Tanker

Israel’s first Boeing KC-46A Pegasus tanker — now given the Hebrew name Gideon, after a biblical judge and military leader — has completed its first flight in the United States, with delivery expected soon. As we have discussed in the past, new tankers that can provide additional refueling capacity to support its operations are much in demand with the Israeli Air Force.

New imagery of the first flight of an Israeli KC-46 — with national markings yet to be applied — came just one day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at plans to develop “groundbreaking Israeli-made aircraft,” as well as referencing the approval for two additional fighter squadrons. As you can read about here, these will be made up of F-15IA and F-35I Adir jets, providing an eventual total of four squadrons of F-35Is and two of F-15IAs.

Announcing the first flight of an IAF KC-46, the Israeli Ministry of Defense said the tanker would be delivered to Israel in “approximately one month.” It is the first of six examples on order as part of what the ministry describes as a “wide-scale force buildup program.”

Back in 2020, the U.S. State Department approved the potential sale of eight KC-46s to Israel, with the entire package having an estimated price tag of $2.4 billion.

In 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded Boeing a $930-million contract for the first four KC-46s for Israel. At this time, it was said that deliveries were due before the end of 2026.

On the back of very heavy utilization of its aging Boeing 707 Re’em tanker fleet in operations against Iran, as well as for other long-range combat missions and domestic ones, Israel added two more KC-46s to its order last year.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense says that the KC-46 will be equipped with Israeli systems and adapted to the operational requirements of the IAF. It is unclear what systems will be added, but Israel has a long history of adapting foreign-made aircraft with locally made equipment, and its tankers have been no exception.

One strong possibility is that the KC-46s will be equipped to serve as a command-and-control station and communications node. The current 707 Re’em tanker carries a satellite communications suite to provide critical, secure beyond-line-of-sight communications with appropriately equipped tactical aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, and command centers far away. This is especially important for long-range strike operations.

Were Israel to order more KC-46s, this would not be entirely surprising.

Currently, the IAF is assessed to field no more than seven 707 tankers.

The 12-day war against Iran in 2025 had already led to questions about the IAF’s aerial refueling capacity, and the U.S. government was forced to deny — despite claims to the contrary — that it had provided additional tanker support for the operation.

U.S. Air Force tankers also arrived at Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel in significant numbers earlier this year, when the United States and Israel launched combined strikes against targets across Iran.

Bearing in mind the problems of various kinds that have beset the KC-46 program as far as the U.S. Air Force is concerned, the IAF will be happy that the first delivery is still on track for 2026, in line with the original schedule.

At the same time, it’s not entirely clear how the KC-46s will be outfitted.

In the past, it was expected that they would be delivered with the next-generation version of the critical Remote Vision System (RVS) that has proven so challenging to perfect. Ironically, the Israeli 707s that the KC-46 will replace have long used a locally developed RVS that has apparently proven very effective, and which you can read more about here. We have reached out to Boeing for more details on that feature.

With its existing tanker fleet (and with or without U.S. refueling support), the IAF has demonstrated that it can sustain a remarkably high tempo of operations, striking multiple targets across great distances, as well as supporting combat air patrols and multiple other requirements.

Now, with its first KC-46 Gideon set to arrive in the coming weeks, the Israeli Air Force will begin the start of a long-awaited modernization period for its aerial refueling capacity, ultimately allowing the withdrawal of the antiquated 707.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

May 4 (Asia Today) — Pan Ocean beat market expectations in the first quarter, helped by strong performance in its LNG and tanker businesses.

Pan Ocean said Monday its preliminary first-quarter sales rose 8.3% from a year earlier to 1.51 trillion won ($1.03 billion), while operating profit increased 24.4% to 140.9 billion won ($95.8 million).

The results exceeded market forecasts of 1.46 trillion won ($989 million) in sales and 132.2 billion won ($89.8 million) in operating profit.

Compared with the previous quarter, sales rose 2.2% and operating profit increased 8%. Analysts said expansion of the company’s LNG-focused business portfolio helped defend earnings despite the seasonal shipping slowdown.

By business segment, tanker operating profit rose 41.5% from a year earlier to 28.1 billion won ($19.1 million), supported by strong medium-range tanker market conditions. The LNG business posted 47.2 billion won ($32.1 million) in operating profit, up 49.7%, helped by fleet expansion and higher utilization.

The bulk segment, including grain operations, continued to grow from a year earlier, but profitability weakened from the previous quarter because of spot voyage losses caused by geopolitical risks from U.S.-Iran tensions and rising oil prices. Bulk operating profit totaled 54.7 billion won ($37.2 million).

The container segment posted 9 billion won ($6.1 million) in operating profit, down 42.9% from a year earlier, as oversupply pushed freight rates lower.

Pan Ocean said its strategy of diversifying into LNG and tankers to manage shipping market volatility has begun to show results.

“We will continue efforts to strengthen our ability to respond to market changes, expand our business portfolio and secure stable profitability,” a Pan Ocean official said. “At the same time, we will establish our position as a sustainable company through active ESG management.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260504010000408

On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.

It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.

As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:

How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline

The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.

According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.

In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.

The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.

According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.

“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.

“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.

Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.

So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.

The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”

“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?

The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.

Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.

Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”

Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.

But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.

On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.

In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate.
International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.

Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.

Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.

What are the parallels between the two wars?

Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.

According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.

On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.

Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.

While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.

US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.

According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.

“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”

What are the differences between the two wars?

During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.

But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.

In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.

“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.

“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.

Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.

In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.

Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.

“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.

A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.

“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.

The Department of War has released a video it says shows US forces boarding a sanctioned tanker in the Asia Pacific region as part of their efforts to disrupt vessels providing support to Iran.

President Lee Jae Myung on Friday shared a news report that a South Korean oil tanker exited the Red Sea, marking the first shipment of crude oil to the nation since the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Earlier in the day, the nation’s fisheries ministry reported that the tanker carrying crude oil from Saudi Arabia exited the Red Sea, as the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively closed amid the prolonged war in the Middle East.

“It is good news that our vessel is transporting crude oil via the Red Sea for the first time since the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz,” Lee wrote in his social media post.

He described the safe passage as a “valuable achievement” made possible through close coordination among relevant ministries and the dedication of seafarers under difficult circumstances.

“The government is mobilizing all available resources to address the crisis stemming from the war in the Middle East,” Lee said, pledging to safeguard people’s livelihoods and national interests.

South Korea has been exploring ways to ship crude oil via the Red Sea, an alternative route, as the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint, has been effectively closed amid the Middle East conflict.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

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

In this episode of TWZ: Special Access, Jamie Hunter visits the world-famous Edwards Air Force Base, the heart of the USAF’s flight test operations, in California’s Mojave Desert, to fly a mission in a KC-135 that’s become known as the “Ghost Tanker.” 

This is the U.S. Air Force’s only dedicated test tanker that’s instrumented to certify new aircraft types to tank from a flying-boom-equipped, in-flight refueling aircraft. It was recently seen conducting aerial refueling trials with the new B-21 Raider bomber.

Operated by the Air Force Reserve Command’s 370th Flight Test Squadron, this KC-135 is the Air Force Test Center’s flagship. It forms the centerpiece of an elite tanker test team at Edwards that performs a critical role in supporting a wide range of flight-testing.

We Fly With A Famous USAF Tanker Test Squadron | Riding With The KC-135 Known As “The Ghost”

Contact the host: Jamie.Hunter@teamrecurrent.io

A Russian tanker has delivered enough fuel to meet Cuba’s energy needs for up to 10 days, following a three-month blockade.

A Russia-flagged tanker carrying 730,000 barrels of oil has docked in Cuba, marking the first time in three months that an oil tanker has reached the island nation.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump allowed the Anatoly Kolodkin to proceed despite an ongoing US energy blockade. The Aframax tanker entered the Bay of Matanzas – the country’s largest supertanker and fuel storage port – on Tuesday at daybreak.

