The Key to America's Air Dominance: The KC-135 Stratotanker
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 10. 2023
- Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code MEGA for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/Mega
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
This video is #sponsored by Surfshark.
Love content? Check out Simon's other CZcams Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code MEGA for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/Mega
Wars are won on logistics - boring but true and a flying gas station to extend your already superior air power is simply brilliant.
Its not boring in my opinion
Not being flashing and boring are two different things. Bombe, code named victory, was a rather primitive device. But Alan Turing's invention is the grandfather of all competition devices (computers cell phones and digital calculators). This is just another example of a rather mundane invention having a drastic technological and societal impact.
Even though logistics are vey important it still takes someone to move forward under fire towards the enemy and “persuade” him by any means necessary that further resistance is futile and drag him to the oak table and hand him a pen to sign the surrender document.
Far from the most powerful logistical power in the US inventory too. The C5, C17, and (even though I work on it) to a lesser extent: the C130's trans-atlantic capabilities are the best attributes of logistical power. They incredibly important in that calculation. Absolutely we are able to project air superiority all over the globe due to Aerial Refueling capabilities because of the KC-135, KC-10, KC-130, and now the KC-46. But the people, parts, and even sometimes the aircraft themselves are only available because of the "C" designation aircraft. From people and pets, to parts, to whole airframes and tanks, engines and weapons "C" aircraft are the biggest part of global force projection the US is able to produce.
Well, logistics and the will to fight in all the forms that might take, including the finances, fuel, and food, are three f's that are often overlooked.
As a former KC-135R crew chief allow me to say, You can't kick ass without tanker gas.
Water Wagon CC here - you are quite right. Great aircraft from a company that seems to have forgotten how to build things.
Oh man, you beat me to it!!!!! I worked for a refueling squadron at a local military base, and the folks I worked for and with were the most down to earth, most honorable and respectable people I ever ran across, and the bravest! NKAWTG!
On a side note, we all know that a replacement is in the works, but honestly, folks wish the AF would just stick with the air frame of the KC-135 and just update the components. It works, it's proven, everyone loves it. But the KC-46 is being rushed into service when it hasn't yet been totally proven, that, and the newer air frames are fraught with problems.
@@papabear562 Having the boomer use a screen is the dumbest shit ever.
Best landing I experienced was on my belly! Freaky experience
I was just about to comment the same thing.
One thing that you do not mention is the fact that fighter-bombers and multirole aircraft can take off with minimal fuel weight (and maximum load of weapons) and fill up while in the air. This was crucial in the Gulf Wars as well as other operations, both Naval as well as Air Force.
Gotta short fuel to load heavy!
These tank planes were never seen a actual battle vs a worth opponent with a share good number of planes or anti air systems
Your English isn't that hot but if your saying that the 135 never flew against a worthy opponent with anti-aircraft systems, you have no idea about what your talking about. In every conflict the 135 flew in, it flew over enemy territory and faced AAA and guided missiles as well as the odd fighter. The video spoke at length about Vietnam. Do a little research. Some of the stories are unbelievable. With no offensive weapons (stuff thrown out of the sextant port doesn't count) and the only defense being trying to outrun an enemy fighter or missle, I think it was pretty bad ass to fly one.
Have a nice day sitting comfortably in the protective shield that the KC-135 helps to maintain.
NKAWOTG!
@@prizefighter8699
@@prizefighter8699Iraq had the 4th biggest army in the world with the best air defense in the world
@@p_serdiukIraq's Battle doctrine was trash. No Middle Eastern country will give any individuals in their military any power because they know they will just overthrow the government. Espirit de corpas doesn't exist.
My uncle was a boom operator on a KC-135 during Desert Storm/Desert Shield, and got a bunch of neat videos from the control station window. And yes, he had clearance and it's all approved footage. Air Force even used some of it for promotional and training footage.
Post it!
I used to work on the booms when I first went to my current post. Complicated piece of machinery for sure
Cool
As a retired fighter pilot I have the highest regard for that jet and its crews.
Cheers brother
From a veteran SAC KC-135 crew chief, thanks for this video; our crucial mission is often overlooked in favor of more glamorous aircraft.
KC-135 Avionics here, during heavy operations the air crew are absolute legends. During the start of a war the tankers are the backbone of projecting millitary power in unheard-of numbers by anyone else. Fun Fact, When I was on a flight we refulled a couple B-52, you are so close you can read a magazine on the dash of the other plane from the boom pod.
Did avionics Com-Nav at the 171st ARW.
Did Instrument’s Buff’s KC 135’s and EC 135’s. 32571.😊 Back in the SAC days.
Ah, ... SAC!!! I was in the 321st SMW at Grand Forks. The BUFFs were there for only one year, then GFAFB got B-1s.@@tuberdave1
@@joeminpa6705Nah man, com nav doesnt exist anymore. It got "integrated"
@@centurious5819 you mean with GAC?
I had the privilege to fly on a kc-135r back in 2004. Being in the AFJROTC program in high school our commander at the time was leaving to move to England for his wifes health. So as a final memorable last event with him. We managed to get permission to go on a training mission at night with the NH Air National Guard 157th Refueling wing. We flew around New england at 21,000ft. We refueled a lockheed c-5 Galaxy. Being to actually able to laydown next to the probe operator while performing this task was absolutely amazing.
I think air to air refueling is of two main components that US does far better than anyone that lead to their air dominance. The other one is their AEW (Airborne Early Warning), specifically E-3 Sentry AWACS and E-2 Hawkeye. Would love a video on those.
AAR, AWACS, CSG's. We own the seas, we know where you are, and we can fly any distance to shoot you down. For all the criticism from the other side of the pond. No nation has the ability to project it's power like the USA.
New awacs is coming too. I pretty sure it’s based off a 737 or something similar to help with cost but it’s still going to cost $300 million each
@@Likeaworm Yup, E-7 Wedgetail
@@Likeaworm At least the new AWAC is gonna be much more advanced due to use of AESA radar as compared to PESA radar.
My dad spent three quarters of his career as a maintainer on the KC 135. From ground crew, to crew chief to maintenance chief. Beautiful plane.
the entirety of the Stratotanker's achievements can be summed up in the age old quote "It ain't much, but it's honest work."
The KC-135 deserves more love than she has ever gotten. Thanks for the video
My grandfather flew one during vietnam.
I was a mechanic on the KC-10A, and I wrote software for the KC-46 display system on the civilian side.
Here in Wichita, KS we have watched the KC-135 (now being replaced with the KC-46) fly overhead for decades. They're amazing planes as are the crews that fly/maintain them.
I've seen many refueling runs near Wichita. Seen them fuel b52s b1s and b2s.
im from there. Grew up seeing all of them even on base while on school trips.
Son just joined AF. training to work on KC-46
True that, was there when they got the R model in 1984/85. The first thing I noticed was the lack of screeching noise in the pattern. The refuel track was East West to the state line, 5 miles either side of 21st Street North.. ish.
They have replaced the KC135s here at Seymour Johnson AFB in Goldsboro North Carolina with the KC46
My grandfather was the pilot of a KC-135 in the Vietnam War. He flew missions out of Thailand. I just sent him this video.
At an air show one year, I was taking a walk though tour of the 135’s upper area. Asked the pilot how far can it fly on a full load of fuel without topping any other craft off. He said he could take off from Kansas City and land in California…….flying east.
My longest flight in the KC-135R was 16.9 hrs. From Castle AFB California to Andersen AFB Guam. Westbound. With a 200 knot headwind for 2.5 hrs (ugh). Carried 4 B-52 engines. My jet and those engines flew on to Diego Garcia with another crew. Shutdown fuel at Guam was around 30,000 lbs as I remember. Also flew from Altus AFB to Jeddah Saudi Arabia nonstop (Eastbound). 16.7 hrs. Number 3 in a 5 ship formation. I landed with 42,000 lbs of fuel remaining at shutdown. Both of these sorties were NOT flown utilizing Great Circle routing. After the Gulf War, a KC-135R flew from Kadena AFB Japan to Andrew’s AFB Washington DC. It officially broke a world record distance flight for category and class that Altus and Grissom crews unofficially broke flying to Jeddah Saudi Arabia from their bases on or about 12 Aug 1990. Truly an amazing aircraft.
The last KC-10 was retired from active service earlier this month. There are so many KC-135s that their quantity brings a quality of its own. Anything that replaces it might be a little more efficient with fuel, but it won't need to be faster, fly higher, have longer range or even be more stealthy - and it certainly won't be cheaper than these birds that were paid for before the engineers designing the new ones were born.
My IQ drops when someone mentions "quantity has a quality of it's own." It doesn't make sense. In every war fought in history, quality has beaten quantity. The Stratotanker is a quality aircraft and there's a decent quantity of them.
The problem is the airframes and engines haven’t be built in five decades.
That’s why the new replacements are all twin engined ultra high bypass engined airliner derivatives (like the new oceanic patrol and AWAC’s aircraft).
What do you mean retired? KC-10s are very much still flying, and in active duty units, no less.
