+:::::Yeah, the crash was downright ''terrible* CGI, but the dogfight between the F-15s and MiGs still holds up pretty well today, IMO. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 == The Hind ==

Talk:Air Force One: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:00, 30 July 2023

Contents

Trivia (Moved from Main page)

Comment on HK94s

Blu Ray

Another question...

Used all Budget on new M4's?

MiG-29 scene

The Hind

M4 barrel-mounted kajiggers

Is the M4A1 really M4A1?

Navigation menu

Talk:Air Force One: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:00, 30 July 2023

Trivia (Moved from Main page)

Comment on HK94s

Blu Ray

Another question...

Used all Budget on new M4's?

MiG-29 scene

The Hind

M4 barrel-mounted kajiggers

Is the M4A1 really M4A1?

Navigation menu

Search