KC-135 reported lost over Iraq

R

ripcord

Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
11,204
Location
Pacific Northwest
Sad news. Its being reported that a KC-135 tanker and another aircraft were in a collision today. One airplane landed safely but the tanker went down over Western Iraq. There was no fire (friendly or hostile) involved. No news about survivors.

Refueling operations seem like such a nerve wracking job. I would hate to be the guy running those booms.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS.../Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/

Here's a couple of public domain photos of the KC-135 released by the Dept. of War

1000w_q95.webp


Two-U.S.-Marine-Corps-CH-53E-Super-Stallion-helicopters-refueling-helicopters-towing-humvee.webp
 
Last edited:
ripcord said:
Sad news. Its being reported that a KC-135 tanker and another aircraft were in a collision today. One airplane landed safely but the tanker went down over Western Iraq. There was no fire (friendly or hostile) involved. No news about survivors.

Refueling operations seem like such a nerve wracking job. I would hate to be the guy running those booms.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS.../Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/

Here's a couple of public domain photos of the KC-135 released by the Dept. of War

View attachment 328021

View attachment 328018
Click to expand...
Well, one of a 135 and the second of a 130.
From what I've heard thus far, the other aircraft that landed safely was also a 135.
 
Bottom picture is a KC-130 with its turboprop engines. Can the KC-135 go slow enough for helicopters to keep up?

Second question is why would two tankers be flying close to each other?
 
mk378 said:
Bottom picture is a KC-130 with its turboprop engines. Can the KC-135 go slow enough for helicopters to keep up?

Second question is why would two tankers be flying close to each other?
Click to expand...
I read where one was a KC-135RT variant, which is a tanker capable of being able to be refueled in-flight.

Added: The area the collision occurred was considered a secure area. It's not uncommon for tankers and aircraft being refueled to practice after initial refueling. I've sat in the cockpit of RC-135U and watched refueling about a dozen times. We may work with the tanker for an hour or two, especially if the copilot was new to the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Aerial refueling involves putting two airplanes very close together, and then holding them steady in formation flying. They are even closer when it invokes a probe and drogue. The boom requires a bit more separation.

Procedures are well established and practiced in the US military. This kind of thing is done many thousands of times a day, around the globe.

I used to tank (inflight refuel) several times in a single mission over Iraq, for example.

But still, you are putting a couple of airplanes very close together. This appears to be a mid air collision. Whether on the rendezvous or during the refueling itself isn’t clear, but a KC-135 crashing doesn’t have a very high chance of survival for the crew.

Let me add that the closest I ever came to a mid air collision was when a young pilot was rendezvousing on me at night. I pitched my airplane out of his way at the last second when it was clear that he couldn’t slow the rate of closure and he was right at my altitude.

My gut feeling is that this happened during the rendezvous.

Once the receiver is in position behind the tanker, that’s a very stable situation, but the rendezvous itself is fairly dynamic as you’ve got two airplanes moving towards each other in the air, and it is the job of the receiver aircraft to slow down and establish their pre-contact position off the left wing of the tanker.
 
rszappa1 said:
I saw on the new this morning that they do not have parachutes on that aircraft......any truth to that????
Click to expand...
Yes. The KC-135 is basically the same airframe as the 707. It’s an airliner. Not a fighter. Not even a bomber. Tactical aircraft like bombers have parachutes, fighters have ejection seats, but transporters, like the C-130, C-5, or C-17, and tankers do not.
 
Last edited:
Astro14 said:
Yes. The KC-135 is basically the same airframe as the 707. It’s an airliner. Not a fighter. Not even a bomber. Tactical aircraft like bombers have parachutes, fighters have ejection seats, but transporters, like the C-130, C-5, or C-17, and tankers do not.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it is more closely related to the -80. It has a narrower and shorter fuselage than the 707. But yeah, it is a Civilian first frame.
 
Last edited:
For a second I read "Four out of six confirmed dead" as "Two survivors".

Optimistic me. It simply means the other two were not found/identified/confirmed dead yet.
 
What strikes me as odd, if this was a refueling incident, is that the surviving plane lost a large portion of the vertical stabilizer. Seems to be an unusual impact point.

Edit - the only thing I can think of is that this surviving plane was receiving and moved too far forward, and the vertical stabilizer impacted the boom.
 
Last edited:
xspeedy said:
Actually, I think it is more closely related to the -80. It has a narrower and shorter fuselage than the 707. But yeah, it is a Civilian first frame.
Click to expand...
Like its sibling, the commercial Boeing 707 jet airliner, the KC-135 was derived from the Boeing 367-80 jet transport "proof of concept" demonstrator, which was commonly called the "Dash-80". The KC-135 is similar in appearance to the 707, but has a narrower fuselage and is shorter than the 707. The KC-135 predates the 707 and is structurally quite different from the civilian airliner. Boeing gave the future KC-135 tanker the initial designation Model 717.
Click to expand...

aye
 
And how is that even possible with all the wake turbulence, from the heavy tanker? Especially those wing tip net looking refueling hoses?
 
xspeedy said:
Actually, I think it is more closely related to the -80. It has a narrower and shorter fuselage than the 707. But yeah, it is a Civilian first frame.
Click to expand...
Agreed - it’s a fine point, however, which is why I said, “basically” - because the average reader of this thread is not going to be familiar with the dash 80 prototype, while they are likely to be familiar with the 707.

I have seen the dash 80 at the Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/boeing-367-80-jet-transport/nasm_A19730272000
 
xspeedy said:
What strikes me as odd, if this was a refueling incident, is that the surviving plane lost a large portion of the vertical stabilizer. Seems to be an unusual impact point.

Edit - the only thing I can think of is that this surviving plane was receiving and moved too far forward, and the vertical stabilizer impacted the boom.
Click to expand...
I think it’s unlikely that the two aircraft collided during the actual refueling evolution.

Far more likely that the receiver aircraft had too high of a rate of closure during the rendezvous, attempted to “under run“ the tanker, and the vertical tail sliced through part of the tanker.

Like I said, an aerial rendezvous is not a simple thing, particularly in a large aircraft.
 
Astro14 said:
Agreed - it’s a fine point, however, which is why I said, “basically” - because the average reader of this thread is not going to be familiar with the dash 80 prototype, while they are likely to be familiar with the 707.

I have seen the dash 80 at the Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/boeing-367-80-jet-transport/nasm_A19730272000
Click to expand...
I do find it odd that Boeing didn’t work it to use the 707 as the basis so that they only had to construct one fuselage diameter vs two. Perhaps the military order came in before the airlines asked for changes for airliner use. I could see that the extra weight of the 707 might have detracted from fuel capacity, but could have been a shortened 707.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
S
  • Locked
Must read. Unplanned flight
Replies
7
Views
2K
Papa Bear
Pablo
  • Locked
IRAQ Report
Replies
3
Views
2K
Pablo
Back
Top Bottom