The vessel, under US sanctions, entered Cuban territorial waters late on Sunday, not far from the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. The United States said it was allowing the tanker to deliver fuel for humanitarian reasons.

The Anatoly Kolodkin entered the Bay of Matanzas under clear skies and light winds at sunrise. Much of the nearby city – and the majority of Cuba – was without power when the tanker arrived at the port area.

Cuba has not received an oil tanker in three months, according to President Miguel Diaz-Canel, exacerbating an energy crisis that has led to seemingly endless blackouts across the country of 10 million people and brought hospitals, public transportation, and farm production to the brink of collapse.

Cubans, including Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O Levy, cheered the ship’s arrival. A shortage of petroleum has exacerbated a deep economic crisis, leaving the population mired in long blackouts and facing severe shortages of food and medicine.

“Our gratitude to the Government and People of Russia for all the support we are receiving. A valuable shipment that arrives amidst the complex energy situation we are facing,” de la O Levy wrote on X.

The fuel, if delivered, would give Cuba’s communist-run government breathing room amid growing pressure from the Trump administration, which has promised change in Cuba.

It will take days before the crude on board the Anatoly Kolodkin can be processed domestically and turned into motor fuel and refined products, such as diesel and fuel oil for power generation.

The ship is carrying Russian Urals, a medium sour crude, which is a good fit for Cuba’s ageing refineries.

Cuba produces barely 40 percent of its required fuel and relies on imports to sustain its energy grid. Experts say the anticipated shipment could produce about 180,000 barrels of diesel, enough to feed Cuba’s daily demand for nine or 10 days.

Cuba used to receive most of its oil from Venezuela, but those shipments have been halted ever since the US attacked the South American country and abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, in early January.

Leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan meet in Jeddah as US-Israeli attacks on Iran continue, and Iranian counterattacks hit Gulf nations.

March 27 (UPI) — A tanker carrying Russian fuel initially headed to Cuba ended up docking in Venezuela after weeks of deviations, while a second oil-carrying vessel remains without a clear destination in the Caribbean amid the island nation’s energy crisis.

The vessel Sea Horse, sailing under the Hong Kong flag, had been closely tracked by maritime analysts since it departed from the eastern Mediterranean carrying between 190,000 and 200,000 barrels of Russian diesel initially destined for Cuba.

During its voyage, the tanker repeatedly changed its declared destination. It went from being listed as en route to Havana to indicating “Caribbean Sea” and later Trinidad and Tobago in a pattern that reflected growing uncertainty about its final destination.

Ultimately, the Sea Horse arrived at Puerto Cabello, in Venezuela, on Wednesday morning after nearly 50 days in transit.

The diversion occurred in a context of increasing pressure from the United States to restrict fuel supplies to Cuba, which is facing a severe energy crisis with recurring blackouts and oil shortages.

The case of the Sea Horse is not isolated. Maritime tracking data show that other vessels have altered their routes or avoided declaring final destinations in recent weeks, amid sanctions that explicitly exclude Cuba from relaxed sanctions for Russian oil trade.

The second vessel, the Russian tanker Anatoly Kolodkin, maintains its uncertainty.

The ship, which is carrying roughly 730,000 barrels of crude, continues in the Caribbean Atlantic without a publicly confirmed final destination.

The maritime tracking website VesselFinder shows the destination of the Anatoly Kolodkin as “Atlantic for order,” a designation used in the industry to indicate that the vessel is sailing without a publicly confirmed final destination.

On Tuesday, maritime intelligence analyst Michelle Wiese Bockmann told Politico that the vessel could arrive in Cuba in “two or three days,” although its trajectory remains without clear confirmation.

The most recent AIS tracking data indicate that the vessel is about 487 miles from Turks and Caicos, with an estimated arrival Monday. However, its current vectors do not point directly toward Cuba, reinforcing uncertainty about true destination.

The behavior of the Kolodkin raises questions in a highly monitored environment.

