KC-135 down in Kyrgyzstan

[TaiidanTomcat]

Parts are still burning on the other side of the world and we already know the cause and who to blame, well done. No need for those qualified professionals I see ARC solved this one on the first page.

There's a first time for everything, and while they're well-maintained, they're not magically maintained. Military aircraft crash for mechanical reasons all the time

so why the politics?

Again, I'm not saying that the age of the airframe played any part in this. Maybe it didn't.

Its almost like we have no idea.

But what I am saying is that it's unacceptable that Congress and the Pentagon have taken this long to come up with a replacement, and that this should be yet another wakeup call about the need to get this done.

we plan on using the KC-135 up into the 2050s... Aren't you the guy that said this:

Because the damn thing doesn't work. Because it's a bottomless money hole at a time of shrinking budgets. Because it was designed to fight an enemy that went out of business over twenty years ago. Because it isn't necessary when we already have as many as we need of a perfectly fine airplane that does more or less the same thing, which is, by the way, a mission that hasn't been important in forty years or critical in sixty years. Because the aerial MVP of the past dozen years of war has been a cheap, slow, prop-powered drone the size of a Cessna and not a supersonic air-superiority fighter. Because while, yes, anything is possible, and thus the next war could be of any type any require any kind of weapon, you can't spend unlimited amounts of money on astronomically expensive weapons systems in order to prepare for every possible contingency, and so any reasonable nation with a prudent military policy will spend the money it has on stuff that will work against what they face now and most likely will face in the foreseeable future. Because we're not going to war against China or Russia, which are the only nations we'd be likely to need these things against, and even if we did, it wouldn't matter because no one would care how many dogfights we won after the other side turned a few dozen American cities into radioactive slag heaps.

That's why.

We fly 40 year old fighters and that doesn't seem to bother you, and they are flown far more harshly than tankers.

Where do we draw the line between "this is so old its dangerous" and "you are wasting money when what we have works just fine now" ??

the KC-X and now KC-46 has not been all roses. should it be canceled?

Edited May 4, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[habu2]

Uhm... you have heard of the 707, right? I don't mean to be a jerk here, and I do know who I'm talking to, but...

While a C-135 and a 707 appear very similar they are in fact separate Boeing designs. They don't share fuselage or wing designs.

[fulcrum1]

May they rest in peace.

[blunce]

Didn't see an update posted between the side discussions, so....

Crew of 3 MIA, farmer says a/c exploded mid air and broke up into 3 pieces.

More here

:salute:

[bugs3144]

Bodies of 2 crew members found, third still missing. We all morn their loss.

Frank

ATL

[volzj]

Is 3 the normal crew size of KC-135? That seems a bit low.

[Moose135]

Is 3 the normal crew size of KC-135? That seems a bit low.

Yes, that is now the standard crew size. Pilot, copilot, and boom operator. Back when I was driving them, we had a navigator as well, but the navs were removed when they got the various avionics upgrades. It's not unusual to carry more folks along, but three is all you need for a standard mission.

Sadly, this brings back memories of the night we lost a crew from my unit down in Panama.

RIP, my friends...

[volzj]

Thanks Moose, didn't know that.

[hacker]

Didn't see an update posted between the side discussions, so....

Crew of 3 MIA, farmer says a/c exploded mid air and broke up into 3 pieces.

More here

:salute:/> :salute:/> :salute:/>

There are only few possible explanations, a huge malfunction of some kind,ground to air missile of some kind, or some kind of sabotage as planes rarely just explode in mid air. There has to be some kind of a cause.

[Flyingfortress]

There are only few possible explanations, a huge malfunction of some kind,ground to air missile of some kind, or some kind of sabotage as planes rarely just explode in mid air. There has to be some kind of a cause.

Gee, you think? Like Taiidan Tomcat said, ARC members are not crash investigators. Mourn the loss of life but let the experts do their jobs, please?

[Scooby]

There's a first time for everything, and while they're well-maintained, they're not magically maintained. Military aircraft crash for mechanical reasons all the time - way more than civilian airliners do.

Antonov, do you have the slightest idea of what we do when we inspect and maintain aircraft? It goes well beyond visual inspections and includes non destructive testing. We don't put unsafe or fragile aircraft in the air.

And coming from a military member with a background in accident prevention and investigation, I have reviewed reports from militaries all over the world, most accidents are the result of crew error (in the high 90s). Civilian airlines have a higher rate of mechanical error although not drastically higher.

The only exception is in Russia, mechanical and crew error are roughly equal.

[imatt88]

Terrible tragedy!

Brings me back to when we lost a KI Sawyer 135 at Tinker in the late '80's. Lost a good friend on that flight

Condolences to all involved

Ian

[Skull Leader]

Anyone hear from Jeff Stoermer? He is Kansas based is he not?

