KC135

A KC-135R was just spotted transiting through RAF Mildenhall in the United Kingdom covered in patches installed over shrapnel damage.

The images come to us from aviation photographer Andrew McKelvey, which show the aircraft dotted with the repairs from nose to tail. It is very likely this is one of the tankers damaged in the Iranian long-range strike on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia last month. The aircraft belongs to the Ohio Air National Guard’s 121st Air Refueling Wing.

While the attack on the base is said to have damaged five tankers, the full destruction inflicted by it and subsequent strikes on Prince Sultan Air Base remains murky, as do potential impacts to facilities and aircraft located across the region. The lack of regular satellite imagery from U.S. providers of the Middle East has made it harder to understand what has occurred, but as we state repeatedly, satellite images would not show more minor damage to aircraft, such as the shrapnel holes seen here.

You can get an idea of how many aircraft the U.S. has lost during Operation Epic Fury from our recent graphic linked here.

While all tankers are precious assets, at least to a degree, due to the high demand on the fleet and its cumulative age, in this case there may be at least one positive side effect from the damage. Executing a battle damage repair plan in the field to get a KC-135 back in the air is a good real-life exercise, one that could prove vital if a future conflict in the Pacific were to erupt. Lessons will certainly be learned on many levels from Operation Epic Fury. And some of these lessons came the hard way even though they really shouldn’t have.

Regardless, the fact that this Stratotanker is flying again is a good thing and a testament to the airman in the field that made it happen.

We will likely be seeing more patched-up tankers in the coming days and weeks as similar repairs are made and they make their way back to the United States for much more repairs.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

As Epic Fury grinds into a second month, the Air Force continues to rely heavily on its fleet of aerial refueling tankers, the majority of which are over 60 years old, to gas up aircraft attacking Iran and those still pouring into the Middle East. The strain on the force has been exacerbated by the loss of a KC-135 Stratotanker and damage to another after a collision over Iraq and several more tankers being destroyed and damaged on the ground by Iranian long-range weapons. Meanwhile, given this large commitment of aircraft and personnel, there are questions about how the U.S. tanker fleet can respond to a fight in the Pacific should one break out tonight. To get a better sense of that, we spoke to retired Air Force Col. Troy Pananon, who flew tankers and commanded a tanker wing.

In the second installment of our two-hour, wide-ranging exclusive interview – the first centering on Epic Fury’s strain on the force – Pananon offers insights into whether there are enough tankers and crews to sustain combat in two theaters more than 4,000 miles apart, the challenges of flying long distance over contested airspace and what, if any, countermeasures tankers should be given to survive.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity. 

Q: Given the heavy use of aerial refueling for Epic Fury, how concerned are you about the ability to fuel a fight in the Pacific, if one should break out tonight or in the near term?

A: There is a high demand on the tanker community. We retired the KC-10s, so that is a void that can’t be filled as quickly as we would like. But the tanker force is robust, and even though we have a contingency of aircraft in the Middle East region and parts of Europe, we still have tankers that are all over the world, to include the Pacific. Kadena has its own wing of tankers there. And so the ability for our tanker fleet to pivot or to surge and scale to another region – there is not another military out there that can do it – but it puts that demand on the total force.

I think that we could do it, sure, but it would put a significant strain if we were trying to operate in two different parts of the globe, especially if it was involving major combat operations. And not to mention, there’s an element of protecting the homeland as well. Tankers are required to do that too. So you can’t just say, ‘Oh well, we’ll deplete the entire force and focus abroad.’ There’s an element required to support homeland operations as well.

Q: Does the need to do all those missions at once worry you?

A: At my level, when I was at the tactical level or the operational level, I always felt that we were adequately supported. There was certainly a stressor involved with trying to manage all that. But whenever there was a concern, you always would go up to your higher headquarters, and say, ‘Hey, here’s the current situation. We don’t need help now, or we do need help, and this is how you can help.’

