Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Air Force refuelling jet disappears off radar over English Channel (Landed Safely)
Daily Mail ^ | 04/28/2015 | MARK DUELL

Posted on 04/28/2015 8:02:42 PM PDT by logi_cal869

A US Air Force refuelling aircraft disappeared off the radar over the English Channel last night.

The Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker left Amiens in northern France at 0.05am local time (11.05pm BST) and was last reported on a flight tracking website between Dover and Calais 15 minutes later.

It is not yet known why the plane - flying under the code QID72 and based at Mildenhall in Suffolk - fell off the radar at 0.20am. The US Air Force was unavailable for comment.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; airforce; military; missingjet; radar; refuellingjet; usaf; usairforce
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last
To: Yo-Yo

Oh wow. Glad it landed safely.


61 posted on 04/29/2015 4:28:22 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Great news.

Perhaps the mystery around the ‘in-flight emergency’ will be resolved...


62 posted on 04/29/2015 4:37:38 AM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869
We may or may not ever know, but if it "disappeared" off commercial traffic radar, its transponder went down. Also, if you read the full story you posted (since removed by the Daily Mail), there were a few strange transponder readings before it went dark (22,000 ft at zero airspeed.)

Sounds like electrical issues.

63 posted on 04/29/2015 5:00:13 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
if you read the full story you posted (since removed by the Daily Mail), there were a few strange transponder readings before it went dark (22,000 ft at zero airspeed.)

The version of the brief story I saw last night didn't state anything about 'strange transponder readings'.

Explain, please.

64 posted on 04/29/2015 5:23:30 AM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

The plane was already on the ground when that happened.

Then again it does look similar enough to that B-17 that was pretty much cut in half after being rammed by a Bf-109 that maybe it could have landed. Boeing products are pretty tough like that.


65 posted on 04/29/2015 5:25:21 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869

I cannot explain, please, because the Daily Mail has updated the story and removed the original article. But when I first read the story they explained that there were several transponder readings about altitude and airspeed, and one of the readings was 22,000 feet and zero airspeed.


66 posted on 04/29/2015 5:37:34 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869; XHogPilot

Oops, my error. What I read was post #47 above that had the transponder readings.

As you can see from XHogPilot’s list of transponder readings, one says “On this particular site, the tracking of QID72, KC-135 tail number 61-0321 begins 22:05UTC over France, at cruise altitude 33,600 ft, speed 0kts, heading 328degrees.”


67 posted on 04/29/2015 5:41:25 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Great news!

I flew as a passenger on the KC-135’s out of RAF Mildenhall many a time in the mid-90’s.

One time, on a run from Ramstein AB to Mildenhall, we were diverted to a refuel mission over the Adriatic (during the Bosnia-Herzegovina troubles)... We 4 passengers had one Snickers between us, and were airborne about 12 hours for a 1 hour flight. My feet were cold frozen due to the altitude, and my head was sweltering due to the constant forced hot air above! At least I got to watch a copule of refules back with the boom guy.

Was never so glad to get to Mildenhall! Went to the Smokehouse for dinner; ate like a hog, then the Bird-in-Hand for after dinner refreshments. Then slept until noon!


68 posted on 04/29/2015 6:04:09 AM PDT by Alas Babylon! (As we say in the Air Force, "You know you're over the target when you start getting flak!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot

OUCH... $40 million per in 1998

Wiki:
Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
Aerial refueling
The Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker is a military aerial refueling aircraft. It and the Boeing 707 airliner were developed from the Boeing 367-80 prototype. Wikipedia
Wingspan: 131’ (40 m)
Length: 136’ (42 m)
Range: 5,000 miles (8,047 km)
Cruise speed: 552 mph (888 km/h)
Weight: 98,470 lbs (44,660 kg)
Unit cost: 39,600,000–39,600,000 USD (1998)
Engine type: CFM International CFM56


69 posted on 04/29/2015 6:17:26 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: stormer; Domangart

Thanks for the update. it’s only been forty six years since I worked on them.


70 posted on 04/29/2015 6:27:26 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Some times you need more than six shots. Much more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Is this a reconnaissance KC-135 with the radom on top? I worked on KC-135 A and Q models back in 1967-1969. I was in Alaska when a KC-135R was lost somewhere over the arctic.

No. All KCs are tankers. RC-135s were the recon birds.

71 posted on 04/29/2015 7:26:27 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot

We use Flight Explorer at work. It is notoriously unreliable. It will show aircraft at FL150 when ACARS shows an “on” time. Other times tagged aircraft just don’t appear. I have found flight aware to be more reliable..


72 posted on 04/29/2015 8:10:39 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Certified Islamophobe..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

Have you ever tried Flight Aware?


73 posted on 04/29/2015 8:37:03 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Yes, I have. I found it to be more reliable than Flight Explorer..


74 posted on 04/29/2015 9:06:11 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Certified Islamophobe..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

http://discity.com/kc135/


75 posted on 05/01/2015 9:21:56 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (BINGO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DUMBGRUNT

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/29/tanker-lands-safely-after-emergency-in-europe/26568001/


76 posted on 05/01/2015 4:06:18 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (This is known as "bad luck". - Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

FlightAware.com is what I use at home to back-check events on my flights. It’s amazingly accurate, even in the terminal area.
I was unable to figure out how to use it to track US military and other non-airline types. Is it possible?


77 posted on 05/02/2015 3:26:08 AM PDT by XHogPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot

They do not use the same transponders. For some reason, the USAF doesn’t want everyone knowing where their planes are. Ha ha.


78 posted on 05/02/2015 3:27:56 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot

I think it depends on the squawk code. You can’t see AF-1 on there, because of the discreet code, and I think flight aware only uses the “published” ones..


79 posted on 05/02/2015 7:32:06 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Certified Islamophobe..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869

Back in the day...a top secret jet would drop in behind the tanker and it would refuse to acknowledge proximity warnings from civilian ground control. I can see that now they’d probably drop below radar to top off the visitor.


80 posted on 05/03/2015 8:20:48 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson