Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

Waz said:
It's plain to see that without daddy America Israel would have been torn to pieces by Iran in any conflict. These cowards have no will to fight and have the whole throw rocks behind a big protector/fence syndrome.
Click to expand...
Daddy and their cousins in gcc I love it when it an Israeli calls me cousin and doesn’t think it’s meant to be anything more than a belittling remark
 
Yasser76 said:
Yes, they literally do refuel each other

View attachment 185757
Click to expand...

This issue is a little nuanced.

1. This photo does not show two KC-135. The photo shows KC-135 refueling a KC-46A so it is irrelevant to the conversation which needs the following nuance to be included.

2. The destroyed KC-135 is NOT a very atypical model of KC-135 that is actually capable of being refueled (the KC-135RT)

3. Therefore the statement that KC-135 can refuel other KC-135 is not entirely true. Only one type of rare model of KC-135 can receive fuel and that is the KC-135RT which is NOT the model destroyed or the model damaged which are typical KC-135R, at least according to the US.

But it is quite evident that it was still lost due to the collision with the damaged KC-135R.

Perhaps there is a hidden ability for refueling between typical KC-135R and the RT model is not required or it's an upgrade to some model. They were clearly operating alongside each other.

You're both right in your own ways.
 
Dug a little deeper by logging on my AKO online about the 2 KC-135 crash because someone is accusing me of spreading "rumor" (even though I already said that's a rumor I had heard, from a quick chat with a member of the USAF), but anyway

The 2 tankers the Pentagon said were involved in an accident were both KC-135Rs, which do NOT have the retractor boom receiver installed as part of the Special Operations upgrade. The aircraft involved in this were

63-7992, crashed in Western Iraq, was a KC-135R operated by the 166th Refuelling Squadron of the Ohio Air National Guard out of Rickenbacker Air National Guard Station

63-8017 landed in Israel with part of the tail sheared off, is a KC-135R operated by the 314th Refueling Squadron of the US Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) from Beale Field, in California.

Those 2 aircraft were NOT boom received, which means whatever the reason they crashed, it CANNOT be from them refuelling from each other, which is why said rumor, of them being attacked by Iraq, spawned.

NOW this is VERY IMPORTANT, THIS IS A RUMOR, TAKE IT AS YOU MAY, but don't come to me and say "hey, your stupid rumor is wrong because KC-135 can refuel each other and then show me a picture that was not showing a KC-135 refuelling another KC-135."
 
Last edited:
niubi said:
This issue is a little nuanced.

1. This photo does not show two KC-135. The photo shows KC-135 refueling a KC-46A so it is irrelevant to the conversation which needs the following nuance to be included.

2. The destroyed KC-135 is NOT a very atypical model of KC-135 that is actually capable of being refueled (the KC-135RT)

3. Therefore the statement that KC-135 can refuel other KC-135 is not entirely true. Only one type of rare model of KC-135 can receive fuel and that is the KC-135RT which is NOT the model destroyed or the model damaged which are typical KC-135R, at least according to the US.

But it is quite evident that it was still lost due to the collision with the damaged KC-135R.

Perhaps there is a hidden ability for refueling between typical KC-135R and the RT model is not required or it's an upgrade to some model. They were clearly operating alongside each other.

You're both right in your own ways.
Click to expand...
He is being an. al about a casual conversation I had with an LTC friend of mine in the Air Force, when I asked him what his thought about the KC-135 crash, and that's what he said, it can't be because they were both refuelling on each other, because they can't refuel themselves so it would have to be something else, and when I press on him, he said, probably someone shot them down over Western Iraq, because the alternative is if those tankers weren't having to do something to each other, that's just mean either set of the pilot didn't see the other, and it would have been stupid as we are not talking about fighter aircraft, that's more logical than it just crash onto each other..
 
j_hungary said:
Dug a little deeper by logging on my AKO online about the 2 KC-135 crash because someone is accusing me of spreading "rumor" (even though I already said that's a rumor I had heard, from a quick chat with a member of the USAF), but anyway

The 2 tankers the Pentagon said were involved in an accident were both KC-135Rs, which do NOT have the retractor boom receiver installed as part of the Special Operations upgrade. The aircraft involved in this were

63-7992, crashed in Western Iraq, was a KC-135R operated by the 166th Refuelling Squadron of the Ohio Air National Guard out of Rickenbacker Air National Guard Station

63-8017 landed in Israel with part of the tail sheared off, is a KC-135R operated by the 314th Refueling Squadron of the US Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) from Beale Field, in California.

Those 2 aircraft were NOT boom received, which means whatever the reason they crashed, it CANNOT be from them refuelling from each other, which is why said rumor, of them being attacked by Iraq, spawned.

NOW this is VERY IMPORTANT, THIS IS A RUMOR, TAKE IT AS YOU MAY, but don't come to me and say "hey, your stupid rumor is wrong because KC-135 can refuel each other and then show me a picture that was not showing a KC-135 refuelling another KC-135."
Click to expand...

We seem to see more refuellers now operating over Saudi Arabia than over Iraq, is this because the airspace has become contested/at threat ?
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 280 (members: 5, guests: 275)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top