Two KC-135s. I'm guessing one was a customer.

I don't think any rescues are gonna be coming out of this one unfortunately, but I hope I'm wrong.

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Have you learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq?

This is a different situation than both of those wars. What is your point?

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

No one is shedding any tears. The question is how it is going for the good ole US of A. The risk/reward item you talk about in your 1st sentence which I absolutely agree with.

This could turn out to be a brilliant world-changing victory or a total slog.

How is it going? The truth is no one really gives two ishs. Just like everything else. No one gave a ish about Afghanistan or Yemen, you name it. America hasn't really given a ish about a war since we needed to kill a bunch of Muslims after 9/11

4 hours ago, Paul852 said:

I was under the impression that America specifically voted against this type of stuff, no?

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

Two KC-135s. I'm guessing one was a customer.

I don't think any rescues are gonna be coming out of this one unfortunately, but I hope I'm wrong.

Is there even a way to ditch a kc-135? Gotta imagine they're all gone.

10 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

This could turn out to be a brilliant world-changing victory

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Is there even a way to ditch a kc-135? Gotta imagine they're all gone.

I mean, it's a flying gas tank, so I would imagine not easily. I'm sure @Mlodj would have better insight than I would.

I know there was a Marine refueler that IIRC was able to limp to a safe landing, but that was a C-130 variant.

49 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

I’m just worried that he might not win the FIFA Peace Prize next year

1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

You mean like war with Iran and expensive gas? That alternative?

55 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Is there even a way to ditch a kc-135? Gotta imagine they're all gone.

The USAF tanker fleet consists of 500ish aircraft. Here are the numbers LINK for the KC-135: Air Mobility Command manages an inventory of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers, of which the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard fly 243 aircraft in support of AMC's mission. The last one was delivered in 1965. The other tanker in the USAF inventory is the KC-46 (first one delivered in 2019), of which Boeing says there are just over 100 delivered so far LINK. So, the vast majority of the USAF tanker fleet qualifies for antique license plates.

In answer to the bail out question, tankers and transports are basically stuck with the WW II method of grabbing a parachute, strapping it on, and then finding their way to an exit to jump out of all while in a plane that may be wildly out of control. They generally don't plan on living through that experience. Ditching a modern aircraft is equally bad given the much higher speeds and heavier weights involved compared to WW II, when it was still an option. When I flew the 747 we didn't bother practice ditching in the simulator, even though there were procedures for it in the flight manual, because nobody thought it was a realistic option. That should give you an idea of what a miracle it was that "Sully" Sullenberger pulled off in that ditching in the Hudson River.

22 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

The USAF tanker fleet consists of 500ish aircraft. Here are the numbers LINK for the KC-135: Air Mobility Command manages an inventory of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers, of which the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard fly 243 aircraft in support of AMC's mission. The last one was delivered in 1965. The other tanker in the USAF inventory is the KC-46 (first one delivered in 2019), of which Boeing says there are just over 100 delivered so far LINK. So, the vast majority of the USAF tanker fleet qualifies for antique license plates.

In answer to the bail out question, tankers and transports are basically stuck with the WW II method of grabbing a parachute, strapping it on, and then finding their way to an exit to jump out of all while in a plane that may be wildly out of control. They generally don't plan on living through that experience. Ditching a modern aircraft is equally bad given the much higher speeds and heavier weights involved compared to WW II, when it was still an option. When I flew the 747 we didn't bother practice ditching in the simulator, even though there were procedures for it in the flight manual, because nobody thought it was a realistic option. That should give you an idea of what a miracle it was that "Sully" Sullenberger pulled off that ditching in the Hudson River.

So pretty much no chance that any of the 6 survived? Truly sad if that's the case.

As for Sully, I remembered reading about it and watching a documentary, but had no idea the scrutiny they put him under during the investigation until I watched the movie, though I'm sure some of that was sensationalized for dramatic effect.

31 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

The USAF tanker fleet consists of 500ish aircraft. Here are the numbers LINK for the KC-135: Air Mobility Command manages an inventory of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers, of which the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard fly 243 aircraft in support of AMC's mission. The last one was delivered in 1965. The other tanker in the USAF inventory is the KC-46 (first one delivered in 2019), of which Boeing says there are just over 100 delivered so far LINK. So, the vast majority of the USAF tanker fleet qualifies for antique license plates.