“There are details that just don’t add up,” said Evan Ellis, a professor at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.

“Given the U.S. naval and air assets in the area, the Russian tanker has to know it won’t get in undetected. The question is whether this is some kind of cat-and-mouse game, or if shifting expectations, possibly tied to developments in Cuba, have changed whether it believes it can enter unopposed,” he said.

“Maybe the deliberate attempt was meant to apply pressure, and then once it got a reaction, it was backing off,” he added.

For Ellis, the key point remains outside the public radar.

“The biggest story is what’s going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about,” he said.

The eventual arrival of the Kolodkin also could force a decision from Washington. Analysts cited by the Miami Herald say the options range from diplomatic pressure to a possible interception by the U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard.

“At the end of the day, what we really have to watch for is what actually happens,” said Jorge Piñón, a senior research collaborator at the University of Texas Energy Institute.

Cuba imports about 60% of its energy and depends on external supplies to sustain its electrical system, making each shipment a critical factor within a scenario of growing geopolitical tension.

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

March 16 (Asia Today) — A bold bet by a South Korean shipping heir on ultra-large oil tankers is paying off handsomely as the war involving Iran disrupts global energy markets and drives tanker demand sharply higher.

Bloomberg reported that Sinokor Merchant Marine, a major South Korean shipping company, positioned itself to profit from the crisis after securing a large fleet of very large crude carriers (VLCCs) months before the conflict escalated.

The strategy was led by Jeong Ga-hyun, a director at Sinokor Petrochemical and the son of Sinokor Chairman Jeong Tae-soon, according to the report.

Bloomberg described the move as an unprecedented large-scale bet in the global tanker market, executed well before the outbreak of the Iran conflict.

Tankers deployed to Gulf before war

On Jan. 29, weeks before the war erupted in late February, Sinokor reportedly deployed at least six empty VLCCs to the Persian Gulf, positioning them to wait for cargo.

After disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz pushed tanker demand and charter rates sharply higher, the strategy began generating massive returns.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, handling roughly 20% of global oil shipments.

Tanker rates surge to $500,000 a day

With oil exports disrupted and storage facilities across the Middle East filling rapidly, oil producers have increasingly turned to tankers as floating storage units.

According to Bloomberg, Sinokor is now chartering vessels for about $500,000 per day, roughly ten times last year’s average tanker rates.

Industry estimates suggest that by late February the company controlled around 150 VLCCs, representing roughly 40% of available tankers not already tied up in sanctions or long-term contracts.

Quiet heir behind massive shipping strategy

Jeong is known in the shipping industry as the low-profile heir to one of South Korea’s major maritime families.

Bloomberg reported that he rarely appears publicly and is known internally for a military-style management approach. Industry anecdotes even describe him challenging employees and business partners to arm-wrestling contests.

Oil supply disruptions reshape tanker market

The Iran war has dramatically altered global oil transportation patterns, forcing ships to reroute and increasing the need for offshore storage.

Under those conditions, Sinokor’s aggressive tanker acquisition strategy is now being viewed as one of the biggest winners of the crisis, Bloomberg said.

WSJ: Sinokor among winners of Hormuz crisis

The Wall Street Journal earlier identified Sinokor as one of the companies benefiting from the Strait of Hormuz tensions.

According to the newspaper, the company purchased dozens of oil tankers and deployed some of them to the Gulf region even before the conflict intensified.

Sources told the Journal that Sinokor is leasing several vessels to ADNOC, the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company, to be used as floating storage facilities.

These vessels can earn up to $500,000 per day in charter fees, the report said.

As land-based storage in Gulf oil-producing countries approaches capacity, producers have increasingly stored crude at sea. Drilling firms in Iraq and Kuwait have even slowed production due to storage shortages.

The WSJ also noted that Greek shipping magnate George Prokopiou adopted a similar strategy, sending at least five tankers to the Strait of Hormuz through his company Dynacom, which is reportedly earning up to $440,000 per day – about four times pre-war rates.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260316010004394

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.