Update from CENTCOM on the KC-135R loss

I am NOT suggesting that this has any bearing on the current sad accident but we had a SHAR pilot screw up a night VisID and lose the tip of his fin. He didn’t control his closing speed, realised very late and pushed hard to pass below the target. Unfortunately, when you push the stick forward, the tail rises.

He lost the top 6” of the fin and the target had a dent in his gun-pod. Lucky boys!

Condolences to our cousins for their loss - and good wishes to all those flying in the face of danger.

Mog

RAF C-130K (except the converted tankers) and Nimrod didn't have bail out options, and I suspect the same is the case today for A-400, P-8, RC-135...

I was expecting ex V-force operators to have come along and mentioned the bail out option for the rear crew, only the pilots having ejector seats, but it hasn't happened (yet).

Things might have been different on 2 September 2006 otherwise.

Thank you, gentlemen, but I am still puzzled.

For RAFENG074to09: did the arguments for removing them make sense to you?

Do any of the larger mil aircraft (MPA, AEW, transport etc) have bail out options? I assumed none do, the thinking being that they're rarely in harm's way.

Plus the fact that in almost 50 years of KC-135 operation prior to 2008, no parachute-equipped crewman had ever used one.

The KC-135RT always carries more than 3, including a navigator.

.Accidents can happen in flight refuelling. Its a hazardous business. Think Victor / Buccaneer loss many years ago.
But what would I know,( ex 57 Sq Mk 1 Victor tankers )
RIP guys.

Firstly, RIP.

There are often requirements for one tanker to fill another one, depending on sortie planning and take off performance. It could be at top of climb or later in the sortie - check out the involved tanker planning for Operation Black Buck during the Falklands war.

This is practised at day and night. Here is a shot of two Victors K1a in contact (flexible hose system).
Interestingly in this shot the receiver has cracked his airbrakes (Fokker style at the tail end).

This would never be done while in contact unless instigating an emergency break - the speed of unwind would then bring the drum brake on and contact was
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....434f677005.jpg
immediately broken. So I am presuming that this pic was taken during a practice session.

The damaged aircraft in the photo is categorically not a KC-135RT, as I'm sure your colleagues will confirm.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/co...le_footage_of/

This shows how in flight refuelling can go wrong very quickly, in this case the injuries were limited to cuts, bruises and concussion to some of those in the mission section.

The E-3As were built with a bail out chute on the left side between the main entry door and the wing root, they were disabled in the late eighties after trials showed most people using it would get killed by the many antennae on the keel of the aircraft..

As others have posted, the little we know suggests that both aircraft were KC-135s and one was transferring fuel to the other. Positioning in that scenario would be very different than for, e.g., a fighter behind and below the tanker.

Can you explain further? The receiver is always below the tanker (USAF boom refueling)
Charlie Mike,
I too am having a hard time figuring out how one jet lost the top of his vert stab…perhaps a large closure rate, and aggressive breakaway procedure. I just can’t fathom that much of a closure rate.

Central Command has now confirmed that all six have died. RIP.

I never worked on 135s but I was around them long ago and I remember a crew of two pilots, sometimes a navigator (probably replaced by electronics upgrades now?) and a boom operator. Anyone know why six?

Strictly speaking, neither of those facts has (yet) been officially confirmed, only that an incident occurred involving two aircraft and one of them, a KC-135, was lost.

Of course it's reasonable to infer from the arrival of the damaged KC-135 at Tel Aviv that it was the other aircraft in the incident, and that close proximity of the two Stratotankers to each other would suggest refuelling activity - but neither of these facts have AFAIK been officially confirmed.

What has been confirmed in the last hour or so is that all six crew members aboard the lost aircraft perished.

An ex-KC-10 pilot on X had a rumor it’s was a near head-on collision. Perhaps entering/exiting the anchor track at wrong level.

You don't need to school me on positioning of a heavy aircraft behind a KC135 tanker, thanks...I've been attached to a boom many, many times. Although, same as Chiefttp, I'd be keen for you to explain to me how the positioning is so much different for a KC135 compared to a fighter when the boom is the same thing sticking into both aircraft.

If that is the case a similar incident during the Vietnam conflict saw a C-130 tanker and several fighters lost when one aircraft approached in the wrong direction. So it can happen.
Of course it could be any number of reasons.

This actually makes more sense to me than trying to come up with a scenario where the fin gets ripped off the receiver/tanker aircraft during AAR.

I'm genuinely curious if you have experience and if you can tell me a realistic scenario...I've done it myself many times at night on ops and can never imagine a scenario where I'd be in danger of overshooting let alone getting so far underneath the tanker that my tail was at risk of collision....or the other way round, I as the receiver got so high and forward that I took out their fin. The boom operator would have called a breakaway long before this happened and the throttles would have been slammed to idle and speedbrakes deployed.

I honestly think a MAC with these two aircraft not in contact or joining is more likely....which is kind of incredible that one aircraft survived relatively intact.