Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker

Not sure where else to put this, but at one point in time, the V2500 was considered for the KC-135 to "dual source" the KC-135R modernization program in the late 1980s. The V2500 promised a 17% reduction in fuel burn over the existing CFM-56 (F108) powered KC-135Rs.
V2500 KC-135.png

(1987, February). Air Force Magazine , 56.
 
Metrea C-135FR are now a bit more than 60 years old. Surely enough they have updagraded along the years, but they are nonethless very old planes. France milked them to the last drop, and since 1972 they were only eleven (the only loss of a C-135FR happened in French Polynesia, Hao, during nuclear testing. The planes turbojets got corroded by coral dust and saltwater corrosion, and one plane went down just after takeoff, killing the entire crew).

They had been bought to refuel the Mirage IVAs (62 of them, strategic mission) but soon the entire tactical fighter force became addicted to aerial refueling: F-100s first, then Jaguars, then Mirage F1s, then all subsequent jets: up to 450 of them by the end of Cold War !)
 
So it woud be a mistake if the USAF went ahead and upgraded the systems on the KC-135 so that it would last for a 100 years.
 
No idea, but I know than any A330 MRTT is better than that.
 
330 can´t really fly NoE and are unsuitable with ACE concept.
KC-135 are smaller and fits better ACE and low level flying.
 
FighterJock said:
Another B-52J style program? o_O :confused:
Click to expand...
As much fun as it may be to speculate about KC-135Z model tankers equipped with CFM-56 LEAP engines... I hate to say it, but KC-46B's re-engined with 787 engines would be a better choice for the low threat tanking, it would also check a box for the freighter market. Of course, Franken freighter it up to a -300 fuse with a -400 wing and undercarriage with said Dreamliner engines and you get something semi useful for a while.

Tongue firmly in cheek ;)
 
Max Mach, engine redundancy, wing in gust behavior (hence aspect ratio) could be the variables they are closely watching.
 
Last edited:
isayyo2 said:
Might as well bring the KC-10s out of the boneyard while they’re at it…
Click to expand...

You have a point. Pretty weird to think KC-135 will completely outlive the KC-10s. Which brings a few additionals questions
-why can't KC-10s last 60 or 100 years like the -135s ?
-why aren't KC-10s taken over by private companies ?

My 2 cts about this: fleet size.

I presume that the 707 / C-135 industrial base was so huge (between 707s and C-135s it was almost 1800 planes) it can still support extremely old tankers.
In comparison, the DC-10 / KC-10 / MD-11 logistic base is mostly gone, because it was much smaller from the beginning (386 + 60 + 200) - plus MDD no longer exists.
 
Too true Archibald, they should have upgraded the KC-10s instead of retiring them especially to have glass cockpits and replaced the engines to have more modern fuel efficient engines.
 
Archibald said:
You have a point. Pretty weird to think KC-135 will completely outlive the KC-10s. Which brings a few additionals questions
-why can't KC-10s last 60 or 100 years like the -135s ?
-why aren't KC-10s taken over by private companies ?
Click to expand...
To tack onto this - why weren't retired MD-10/11s acquired for parts reclamation as the 707s were acquired in the 70s/80s?
 
Anyone knows the details on the precise areas of operation of the KC-135A-II Combat Lighthouse air tanker and radio relay platforms?
 
Would the new engines for the B-52J be manageable?
 
There is plenty of details in the report for how they intend to use those drones:

Retired Gen. Mike Minihan, former head of AMC:

If you’re a KC-135, and you have something like that … I can shoot a decoy out. I can shoot something that can go take a rescue raft to a downed Airmen. I can shoot something that can take a battery to a soldier on an island that needs to get his radio or her radio up to speed,” Minihan told TWZ and other outlets at a media roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association Warfare Symposium in February 2024. “You know, I can do precision navigation timing. I can have something go down and look at the airfield that I’m about to land on and understand where the craters are, and if the airfield is serviceable.”
Click to expand...

Also
In a defensive role, which the Air Force budget documents say the DMM system is primarily focused on now, KC-135-launched drones could also carry small jammers. Uncrewed aerial systems fitted with various sensors could also help spot threats and otherwise provide additional situational awareness. It is unclear whether some type of defensive anti-air interceptor could be developed that fits inside CLT and that would be capable against something like a modern adversary missile.
Click to expand...
(same source)
 
Foo Fighter said:
Would the new engines for the B-52J be manageable?
Click to expand...

B-52H TF33 engines: 17,000 lb. thrust each
B-52J F130 (BR700-725) engines: 17,000 lb. thrust each

KC-135R F108 (CFM-56-2B1) engines: 22,500 lb. thrust each

Putting the F130 on the KC-135Rs would reduce thrust back to just below that of the retired KC-135Es (TF33-PW-102 engines: 18,000 lb. thrust each)

It would only make sense if KC-135Es are brought back from retirement and re-engined.
 
French FAS, AdlAE nuclear strike component, says Adieu to the C-135 after 61 years of service:

View: https://youtu.be/1bvxV1u38ic

Après plus de 60 ans de missions de ravitaillement en vol et de dissuasion nucléaire aéroportée, le KC-135 tire sa révérence. Sur la base aérienne 125 d’Istres, plus de 1500 personnes se sont réunies le 30 juin pour lui rendre hommage, ainsi qu’à tous les Aviateurs et Aviatrices qui l’ont servi.
-------------///*///-----------------------------

After more than 60 years of airborne refueling and nuclear deterrence missions, the KC-135 is retiring. At Air Base 125 in Istres, more than 1,500 people gathered on June 30 to pay tribute to it and all the Airmen and Airwomen who served it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BlackBat242 said:
B-52H TF33 engines: 17,000 lb. thrust each
B-52J F130 (BR700-725) engines: 17,000 lb. thrust each

KC-135R F108 (CFM-56-2B1) engines: 22,500 lb. thrust each

Putting the F130 on the KC-135Rs would reduce thrust back to just below that of the retired KC-135Es (TF33-PW-102 engines: 18,000 lb. thrust each)

It would only make sense if KC-135Es are brought back from retirement and re-engined.
Click to expand...
Thanks, could not remember the rated power OTTOMH.

No doubt adding an engine on each side would eat into range/cost equations.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:

KC-135 Tanker Covered In Shrapnel Patches Seen Landing In UK​

www.twz.com

KC-135 Tanker Covered In Shrapnel Patches Seen Landing In UK

A KC-135 damaged in an Iranian strike has made its way to RAF Mildenhall in the UK thanks to field repairs.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...

Mixed feelings about this.
One the positive side "those old birds are though".
On the negative side "are they really running out of tankers (because KC-46 miseries) they need to patch 60+ years old KC-135s ?"
 
Archibald said:
Mixed feelings about this.
One the positive side "those old birds are though".
On the negative side "are they really running out of tankers (because KC-46 miseries) they need to patch 60+ years old KC-135s ?"
Click to expand...

Retired KC-135 moved from ‘Boneyard’ storage to main USAF tanker base. The US Air Force (USAF) has transferred a retired Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker out of long-term storage, possibly with the intent to return the jet to active duty. https://www.flightglobal.com/archiv...om-boneyard-storage-to-main-usaf-tanker-base/​

 
The crew. The state of the crew is what should concern us the most.

Interestingly also, the damage pattern is annoyingly extensive, covering the whole of the aircraft, fuselage and wings. What might have detonated here was probably big.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom