e-ng KC·135

Stratotanker
More than just a Tanker

Robert S Hopkins III

 Boeing KC·135
Stratotanker
More than just a Tanker

j
l

Robert S Hopkins, III

I
I !
Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
© 1997 Robert S Hopkins III
Contents
ISBN 1 85780 069 9

Published by Midland Publishing Limited Design concept and layout Preface 3

24 The Hollow, Earl Shilton © 1997 Midland Publishing Limited and Foreword 4
L.eicester, LE9 7NA, England Stephen Thompson Associates
Author's Notes 5
Tel: 01455847815 Fax: 01455 841 805
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com Edited by Ken Ellis Using the Book 7
Glossary 8
Worldwide distribution (except North America): Printed in England by
Midland Counties Publications (Aerophile) Limited Clearpoint Colourprint Limited Chapters
Unit 3, Maizefield, Hinckley Fields Daybrook, Nottingham, NG5 6HD 1 Determinant of Strategy 10
Hinckley, Leics., LE10 1YF, Great Britain 2 Birth of Aerial Refueling 15
Telephone: 01455233747 Fax: 01455233737 Aerofax is an imprint of
3 Developmental History 25
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com Midland Publishing Limited
4 Airframe, Powerplant and
North American trade distribution: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may Systems 43
Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc. be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, trans- 5 Tankers 51
11481 Kost Dam Road, North Branch, MN 55056 mitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
6 Les Ravitailleurs 73
Tel: 6125833239 Fax: 612 583 2023 mechanical or photo-copied, recorded or otherwise,
Toll free telephone: 8008954585 without the written permission of the publishers. 7 Transports 77
8 Test-beds 87
9 Airborne Command Posts 113
10 Reconnaissance Platforms 133

Appendices
A KC-135s in Color 161
B Mission-Design-Series List 177
C Attrition 187
D Retirements 193
E Units 196 "
F Records and Special
Achievements 202
G Notes on Sources 207
H End Notes 209

Index 221

Title page: Under the command of Major Burl

Davenport, 99th AREFS, 4050th AREFW KC-135A
56-3630 set a speed record from New York to
London on 27th June 1958, as 'Top Sail-Alpha'
- see Appendix F. Still in 99th AREFS markings,
56-3630 refuels North American F-100D
56-3435. USAF via Joe Bruch collection

Left: This book is dedicated to the author's

father, Lieutenant Colonel Robert S Hopkins,
USAF (Retired).

2
 •
II"
Il
I

Preface

As a former Commander in Chief of Strategic not received the great credit they deserve; they sance versions and the EC-135 airborne com-
Air Command, I appreciate a good book about are always there when you need them.' mand and control airplanes, like the famous

[ a warplane that has been vital to SAC's mission

for over 30 years. On 28th June 1957, SAC took
delivery of its first KC-135 all-jet tanker. On 12th
During the war in Southeast Asia, KC-135
crews accomplished many remarkable feats of
airmanship. For example, on 3rd May 1967, two
'Looking Glass' that has maintained continu-
ous airborne alert in protection of the United
States since 1961 .

l
January 1965, the last KC-135 was delivered,
giving SAC a total of 641, the largest tanker fleet
in the world.
This book is aboutthat warplane. The Boeing
KC-135 and its variants have been workhorses
of the jet age. Over the years our KC-135
Republic F-105 Thunderchiefs, returning from
a mission over North Vietnam and flying protec-
tive cover for a downed airman found them-
selves without enough fuel to land in friendly
territory. With stormy weather in the refueling
area and an unusual number of airborne emer-
I've flown tankers; I know and understand
their mission and I'm proud to have been the
Commander of the warplanes and warriors of
our KC/EC/RC and C-135 fleet.
General John T Chain, Jr

Il
tankers have amassed in excess of 4.5 million
hours of flying time. They undertook continu-
ous support of operations in Vietnam from June
1964 to August 1973, flying 195,000 sorties,
providing over 800,000 aerial refuelings, and
transferring a total of nine billion pounds of fuel.
As many as 172 KC-135s were committed to
...r
I operations in Southeast Asia.
The KC-135 is still going strong. With ongo-
ing modernization programs such as re-engin-
ing with quiet, fuel efficient, and powerful
engines, airframe reskinning, and new fuel
management systems, the KC-135 will be flying
well into the 21 st century.
This book is also about the concept of aerial
refueling - the mating and transfer of fuel
between two aircraft, in flight, and at all alti-
l tudes. The concept had a 'daredevil' beginning
gencies preventing them from reaching stand-
by tankers, they radioed for any tanker
assistance they could get. Major Alvin L Lewis
and his KC-135 crew, monitoring the situation
while in another refueling area, managed to
keep track of the F-1 05s and arrived just as one
fighter pilot was aboutto eject. To effect a hook-
up, Major Lewis had to maneuver the KC-135
into a dive while turning in front ofthe F-1 05 just
as it was about to flame out for the lack of fuel.
His actions saved two pilots and their airplanes.
Bob Hopkins provides valuable insight into
the history of aerial refueling, the KC-135, and
the people who made it so effective. The book
also provides an in-depth look at a number of
tanker variants, such as the R9-135 reconnais-
former Commander-in-Chief
Strategic Air Command
Offutt AFB, Nebraska
CINCSAC General John T 'Jack' Chain takes his
turn as AEAO on board a 'Looking Glass' sortie
in 2nd ACCS EC·135C 63·8054. Chain also
served as the AEAO on the last continuous
'Looking Glass' mission on 24th July 1990.
The box between the consoles ordinarily
contains the requisite codes to launch or
execute the SlOP, the US nuclear war plan.
Joe Bruch collection (Joe can be seen at the rear of
the picture, extreme left.)

l
in 1921, when an American, with a five gallon
can of aviation gasoline strapped to his back,
climbed from the wing of one biplane to the
wing of another and poured the gasoline into
the fuel tank. But it was the KC-135 with its
speed, endurance, and high volume fuel trans-
fer methods which gave our bomber, fighter,
reconnaissance, and airlift aircraft their truly
global capabilities.
Recently, for example, tankers were indis-
pensable in the support of US air strikes against
Libya. Strike aircraft flying from England were
denied overflight rights by France, Spain, and
t
I
Portugal. This forced a 2,800 nautical mile
(5, 188km) circuitous route south from England

~ along the European Atlantic coast and through

the Strait of Gibraltar to the Libyan coast. Strike

I.
J
aircraft received eight refuelings - four pre-strike
and four post-strike. The composite force of 19
McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extenders and ten
KC-135s made this successful mission possible.
Finally, this book is about those unsung
heroes, the men (and now the women) who
crew SAC's tanker force and contribute daily to
l
i, the success of SAC's mission - deterrence.
One of my predecessors as CINCSAC, General
...,Ii Curtis LeMay, said it best: 'Tanker guys have
i.
3

On the morning of 17th December 1903, at Kitty
Hawk, North Carolina, Orville Wright conduct-
ed the first pilot-controlled take-off, flight and
landing of a heavier-than-air flying machine.
That historic flight, today's high performance
aircraft, and, yes, the super flight vehicles of the
future, was and will continue to be the product
of man's infinite desires and technical achieve-
ments.
In May 1941, the whine of English engineer
Sir Frank Whittle's gas turbine engine served as
the coup de grace for internal combustion
engines in high performance aircraft. Shortly
thereafter, under a Top Secret government
contract, Bell Aircraft Corporation built and
flight tested the first jet propelled aircraft in the
US. The XP-59 Airacomet was a twin-jet,
straight wing, single-seat fighter operational to
43,000ft (3,1 06m) altitude. The handling char-
acteristics of the aircraft were satisfactory and
the high altitude performance was phenome-
nal, introducing the industry to heretofore
unknown high altitude and high speed prob-
lems. Due to the high operating temperatures
and the absence of heat resistant materials, for
example, the total engine life expectancy was a
mere five hours.
The National Advisory Council for Aeronau-
tics (NACA, later NASA) possessed captured
German high speed wind tunnel data which
0
showed that a 35 swept wing provided superi-
or high speed performance but had unaccept-
able low speed stall characteristics. Bell
negotiated a contract with NACA to modify a
conventional fighter, a P-63 Kingcobra, into the
0 of KC·135A 55-3118 on 31st August 1956.
35 swept wing configuration Model L-39 and
conduct low speed and stall investigation. A
series of flight tests utilizing various wing lead-
ing edge slat configurations and positions pro-
duced a configuration which solved the low
speed problem, allowing the industry to utilize
0
the benefits ofthe 35 swept wing.
With the increasing jet fighter and B-47 Stra-
tojet inventory, the military identified a need for
in-flight refueling. Early in-flight refueling uti-
lized a 'probe and drogue' system, requiring
the fighter to overtake the drogue receptacle
with the refueling probe of the fighter, a difficult
procedure, particularly in rough air. Recogniz-
ing this increasing requirement for stable and
reliable in-flight refueling, Boeing designed,
built, and perfected a 'flying boom' refueling
system on the tail section of a KC-97
Stratofreighter. Refueling with the boom sys-
tem proved superior to the drogue system and
was much preferred by receiver pilots.
4
Foreword
The growing number of fighters and B-47
bombers plus the rapidly approaching arrival of
the eight-engine high altitude B-52 emphasized
the requirement for tanker aircraft with jet-com-
patible speed and high altitude performance,
as the low speed and low altitude refueling dic-
tated by the KC-97 were both extremely incon-
venient and costly.
The B-47 and B-52 prototype flight experi-
ence and performance numbers (plus the
British decision to proceed with the DH Comet
jet transport) convinced Boeing management
that the future lay with military and commercial
jet aircraft. In mid April 1952, the Board of Direc-
tors allocated $16 million to develop, construct,
test, and demonstrate a prototype Boeing
Model 707 jet transport, draWing number 367-
80. The 'Dash 80's' initial flight on 15th July
1954, demonstrated satisfactory flight charac-
teristics and equipment operation. Previous
technical experience with the design and
development of the B-47 and B-52 was a signifi-
cant factor in the design and success of the
'Dash 80'.
The test program involving stability and con-
trol, performance, flutter and structural testing
proceeded on schedule, and flight demonstra-
tions to military and airline officials were fre-
quent. On 16th October 1955, with Mr William
Allen, Boeing President, and prominent indus-
try officials aboard, we departed Seattle in the
'Dash 80' and landed at Andrews AFB, Mary-
land, three hours, 48 minutes later for an aver-
age speed of 595mph (957km/h). Following a
briefing of the assembled dignitaries and press
we returned to Seattle in four hours, eight min-
utes. The record speed, absence of cabin noise
and vibration plus passenger comfort demon-
strated the utility of the jet transport.
Numerous 'Dash 80' simulated refueling
flights with B-47s and B-52s at mission altitude
proved the KC-135 concept and mission capa-
bility. The KC-135 aircraft is a prime example of
the advancing technical state of the art of air-
craft propulsion units,. lightweight materials,
structural design and aerodynamic improve-
ment. It is also an example of the technical fore-
sight and financial commitment by Corporate
America, in this case the Boeing Company. The
'Dash 80' prototype jet tanker and commercial
transport provided the military with no-cost
flight test performance data, flight crew familiar-
ization and in-flight refueling simulation and
mission validation at operational altitudes.
The co-ordinated efforts of the United States
government, technical consultants, industry
manufacturing and testing organizations, insti-
tutions of higher learning and the respective
military organizations have produced the most
advanced aircraft in speed, range, altitude,
mission capability, and reliability, in the 51
years of powered flight since that historical day
at Kitty Hawk.
AM 'Tex' Johnston
Seattle, Washington
former ChiefTest Pilot, Boeing
Plenty of reasons to be happy. Boeing
President Bill Allen (left) and test pilots 'Tex'
Johnston (center) and 'Dix' Loesch (right) mug
for the camera after the successful first flight
Johnston earned Allen's wrath a year earlier
when, on 7th August 1955, he barrel-rolled the
'Dash 80' over Seattle's Lake Washington.
Boeing P-17340, courtesy of Marilyn Phipps

.
'Writing a book was an adventure.
To begin with it was a toy, an amusement;
then it became a mistress, and then a master,
and then a tyrant.'
Sir Winston S Churchill
I first flew a KC-135 in 1985, about the same
time I began collecting material on the airplane
.. and its many variants. Over the next six years, I
added a long list of different types of KCs, ECs,
TCs, and RCs to my pilot's logbook. I also
added a long list of material to this manuscript.
Just as I have closed out my flying career in this
timeless airplane, it now seems appropriate to
finish this endless book. As Thomas Jefferson
wrote upon the release in 1787 of his only book,
six years after 'finishing' it
'To apologize for this by developing the cir-
cumstances of the time and place of [its] com-
position, would be to open wounds which have
already bled enough. To these circumstances
some of [the book's] imperfections may with
truth be ascribed; the great mass to the want of
information and want of talents in the writer.
(Notes on the State of Virginia, London, Stock-
dale, 1787), in the reprint ed Merrill D Peterson,
The Portable Thomas Jefferson (New York,
Penguin Books, 1977.)
There has been much to include, and, sadly,
much to exclude from these pages. Limited by
space, I found it necessary to omit events, pro-
grams, descriptions, photographs, and details
desired by a variety of audiences ranging from
aviation historians to KC-135 crew members to
model builders. Although the material included
here does much to fill the considerable void in
references on the KC-135, it still leaves many
questions unanswered and many paths of
inquiry unfollowed. Perhaps as more informa-
tion is declassified or otherwise becomes avail-
able, other historians will take up the challenge.
As this book was first readied, Iraq invaded
Kuwait. The months that followed validated the
essential nature of the KC-135 and its variants
in the projection and prosecution of US and
Allied military power. Since then the US Air
Force has undertaken sweeping organizational
changes and force structure alterations that
have drasticaily altered the number and type of
KC-135s, who operates them, and the conduct
of their missions. A large number of KC-135As
f and other variants have been retired. Most
importantly, the end of the 'Cold War' has com-
pelled a substantial reconsideration of the
future of KC-135s in particular and strategic air-
power in general.
I
1
~
Author's Notes
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the army of historians and
photographers who made this book possible.
In many cases, these people participated in the
KC-135 epic. Karl Johnson spoke with fond-
ness as one of the first KC-135 boom operators.
Alton E Chamberlin, was 'present at the cre-
ation' of the RC-135A and opened the flood-
gates on the history of the photomapping
program. William Gibbons also shared his con-
siderable experiences with the RC-135A.
Together their records and first-hand accounts
represent the most accurate history to date of
this little-known program. Oscar E Niebes
recounted his 20 years of experience with test-
bed KC-135s at Wright-Patterson AFB. This is,
in part, their story, and they are best qualified to
tell it.
I received countless photographs and mater-
ial from Joe Algranti, Robert D Archer, Robert J
Archer, Russ Barber, Dana Bell, Jim Benson,
Patrick Bigel, Steve Bond, Oscar Bonnefoy,
John Bowdler, Paul Brown, Bill Burr, Mark Cain,
Tony Cassanova, John Coon, Steve Edwards,
Rene Francillon, Mike Franczek, Jerry Fugere,
John Gaffney, John Gourley, Mike Habermehl,
Dick Hallion, Chuck Hansen, ~eff Harper, Paul
Hart, Tom Hildreth, Terry Horstead, Pete Hurd,
Marty Isham, Christian Jacquet, Tom Kaminski,
Dave Lavery, Robert Lawson, Don Logan, Eric
Le Gendre, Jim Oberg, Dave Menard, Paul Min-
ert, Robert Moitessier, Walton Moody, Rick
Morgan, William Norton, Terry Panopalis, John
Phaler, Jay Porter, Dana Potts, Mike Quan,
Fred Quinn, Jeff Rankin-Lowe, Yves Richard,
Arnold Swanberg, Martyn Swann, Norm Taylor,
the late Jon Von Gohren, Dominique Vivier, and
Nate Wilds.
Archivists who worked 'above and beyond'
include Stephen Allard of the Omaha World-
Herald, Tom Brewer at the Air Force Museum,
Andrew S Burrows, formerly of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Dr Robert Duffner
of the Air Force Special Weapons Center,
Wanda Odom of the National Aeronautics
Association, Anne Rutledge of the Museum of
Flight, Lee Saegesser and Marty Curry of
NASA, and Larry Wiggins of the South Dade
News Leader.
Thanks to William L Ochsenwald, who first
taught me how to write good history despite my
stubborn efforts. Thanks also to Mel Leffler,
Maria Morrison, Peter Onuf, Mark Smith, David
Snead, lIicia Sprey, and my colleagues at the
University of Virginia. I doubt if the 'Cold War'
and Thomas Jefferson will ever be the same....
Harold Carr, Boeing's Director of Public Affairs,
introduced me to David Olson and Marilyn
Phipps of Boeing's Historical Archives, who put
me in touch with the people who designed,
built, and tested the KC-135. George Schairer,
Boeing's KC-135 Technology Director, and
Joseph Sutter, Chief of Boeing's Transport
Division Aerodynamics Unit during the devel-
opment of the Boeing 367-80 'Dash 80', 707,
and KC-135, offered a paternal perspective on
the origins of the KC-135. Richard L Rouzie, the
KC-135 Chief Engineer, and George C Martin,
former Vice President of Engineering, added
their recollections on the birth and adoles-
cence of the KC-135. Vaughn Blumenthal, B-52
Senior Aerodynamicist, discussed the B-52
bomber and the need for a jet tanker. John E
Steiner, former Vice President for Corporate
Development, provided memories and memo-
rabilia, and guided me through existing 'official'
histories with an open mind.
lowe this book to the persistence of Bill
Peake and his original serial number list. He
provided photographs, read manuscripts, sent
clippings, and proofed every page of every
document and chart produced for this book.
Special thanks are in order to Brian Gardner for
his superb research on the history of aerial refu-
eling, which forms the body and soul of the sec-
ond chapter of this book, with which I no doubt
tampered too much. Dave Brown lent a critical
editorial eye to the entire manuscript, and it is
solely due to his efforts that the chapter on test-
beds exists today. George Cockle's pho-
tographs, long distance calls to Alaska, and
bottomless address book were equally helpful.
Jim Moseley argued ceaselessly (and victori-
ously) for the exclusion of the Boeing 707 and
its derivatives from this work, rightly insisting
that they are not KC-135s and, though related,
should not be considered here. Jim's letters,
'phone calls, and packages of rare source
materials have made this book complete. With-
out them ,this work could not stand up to any
historical test.
I am especially indebted to General John T
Chain, Jr, one of SAC's most notable Comman-
ders-in-Chief for his preface to this book, and to
Lieutenant Colonel George Peck, formerly of
SAC Public Affairs, for his guidance and
encouragement. lowe the deepest personal
thanks to 'Tex' Johnston for his foreword, his
contributions to this book, and most of all, for
The Barrel Roll.
Readers will share in my indebtedness to
those who reviewed manuscripts and opened
5
 doors long sealed in the history of reconnais-
sance platforms, particularly Brigadier General
Regis Urschler. He championed the need for
security with a tempered appreciation to tell an
untold story. I am equally grateful to those who
reviewed the manuscript at General Urschler's
