KC-135 reported down in Iraq.
 

Breaking

Loss of U.S. KC-135 Over Iraq > U.S. Central Command > Press Release View

May be the other aircraft involved.

Quote:

---

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/20...475034701?s=20

---

Breaking news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gqjyk0vx3t
US tanker has crashed in Iraq - hostile/friendly fire not thought to be the cause.

KC-135 reported down in Iraq.
 

Probably a mid-air collision. The other KC-135 declared a mayday and landed in Tel Aviv. Sad day.

Well, I'm never sure what to believe that I see on the face site, but there's a picture of a KC-135 with the top of the vertical stabilizer missing...

If it’s not a stupid question why were the two tanker’s flying so close they collided?

Israel and the US are strictly controlling what journalists report in this mad adventure.

You never know, one might have been refueling the other. Whatever happened a KC -135 crew have been lost RIP boys & girls. Blue skies from a retired AWACS Capt.

Off topic, but 4A Tank sounds very Nimrod. We're you driving one of the big nosed ones?

Ex Nimrod Capt too - but spent many a sortie receiving fuel from the mighty KC-135 in the AWACS.

One tanker getting ready to leave station will often transfer excess fuel to the tanker coming on station.

I’m curious about the reason for that? Is it because of fully loaded take off performance?

From the Military forum:

63-8017 is the aircraft that declared an emergency and landed in Israel.

It gives them more fuel available to offload. Amounts would be dependent on how far they traveled to get on station and available takeoff performance at the departure point as well as how long they had already been on station.

I've not seen any references to that airframe being one of the (I think) eight KC-135RT's.

The circumstances of the collision seem unclear, with no confirmation that refuelling was taking place at the time. It isn't immediately obvious how that could result in one of the two having the top of the v/stab cut off, but I guess anything is possible.

The circumstances of the collision are still unclear, with no confirmation that I've seen yet that one was refuelling the other.

Confirmed Lost
 

Just confirmed by Centcom - 4 crew members died in the KC -135 crash. I would expect to hear that any other crew will also have lost their lives sadly. Mid air collision? Whatever, tankers are very vulnerable to all threats , GBAD, AtoA and possible collisions.
Very sad that this may have been a blue on blue however it occurred.
Tanker crews have no chance, no bang seats, no parachutes…. RIP.

Before/After

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d69f539522.png



https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....28d12a86be.png
​​​​​​​

Makes me think back with dread to the Jet Blue A320 near miss with a KC135 near Curaçao.

Fin damage to survivor
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c14aa9634.jpeg

The USAF has a few -135’s that can both transfer AND receive fuel….evidently one of the tankers involved was one of these type tankers. My guess is not a mid-air collision of 2 separate aircraft unaware of each others location, but a collision during standard air refueling….

They both may have been on station for some time, but the one that's offloading might have to RTB for crew/airframe turn around and 'consolidates' the fuel they have left into a tanker that is remaining on station. It's not always put into a 'fresh' tanker that's only just arrived. This then means the tanker that's been topped up has more fuel to give to assets that might be extended on task.
Will be interesting to see what's transpired, you'd assume it was the receiver that went down given the damage to the rear of the surviving aircraft, but then the boom is still intact which doesn't line up with that. Just as reasonable to think the receiver is the one that made it back, as the top of the vertical stabilizer is missing suggesting it was underneath the other aircraft. Guess it'll come out in the wash.

The BBC are reporting that 4 died on the aircraft that went down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz5ql17vo

Thanks.

As per my previous post, it isn't immediately obvious how that type of slice damage could have been sustained during refuelling.

Same. Spent a sizeable portion of my career putting a heavy in close proximity to another heavy and I'm struggling to think of the scenario.

I think there are two others currently classified as missing.

I'm struggling to work out how you slice the top of the fin off during AAR...as a receiver you'd have to end up completely underneath the tanker and not breaking away.
If you are the tanker, the receiver has ended up above you, which is again unimaginable. I also can't see a scenario during a join where you end up with MAC like that as a receiver would never get within 500ft vertically without being visual.

If it's any help, the 940th ARW at Beale doesn't operate the KC-135RT, so the aircraft in the photo couldn't receive fuel.

CM, do we know if that was the Receiver's tail? I'd suspect it was but I've never done anything remotely like that myself (A-to-A that is!) but recall a few refueling mishaps being reported over the years talking of "over-runs" when joining up or sudden PIO by the Receiver leading to rather sporting break-offs beneath the host. Several involved B52's.

A sad day and, small consolation I know, it could have been even worse........ :sad:

We know that it wasn't. The 940th ARW at Beale doesn't operate the KC-135RT and that aircraft isn't one.

Many years ago I was given a tour of a KC-135.

At that time there was an Emergency Exit that doubled as a regular crew entrance just behind the cockpit.

The door could be jettisoned in flight and the crew could exit while wearing parachutes.

The notion of four to six crew members with one or more at the aft end of the aircraft being able to safely chute up and then exit through the escape shaft seems rather hopeful during a catastrophic event.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f81007be94.jpg

Good work detective! :8

When you fly 2 large aircraft with limited maneuverability within 40 feet of each other , everything can happen , error in positioning , wrong closure speed on rendezvous, , etc..,, worse is hitting CAT of course.
I made long ago a few familiarization flights on KC-135s from Geilenkirchen refueling the NATO AWACS ( also 707s) when they started OPS to determine how (civil) ATC should handle them in our very dense airspace ..The complexity on the aircraft ( the KCs were all from various national guards with old classic engines and basic instrumentation ) did not help the pilots. The procedure is well oiled, superbly executed by volunteers reserve guys' but a single minor outside factor can disrupt the process. I was and still is impressed that there were in fact very few incidents ..

I fly with numerous Beale 135 pilots and they will not agree with your statement above..
Also due to the special nature of their mission, I doubt they’ll advertise them on public websites.

I am still puzzled as to why there were 6 crew members on board, standard crew complement is 3.

BBC report currently has the following information buried part way down;

Centcom earlier described the crash as happening over friendly airspace - but this is a region of Iraq where pro-Iranian militias operate. Iran's military claimed on state TV that an allied group had targeted the plane with a missile.

Ah! Mind you, Chiefttp's reply to you here re the above in "Accidents and Close Calls" suggest some of them can. I don't know - I'm a tad confused (not unusual I'd hasten to add!). If it wasn't the Receiver, that is indeed puzzling!

I spent a sizeable portion of my career doing just that and those events are so strongly mitigated against by procedure that I am having trouble imagining the scenario where one aircraft takes the top of the fin from the other.

There are none - parachutes withdrawn from KC-135/RC-135/WC-135 variants in 2008 as a cost savings measure. Lots of articles from the time regarding frequency of incidents, increased difficulty of egress on ground in emergency wearing parachutes, maintenance costs etc.