FighterControl

Full story here: https://www.key.aero/article/exclusive- ... s-revealed

Maybe they should read up on what happened to the Valiant when it was forced to go low level. Cracks in the main spar resulted in the fleet being scrapped. Pounding the Mildenhall traffic pattern at low altitude isn't quite the same as high speed over turbulent terrain. It wouldn't surprise me if this has a bad ending.

Interesting to read and see how that pans out. No lower than 1,000ft

to mitigate risks to crews, aircraft, and the general population.

When you read it, it's a bit misleading - It's not really "regular" at once a month, for the first 3 months of 2024, potentially scaling to 2 per month. I get the reasoning behind it, but seems a bit odd doing it.

Do you think they would conduct low flying exercises with the KC-46's as well?

"The training is essential for flying below hostile radar, enabling closer proximity to the front line with increased fuel capacity for receivers". How do they work that out? The lower you fly, in the thicker airmass the more fuel you use - they'd end up with less fuel not more.

Agreed.

Always thought the point of tankers were to be "offsite" as it were and away from the hostility as such?

Maybe they're jealous of their colleagues over at 48th FW and 352nd SOW

luxto wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:38 pm

"The training is essential for flying below hostile radar, enabling closer proximity to the front line with increased fuel capacity for receivers". How do they work that out? The lower you fly, in the thicker airmass the more fuel you use - they'd end up with less fuel not more.

With the use of the word "Receivers" I'm reading it as with the tankers being able to get in closer to the front line, the receivers would refuel closer to it and thus have increased fuel capacity down range.

I don't think a full KC135 is in danger of burning up fuel that significantly and also the flight to the refuelling airspace would I assume be higher anyway, with a transition to lower airspace on nearing the refuelling area?

So in their words, they go lower to get closer, but then have to pop up anyway to refuel the receivers at the required height, are they really going to be saving huge amounts of fuel? Trial and error, I suppose.

James Cutting wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 21, 2023 5:20 pm

So in their words, they go lower to get closer, but then have to pop up anyway to refuel the receivers at the required height, are they really going to be saving huge amounts of fuel? Trial and error, I suppose.

Without knowing what they’re specifically training for it’s difficult to picture. I trust however they know what they are doing and are planning accordingly. Maybe they will refuel at lower altitudes, or at least a last minute pop up reduces exposure. All manner of considerations I guess!

James Cutting wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:20 pm

Interesting to read and see how that pans out. No lower than 1,000ft

to mitigate risks to crews, aircraft, and the general population.

When you read it, it's a bit misleading - It's not really "regular" at once a month, for the first 3 months of 2024, potentially scaling to 2 per month. I get the reasoning behind it, but seems a bit odd doing it.

They have only just started their training so if they are going to train all their crews it will be interesting to see how this develops in terms of number of sorties every month.

When I asked if they planned to go lower they said 1,000ft...currently...Normal low level training is start high and work down to lower altitudes, so we'll have to see if they work down lower in the future.

luxto wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:09 pm

Maybe they should read up on what happened to the Valiant when it was forced to go low level. Cracks in the main spar resulted in the fleet being scrapped. Pounding the Mildenhall traffic pattern at low altitude isn't quite the same as high speed over turbulent terrain. It wouldn't surprise me if this has a bad ending.

Another Boeing product the B-52 spent decades at low level during the latter decades of the Cold War and will be going for decades to come so Boeing must build them pretty solidly. Agreed about the Valiant so time will tell.

It all depends on what you call low level.

toom317 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 10:33 am

It all depends on what you call low level.

The RAF officially class low level as anything below 2,000ft.

Lossie wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 9:30 am

luxto wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:09 pm

Maybe they should read up on what happened to the Valiant when it was forced to go low level. Cracks in the main spar resulted in the fleet being scrapped. Pounding the Mildenhall traffic pattern at low altitude isn't quite the same as high speed over turbulent terrain. It wouldn't surprise me if this has a bad ending.

Another Boeing product the B-52 spent decades at low level during the latter decades of the Cold War and will be going for decades to come so Boeing must build them pretty solidly. Agreed about the Valiant so time will tell.

Remember when the tail of B-52H 61-0023 broke off in turbulence at low level on the 10th Jan1964? The KC-135 is basically an airliner design not intended for sustained low level operations away from the aerodrome traffic pattern, where they are speed limited by landing gear and flaps. Whether they are solid enough to withstand a low level battering, presumably with a realistic simulated war load of fuel, remains to be seen. Another consideration is that these flights, while at low level, will be conducted in un controlled airspace under VFR, with no radar service where the risk of collision with other airspace users is greater than where they normally operate. As you say, "time will tell".

Low level KC135 operations are nothing new,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... rt-tankers

They are just new for Mildenhall.

STN RAMP RAT wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 11:12 am

Low level KC135 operations are nothing new,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... rt-tankers

They are just new for Mildenhall.

Really interesting article thank you!

More than certainly explains why the KC-135s that head downrange without Mode S are almost exclusively from the 22nd ARW (at least in recent times that is)

Lossie wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 10:34 am

toom317 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 10:33 am

It all depends on what you call low level.

The RAF officially class low level as anything below 2,000ft.

I know that, but for me, if it's not down to 250 feet or lower it doesn't count.

I mentioned the 22nd ARW doing low level special ops refuelling in my enquiry. 100th ARW said that only they and the Weapons School do low level at the moment. The above article on the 22nd ARW is from 2019 if memory serves. Seems surprising they wouldn't do that any more but can only pass on what the 100th ARW said.

Military PR people say what the bosses want them to say, not necessarily the truth, as I'm sure you know!

I can recall a time when the KC-135's were powered by J57's, so underpowered that they earned an (unofficial) crew nickname 'GLOB' (Ground lovin' ol' b*st*rd)! One particular memory that stands out to me, was during Air Fete 86 at Mildenhall. Just prior to the air display commencing, a fully laden Q took off for a mission. And he literally used the entire length of runway 29 to get airborne, I remember the racket and dense grey smoke emitted from those struggling engines. You could see the low level smoke trail for miles, they must have gone as far as Ely before gradually starting to climb out! They don't make 'em like that anymore