request and who shall remain nameless but not
unremembered. Ted Boydston, Bill Strand-
berg, and Bruce Bailey contributed both pho-
tos and recollections of years offlying RC-135s,
and Mike Ginn, the 6th SRW historian, helped
with the early history of the recon KC-135s.
Lieutenant Colonel Brian 'Buck' Rogers
offered his entire KC-135 photograph collec-
tion, as well as valuable data on the history of
individual airplanes and unit updates through
the end of SAC. It is an equal honor to have
flown combat missions alongside this distin-
guished fellow officer and pilot. Joe Bruch has
lent his unwavering support for this project,
provided photographs and contacts, and,
when appropriate, delivered a well needed
head shot to bring me back to my senses.
I must thank Flight Lieutenant Phil Thomas,
Royal Australian Air Force, who taught me how
to fly the KC-135, and for his many post-flight
briefings at the Castle AFB Officer's Club. Major
Steve Clark taught me a great deal about the
KC-135 that I shall never forget, as did Captain
Jim Kilty, Majors Ward Anderson, Mike Frye,
and Kent Lund, and Lieutenant Colonel Dave
Yates. Thanks to Captain Dave Peck for being
the 'best first co-pilot'. Major 'Mad Jack' Elliott
deserves a medal for having to fly 20 hours with
an artiste. Major Bill Zehner taught me all about
the RC-135, and, most importantly, about
being the best. Thanks for the greatest TDY
6
ever to RODN (with Tim and Roger) and flying about flying than I CQuid ever hope to learn, and
the 'Ball' up initial! what he has taught me along the way has given
lowe a deep personal debt to Jay Miller, who me the strength and understanding to accept
took a big chance in helping this project get his absence during those many, many years.
started, and after my long, prodigal wander-
ings, in bringing it to an end. Were it not for his Robert S. Hopkins, III
photos, his files, his library, his time, his home, Omaha, Nebraska September 1997
his hospitality, his patience, and most of all his
confidence, this book would never have come
to fruition. Special thanks go to Ken Ellis and all
at Aerofax/Midland Publishing who enthusiasti-
cally embraced the challenge of breathing life
into this monster beneath the sheets.
I must also thank those people closest to me,
who, during the years of researching and
preparing this manuscript seemed to be kept
the farthest away. Robin's continued accep-
tance made this all possible, Sarah's giggles
and grins got me through the darkest of times,
and Michael's arrival during the Gulf War
reminded me that there are things more impor-
tantthan 'Rivet Joint' and 'Cobra Ball'. The author is a former USAF pilot and aircraft ",
It is traditional in these paragraphs to pay commander. He has flown 17 different types of
-135 during assignments in Indiana, Alaska and
homage to the person who spent countless
Nebraska. He and his fellow crew members flew
hours revising the manuscript in trivial and the first operational mission in the RC-135X
meaningless ways. Amy has done this and 'Cobra Eye', for which they received, in part, the
more. At times her enthusiasm to finish this General Jerome F O'Malley Award for Best
book has been motivated by her commitment Reconnaissance Crew in the Air Force. He
commanded an RC-135 'Rivet Joint' crew during
to see it published. At other times, it has been
Operations 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm'
driven by her desire to be rid of it and the grief it (as illustrated). Mr Hopkins holds a PhD in his-
brings. Either way, it is done, thanks to Amy. I tory from the University of Virginia where he
hope she will be as patient and understanding specialises in 'Cold War' diplomatic history and
with me in the years to come. national security policy. Mike Carney
I lovingly dedicate this book to a man who
With an outline of Great Britain on the forward
spent far too many hours behind KC-135s, tak- fuselage, EC-135H of the 7120th ACCS on
ing on millions of pounds of fuel all over the approach to homebase at RAF Mildenhall,
world, often in combat. He has forgotten more Suffolk. Joe Bruch
..
An early goal of this work was to provide a com-
plete and concise history of each KC-135 by tail
number from delivery to current assignment or
final attrition or retirement. This strictly chrono-
logical exercise proved both cumbersome and
confusing given the KC-135's lengthy opera-
tional history and the multiple designations
often applied to individual airplanes. Converse-
.. ly, organizing this book by mission offered a
more coherent overall history, with individual
airframe types and tail numbers included within
each mission section .
... The book may be read sequentially to appre-
\
ciate the natural evolution of the KC-135 and its
many variants and their relation to the many
problems confronting the planners of strategic
airpower doctrine in the 'Cold War' years.
Nonetheless, the chapters can be read in any
order, although references to material from ear-
lier chapters may be helpful.
Readers interested in the chronological his-
tory of a specific airplane need only refer to
Appendix B, the KC-135 Mission-Design-Series
(MDS) List, which delineates by tail number an
airplane's complete mission evolution. Each
MDS listed for a specific tail number may then
...
...
..~
I
t
1
II
....
I
..
I
f
Using the Book
be reviewed fUlly in the appropriate mission
section throughoutthe chapters.
Airplane attrition and retirement is treated in
a similar manner: it is annotated in both the
appropriate chapters and Appendix C, but is
fully described in Appendix C for Attrition, ie the
loss of an airplane through accident of one
form or another and Appendix 0 for Retire-
ments, ie entry into storage for possible reuse,
or ground instructional purposes, museum dis-
play or scrapping. While this arrangement may
require extra effort on the part of the reader
seeking a complete chronological history of
one particular airplane, it offers a more system-
atic and notably less redundant system of
cross-referencing the Byzantine evolution of
the KC-135.
The presence of endnotes (Appendix H)
throughout this book may intimidate some
readers. Their purpose is twofold: to identify
source material for serious historians, and to
discuss peripheral subjects which are not suffi-
ciently essential to merit inclusion in the body
of the text. Readers are encouraged to review
these to appreciate fully the many intricacies
and controversies surrounding the history of
the Boeing KC-135. Material considered com-
mon knowledge is not attributed.
The military lexicon thrives on acronyms
ranging from program names to operations
and procedures. It is neither possible nor desir-
able to divorce this book completely from such
usage. Readers unfamiliar with the many
acronyms can find them defined in the Glos-
sary, which follows.
Finally, unless otherwise specified, the state-
ments and opinions in this book are exclusively
those of the author and should not be construed
in any fashion to represent any official opinion or
policy of the United States Air Force, any agency
of the government of the United States of Ameri-
ca, or any other agency or government.
Regardless of variant, the KC·135's greatest
asset is its crews. SAC long ago opted for the
'hard crew' concept, which meant that the same
crew members always trained, flew, sat alert,
worked, and often relaxed together. Reveling in
the afternoon sun at Kadena AB on 13th
September 1988, following a successful ops
sortie in RC·135S 61-2663 is the front-end crew,
(I to r) the author, Tim Scott, Roger Chenoweth,
and Bill Zehner. Dave Lawlor
7
 Glossary

AABNCP Advanced Airborne Cornmand Post AS Airlift Squadron ERV Escadre de Ravaitaillement en Vol, or
AACS Airborne Astrographic Camera System AS&CS Airborne Surveillance and Control System Escadron de Ravaitaillement en Vol
AARB Advanced Air Refueling Boom ASC Aeronautical Systems Center ESD Electronic Systems Division
AAS Advanced Avionics System ASD Aeronautical Systems Division ESI Electrospace Systems, Inc.
AAVS Aerospace Audio Visual Service AS DC Army Strategic Defense Command ETTF European Tanker Task Force
AB Air Base ASIP Aircraft Structural Integrity Program EVA Extravehicular activity
ABIT Airborne Imagery Transmission ASRP Aerospace Radio Propagation EW Electronic warfare
ABL Airborne laser ATCA Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft EWO Electronic warfare officer or
ABW Air Base Wing ATG Air Transport Group Emergency War Order
ale Aircraft ATS Air Transport Squadron or FAA Federal Aviation Administration
AC Aircraft commander or Advanced Telemetry System FAS Force Aerienne Strategique
alternating current ATTF Alaskan Tanker Task Force FBW Fighter Bomber Wing
ACE Accelerated Co-pilot Enrichment or ATW Air Transport Wing FEAF Far East Air Force
Aviation Career Enhancement AUXCP Auxiliary command post FEW Fighter Escort Wing
ACC Air Combat Command AW Airlift Wing FEWSG Fleet Electronic Warfare and Support Group
ACW Airborne Control Wing AW&CTS Airborne Warning & Control Training Squadron FISTA Flying Infrared Signatures and
ACCS Airborne Command and Control Squadron AW&CW Airborne Warning and Controi Wing Technology Aircraft
ACCW Airborne Command and Control Wing AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System FL Flight level
ACGS Aerospace Cartographic and Geodetic Service AWS Air Weather Service FLTS Flight Test Squadron
ACGSq Aerospace Cartographic and Geodetic BA Base Aerienne FOL Forward operating location
Squadron BDA Boom drogue adapter FRG Federal Republic of Germany
ACM Advanced Cruise Missile BFCS Ballistic Framing Camera System FRI Flight Refueling, Inc.
ACP Airborne command post BMAC Boeing Military Airplane Company FRL Flight Refuelling, Ltd.
AD Air Division BMEWS Ballistic Missile Early Warning System FS Flight Station or
ADCS Air Deployment Control Squadron BuNO Bureau of Naval Operations Federal Standard
ADI Attitude direction indicator BW Bombardment Wing FSA/CAS Fuel Savings Advisory/Cockpit Avionics System
AEAO Airborne Emergency Action Officer CAA Civil Aeronautics Administration FTRG Fleet Tactical Readiness Group
AEC Atomic Energy Commission CAP Combat air patrol FW Fighter Wing
AF Air Force CASF Composite Air Strike Force FY Fiscal Year
AFAL Air Force Avionics Laboratory CBO Congressional Budget Office GEANS Gimballed Electrostatic Aircraft (Navigation)
AFB Air Force Base CCK Ching Chuan Kang AB, Taiwan System
AFCRL Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory CENTAF Central Command Air Force GFAE Government-furnished aircraft equipment
AFCS Air Force Communications Service CENTCOM Central Command gpm Gallons per minute
AFETR Air Force Eastern Test Range CEP Centre d'Experimentation du Pacifique GPS Global positioning satellite
AFFTC Air Force Flight Test Center CIA Central Intelligence Agency HALO High Altitude Learjet Observatory
AFGL Air Force Geophysics Laboratory ClAP Climatic Impact Assessment Program HAT Heavy aircraft training
AFMC Air Force Materiel Command CID Controlled Impact Demonstration HDU Hose drum unit
AFRES Air Force Reserve CINC Commander-in-Chief HEL High energy laser
AFS Air Force Station CINCPACAF Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Air Force HF High frequency
AFSATCOM Air Force Satellite Communications CINCSAC Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Air Command HIPERNAS High Precision Navigational System
AFSC Air Force Systems Command CMMCA Cruise Missile Mission Control Aircraft HIRAN High Precision Ranging
AFSWC Air Force Special Weapons Center COD Carrier on-board delivery HQ Headquarters
AFTAC Air Force Technical Applications Center CombW Combat Wing HSFS High Speed Fiight Station
AFTB Avionics Flight Test Bed COMINT Communications intelligence HSI Horizontal situation indicator
AFWAL Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory COMMACC Commander, Air Combat Command HTTF Howard Tanker Task Force
AFWTR Air Force Western Test Range CompG Composite Group HUMINT Human intelligence
AIO Airborne Ionospheric Observatory CompW Composite Wing IAI Israel Aircraft Industries
ALCC Airborne launch control center CONUS Continental United States lAP Internationai Airport
ALCM Air-launched cruise missile CoTAM Commandement du Transport lARS Improved Aerial Refueling System
ALD Airlift Division Aerienne Militaire lAS Indicated airspeed
ALL Airborne Laser Laboratory CP Co-pilot ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
ALOTS Airborne Lightweight Optical Tracking System CSA Command Support Aircraft ICNIA Integrated Communication Navigation
ALS Airlift Squadron CSD Constant speed drive Identification Avionics
AMARC Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration CSS Contrail Suppression System IDG Integrated drive generator
Center CSW Command Support Wing IFF Identification, Friend or Foe
AMC Air Materiel Command or CTAS Chrysler Technologies Airborne Systems IFR Instrument flight rules or