In answer to the bail out question, tankers and transports are basically stuck with the WW II method of grabbing a parachute, strapping it on, and then finding their way to an exit to jump out of all while in a plane that may be wildly out of control. They generally don't plan on living through that experience. Ditching a modern aircraft is equally bad given the much higher speeds and heavier weights involved compared to WW II, when it was still an option. When I flew the 747 we didn't bother practice ditching in the simulator, even though there were procedures for it in the flight manual, because nobody thought it was a realistic option. That should give you an idea of what a miracle it was that "Sully" Sullenberger pulled off that ditching in the Hudson River.

Also it kinda helped too that he was ditching it in a tidal river surrounded by a ton of boats and next to the jurisdiction of the largest PD in the world and not the open ocean with waves and such.

I know initially he was saying that it was just another day at the office and anyone could have done that, but recently he's come out and said, IMO correctly, that everyone working that day was firing on every cylinder and then some.

2 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Clinton drove Yugoslavia out of a country about the size of Connecticut. Iran’s 3 times the size of Texas and the goal is regime change. Completely different animal and 100% impossible strictly from the air.

Never mind the fact that the Kosovo forces were around 20k strong, and the joint NATO peacekeeping effort was 30k troops, and it took the threat of the troops to get the Serbs to back down, and we still needed boots on the ground to secure it even though there was no fighting.

2 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

I concur…

Sounds like the plane crashed in a remote area or western Iraq.

2 hours ago, Paul852 said:

You mean like war with Iran and expensive gas? That alternative?

Transgenders for everyone

9 minutes ago, M.C. said:

Why is he always doing that dope dance?

8 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Transgenders for everyone

if Kamala was president millions of men would be playing women's sports

22 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Why is he always doing that dope dance?

Drrrrrrugs! 👃❄️

6 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

This could turn out to be a brilliant world-changing victory or a total slog.

How is it going? The truth is no one really gives two ishs. Just like everything else. No one gave a ish about Afghanistan or Yemen, you name it. America hasn't really given a ish about a war since we needed to kill a bunch of Muslims after 9/11

You do care about the economy though, right?

9 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Russia is losing their drone source which will hurt them in Ukraine. Also, yes, it makes Russia more important to China but Russia needs much of their oil for their military actions, and Xi is too smart to be OK with being that dependent on Putin. Russia may ultimately benefit, but they're going to hurt first, and China is going to really suffer, which is, ultimately, the long term strategic goal here.

Russia is not hurting from this right now. They are making a lot more money from their oil and that helps ease their economic issues allowing them to fund their war machine. They’ve also copied the Iranian drones and can produce them themselves nowadays so they will take care of that problem over time. Yes, China will hurt but that means wrecking the global oil market meaning many others hurt as well. Trump could stop all US energy exports and protect the US while everywhere else goes to sheet. Is that the plan?

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

You do care about the economy though, right?

Economy only matters if the "Divider in Chief” says so. Now high gas prices are making Americans richer and we all should embrace this "short pain” for long term gain. Ring a bell? It’s the same reference he put out there about tariffs.

Everything he says is about how this country will be richer and better off in the future. Only he can fix it. And while everyone holds off and waits for the success, he and his enablers are looting the country. He doesn’t care about what the future holds. No matter what, blame will be passed on to the next administration, regardless of who that may be. And for safe measures: pardons will be handed out to basically everyone involved in this regime…

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Russia is not hurting from this right now. They are making a lot more money from their oil and that helps ease their economic issues allowing them to fund their war machine. They’ve also copied the Iranian drones and can produce them themselves nowadays so they will take care of that problem over time. Yes, China will hurt but that means wrecking the global oil market meaning many others hurt as well. Trump could stop all US energy exports and protect the US while everywhere else goes to sheet. Is that the plan?

This is somewhat of an understatement. The Kremlin is popping Champagne bottles left and right these days. Lifting sanctions on their energy sector is saving their a.s.s.

The stupidity of their dealings with Putin only lets one assume that a bunch of people have been compromised in our government. This dumb war in Iran is only making our biggest adversaries stronger in the long run.

We are hammering Iran militarily, but also losing a lot of resources in taking out their old equipment. And what’s the successful end game to this whole conflict?! Short term gain for long term pain?! The exact opposite of what he is doing with the economy…