From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

In <zDidnRbr0ssexi70nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> c186282 wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/us-iran-israel-war-latest-march-12-

live-updates#&_intcmp=fnhpbt4_1,hp1bt

A U.S. aircraft has been reported lost in Iraq during ongoing
military operations against Iran, U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) announced Thursday.

This came on day 12 of Operation Epic Fury targeting Iranian-
linked assets in the region.

According to CENTCOM, the incident involved two U.S. KC-135
refueling aircraft operating in friendly airspace. One of
the aircraft went down in western Iraq, while the second
landed safely.

CENTCOM said the loss was not the result of hostile fire or
friendly fire. Rescue efforts are ongoing, and officials
have not yet released details about the number or condition
of personnel involved.

. . .

Could happen.

Clearly SOMETHING happened - and it probably
wasn't because Iran shot anything.

<https://x.com/MOSSADil/status/2032258348431671681/photo/1>

"The aircraft is reportedly linked to a mid-air collision
between two KC-135 Stratotankers earlier tonight over
western Iraq that resulted in a crash."
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

In <zDidnRbr0ssexi70nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> c186282 wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/us-iran-israel-war-latest-march-12-

live-updates#&_intcmp=fnhpbt4_1,hp1bt

A U.S. aircraft has been reported lost in Iraq during ongoing
military operations against Iran, U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) announced Thursday.

This came on day 12 of Operation Epic Fury targeting Iranian-
linked assets in the region.

According to CENTCOM, the incident involved two U.S. KC-135
refueling aircraft operating in friendly airspace. One of
the aircraft went down in western Iraq, while the second
landed safely.

CENTCOM said the loss was not the result of hostile fire or
friendly fire.

<laff> Don't hold your breath waiting for CENTCOM to acknowledge any
ambiguous US loss was the result of hostile fire. This Trumpster Fire
isn't confined to Iran and Israel. That plane could've been downed by
Iranian guerrillas with intel from Russia.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On 3/13/26 6:16 AM, super70s wrote:

In <zDidnRbr0ssexi70nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> c186282 wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/us-iran-israel-war-latest-march-12-

live-updates#&_intcmp=fnhpbt4_1,hp1bt

A U.S. aircraft has been reported lost in Iraq during ongoing
military operations against Iran, U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) announced Thursday.

This came on day 12 of Operation Epic Fury targeting Iranian-
linked assets in the region.

According to CENTCOM, the incident involved two U.S. KC-135
refueling aircraft operating in friendly airspace. One of
the aircraft went down in western Iraq, while the second
landed safely.

CENTCOM said the loss was not the result of hostile fire or
friendly fire.

<laff> Don't hold your breath waiting for CENTCOM to acknowledge any ambiguous US loss was the result of hostile fire. This Trumpster Fire
isn't confined to Iran and Israel. That plane could've been downed by Iranian guerrillas with intel from Russia.

You can only hope!

There's always the alien factor as well.


SMH

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Anonymous User" wrote in message news:20260313.051112.fd635dee@dirge.harmsk.com...

<https://x.com/MOSSADil/status/2032258348431671681/photo/1>

"The aircraft is reportedly linked to a mid-air collision
between two KC-135 Stratotankers earlier tonight over
western Iraq that resulted in a crash."

-------------------------------

Large aircraft, especially older ones with straight instead of upturned wingtips, generate powerful whirlpools of air behind the wingtips that can upset another plane close behind. Airliners have to wait until the air calms down between takeoffs.
https://pilotinstitute.com/wingtip-vortices/

https://www.twz.com/42447/the-air-force-blew-it-when-it-decided-not-to-give-its-kc-135s-winglets-40-years-ago

Ships running close beside each other for underway replenishment experience
a similar collision risk. The XB-70 prototype was lost when a very
experienced test pilot moved his fighter too close, into the invisible
vortex, during a photo op.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3bSCDYveBM

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:10p0pgc$313tj$1@dont-email.me...

There's always the alien factor as well.
SMH

------------------------------
And the age factor. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-aircraft-mean-age-drops-slightly-but-eight-fleets-now-exceed-50-years-old/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker
"The KC-135 predates the 707 and is structurally quite different from the civilian airliner."

Also for the Navy: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2025/12/17/uss-nimitz-returns-home-for-likely-last-time-before-retirement/

The Army still uses WW1 weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning

The M2 has outlived many replacement attempts. John Browning's designs from the 1800's are still competitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM806

Damage to the top of the surviving aircraft's tail fin suggests the crashed one may have been higher, in the wingtip vortex region.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

super70s wrote:

<laff> Don't hold your breath waiting for CENTCOM to acknowledge any ambiguous US loss was the result of hostile fire. This Trumpster Fire
isn't confined to Iran and Israel. That plane could've been downed by
Iranian guerrillas with intel from Russia.

Planes fall out of the sky even over USA in peace. It is an unwanted but normal side effect of using these kinds of machines.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #777-000. Disavowed. Denied. @
NO KINGS For I desire mercy not sacrifice. /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 5.5 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10p0uqe$33jhf$1@dont-email.me...

The Army still uses WW1 weapons.

The M1911 pistol has finally been retired again. Browning designed it in
1905.
https://www.coffeeordie.com/article/m1911

An officer involved in the 9mm Beretta replacement wrote that one reason was because the M1911 was so accident prone. When unloading to enter the
barracks we had to point into a barrel of sand while cycling out the
chambered round because a cold wet hand fumble could let the hammer drop
when the slide snapped forward. The Series 80 revision locked the firing pin unless the trigger was pulled. It was normally carried with a round
chambered, hammer cocked and the safety on, for immediate action when surprised. The safety locks the slide and has to be off to unload. I was issued one without any training or practice and had to learn on my own.

Also politics demanded that we buy at least something, preferably minor,
from NATO.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On 3/13/26 8:10 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Stephen Harding"-a wrote in message news:10p0pgc$313tj$1@dont-email.me...

There's always the alien factor as well.
SMH

------------------------------
And the age factor. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-aircraft-mean-age-drops- slightly-but-eight-fleets-now-exceed-50-years-old/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker
"The KC-135 predates the 707 and is structurally quite different from
the civilian airliner."

Also for the Navy: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2025/12/17/uss-nimitz-returns- home-for-likely-last-time-before-retirement/

The Army still uses WW1 weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning

The M2 has outlived many replacement attempts. John Browning's designs
from the 1800's are still competitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM806

Damage to the top of the surviving aircraft's tail fin suggests the
crashed one may have been higher, in the wingtip vortex region.

I don't quite understand why two refueling aircraft would be in that
close proximity to one another unless it was both planes taking off or landing.

Surely for refueling ops one would not put two of the aircraft close
together.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:10p3ssl$atpj$1@dont-email.me...

I don't quite understand why two refueling aircraft would be in that
close proximity to one another unless it was both planes taking off or
landing.

Surely for refueling ops one would not put two of the aircraft close
together.

-------------------------

One nearing empty could have been transferring its remaining load to the replacement to replace takeoff and climb consumption.

The most famous transfer operation was the tanker relay supporting the Falklands War "Black Buck" mission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck#/media/File:Refuelling.plan.black.buck.svg


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On 3/14/26 1:01 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Stephen Harding"-a wrote in message news:10p3ssl$atpj$1@dont-email.me...

I don't quite understand why two refueling aircraft would be in that
close proximity to one another unless it was both planes taking off or landing.

Surely for refueling ops one would not put two of the aircraft close together.

-------------------------

One nearing empty could have been transferring its remaining load to the replacement to replace takeoff and climb consumption.

The most famous transfer operation was the tanker relay supporting the Falklands War "Black Buck" mission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck#/media/ File:Refuelling.plan.black.buck.svg

Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that and it makes sense.

Looking it up, the process is apparently referred to as "tanker
banking". "Tanker-to-tanker refueling is a highly specialized
skill-intensive maneuver".

Seems very much so. However, I haven't seen (or looked too hard) how a
KC-135 might refuel another KC-135. Apparently, KC-10 and new KC-146
refueler aircraft do have refueling ports aboard, but the KC-135 is an
old plane, but I suppose upgrades could have provided them. I don't see
any obvious refueling ports or probes on a KC-135 but they can be well
hidden.

An interesting video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs9ZJBFHbo0
which shows refueling in general.


SMH



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:10p6ral$194vl$1@dont-email.me...

Seems very much so. However, I haven't seen (or looked too hard) how a
KC-135 might refuel another KC-135. Apparently, KC-10 and new KC-146
refueler aircraft do have refueling ports aboard, but the KC-135 is an
old plane, but I suppose upgrades could have provided them. I don't see
any obvious refueling ports or probes on a KC-135 but they can be well
hidden.

----------------------------

Helicopters need the long probes because the rotor blocks boom access to the fuselage from above. Otherwise the refueling port is in the top.

B-52
https://www.reddit.com/r/AviationHistory/comments/1j7mk56/b52_refueling/

F-15
https://www.facebook.com/groups/257407331440719/posts/2216149892233110/

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:10p6ral$194vl$1@dont-email.me...

Looking it up, the process is apparently referred to as "tanker banking". >"Tanker-to-tanker refueling is a highly specialized skill-intensive >maneuver".