AMRAAM
AM SA
. Air Mobility Command
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile
Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft
CTTC
CW
DARPA
Chanute Technical Training Center
Composite Wing
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
ILS
IMT
In-flight refueling
Instrument landing system
In-flight maintenance technician
ANG Air National Guard DC Direct current INI Integrated NAV/SAT Inertial Navigation
ANGB Air National Guard Base DEFSMAC Defense Special Missile & Astronautics Center INS Inertial Navigation System
AOA Airborne Optical Adjunct Det Detachment IOC Initial operational capability
AP Airport DFRC Dryden Flight Research Center IR Infrared
APCS Air Photographic and Charting Service DIA Defense Intelligence Agency IRBM Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile
APS Atmospheric Properties Study DME Distance measuring equipment IRST Infrared search-while-track
APU Auxiliary power unit DNA Defense Nuclear Agency IS Intelligence Squadron
ARCP Air refueling control point DNS Doppler naVigation system IUS Inertial Upper Stage
ARDC Air Research and Development Command DoD Department of Defense JCS Joint Chiets of Staff
ARE Atmospheric Research EqUipment DoE Department of Energy JSC Johnson Space Center
AREFG Air Refueling Group EAM Emergency action message JTF Joint Task Force
AREFS Air Refueling Squadron EART Emergency air refueling tanker JTIDS Joint Tactical Information Distribution System
AREFW Air Refueling Wing EASTAF Eastern Transport Air Force KIAS Knots indicated airspeed
ARG Air Refueling Group EASTAUXCP East Auxiliary Airborne Command Post KVA Kilovolt-ampere
ARIA Apollo Range Instrumented Aircraft; EB Escadre de Bombardment LACE Laser Airborne Communication Experiment
later Advanced Range Instrumented Aircraft ECM Electronic countermeasures LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
ARIS Apollo Range Instrumented Ship ECP Engineering change proposal LaRC Langley Research Center
ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency EFAS Engine Failure Assist System LASER COM Laser ·communications
ARR Air refueling receiver EHF Extra-high frequency LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
ARS Air Refueling Squadron ELI NT Electronic intelligence LORAN Long Range Aid to Navigation
ART Air refuelable tanker EMP Electromagnetic pulse LRC Langley Research Center
ARW Air Refueling Wing ERCS Emergency Rocket Communication System LTV Ling-Temco-Vought Co.

a
 MAC Military Airlift Command PACCS Post Attack Command and Control System SOR Specific Operational Requirement
MAD Magnetic anomaly detection PAR PRO Peacetime Aerial Reconnaissance Program SPF Strategic Projection Force
MAG Military Airlift Group PCA Polar Cap Absorption SRS Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron
MAS Military Airlift Squadron PDI Pilot director indicator SRW Strategic Reconnaissance Wing
MASDC Military Aircraft Storage and Disposal Center PDM Programmed depot maintenance SS Strategic Squadron or
MATS Military Air Transport Service or PHOTINT Photo intelligence Support Squadron
Midcourse Acquisition and Tracking System PIFAX Pilot Control Factors STON Shuttle Tracking Data Net
(as in TRAP-MATS) PINS Palletized Inertial Navigation System STOl Short take-off and landing
MatS Materiel Squadron PMEE Prime Mission Electronic Equipment STRATCOM Strategic Command
MAW Military Airlift Wing PMS Photo Mapping Squadron STTF Spanish Tanker Task Force
MCAS Marine Corps Air Station PMW Photo Mapping Wing SW Strategic Wing
MCS Mapping and Charting Squadron PPMS Precision Power Measurement System SYO Series Yaw Damper
MDS Mission Design Series PRC People's Republic of China TAC Tactical Air Command
MHz Megahertz psi Pounds per square inch TACAN Tactical aerial navigation
MIDAUXCP Mid Auxiliary Command Post PTTF Pacific Tanker Task Force TAW Tactical Airlift Wing
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology aRC Quick Reaction Capability TCTO Time compliant technical order
MlS Microwave landing system RAAF Royal Australian Air Force TOCS Tactical Deployment Control Squadron
MRCS Medium Resolution Camera System RADC Rome Air Development Center TOY Temporary duty
MSEWG Multi-Service Electronic Warfare Support Group RAE Royal Aircraft Establishment TELINT Telemetry intelligence
MSTS Multisource tactical system RAF Royal Air Force TENCAP Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics RAMP Radiation Monitoring Program TESTS Test Squadron
NAF Numbered Air Force RCAF Royal Canadian Air Force TFW Tactical Fighter Wing
NAS Naval Air Station RDJTF Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force TG Test Group; or Tactical Group
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RF Radio frequency TMF Tail-mounted floodlight
NATC Naval Air Test Center RGA Rotation I Go-Around TPR Terrain profile recorder
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization RINT Radiation intelligence TPS Test Pilot School
NCA National Command Authorities RS Reconnaissance Squadron TRACAlS Traffic Control and Landing System
NEACP National Emergency Airborne Command Post RTAFB Royal Thai Air Force Base TRAP Terminai Radiation Program
NG Nouvelle Generation RTNAB Royal Thai Navy Air Base TRIA Telemetry Range Instrumented Aircraft
NNTRP National Nuclear Test Readiness Program RV Re-entry vehicle TS Test Squadron
NOA Non-operational aircraft RW Reconnaissance Wing TTF Tanker Task Force
NS Naval Station RW&RW Rescue Weather and Refueling Wing TW Test Wing
NSA National Security Agency SA Saudi Arabia TWA Trailing wire antenna
OAMP Optical Aerial Measurement Program SAC Strategic Air Command UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
OCAlC Oklahoma City Air logistics Center SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander, Europe UHF Ultra high frequency
OCAMA Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area SAD Strategic Aerospace Division UK United Kingdom
OF Operational Flight SALT Strategic Arms Umitation Treaty US United States
OMEW Office of Missile Electronic Warfare SAM Surface·to-air missile or USAF United States Air Force
OMS Organizational Maintenance Squadron Special Air Mission USAFE United States Air Force-Europe
OpOrd Operational order SAR Search and Rescue USCINCEUR US Commander-in-Chief, Europe
OpsG Operations Group SATCOM Satellite communications USCINCLANT US Commander-in-Chief, AUantic
OPTINT Optical intelligence SAW Strategic Aerospace Wing USCINCPAC US Commander-in-Chief, Pacific
ORI Operational Readiness Inspection SCA Shuttle Carrier Aircraft USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
OS Operational Squadron 501 Strategic Defense initiative VHF Very high frequency
OSIA On-Site Inspection Agency SOlO Strategic Defense Initiative Organization VIP Very important person
OT&E Operational Test and Evaluation SEA Southeast Asia VLF Very low frequency
OTH·B Over-the-horizon-Backscatter SEMR Standard Electronics Module Radar VOR Very high frequency omni-directional radio
(P) Provisional or SEX Solar EXped ition or VFR Visual flight rules
Proposed Solar Eclipse eXpedtion WAOC Wright Air Development Center
PACAF Pacific Air Force SF Support Flight WAOO Wright Aeronautical Development Division
SGLS Space Ground Unk Subsystem WESTAF Western Transport Air Force
SHIRAN S-band high precision ranging WESTAUXCP Western Auxiliary Command Post
N930NA, one of NASA's famed 'Vomit Comets' SIGINT Signals intelligence wfu Withdrawn from use
SlOP Single Integrated Operations Plan Wg Wing
used for the training of astronauts in (momen- SlBM Sea-launched ballistic missile w/o Written off
tary) zero-g conditions. KC-135A 59·1481 served SMD Strategic Missile Division WRS Weather Reconnaissance Squadron
the FAA before it joined NASA. Author's collection SNL Sandia National Laboratory WRW Weather Reconnaissance Wing

•
...