@@threestrikesmarxman9095 All the US KC-10’s were withdrawn from service on October 5,2023 but are on reserve status until October 2024.
The last Dutch ones were withdrawn in October, 2021.
@@allangibson8494the closest thing I found to that statement are KC-10s finishing their final deployments in early October. That does not mean they've been withdrawn from service. As far as I can read according from the _Air Force Times_ and _Air and Space Forces_ magazine, they are _being_ retired between now and 2024 and not _have been_ retired, and until the last KC-10 departs for the boneyard, the KC-10 is still in service. The Air Force doesn't just yeet, for lack of better term, an aircraft from service all at once.
Yep in my hometown in Columbus Ohio at the Rickenbacker Air National Guard base we have the 121st Refueling Wing. And they get a lot of action.
One of the many facts about the KC135 is that it really was a multi role acft and had many variants. I was an enlisted aircrew weenie on the RC and NC 135 models. At Offutt AFB in Nebraska was the EC models that flew around the clock as the "Looking Glass" acft which was a 24 hour command post in case ground hdqtrs was knocked out. There even was a research.acft for NASA . One compliment I give other than the aircrews was the ground crews. Many times I sat on a warm crew bus and the crew chiefs were out in a cherry picker in below freezing weather, de icing to get us ready. Heat, cold and everything in between, they were our heroes!
I was also at Offutt and worked in the underground as a Crypto repairman 1970-1973. We supported the ground portion of the secure communications with Looking Glass, other members of our group worked on the plane equipment. The planes flew 24 hours per day for almost 30 years, quite a feat.
They were parked with the RCs on the flightline.. I had two tours there and between TDY's as a SSgt I would be assigned to base details. The only time I think I went to SAC Hdqtrs was when my buddy and I got assigned to the "incinerator detail.: We went to this room with a conveyor belts and it fed all the material into a huge incinerator for burning and since we had security clearances we got this detail. I remember except for a lunch break that belt never stopped. We had to line everything up on the belt to go into the burners. It was a full shift believe me. Where the heck they got all that stuff from I will never know. A tough day. Only time I went to SAC Hdqtrs.@@woodwaker1
There were 732 KC-135s built. I believe there are approximately 380 active KC-135Rs in the USAF inventory. Yes, R-models are in the boneyard. At least 26 variations of the airframe. I flew the KC-135A, the KC-135T, and the KC-135R for 29 of my 30 years of service. Refueling, cargo hauling and medical evacuation are the missions I did in the mighty KC-135. It was a privilege to serve.
Your 29 years of 135 experience is a testament to your love of our great country, dedication, skills and what a great airframe it truly is. You and your family sacrificed a lot. I had more TDYs than I can count but it always brought us home thanks to guys like you. Thank you!@@mcahill135
I've worked on -135s! My first plane when I joined the Air Force! In fact, I worked on 057, one of them shown in this episode. Stationed at Hickham AFB, Hawaii. Them were days days!!😊
I was a former KC-135 crew chief in KS.. we had one jet that was from 1958 still going which is pretty damn impressive.
You guys also had the "Q" models after Alaska had them, and when yinz got rid of them they ended up with us at the 171st.
When I was in the USAF, my buddy was in the air national guard. He took me up in his kc135. Got to sit in the jump seat of the cockpit during takeoff. Got to sit in the fuel boom seat at the belly of the plane. It was a great day.
I had the pleasure of working for KC-135 engineering for 30 years and then I had the pleasure of selling these great tankers to our global partners. It is the BEST tanker ever built. It will be still flying when they start parking KC-46's at Davis-Monthan. I still look up every time I see one flying.....
My dad piloted the Kc 97 and the 135. He finished his military career as an instructor at Castle AFB in Ca for 135's. He was part of operation thirsty dart, which I believe was the F106 in the late 60's.
A very satisfying day was when I drove my dad and his longtime buddy to the Castle Air Museum in Merced Ca and we saw all the planes he flew: B29, KC97 and the KC135. I had a friend that was a volunteer at the museum that got us on board all of those planes! My dad had so many memories and stories that day!
A few years later I drove my mom and dad back to Castle to revisit it all over again. Fortunately I have pictures!
The 135 was his favorite plane to fly for multiple reasons, but it being his first and only jet was the main one!
Thank you for your in-depth vlog. As a former KC135 pilot, I can say that it remains a great combat enabler. I had the privilege of flying the KC135 A/Q/R/T. What a beast. I always remembered that the models were always near my birth year. Great crews, great maintainers and an airplane that rarely had problems. My most fun was refueling the SR71 for six years. Unique mission, completely different rendezvous procedures and pushing airspeed limits near the end. Booom operators can’t be given enough praise.
Simon if you have any questions about the 135, I’m an active Air Force member who works with em every day!
would you happen to know what happened to the 319th?
From 1979-1986, i was a KC-135A/R Boom Operator, i will give the props to the "steam jet" & the R-model. One of the best aircraft i ever was a crewmember in, with the other being the KC-10's where i did 14 years in until my retirement in 1999. Nothing like being number 14 in a 12-second spacing M.I.T.O. (Minimum Interval Take Off) following water-injected B-52's and other -135's.
As an Air Force veteran who worked with a tanker squadron it’s an invaluable resource and the workhorse of the U.S. military
You should absolutely do an entire video about Operation El Dorado Canyon. Those tankers basically dragged f-111 from England to Libya in 86.
The -135 I was an assistant crew chief on (59-1467 out of Plattsburgh AFB in NY) was on that mission.
Wow! These AI-generated thumbnail representations of iconic aircraft are getting to be the most notable things about these videos! A twin-engined KC-135! That refuels through hoses! That arc UP, in defiance of gravity and aerodynamics!
I really wish they would just use a public image, hire an artist, or heck an intern with some crayons. These AI images are embarrassing.
Both the KC-46 and KC-30 are twin engined aircraft… (they also supports hose and drogue refueling to suit US Navy and allied aircraft).
The twin engine plane was shown as he was talking about the KC-46 which IS a twin engine airplane. I live near McConnell AFB where the KC-46s and KC-135s are based and see both regularly and even the very first KC-135 which resides on a pedestal next to a B-47.
The thumbnail made me cringe too
See them in the UK flying with the 100th Air Refuelling Wing out of RAF Mildenhall. Often tasked with meeting fighters transiting over the Atlantic.
I was in Turkey when the Kosovo war started. We packed up and went to RAF Mildenhall to support that war. First time in England, but not my last. I was in the 171st ARW but we were augmenting Kansas ANG. Went over to RAF Lackenheath a couple of times while at RAF Mildenhall.
I live in Mildenhall and love seeing the tankers, especially with their Square D and nose art from the bloody hundredth bomb group
Was a crew chief on 3137-57 Steamin-Screamin 92-94… It was sad to see her sent to the bone yard instead of the retrofit to the new engines…
The unsung heroes of the USAF… Thanks for the video…
It's a wonderful video about KC-135 stratotanker airplane ✈️... the USA 🇺🇸 Air Forces supermarcy is unquestionable around the world 🌎. Video clearly explained all characteristics of that flying gas station ⛽️ .. Thank you for sharing .
1:45 - Chapter 1 - Design & development
3:15 - Mid roll ads
4:40 - Back to the video
7:15 - Chapter 2 - Specs & capabilities
11:10 - Chapter 3 - Service life & farewell
Well, of all the innocuous, behind the scenes, silent pieces of equipment to make such a big difference, this is it. Thanks for sharing.
My father was a crew chief for the 135 first at Ellsworth AFB. Watching the 135's and Bone's take off at night thing of absolute beauty. He even parked the 135 that's at the museum there at Ellsworth. He later finished his career at Mcconnell AFB where oddly enough held a billet where he was in charge of E-7&8's as an E-6. Spent many summer days crawling around many 135's and Bones. Sad day when boeing broke the mold for the 707 ensuring the eventual retirement of the KC-135. Such a beautiful airframe.
I'll never forget when being almost 13 years old, my family visited someone in charge of operations at a SAC base, and I got to crawl all the way back to the boom operator's window (shown in this video) of a KC-135; I still have a copy of the orders allowing my family on the "tarmac" (no mention of actually going inside any planes though!). But, of course, the highlight of that trip was going up into all the seats of a B-52 bomber! (This was way back in the 1960's; these were operational planes, not relics.)
As a wichitan, its fun watching these fly around all day every day. You can look anywhere in our skies at anytime and see them flying around
My father flew KC-97's through the cold war. He described starting to refuel a B-47 starting over Maine. They would be in a shallow dive, and the B-47 would be hovering on the edge of a stall. After a few thousand pounds of transfer, the B-47 would stall off the boom, and they would reconnect and start again. By the time they got to the Arctic Circle they would have completed the refueling. When the B-52's came online, the B-52 could fly slower than the KC-97, and refueling was easy. However, the B-52 could drain 2 KC-97's in air and ask for more. I remember touring my father's KC97 when I was a kid. The avionics were closer to Lindbergh than Yeager, and navigating across the atlantic was still and adventure. Years later, my kid brother became a KC-10 tanker pilot. I got to tour his "Gucci" plane, as it was known. Hard to believe that both planes were from the same century.
Simon, u we’re made to be a online host & narrator, and the fact that ur British puts u over the top here in America!! U r great at what u do n love the beard. Keep them coming brother, cause u definitely found ur niche!! All the luck to ya… Philadelphia, PA USA
Because typing actual words is far too difficult.
Former tanker pilot - thanks for the review. The strength though is the national effort to build 600+ tankers...we are still riding on that investment. Additionally, the problem today is that the strength of the KC-135 was that it was state of the art in aviation; the KC-46 is a design that is the "latest in 70s technology".... We should have invested in the 787 or the 757 (for training missions) and 777 for trash hauling/large offloads.
To be brutally honest; to take the KC-135 design, improve some tech and rebuild it - we'd be GTG for another 75 years.
I tanked off of both the KC-135 & KC-10 many times during Desert Shield & Desert Storm.
What platform?
@@SendMeBeetPics - A-6E & KA-6D
@@JDFloyd Badass. Always loved the intruder, sad they didn't adapt well to new gen warfare.
@@SendMeBeetPics - the Navy was already invested in the F/A-18, and the U.S. believed that "Peace had broken out". The A-6F would have been a good aircraft.
@@JDFloyd to think what we could get if politicians didn't spoil the fun. Looking at you, B-1R, my beloved.
Thank you for making this video! This was the plane that I grew up on as a heavy aircraft mechanic. 😊
KC-135 had a few variants all based on the original KC-135A model which used water injection to increase it's engine thrust. RC-135 was reconnaissance variant. EC-135 used as Looking Glass ( SAC Airborne Command Post) and as the Airborne launch variant which was able to provide 2nd launch authorization Minuteman Missiles en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_airborne_command_and_control_squadrons
The 707 that is the basis for the KC-135 was actually called a 717 by Boeing, due to the specialized equipment and purpose. 20 years ago you used to see dozens of DC-8's at cargo terminals all around the world, but very very few 707 freighters; The USAF bought them all up for spare parts when the airlines were done with them. I'm not sure if any airliners were actually converted to tankers.
I think Gemini out of Miami was the only company to actually have 707 freighters in the US?
Later, they installed CFM-56 engines on the tankers and the difference was night and day! Much less fuel burn and FAR more power!
Great video!
The 707 was NOT the basis for the KC-135. Both the 707 and the KC-135 were parallel developments from the prototype Boeing 367-80, affectionately known as the “dash eighty.” The guaranteed funds generated by USAF KC-135 purchases allowed Boeing to produce the 707. So actually, the KC-135 slightly predates the 707. The two look quite similar from the distance and indeed share many internal parts but the two were built to different structural requirements and dimensions. They are DIFFERENT aircraft. You are correct, however, in that Boeing internally designated their C-135 as the Boeing 717 but that was later dropped. Interesting or insulting enough(choose your perspective), the DC9/MD80 continuation is now called the Boeing 717, but that’s another discussion.
@@larrycooper9487 Awesome information! Now, can you site your source of this data?
I remember we had at least one, and maybe two that had the 717 plate. Can't remember where it was though. It was either somewhere in the flight deck, or on the bulkhead behind the ladder.
@@joeminpa6705 Typically Boeing puts the ID plate on top of the L1 entry door frame.
@@Flies2FLL if he is like me, he asked a crew chief, I mistaken called a 707 a glorified 135, and after the arse chewing from him and the flight Engineer, I realized my mistake. Plus I knew folks from the test team at Boeing…
It’s also in Boeing history on their website…
First thing. Fix the thumbnail. The thumbnail shows a two engine aircraft refueling a two engine aircraft. Being that the KC-135 is built upon a Boeing 707 airframe, it is a four engine aircraft. Please remedy this.
Back in the 70's, I worked on 55-121 which i belive was the 4th production KC-135. It had been conveted to a RC-135 then used as a RC-135 trainer. Sadly it was lost on a trining flight near Valdez, AK
I’m currently active duty Air Force. And because of its age and constant battles of being replaced, this has been my favorite plane.
When I was in the USAF in 1989 I got to ride on a KC-135 to observe a mid air refueling of a C5 Galaxy. Basically the largest aircraft in the world. It was awesome! Got to go to the boom pod and see the refueling boom connect to the C5!
And all the TOADs of the world shouted in unison “amen”!!! Bout time they get some love and recognition!
I live in Spokane WA, our local military base is Fairchild AFB which is the US stratigic air refueling command center. KC-135s are a constant reminder of US air power flying overhead all day everyday. It used to be a SAC base full of B-52s and still has stockpiles of nuclear weapons in hardened bunkers... For this reason it would be a primary target of our enemies if a nuclear war broke out...
I used to guard these when I was in the Pennsylvania Air Guard (PA ANG) in near Pittsburgh. Was "lucky" enough to be on flight when then they refueled a NATO AWAC near DC in 2003.
When working as a Fuel System Technician I was told that the KC-135T model was for the SR-71. That is why the Main tanks and Forward, AFT, and Upper deck Fuel systems are separated. One system for JP4 and one for JP11.
Was that the T or Q? I thought it was Q, but that was over 23 years ago.
When i was station at Mcconnel AFB 22 ARW we had KC-135 R, T, and RT models. T Models had separate fuel systems. The RT models where the same as the R models but could be refueled midair. @@joeminpa6705
Qs models got upgraded into Ts when they got the new engines.
My F-16 pilot brother received his call sign nickname when his wife (whom was allowed to enter the boom of a KC-135 during a special event) said over the radio "Hey Joe,can you see my big t@#$ through the glass!"
This was of course heard through the entire squadron and he is now known as "Hooter."
Note: He recently retired as the oldest F-16 pilot ever at 59 and has left a remarkable mark in aviation history not only through his tenure but as an inspiration to me and the many who followed in his footsteps.
Thank you, Simon, for a wonderful presentation. I was a Q-model crew chief/maintenance controller for 15 years, and it's always nice to see our contributions recognized. You even had footage of one I actually worked on back in the day (60-0343). Cheers, mate, keep up the good work!
You forgot about the times the tanker used its boom to basically tow damaged aircraft home.
There's a KC-135 Squadron based near my house, so I get to see the seasoned warbirds fly over me almost daily ^_^
That would be the 171st. ARW
Hi Simon, Another brilliant video only one question. You said the 737 was the basis of the tanker. I thought it was the 707 very happy to be corrected 😊
Yup. 707 based, the kc135 is shorter and narrower than the 707 but they are siblings.
Both the 707 and KC-135 were based on the same Boeing 367-80 prototype. Hence, both looking similar but crucially designed for very different roles. The 707 was also a tad bigger.
@@thefrecklepuny the 135 is narrower than the 707, which is why the 707 is bigger, the 707 was designed for people… In Boeing parlance of the day, the 135 was the 717, before the merger with MD…
Spent a lot of time on the stone around KC-135r's. Great a/c manned by the best crews in the world.
My first Air Force assignment in the 1970s was a KC-135 base in the Midwest - old “A” models with water burning engines. The crackling sound from those engines could penetrate anything. The “R” models are a lot more neighborly. That airplane is legendary.
I've been working on 135's for over 39 years at Tinker the depot site for PDM. Great video.
Got to ride on one years back during an air show. Each person got to lay down next to the boom operator during the re fueling. Was even allowed to ride up front in the cockpit during takeoff. Such a cool experience.
My father flew one for 15 of his twenty years in service. He retired in 1975, before they got the newer engines. He also flew the KC-97.
You glossed over the selling point of the dash 80 when Tex Johnston did a barrel roll to "Sell aircraft" as he stated.
I like how you do both imperial units and metric at the same time
I had the privilege/honor of being on a training flight of one of these aircraft. It was many moons ago but I remember the C5 coming up (I was in the tail of aircraft) and could feel the bow wave hitting the underside of the 135. The airmen/women were amazing and completely unfazed by the "ride" this gave the 135 and refueled it without incident. They had a bunch of smaller fighter type aircraft that topped off as well but that was just "business as usual" for these folks. Very impressive is all I can say.
Don't forget the KC-10....they're bigger w/a greater range. Altho we have just 60 or so KC-10s vs aprx 400 KC-135s. Very easy to tell the dif: KC-10s have three engines w/ one at the bottom of the vertical rear stabilizer.
You really blew it with the graphic on every level
The KC-97 was not the first tanker, that was the KB-29
My Uncle was a boom operator on the KB-50, KC-97, and the KC-135. All in Air Force Systems Command and TAC. TAC had their own tankers at one time
The KB-29 was the first test craft with a rigid flying boom. The KB-50 was a hose and drogue system with no Boom. My father flew on those. The KC-97 was the first operational rigid Flying Boom. I was a career KC-135 E/R Boomer.