This previous accident suggests a possible type of malfunction that could reduce their control of the plane. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/473716/investigation-board-determines-cause-of-kc-135-crash-in-may/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll

At an airshow I flew this WW2 PT-17 trainer which wouldn't stay straight, it needed constant small yaw corrections to hold course. The rudder pedals were fully forward, out of reach. I could see the drift because Mt Monadnock was ahead but I couldn't feel it. https://www.americanheritagemuseum.org/aircrafts/boeing-pt-17-stearman/

They didn't ask and I didn't mention I had never flown a real plane before, but simulator experience and hang gliding were enough. The demo pilot takes off and lands.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:10p6ral$194vl$1@dont-email.me...

On 3/14/26 1:01 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:10p3ssl$atpj$1@dont-email.me...

I don't quite understand why two refueling aircraft would be in that
close proximity to one another unless it was both planes taking off or landing.

A guess on PPRuNe is that they were flying in opposite directions along the same route to and from the refueling area. https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/670932-kc-135-reported-down-iraq-3.html

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:10:58 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
news:10p6ral$194vl$1@dont-email.me...

Seems very much so. However, I haven't seen (or looked too hard) how a KC-135 might refuel another KC-135. Apparently, KC-10 and new KC-146 refueler aircraft do have refueling ports aboard, but the KC-135 is an
old plane, but I suppose upgrades could have provided them. I don't see
any obvious refueling ports or probes on a KC-135 but they can be well hidden.

----------------------------

Helicopters need the long probes because the rotor blocks boom access to
the fuselage from above. Otherwise the refueling port is in the top.

There are only 8 KC-135Rs that have the capability to receive fuel as well
as pass gas. Neither of the airplanes involved was one of them.
The tanker that went down was at the tail end of a 12-hour mission in that tanker track. The one that made it back was apparently relieving it.
Twelve hours is long stretch - that may explain why there were 6 on board
- a normal KC-135 crew these days is 3 - Pilot, Copilot, and Boom
Operator. They may have had a second crew on board.
It must be noted that bailout from a KC-135 was possible, but unlikely.
Escape consisted of hanging on to a Trapeze Bar at the top of the Crew
Entry Tunnel forward. This jettisoned the Door at the bottom of the
tunnel, and extended a spoiler. You then dropped down through the tunnel.
If you were lucky, you didn't get whipped into the aft section of the
airplane by the slipstream. Not many, if any, successful bailouts.
Crew Fatigue may me a factor.
--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 17:37:41 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
news:10p6ral$194vl$1@dont-email.me...

Looking it up, the process is apparently referred to as "tanker
banking".
"Tanker-to-tanker refueling is a highly specialized skill-intensive >>maneuver".

This previous accident suggests a possible type of malfunction that
could reduce their control of the plane. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/473716/investigation-

board-determines-cause-of-kc-135-crash-in-may/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll

At an airshow I flew this WW2 PT-17 trainer which wouldn't stay
straight, it needed constant small yaw corrections to hold course. The
rudder pedals were fully forward, out of reach. I could see the drift
because Mt Monadnock was ahead but I couldn't feel it. https://www.americanheritagemuseum.org/aircrafts/boeing-pt-17-stearman/

They didn't ask and I didn't mention I had never flown a real plane
before,
but simulator experience and hang gliding were enough. The demo pilot
takes off and lands.

Mt Monadnock is very useful for that, sticking up out of the relatively
flat Southwestern Part of the Granite State. When I was learning to fly,
it was the Standard Reference Point for practicing precision maneuvers.
Well, that, and the Orange Roofs of the Howard Johnson's that would act as beacons when you were stuck in one of those Milk-Bottle Hazy Summer Days.
--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:10:58 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
<muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

Helicopters need the long probes because the rotor blocks boom access to the >fuselage from above. Otherwise the refueling port is in the top.

Correct. The long probe extends and uses the "probe-and-drogue"
refueling system, rather than putting the probe into a recepticle on
the top of the aircraft being fueled. Same system used by the Navy,
the Coast Guard and USAF HC-130 aircraft. The "drogue" is the round "parachute" kind of system. HC-130s (the rescue variant of the
venerable Hercules) have two pods, one on each wing, that allow for
unreeling a large hose (pulled out and away from the aircraft by the
"drogue"), into which the helicopter's "probe" connects.

During the approach to the tanker by the helicopter, the probe boom on
the helicopter extends to about twice its "stowed" length in order to
put the probe far enough out toward the edge of the rotor arc to avoid
contact with the refueling hose.

Air Force tankers (KC-135s, KC-10s and the new KC-46s) can be
configured before flight with either the probe or drogue on the boom,
depending on what aircraft are being serviced. No provision for
switching configuration in flight, of course; it has to be
pre-configured for the mission.

(I used to work on HC-130s and HH-3Es when I was in the Air Force back
in the 70s and 80s, among other aircraft.)
--
//Steve//
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2