Stoermer is safe on the ground (Thank goodness, he'd better be... he's gonna be in my wedding). He spends more time wet-nursing simulators these days than in the air, I'll wager. I'm hearing that it was a McConnell jet, but a fairchild-based crew..

Thoughts and prayers to the families!

Edited May 4, 2013 by Skull Leader

[Moose135]

...as planes rarely just explode in mid air.

Actually, several KC-135s have exploded in mid air in the past. For the most part, the cause was linked to the fuel pumps in the body tanks overheating. It's been 20+ years since that happened, and my understanding is they have installed a different type of pump, but 5 or 6 tankers were lost to overheating pumps triggering an explosion. In the A-model Dash-1, there was a Warning about running the pumps when the tank was dry. You just never know...

[ST0RM]

I'm ok gents. Thanks for the thoughts.

While I've got my own feelings on how things played out, I'll wait for the SIB results.

Prayers for the families and friends. It's been a rough week for mil aviation.

Jeff

Edited May 4, 2013 by ST0RM

[Antonov]

so why the politics?

Again, what politics? It's not being "political" to say that long delays in getting our servicemen new equipment are unacceptable. It would be political to say: "This is Obama's fault!" or "This is Bush's fault!". What I'm saying is: "I don't give a damn whose fault it is - get it fixed".

we plan on using the KC-135 up into the 2050s...

That that's the plan doesn't mean it's a good plan.

We fly 40 year old fighters and that doesn't seem to bother you, and they are flown far more harshly than tankers.

40? Really? How much of the active USAF fighter fleet was manufactured in 1973?

Also, the fact that I think that one new aircraft is unnecessary and a waste of money doesn't mean that I think that all new aircraft are unnecessary or a waste of money.

While a C-135 and a 707 appear very similar they are in fact separate Boeing designs. They don't share fuselage or wing designs.

They have very minor differences. That's quite different from Jennings's bizarre claim that they are "in NO way comparable". Yes they are. They're very comparable, with a few minor differences.

Antonov, do you have the slightest idea of what we do when we inspect and maintain aircraft? It goes well beyond visual inspections and includes non destructive testing. We don't put unsafe or fragile aircraft in the air.

Yes, actually, I have a very good idea of what you do when you inspect and maintain aircraft. And by no means am I saying that USAF (or any other) mechanics don't know what they're doing or intentionally send unsafe aircraft out to fly. But military mechanics aren't magicians and military aircraft aren't made of pixy dust. That mechanical failures happen and that old equipment is generally more prone to them is a simple fact. Again, machines get old and worn out and have to get replaced every so often. That's just how machines are.

If old aircraft don't get worn out and need to be replaced, why does anyone ever spend the money to replace them? Perhaps it's understandable with fighters, where technology advances a lot over time, but why replace airliners, cargo aircraft, patrol aircraft, or helicopters instead of just upgrading them indefinitely? Either old aircraft do need to be replaced, in which case Congress and the Pentagon are putting tanker crews' lives at risk by not getting replacements to them, or they do not, in which case Congress and the Pentagon have wasted billions of dollars replacing perfectly good C-141s with C-17s, P-3s with P-8s, and E-model C-130s with J-model C-130s. It's one or the other: which?

Anyhow, why is it controversial to say that the endless delays we've seen in getting our servicemen badly-needed replacements for half-century-old equipment are just not acceptable? Why does this seem to make so many people around here defensive?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Antonov

[TaiidanTomcat]

Again, what politics? It's not being "political" to say that long delays in getting our servicemen new equipment are unacceptable. It would be political to say: "This is Obama's fault!" or "This is Bush's fault!". What I'm saying is: "I don't give a damn whose fault it is - get it fixed".

What an incredibly detailed and intelligent order "I don't care!! fix it!!" My 6 year old nephew shouts the same thing when his legos break.

That that's the plan doesn't mean it's a good plan.

What would the military know about the service life of aircraft?

40? Really? How much of the active USAF fighter fleet was manufactured in 1973?

is your google broken?

Also, the fact that I think that one new aircraft is unnecessary and a waste of money doesn't mean that I think that all new aircraft are unnecessary or a waste of money.

The same arguments you used against the JSF could easily apply to the KC-46/KC-135. but in this case you think it needs to be replaced ASAP because one crashed (for reasons we don't know yet). and everyone in the military is wrong, and with the JSF you think its unneeded and everyone in the military is wrong.

They have very minor differences. That's quite different from Jennings's bizarre claim that they are "in NO way comparable". Yes they are. They're very comparable, with a few minor differences.

Different Wings and fuselage are a "few minor differences"?

Yes, actually, I have a very good idea of what you do when you inspect and maintain aircraft. And by no means am I saying that USAF (or any other) mechanics don't know what they're doing or intentionally send unsafe aircraft out to fly. But military mechanics aren't magicians and military aircraft aren't made of pixy dust.

Its almost like airplanes will crash for any number of reasons based on different circumstances no matter who is running the show... I'm sorry you were trying to make correlation equal causation. Please continue.

That mechanical failures happen and that old equipment is generally more prone to them is a simple fact. Again, machines get old and worn out and have to get replaced every so often. That's just how machines are.

*exception F-16, AV-8B, EA-6B, F-18s, A-10.

If old aircraft don't get worn out and need to be replaced, why does anyone ever spend the money to replace them? Perhaps it's understandable with fighters, where technology advances a lot over time,

No way!?

but why replace airliners, cargo aircraft, patrol aircraft, or helicopters instead of just upgrading them indefinitely? Either old aircraft do need to be replaced, in which case Congress and the Pentagon are putting tanker crews' lives at risk by not getting replacements to them, or they do not, in which case Congress and the Pentagon have wasted billions of dollars replacing perfectly good C-141s with C-17s, P-3s with P-8s, and E-model C-130s with J-model C-130s. It's one or the other: which?

Its not one or the other, but thats a nice try. Continue trying to make a gray subject, with literally tens of thousands of variables black and white.

Anyhow, why is it controversial to say that the endless delays we've seen in getting our servicemen badly-needed replacements for half-century-old equipment are just not acceptable? Why does this seem to make so many people around here defensive?

besides you shooting your mouth off with assumptions and wild guesses while missing obvious basic facts? Don't know why our panties are in a bunch at all.

[Flyingfortress]

Only on ARC can members get into a pissing match over the deaths of military personnel!!!! Take heed in what the ARC members who are in the military speak, they know more then any civilian on this site! Pass your condolences on and pass on being an "expert" at aviation.

[Bangem82]

...

Edited May 5, 2013 by Bangem82

[Scooby]

Yes, actually, I have a very good idea of what you do when you inspect and maintain aircraft. And by no means am I saying that USAF (or any other) mechanics don't know what they're doing or intentionally send unsafe aircraft out to fly. But military mechanics aren't magicians and military aircraft aren't made of pixy dust.

You truly have no idea. The maintenance of an aircraft goes well beyond the technician. The manufacture and aerospace engineering are all involved. We have special inspections and non destructive testing (x-ray). They know when an aircraft should be retired based on previous structural testing.

I have a lesson plan from a KC-135 ground incident where the tail was blown off the aircraft, the result of a pressurization problem (plugs left in which prevented relief valves from working). There was nothing wrong with the structural integrity of that aircraft.

The KC-135 is like the DC-3/C-47, they have a ton of hours left in their rugged airframes. No need to speculate.

[Scooby]

Stoermer is safe on the ground (Thank goodness, he'd better be... he's gonna be in my wedding). He spends more time wet-nursing simulators these days than in the air, I'll wager. I'm hearing that it was a McConnell jet, but a fairchild-based crew..

Thoughts and prayers to the families!

Thanks for the news, Jeff and I go back a few years. We were suppose to meet once in Cold Lake but he decided to become a tanker.

Sorry to hear of the loss of your mates.

[11bee]

How this thread got turned into a debate of this scale is beyond me. The OP was to identify the mishap and pay homage to the fallen serviceman.

I believe that the OP was simply that a KC-135 had crashed. Actually I'm sure of it since aside from the title, there was no other text.

I think everyone mourns the three service members that were killed (I know I do, they are in my prayers) but I also don't think it's disrespectful to discuss other, KC-135 related issues. As far as I can tell, the only rules applicable on this forum are No Politics and we haven't strayed into that realm (yet). I also don't think someone should be shouted down because only military personnel have the right to weigh in on issues like this. My personal observation from being on ARC for the last few years is that military members are not divine experts either. I'd say the signal to noise ratio is pretty much the same as everyone else. If you feel otherwise, take it up with the moderators and find a way to restrict ARC posts to active military only, otherwise, do what everyone else does - If you don't like a particular thread (or poster), simply ignore.

I'm not agreeing with Antonov on most of his points, but I think the guy has every right to post them without being slammed by other members.

[vince14]

Only on ARC can members get into a pissing match over the deaths of military personnel!!!! Take heed in what the ARC members who are in the military speak, they know more then any civilian on this site! Pass your condolences on and pass on being an "expert" at aviation.

By that logic, all the members of ARC who are currently serving with the military should not be allowed to comment on any civilian aviation topics.

Vince

[GreyGhost]

What about the folks that are in ANG Units and are also Commercial Airline Pilots too ?

-Gregg

[Bangem82]

I believe the intent of my previous post was lost. In no way do I think a military member's opinion is more valuable than a civilian's. I apologize to anyone that may have felt otherwise. This indeed is a forum for models and builders of models, all shapes and forms, and from all sorts of walks of life. I apologize specifically to Antonov because I called him out harshly when I shouldn't have. I hope we can all move on pass this instance. My prayers go out to the crew and their families.