It was their ability to resource those needs that really made my job easier and made the jobs of those who worked with me easier, knowing that they had support from above. But it’s not an unlimited resource. It’d be hard for me to say what would be required if we needed to pivot, or if we needed to support two operations in different parts of the world. But I would say that we were certainly capable of doing it. 

I just don’t know the duration of that, and unfortunately we always tend to think of these things in short-term snippets. But there are long-lasting impacts to things where high operations tempo means higher strain on the resources, higher strain on the aircraft.

Looking at the long view, if you have to increase your operational tempo on a particular platform versus what you had planned for that, it is going to put a strain on the acquisition process. It’s going to put a strain on the supply system. All these things, they do have an impact, not only in the short, but in the long-view as well.

Q: Considering how long it took to build up forces in the Middle East, how concerned are you about being able to fly long distances to protect Taiwan from attack by China? Can the current fleet sustain a major conflict with China, where fighters will need to fly thousands of miles on each sortie just to get to the effective fighting range?

A: I can’t completely comment on this for various reasons. There are certainly war plans in place. There have been studies that have taken place that are certainly higher classification levels, and we can’t discuss in this session or in public, right? It’s been looked at. I would say that there are plans in place that would prove that we could support operations in the Pacific region.

Is it complex? Yes. Does it require certain things to be successful? Yes, There are certain dominoes that need to fall into place in support of an operation like that. 

Q: But from a tanker pilot and wing commander perspective, what are the challenges of flying over these long distances through a very robust Chinese anti-aircraft, area denial environment?

A: I like to use the term, it’s a young man’s or woman’s game. It’s fatigue that is the enemy here, because when you have to operate at these distances and for the duration that is involved, it is certainly a physical stressor. Often, we’re operating in multiple time zones, and we’re not probably getting adequate rest, and that’s a cumulative effect, as you are asked to operate for these long durations. 

I’ve been on a cruise where we operated for 24 hours straight, and to do that over a sustained length of time – I don’t know that you can do it. In order to do that, it means you need more personnel. And so where an operation might be successful with – and I’ll just use easy numbers here – with 100 personnel that don’t have to range like you would in the Pacific or in Europe or even in the Middle East, depending on basing. Well, you’re probably going to need maybe twice as many to operate in the Pacific, because of the human element. You don’t want personnel to be fatigued to the point where they are not operating in a safe manner, and so you need to give them the appropriate rest. 

It goes all the way down the line, from air traffic control to ground personnel to maintenance to logistics. You need more personnel to support that effort at the distances and the range that you’re talking about. And the Pacific is a challenge, and it would require more personnel to just operate the aircraft, let alone the logistics tail required to support those aircraft. It is a significant challenge. And I’ve certainly endured operations where you bring in multiple energy drinks or keep the coffee brewing for long periods of time.

Q: What about the addition of robust Chinese air defenses into that equation? How much additional concern does that raise?

A: Tanker aircraft are not inherently survivable from enemy aircraft or missiles. There are upgrades or updates that could help in certain ways. The [AN/AAQ-24(V)N Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasure] LAIRCM is one of those technologies that would certainly help some of those aircraft. But, again, that means that we’ve got to stay out of harm’s way. Typically, we’ve got to set our tanker orbits up further away from the enemy’s reach and their engagement zone. 

It is a team effort, right. The role of our strike aircraft and joint partners to eliminate that threat is probably more important than our ability to add protection to these aircraft. I think they go hand in hand. It would be nice for tankers to have protective measures in place to make sure that they are survivable if we need them to operate in a contested environment, but in their current state, I would be definitely worried about pushing tankers closer to that engagement zone, because they don’t have the survivability or protections that maybe even aircraft like the F-22 or F-35 might have. 