@@Ryan-up5nv I was in SAC, Ellsworth AFB SD August 1976 to December 1979. 28th FMS
@@Ryan-up5nv I have a picture of the a KC-747 and my Uncle talked of the idea of surplus B-52s being converted to tankers in the 1960s. Idea didn't go far
@@russvoight1167
I stand corrected. I was thinking in terms of the USAF only. I believe the Jordanians bought two of the 747 variant. I saw a picture of one that was decked out as the King’s plane. It was Boeing’s entrant against the KC-10. The Saudis also bought a whole new fleet of 135’s in the late 1990’s built on a true 707 frame and not the 717. Got to take a look at one at RAF Mildenhall in 2002. We were parked next to her.
When my uncle died, my cousin gave me all of his Air Force picture. Being in Air Force Systems Command, he had quite the 22 year career. The B-52 he told me was ruled out as a tanker because the tail end was too unstable.
When and where were you in the Air Force?
Ex -135A (built when man thought he could burn water). & R nav here. NKAWTG! Nobody. I’m sure someone else has posted that, but it bears repeating. Still a beautiful jet! It was an honor and a pleasure passing gas for y’all.
Those engines looked so small compared to the "R" models. could you hold any more than 90000lbs at take off?
Got to lay on the refuellers "seat" in a KC-135 at the Melb air show a lot of years ago. Top bunch of blokes!
I walked through the Air Force One Display at the Reagan library in California. That alone is worth the price of admission. That air force one is a 707 or civilian version of a KC-135. I was surprised at how small it was for a Presidential Plane.
Hell yeah the KC-135. The backbone of our entire military. It is the reason why our military can maintain other assets to be the tip of the spear. NKAWTG! NOBODY!!! Where are the KC-135 Crewchiefs out there. 🙋♂👨🔧. You failed to mention the barrel roll that sealed the deal on the Stratotanker. Good ole Tex amazed everyone with that one.
You should have touched on the KC-135T. It is a KC-135 with the ability to take on fuel itself (receiver). Aside from engine oil and hydraulic fluid, it is immortal. IIRC there are only six of them, but if there is one in your airspace, it's going to be there a long time.
They all used to be stationed at Grissom Afb before it closed in 1993. Due to their ability to get gas or pass gas, they were always were first to deploy. I thought there were more than six converted.
The KC-135T is an updated and re-engined KC-135Q (that was the model built to refuel the SR-71). The -R model is the updated and re-engined KC-135A.
The infamous "D" models did also. Hated those junkyard tankers.
When I was a kid one of my youth group leaders was a KC-135 pilot. He showed me a video one time of him flying his plane into, and I am not joking-an active volcano. The maneuver was apparently not an uncommon thing.
My father's career was spent as the pilot of KC-135 and RC-135 aircraft. 8000 logged flying hours in his logbooks, and the vast majority of them in 135s. He got a fair number of hours in KC-97s before that. 500 or so I think.... The USAF originally purchased 770 KC-135As and today about half of them are still in service. That's still a huge number, far more than all of the tankers in service with all the rest of the world's air forces combined. Today, the much newer KC-46A actually doesn't expand much on the capabilities of the KC-135. Its ferry range is about the same and its fuel offload capacity is only about 10 percent more.
The USAF is doing aerial refueling every night over Missouri and Kansas. Whenever I am flying from Memphis to California at night, I will hear some Air Force call sign asking for a block of airspace for refueling.
Only Simon would make a video about kc135 and then have two entirely different aircraft for a thumbnail.
Nice to see a favorable article on this aircraft. Probably it was the last ac with manual (heavy) handling characteristics, I found it to be reliable and effective in my 1500 hours of flying. I too was credited with a "save", but no medal! The real problem with the A model was its woefully underpowered engines for the takeoff weights that routinely were required for operations.
If you ever wondered about the Boeing passenger planes being 707, 727, 737, 747, 757 this airplane would have been the missing 717
I always love hearing about Castle AFB father and grandfather both veterans stationed there they have an awesome outdoor air museum there now!
A+ valedictorian coverage, many thanks, Mate. To see refueling from the ground AND AF-1 in same video, insane! Awesome!!
I would argue our most powerful aircrafts are our AWACS like the stratotanker it has no on board weapons but the list of things these planes can do is insane you can orchestrate the entire battlefield from 1 plane coordinating every soldier every tank every aircraft EVERYTHING all at once
But we could not do our job without A/R. 8 hours max without refueling. With refueling Crew duty day limit. Augmented, engine oil limits and the blue lagoon…
@@jcak552 are you an AWACS crew member
@@duncasaur5074 I was associated with it..
The KC-135R was not a reconnaissance aircraft. It was the upgraded A model with the new CFM-56 engines, along with a few other upgrades. It was still a basic tanker.
the next tanker wlll almost for sure be a stealth design, the tankers are one of the most valuable and vulnerable targets there are, next to AWACS
several B707-320B & B707-400 has been converted into multi mission mid air refueling tanker aircraft, by foreign air forces since 1976 . . . Both the B707-320B & B767-300 ER (stretched variant of the B767-200) is the apt replacement for the KC-135 but surprisingly USAF opted for the B767-200 instead . . .
Love the kc-135 thanks for the brief glimpse of the thumbnail of the vomit comet. I have many hours on that plane.
That was a glorious video on one of the most useful planes ever made!
In 2007, Air Force Chief of Staff (CSAF) Gen. T. Hugh Moseley arbitrarily banned the KC-135 from combat support missions. The impetus for that imperium was a desire for funding the KC-10. Moseley's legacy includes being the only CSAF to get himself and his Service Secretary fired.
I only had one chance to ride on a KC-135 and took the opportunity to scare the shit out of myself and was in the boom operators seat when landing. I’ll absolutely never forget that
The US's aircraft carrier fleet gets a lot of attention for having more than anyone else, but our tanker aircraft numbers *absolutely dwarf the nearest competitors.*
The US deploys over 500 tanker aircraft. Second place (Saudi Arabia) has *22* .
Russia and France then tie for 3rd & 4th with 19.
12 of my 24 years were spent as a crew chief on the 135Q, R, and T models. If it was ever hard to work on, it was due to age or more likely ops tempo, which was extremely high after the Gulf War. A LOT of talented people have flown and worked on them, which adds to its longevity.
9:14 - we never had seats on our deployments. We just had those red canvas types on both sides with the wooden cargo boxes mostly down the middle. Once in the air, the tops of the cargo boxes were prime sleeping spaces. I did see one PA ANG wing. I think that would be the 171st out of PIA. Great set of guys to work with. Oh, also, I think the "R" model also had a lot to do with upgrading the engines. I can't remember all of it any more, but the "A" model had water assist for the engines. Then, I worked on the "E" model mostly. Watching them do the charge start was really something to behold. The "R" model had the bigger engines. We got those right at the turn of the millennia. If I remember correctly, the flight crew could only rung the "R" model to 70% of so of full throttle because it placed too much stress on the wings if they went higher. Got to sit in thee jump seat during a landing. Couldn't see the runway at all during the landing. I could never land something like that with the grace those pilots did. Oh, we did a deployment in Italy once. In Pisa. When we were leaving, the plane took the whole runway, kinda seemed like the plane just didn't want to take off. Later, after getting home, I heard the plane was almost to its max because of all the marble items people were bringing back. Great times, I truly miss that part of my life. Oh, nothing like having to replace a radome and RADAR due to a lightning strike!
yes Simon missID’ed the RC-135 as the KC-135R
@@jcak552 LOL, I was watching this episode around midnight. If my brain was awake, I would have caught that. Kinda like difference between a C-130 and an RC-130.
I was hoping to see my old bird (59-1467) in the PA ANG colors. I worked her back in the mid '80s when I was active duty in Plattsburgh, NY with the 380th Bomb Wing. I think they call -1467 "Ready to Rock" now. Back then we called her "Six Pack".
As a Boom Operator we appreciate this. Its the best job in the USAF and best office view in the world.
I have had the pleasure of being able to crawl around the Kc-135 on numerous occasions because I have been to EAA numerous times and the Wisconsin air national guard is nearly there I have been in the cockpit and is like going back in time
We’re happy to host, and glad to see our old birds get some love!
Simon, stop making so many badass videos, I'm trying to get work done! Thanks for an excuse to take a break.
I grew up in Wichita, Kansas. Boeing still had a large presence in Wichita at that time. This is where most of the KC-135 were re-engine with more modern engines in the 1980's and 1990's. They were basically using the same engines that Boeing was using on its new models of 737's at the time. This program helped keep these aircraft viable for another 30 years. McConnell AFB, which is located in Wichita, KS. Used to be the largest tanker base in the Air Force. I am not sure of that it still the case. Tankers could be modified at the Boeing facility in Wichita and then taxi to the McConnell AFB facility on the other side of the main runway without ever leaving the ground.
Is that Spirit aircraft now? They still make 737 bodies?
Yes, the do. They also make the bodies for the C-46 Tanker that will replace the KC-135.@@jcak552
Didn't even think of this. Legit video topic.
I was a crew chief for 14 years on the KC-135. As I gained rank, I spent more time as a supervisor. I pulled alert duty at Grissom AFB for three years. The tanker was relatively simple aircraft to work on.