We don’t have chaff or flares. We don’t have other measures that would protect our fleet, and so I think it’s the role of the warfighting commander to protect those assets and to ensure that they’re operating in a safe zone. And if they’re moved closer to that Weapon Engagement Zone, then they have the ability to retrograde or the connectivity and communication ability to ensure that those tankers can move back or retrograde away from the threat. There are some technology solutions out there, but I don’t know if that’s the sole solution. It is a comprehensive solution that is required to kind of go after that challenge.

Q: How difficult is to get, say, an F-35 into effective combat range and to fuel them up outside of the Chinese Weapons Engagement Zone?

A: It’s layers, right? In order for those aircraft to move into those high threat areas, it will probably require preparation of that environment. I think there are other elements of our military that would go to great lengths to create lanes or passageways to allow those aircraft to move closer to wherever they’re trying to get to their objective. 

The preparation of the environment that’s required probably is not the F-35 – the shorter range aircraft. There are other elements that would be used to prepare certain areas to allow our aircraft to move closer. There are other aircraft that would probably be capable of penetrating those air defenses and eliminating some of those threats.

Q: Which aircraft?

A: You have highly capable B-2A Spirit bombers and maybe in the future, B-21 Raider aircraft. There’s other non-manned platforms that I would assume could be used to help eliminate some of the threat, but not all of it.

The Chinese have a very, very robust air defense environment and system of systems in place. But I think that we as a military certainly have capabilities that could give us moments of opportunity. And I think once we find an opportunity, our trained airmen and joint force can leverage that. I don’t think that we want to go toe-to-toe right now. I don’t think we ever want to go toe-to-toe with an adversary like China. I hope that we don’t have to do that, but I know that our joint force is preparing for that if it ever happens.

Q: What about giving tankers self defenses? We have heard about everything from just better situational awareness to providing electronic warfare pods to having their own collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs) to putting mini-interceptors under their wings capable of taking down incoming threats. What is the best avenue for making the current tankers we have more survivable? 

A: Prevention is the best cure here. Not putting them in harm’s way would be the best way for them to survive. But I think it would be certainly comforting to know that they have onboard systems or bolt-on systems that would help them at least have a chance against some of these threats. There are certainly a lot of opportunities out there. I’ve heard of efforts where you would outfit certain aircraft with certain defensive measures. 

If you got into a situation and we needed to do it, I think the KC-46 Pegasus is a great platform to utilize for this, because it has so much advanced avionics architecture already on board. Trying to do it on the KC-135? That is because you’re trying to answer a scale problem. We don’t have enough KC-46s and we need more. And I know that they’re trying to procure more and and they’re coming, but they’re not to the scale that we have with the KC-135. And so the problem with trying to work with that is that now we’ve got an older airframe, and we’re trying to bolt on new technology that may or may not be compatible, and so we’re gonna have to upgrade other elements on board the aircraft, just to make sure that it can work.

We have an old aircraft. We have some things that have been updated, like the avionics have been updated. But is it the same technological advancement as what is going to be required to bolt on to protect that particular aircraft? Well, no, because it probably – from a data infrastructure set – is not going to operate at the same speed. It’s not going to operate in a similar fashion. There’s some latency that gets introduced if you’re trying to onboard new technology with older technology.

Q: What about adding electronic warfare pods, CCAs or mini interceptors?

A:  I think nothing is off the table. I think those are fantastic ideas, and I know that there are people that have probably experimented or modeled to and then probably proven that it’s a successful option. But you have to resource it. We have a lot of mouths to feed here – it’s not a limitless pot, and there’s the research and development and then product production of that. 

It doesn’t happen overnight and with every new technology that is offered to the warfighter, it is a challenge to make sure that all the personnel are trained and learn how to leverage these resources, not just individually, but collectively, as a team, as an organization, to really harness that and make sure that anything that’s introduced is successful.

You can’t just say, ‘Oh, well, look, I got this bright, shiny object. I’m just going to bolt it onto this aircraft, and everything is going to be working beautifully.’ No, there’s a whole host of problems that creates because you don’t have personnel that are all collectively trained, that have all operated with it, that have all that is integrated with it, that ensures that when you add this to that platform, that it is operating the way it was designed or intended to be operated. You can’t just snap your fingers and think that it’s gonna work right away.

Q: As a flight commander, would you like to have been able to have air-to-air interceptors under the wings of your tanker?

A: The one thing about airmen, and I would say Air Force in general, is that we tend to like new technologies. We’re not afraid of technology in general. We embrace it. The people that we attract into our service are people that embrace technology, that are innovative themselves. So, yeah, sure if I could roll back time, and that technology was introduced to me, I’d be first in awe. And two, I’d say, ‘Okay, well, how can we make this work? How can I integrate? How can I be able to leverage that and exceed expectations, and ensure that we meet the potential for that new technology?’ 

Q: There’s been a great deal of discussion about the importance of improving communications connectivity on the tanker fleet. We’ve already talked a little about it. Why is connectivity an issue? And what’s your advice to improve it?

A: Connectivity provides us situational awareness, and that situational awareness improves our ability to operate. It’s a team effort, and in order to do things collectively as a team, we have to be connected. And then the challenge is deciding, well, how should we connect? What sole-source platform should we be all collectively using because it does us no good to be connected as an Air Force, but not be able to talk to a Marine Corps or Navy, or Army or a coalition partner. 

And so the challenge is not only do we need to find the right technological solution, we have to ensure that it is able to integrate and communicate harmoniously with all our other partners, because it is not just an Air Force by itself, game. It is a joint force coalition game in terms of what we’re doing right now and what we’ll do in the future. 

I know that it’s a huge discussion about, okay, what platform do we use? How do we get it to our airmen right away? How do we make sure that it can integrate with the joint force? And then, ok, now we’ve got the solution. Where’s the money, right? There are so many elements to ensure that we can do this at scale and at speed. I trust that our leadership has been advocating with Congress and with other elements of the administration to get this in place. I don’t know how long it’ll take, but it certainly will help from a situational awareness perspective.

Q: Is there any particular system that you think would help improve situational awareness?

A: I think there are some age-old systems that have been in place. Link 16 architecture comes to mind. There are probably other modern solutions out there, but I don’t want to say that ‘this is the right system,’ because I’m not in the position to really argue for that. There are some systems out there that help, that are already in place, that would help us immensely, if we were to have that particular system across all platforms, right where the AOC [air operations center] can talk directly to the tanker element, who is also receiving data from other elements in the air, whether it be fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, and then, feeding that through our platform – maybe a KC-46 – back to the AOC, instantaneously. I know there are efforts out there to enhance that pipeline, but it’s not my place to say one system’s better than the other.

I just know that’s the panacea. That’s where you have to get to. You have to get to where the shooter is, all the way back to where the decisions are being made, and harness that data and then allow that data to help inform a decision, so that now you can give that decision over to the activity that’s operating. And so this constant cycle, and they use the term OODA loop, right? This constant cycle of observe, orient, decide, act – it’s got to happen faster than the enemy cycle for us to be successful. Connecting those points with technology can help us do that faster.

Q: You’re in the aircraft, you’ve got a receiver coming up. You don’t necessarily know where everything is. How does it help a pilot and the crew to have better connectivity?

A: Let me just put a hypothesis out there as an example. Say we have a receiver that was coming up, and they’ve got a really good understanding of where the threat rings are, what enemy positions are, where our friendly forces are, and that’s all in a data packet on board their aircraft. And if you don’t have a secure connection over the air, but you do have a secure connection once you’re connected with the boom, that data packet can then be uploaded to our aircraft and then displayed for our airmen to see, right? Because now, it’s like that whole moving map idea, like you may have a navigation system in your car that says, ‘hey, where’s the nearest gas station?’ and then it pops up and it tells you where the nearest gas stations are.

Same thing can be said if you’re operating a tanker aircraft, and now you get a data packet that gives you the full display of what the battlefield looks like in front of you. You now know, okay, here’s where I want to go, and here’s where I don’t want to go. So, if the technologies in place or are available now, it’s just a matter of connecting the dots. And this is a huge situational awareness improvement, if we can get to the point where the tanker crew on board has the ability to see exactly what is taking place, where the threats are, where the green zones are, where it’s safe to operate. And if they can do this in a secure manner that’s impenetrable by enemy forces, that is where we need to get to.

In our next installment, Pananon talks about drone incursions, the challenges of creating a new tanker fleet and whether single-pilot operations are a good idea.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Operation Epic Fury will hit a month old by the weekend. It and the massive military build-up to it were made possible by a global logistics chain that only the Pentagon can supply. At the heart of it is the aerial refueling fleet. These aircraft have flown thousands of sorties to get materiel where it needs to be and fast. These have included stuffing the fuel tanks of C-17s with cargo holds full of Patriot missiles to dragging stealth fighters across the globe. Epic Fury has been one of many operations to heavily tax the tanker fleet in recent years. To get a much better insight into the tanker portion of the war and its impacts, we talked to one man with an extreme level of experience behind the controls of USAF tankers.

For more than 20 years, Troy Pananon, a retired Air Force colonel, served in the aerial refueling community. He flew KC-10 Extender and KC-135 Stratotanker refueling jets and served as deputy commander of the 6th Air Mobility Wing at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida (now 6th Air Refueling Wing), and later as commander of the 100th Air Refueling Wing at RAF Mildenhall in England. Both of these installations and their KC-135s are instrumental in the ongoing war in Iran.

In a two-hour, wide-ranging exclusive interview, Pananon offered insights into the strain of the war on the jets and personnel and the challenges of keeping the aging KC-135s flying as they perform hundreds of sorties gassing up fighters, airlifters and other aircraft. One of those missions resulted in the deaths of six airmen after a suspected midair collision over Iraq. Pananon also addressed a whole host of other issues, including how Epic Fury is affecting readiness for a fight against China, the scourge of drone incursions and much more, which will be addressed in future installments.

Pananon, who began his career as an enlisted Marine, retired from the Air Force in 2023 and is now a 737 first officer with United Airlines. The first installment of our conversation focuses on Epic Fury and the toll on the tankers, crews and maintainers. Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: The Air Force tanker fleet has come under extremely heavy use in recent years, being widely utilized in the evacuation of Afghanistan, the massive deliveries to Ukraine, the constant crisis in the Middle East and the campaign against the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Now, the war in Iran. Talk about the strain this is putting on it, on the aircrews, the maintainers and the airframes, some of which rolled out during the Eisenhower era.

A: I would categorically say that there’s a huge strain on the entire ecosystem. The KC-135s were rolling off the assembly line in the 50s and 60s. Some of the technology, and we called it technology back then, was graduated from the Wright brothers technology. Parts on that aircraft are still reminiscent of some of the things that were invented by the Wright brothers. So it’s amazing to me that the KC-135 is able to operate, and it’s due in large part to the maintainers and the relentless effort that they follow through to keep those aircraft air worthy. 

If you think about the [airmen], how they’re operating in places you mentioned all over the world, they’re there. We’ve broken their normal routine. They’re away from home, away from their family and friends. So that’s a mental and physical stressor, because they’re in environments that they’re not accustomed to. 

We don’t know how long this conflict could last. We’re approaching a high heat of summer in that region, and so depending on where some of these personnel are based or stationed, they’re certainly out of their normal circadian rhythm, their normal environmental routines. It is a huge strain on those maintainers and the airframes that we’re placing in different parts of the world, exposed to different elements than they may have been exposed to at their normal pace. Maintaining these aging aircraft is a strain on the entire ecosystem, and we are operating them at a high operations tempo, and surely that puts a lot of a significant strain on the KC-135.

We do have the KC-46 that is helping to fill some of that void, but we just retired the KC-10, which was a tremendous workhorse. And so I would say that there’s a significant strain on the ecosystem.

Q: What are the biggest challenges in keeping these Cold War-era jets like the KC-135 flying? How difficult is it to find parts, and what do you do when you can’t?

A: That’s 100% accurate. There have been some breakthroughs in technology. I know that they’ve used 3D printing to help source some parts. They’ve even gone back to the boneyard and pulled parts off of older KC-135s. So resources will always be a great puzzle for our entire team to source. 

There’s no new assembly line. They shut that assembly line down back in the ’50s and ’60s. Some of the parts for those aircraft in general were from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. And then, you have to take those back and refurbish those certain parts. There’s not a lot of new technology that’s going on to these core platforms. The avionics, for sure, is newer. But everything that you add to this aircraft, I call it the Frankenstein effort – taking bolt-on technology to try and help modernize the fleet. And by modernizing that means that you’re also helping with the parts availability. But going back to the age of these aircraft, some of these parts were developed back in the ’40s and machined back in the ’50s and ’60s. Our teams have to get creative with the acquisition. And that’s a huge, huge challenge. But they currently have done a great job of putting new engines on the aircraft. And so that means that the parts availability is better in some cases, but it’s not a solution. 

Davis Monthan AMARG Boneyard tour with KC-135s and Boeing 707s

Q: What are some of the old parts you’re talking about that go back to the ’40s, or to the Wright brothers era?

A: Just think about the flight controls. If you, for whatever reason, need to replace certain pulleys or elements within the flight control system, those parts were thought-up and developed way back in the ’40s. Machined maybe back in the ’50s and ’60s. It’s still not a fly-by-wire aircraft like some of the modern aircraft that we have nowadays. And so you have to go back and machine some of these parts if they get wear and tear.

Q: What are the complexities of supporting such a high tempo operation like the war against Iran with aerial refueling? We’ve heard that the airspace over Iraq is chaotic and that the lack of onboard situational awareness is a major issue with tanker crews and receivers. What have you heard about this?

A: Obviously I haven’t operated over there in a number of years, but I do go back to the times when I was operating aircraft in that theater. That puts me back into the Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom timeframe. We have deconfliction procedures. We have airspace procedures that we study and that we follow. We have aircraft in there that help us deconflict the airspace and ensure that we have safe separation. And it goes to training, it goes to situational awareness.

Back then, we didn’t have some of the avionics and software suites that we have available to us today, so our situational awareness wasn’t as high, but yet we had good, solid procedures and processes that ensured clear deconfliction and separation in the airspace that they’re operating in. Now, I would assume that it’s congested and it’s contested, and so having the ability to have higher situational awareness with onboard avionics suites that are connected is probably more and more essential as we go forward.

Q: But have you heard anything about the chaotic nature of the current airspace and lack of onboard situational awareness? Is it a major issue right now with the tanker crews and receivers?

A:  I really can’t comment on it, because I don’t have firsthand knowledge. What I can say is that it’s in a contested environment, and our crews are definitely trained to operate in these kinds of environments. And you know, it’s just like anything there. There are elements that we have little control over, and I call it the fog and friction of warfare. But I have 100% absolute trust in the personnel. They’ve been trained. They are equipped. Could they be equipped better? Could they be resourced better? Sure. But again, it still goes back to the fact that even if we resource them with the newest technology, they then have to go back and be trained to understand how to integrate it and how to use it effectively. 

There is still an opportunity here. You can’t solve it overnight, but it does need to happen so it would help. I’m certain that if we ever get into conflict with a near peer, it’s going to be even more challenging.

Q: When was the last time tanker crews flew in contested airspace against adversaries with more robust air defenses than we have seen in past conflicts?

A: I would like to say that any time that you’re operating within a conflict zone, that’s considered contested airspace, right? The tankers are considered a high-value, low-density. We don’t have an infinite number of tankers, so they’re going to tend to operate outside the reach of the adversary’s missiles, or fighter aircraft that would try to reach and take down one of these tankers. So they’re really going to try and operate within a safe, safe zone. I would frankly say that in a conflict, tankers operate in contested airspace all the time, and it’s really contingent on the ability of our joint force to clear that airspace and to allow our tankers to move closer to the tip of the spear, but generally speaking, it is really sacrosanct to keep tankers an arm’s reach away from an adversary’s ability to take them down.

Q: Do you have any sense of what happened in the fatal March 12 KC-135 crash in Iraq that led to the deaths of Maj. John “Alex” Klinner, 33, of Auburn, Alabama; Capt. Ariana G. Savino, 31, of Covington, Washington; Tech. Sgt. Ashley B. Pruitt, 34, of Bardstown, Kentucky; Capt. Seth R. Koval, 38, of Mooresville, Indiana; Capt. Curtis J. Angst, 30, of Wilmington, Ohio; and Tech. Sgt. Tyler H. Simmons, 28, of Columbus, Ohio?

A: There’s an investigation taking place and it’d be wrong of me to comment on what I think took place. These crews are highly trained. They have a process. They have procedures. I don’t know what was taking place on the flight decks of both of those aircraft. There was probably some confusion as to who and where each aircraft was supposed to be, but I don’t know what led to that. There’s a lot of speculation out there. It’d be hard for me to really say what I think actually did happen.

Q: The cause of the tanker crash is suspected to be a collision with another KC-135. How many close calls have you experienced in your career?

A: Well, I have a deep background in the KC-10, and that also gives gas and takes gas. So I’ve been within 10 feet of another aircraft, operating at close to 350 miles an hour. It’s an inherently dangerous occupation when you’re trying to receive fuel from another aircraft. I don’t think that was the case in this particular incident over Iraq. But at all times, everything we do is inherently dangerous because we operate within safe operating margins, but they’re tight. So, a simple split-second decision or maybe error puts you in a precarious position. But we have procedures that, if we make a mistake and we come close to another aircraft – there is a term that we use, which is ‘breakaway.’ And that tells both aircraft, ‘hey, we’re in a situation where we need to create some space between our aircraft,’ and we follow our procedures. It’s a safe maneuver, but probably makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up a little bit. I’ve been in this, I’ve been in situations where I’ve had to rapidly escape from another aircraft. 

But again, we get trained for this. We are highly trained. And I think because of the training, when a situation like that occurs, your instinct kicks in and you know what to do. And so, I don’t recall instances where two KC-135s had a midair collision, but certainly, we have had air-to-air collisions, just none in my recent memory.

Q: The air refueling tanker community is tight. You served at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, with Tech. Sgt. Pruitt, one of the airmen who was killed in the crash. Tell me about how the crash affected the community. Tell me a little bit about Pruitt.

A: From my time at MacDill, I do remember her family. In general, losing anyone is just a shock to the system. And especially somebody that you may have worked with in the past, and you know. I just feel for their families. And we have a community. The tanker community – it’s just a system, a brotherhood and sisterhood. We are just one big family. Anytime we have a tragedy that strikes our community, especially like this, it’s tough. 

I know that there are teams of people out there that are remorseful for the loss and that are doing anything in their power to support the families of these airmen. And I know there’s a lot of effort right now within our tanker community and outside of our tanker community with Go-Fund-Me pages. This is critical, because the families that have been affected by this lost a parent, right? A brother or sister or a spouse. I really do feel for these families, and I applaud the efforts of the supporters out there that are contributing to help with some of the things that are going to end up financially costing these families; but emotionally, you know that they will need support, probably for the rest of their lives. And so it’s a huge, huge loss.

Q: What can you tell me about Tech. Sgt. Pruitt?

A: Ashley was full of energy and was extremely bright, tenacious, and had an unmatched work ethic. She was a real, genuine people person. When you walked into a room, you knew she was there. But she was incredibly talented and someone that you could rely upon to help others, and she was absolutely an incredible boom operator and highly skilled and her death is this huge, huge loss. For her legacy, she impacted so many people and so many of these airmen and their families were certainly enriched by her being in their lives. At the time, I was the vice commander of the [then-6th Air Mobility Wing] at MacDill. And on occasion, I would go out and go fly with the KC-135 crews. I didn’t have a daily interaction with her, but everybody knew her, and everybody knew of her. And that’s the important part. There are many other airmen that are in our ranks right now that have benefited from being introduced to her and being taught by her and being mentored by her. So she’s surely missed.

Q: Give me a sense of how RAF Mildenhall and other bases in Europe and elsewhere keep these aircraft flying to generate sorties and deploy to combat zones like the Middle East.

A: The best part about having a forward operating base like Mildenhall is that you have all the resources in place, and in this particular case, they’re closer to where the conflict is. You don’t have as much of a long logistical chain, but you still have a logistics chain that you have to support. And so operating at a place like Mildenhall, a round the clock operation every day of the year, you do have weather to contend with on occasion, and you do have airspace constraints that you do have to contend with. But again, all of these crews are highly trained and so I would say that the operations tempo at a place like Mildenhall is extremely high. 

Just being able to have the support of the government there and the host nation that there is, and the local community is a big deal. I enjoyed my time there. Of course, we were there during COVID, during the global pandemic, and the lengths and support that we received from the host nation to ensure the safety of our community and our airmen was incredible.

Q: The 100th Air Refueling Wing has 15 tankers and more transit through. What are the concerns and checklists of objectives for a Mildenhall commander during a major contingency operation like Epic Fury?

A: It’s just our ability to support, right? You mentioned there are 15 tankers, but the airfield itself was able to surge to support twice as many. I currently don’t know how many aircraft that we’re currently supporting out of Mildenhall, but the ability to support that means that you have to be able to flex to the surge of the operation that you’re encountering. You have personnel that are helping to fuel the aircraft. You need personnel to maintain and sustain the aircraft. And so I would assume that we are getting support from bases in the United States. And they’re deployed there from all parts of our country and major units. The tanker fleet is a total force effort. Nearly half of the force resides in the [Air Reserve Component] ARC, and so personnel from Reserve, Guard, active duty, I’m sure, have been sent to help support operations like that. 

In our next installment, Pananon talks about the KC-46’s lack of a boom pod, how Epic Fury is affecting the ability to potentially fight China and the dangers of flying long distances over the Pacific against an adversary with robust and plentiful modern air defenses.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

A KC-135 Stratotanker that was taking part in Operation Epic Fury has crashed in Iraq, U.S. Central Command announced.

“U.S. Central Command is aware of the loss of a U.S. KC-135 refueling aircraft,” the command stated Thursday afternoon in a media release. “The incident occurred in friendly airspace during Operation Epic Fury, and rescue efforts are ongoing. Two aircraft were involved in the incident. One of the aircraft went down in western Iraq, and the second landed safely.”

“This was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire,” the CENTCOM statement added. “More information will be made available as the situation develops. We ask for continued patience to gather additional details and provide clarity for the families of service members.”

Three American crewed aircraft are known to have been lost during Operation Epic Fury prior to today’s KC-135 loss. These were F-15Es that were shot down in a bizarre friendly fire incident.

This is a developing story. We will update this post with new information as soon as we get it.

UPDATE: 6:15 PM EDT –

The Times of Israel has reported that the second aircraft involved was another KC-135. That outlet also says that the KC-135 in question was one that landed at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport earlier in the day after declaring an in-flight emergency. Online flight tracking data shows that tanker is a KC-135RT variant, one of a small subset of KC-135Rs that are themselves capable of being refueled in flight. This, in turn, allows them to make use of tanker support themselves to remain on station longer or to conduct longer-distance missions. You can read more about these “receiver-tankers” in this past TWZ feature.