9
10

Determinant of Strategy
Existing histories of the Boeing KC-135 tradi-
tionally focus upon the means and methods of
aerial refueling or upon the appearance and
configuration of the dozens of unusual KC-135
variants. Similarly, existing studies ofthe evolu-
tion of Western defense policy since the Sec-
ond World War are restricted to the political and
economic factors which have directed its devel-
opment. To segregate the means from the
motive fails to recognize their complicated
·_of
interrelationships and concurrent gestation.
Only now is it being recognized that weapons
and weapon systems have become determi-
nants of strategy instead of merely implements
of strategists.'
The KC-135 and its variants have been more
than simple instruments of modern defense
policy: for 40 years they have been crucial to its
evolution. Their influence, direct or indirect,
upon America's strategic deterrence, conven-
.",. tional force projection, research and develop-
ment, and intelligence and data gathering
policies remains unequalled. The KC-135 jet
tanker is the first weapon system unique to the
'Cold War', and this aircraft and its variants
I have affected the development of almost every
existing notion of land-based air power today.
The strategic defense of the USA at the onset
of the 'Cold War' was wholly contingent upon
1 strategic bombers. By the time of the demise of
the Strategic Air Command (SAC) in 1992,
bombers accounted for a third - in conjunction
with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
1 and submarine-based sea-launched ballistic
missiles (SLBMs) - of the USA's strategic deter-
rent force. Without the KC-135 tanker support
necessary to reach their targets, the effective-
ness of those bombers as deterrents was sig-
nificantly reduced, attenuating US defence
strategy.
The vulnerability of the USA to a surprise or
] pre-emptive nuclear attack, a pervasive fear in
the post-Pearl Harbor world, was all but elimi-
nated by EC-135 airborne command posts,
1 ater commanders, and military and civilian
.1
j
Although there are a number of SAC bases in
warmer climates, SAC and biUer winter weather
are often synonymous. For ground crews, flight
crews, and airfield support crews, snow
removal is a full time duty, especially for
aircraft on alert. Cold weather also degrades
the performance of airframe systems such as
hydraulics, although it improves engine
performance. Ice and snow cover 92nd AMW
KC·135A 58·0122 during 1993. Jim Benson
Chapter One
especially in conjunction with satellite warning
systems. The EC-135s - one of which was until
1990 always airborne, further reducing US
vulnerability to sneak attack - could direct
nuclear-armed bombers and their supporting
tankers, launch ICBMs, and direct submarines
to launch their SLBMs, effectively controlling all
three 'legs' of America's strategic triad, dis-
suading potential adversaries from attempting
such an attack.
Force Projection
As the global military and political situation has
changed from one of potential superpower
conflict to one of short term and highly
localised operations, KC-135s have become
the most important providers of the fuel essen-
tial for attacking aircraft to reach their targets
and return to friendly bases. Identified as one of
the five most successful technologies during
the 1991 Gulf War, aerial refueling, particularly
by KC-135s, was crucial to the success of the
entire operation. One post-war critique sum-
marised the role of aerial refueling in the suc-
cess of the overall campaign succinctly, saying
'air operations without the extensive support of
aerial tankers would have chaoged the charac-
ter ofthe war.' 2
Just as with the projection of air power, the
ability of the US to deploy ground troops and
equipment to a 'hot spot' is crucial to American
diplomatic and military options. KC-135s refuel
the aircraft that carry these forces, freeing the
transports of the need to land en route to refuel,
thereby eliminating their political vulnerability
to nations unsympathetic to American or Allied
interests.' The routes and procedures these
transports use today are the products of early
C-135 operations.
Further, US forces responding to a crisis can
be directed by on-scene commanders flying in
specially configured EC-135 command posts.
These provide instantaneous worldwide com-
munications between local combat forces, the-
policy makers at the highest levels.
In every respect, the ability of the US to pro-
ject power anywhere in the world over a sus-
tained period has been and will remain well into
the 21 st century dependent upon KC-135s and
their variants.
As the number of US forces declines, their
qualitative edge has been forced to increase
disproportionately. The research and testing
that have maintained the West's advantage in
military technology, as well as the peaceful
contributions toward aerospace and atmos-
pheric science, including putting a dozen men
on the moon, are the result of hundreds of pro-
grams and research projects conducted
aboard dozens of variants of test-bed KC-135s.
For over 30 years, reconnaissance variants
of KC-135s have collected information allOWing
US and Allied leaders to make informed, knowl-
edgeable national security policy decisions.
RC-135s have collected information which
enable US strategic forces to penetrate enemy
defenses successfully, reinforcing the deter-
rent strength of the strategic triad. Likewise,
RC-135s provide the most timely and respon-
sive intelligence gathered at crises around the
world, giving conventional forces and their
commanders a highly accurate representation
of an enemy's current and potential strength
and deployment.
RC-135s are also among the 'national techni-
cal means' which help resolve the critical issue
of verification in arms limitation and reduction
agreements. Through the efforts of these spe-
cial RC-135s, the use of nuclear weapons and
their delivery systems is becoming more and
more an improbability. Finally, RC-135s offer
an excellent means of identifying potential con-
flicts, giving diplomatic efforts an opportunity
to resolve 'low grade conflicts' before they
become 'shooting wars'. No other single
weapon system has, either implicitly or explicit-
ly, been responsible in so many ways for the
evolution of US defense policy.
Origins of a Nuclear Armada
It is widely held that the development of nuclear
weapons is the most significant event in the his-
tory of warfare. Although the influence of
nuclear weapons cannot be minimized, in the
grand scheme of global defence and security
issues, haVing nuclear weapons is far less sig-
nificant than having the means to employ them.
Thus, development programs follOWing the
Second World War focused upon both the sim-
ple production and stockpiling of nuclear
weapons as well as the complex evolution of
some means to deliver them to their targets.
After the Second World War, the Army Air
Force (AAF) began an extensive analysis of its
past operations with an eye toward effectively
planning its future role in supporting the
defence policies of the US. Complicating this
study was the atomic bomb, a weapon about
which few senior military leaders were even
aware, let alone SUfficiently knowledgeable to
make intelligent decisions.
11
 Among those select few was Major General
Curtis E LeMay, Chief of Staff of the US Army
Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific. On 30th
August 1945, LeMay submitted a report to lieu-
tenant General Ira C Eaker, the AAF's Deputy
Commanding General, recommending the
fullest possible expansion of the AAF's strate-
gic bombing capability. LeMay argued that the
AAF should develop a 'comprehensive plan for
an atomic bombardment organisation, proba-
bly a wing ... capable of immediate indepen-
dent operation in any part of the world.'4
On 14th September 1945, Eaker appointed
General Carl A 'Tooey' Spaatz as chairman of a
committee 'to determine at the earliest date the
effect of the atomic bomb on the size, organiza-
tion, composition, and employment of the Air
Forces'.' The 'Spaatz Board', as it came to be
known, submitted its findings to General Henry
A 'Hap' Arnold, the AAF's Commanding Gener-
al, on 23rd October 1945.
The Spaatz Board concluded that the two
most important factors to be considered in any
assessment of the atomic bomb and its future
use by the AAF were the production and deliv-
ery ofthe bomb.
'The limited amounts of fissionable,
weapons grade material likely to be available
and the great costs associated with facilities
and bomb production ...indicated that the num-
ber of bombs on hand for any future conflict
would be small. For some time to come, the
12
bombs were expected to remain experimental
"special weapons" of great cost and complexi-
ty, difficult to build and transport, and of limited
availability' .'
At the end of the Second World War, only the
46 'Silverplate' Boeing B-29 Superfortresses
were capable of carrying atomic bombs. By the
end of 1946, only 23 of these aircraft remained
operational.?
To carry the 1O,OOOlb (4,536kg) weapon
meant that the 'Silverplate' B-29s had to be
located at key overseas bases, otherwise they
lacked the range to reach the intended targets
of their 'special weapons'. Until the interconti-
nental Convair B-36 Peacemaker began opera-
tions from bases within the US, the necessity of
overseas basing remained and with it the sensi-
tive US vulnerability to any political or military
restrictions placed upon the use of its bombers
by the host nation's government. Such limita-
tions became painfully clear in 1947 when
SAC's 'Operation Parkway' - the operational
deployment of B-29s to Europe - 'ended pre-
maturely when several European countries
refused to permit [the] American bombers to
penetrate their airspace'.
Plans for a second around-the-world flight in
1948 were thwarted for similar reasons. In addi-
tion, a shortage of high grade aviation fuel at
many forward operating locations in Europe
and Asia severely restricted potential combat
operations.'
At the end of the Second World War, America
enjoyed an atomic monopoly and a large fleet of
bombers, exemplified by B-29s of the 509th BG.
This powerful capability was largely illusory, as
few of the B-29s had been converted to carry
atomic bombs, there were but a handful of
assembly teams and qualified aircrews for the
atom bombers, and at times as few as a half
dozen atomic bombs in the US inventory.
Resolving this problem fell to Curtis LeMay.
Joe Bruch collection
The Board recognised the limitations on pro-
duction and delivery of the atomic bomb, and
stressed a greater reliance upon conventional
weapons and tactics. This decision may seem
shortsighted and naive, but it has proven itself
otherwise. Since the end of the Second World
War, nuclear weapons have not been used in
combat whereas the US has used its conven-
tional bombing ability to a considerable extent
in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in special
operations such as those against Lebanon and
Libya, and most recently against Iraq. Had the
Board favored the exclusive development of
atomic bombs and their carriers, their use in
these scenarios would have been neither mili-
tarily nor politically viable and American
options would have been reduced consider-
ably. Board members, many of them with con-
siderable bomber experience, were also
/
 painfully aware of the limitation on AAF
bombers laden with conventional bombs. Even
with non-nuclear weapons American bombers
lacked the unrefueled range with their heavy
payloads to reach targets in the USSR from
bases in the USA.
Among its conclusions, the Board held that:
'1 The atomic bomb does not at this time
warrant a material change in our present
conception of the employment, size, organ-
ization, and composition of the post-war
Air Force.
2 The atomic bomb has not altered our
basic concept of the strategic air offensive
but has given us an additional weapon.
3 Forces using non-atomic bombs will be
required for use against targets which can
not be effectively or economically attacked
with atomic bombs.
4 An adequate system of outlying strategic
bases must be established and main-
tained ....
.. 6 An intelligence organization that will know
at all times the strategic vulnerability,
.. capabilities, and probable intentions of
any potential enemy is essential. .. .' 9
SAC tried to resolve its range problem through
the acquisition of the intercontinental 8-36, but
found it slow and potentially susceptible to
Soviet MiGs, although this particular weakness
remains subject to dispute. The 8·47 overcame
both of these vulnerabilities but its limited
1
range meant undesirable overseas basing. The
solution to these problems lay in the 8·52,
America's first intercontinental jet bomber, and
the establishment of a large operational fleet of
aerial tankers, leading to the KC-135.
1
1
Joe Bruch collection
1
J
J
Arnold approved the recommendations of
the Spaatz Board and appointed LeMay as the
newly created Deputy Chief of the Air Staff for
Research and Development to spearhead the
build up of both conventional and nuclear
forces.
The original build up plan called for the num-
ber of atomic weapon capable groups to
increase from the existing one (the 509th Com-
posite Group) to four, each with one squadron
of 12 atomic bombers. However, the Air Staff
felt that creating a specialized strategic atomic
bombing force would convey the false impres-
sion that only these few elite units would be
required to defend the US given the bomb's
potential destructive power. The solution to this
dilemma proved to be the origin of the modern
alert force.
Colonel William P Fisher, former secretary of
the Spaatz Board, recommended that an atom-
ic bomber force 'sufficient in size to fully exploit
[sic) the expected availability and effectiveness
of the atomic bomb' be outfitted with the most
modern equipment and manned by only the
most competent personnel. This unit would
maintain a constant state of readiness to
deploy worldwide to augment existing conven-
tional strategic bombing forces. These atomic
bombers could also carry the British developed
'Tall Boy' (12,0001 b/5,443kg)) and 'Grand
Slam' (22,OOOlb/9,979kg)) high explosive con-
ventional bombs for use 'if and when atomic
bombs are not required or available' .10
Fisher's plan suffered from several funda-
mental problems. It relied upon continuing
access to the necessary overseas bases (with
appropriate fighter defenses - after all, these
bomber bases were themselves presumed tar-
gets for Soviet bombers) because of the
extremely limited range of the B-29s when car-
rying an atomic bomb. In addition, the atomic
bombs were of such complexity that moving
them to these overseas bases was both a tech-
nical and logistical nightmare. These immedi-
ate problems were solved by increasing the
number and defensive capability of overseas
bases, by increasing training, and by develop-
ing better operational and organizational plans
for the atomic bomb deploymentteams.
An even greater problem remained. As of
December 1945, there were only 27 'Silver-
plate' B-29s available, and these suffered a sig-
nificant degrade in their mission capability due
to the poor reliability of their radar bombing
systems." Further, by 30th June 1946, there
were only nine atomic bombs in the US invento-
ry, hardly a suitable stockpile for an all out
offensive against the USSR. Finally, there were
only ten fully trained atomic combat crews and
no fully trained atomic bomb assembly teams.
By early 1947 the number of usable nuclear
weapons in the American inventory had
dropped to seven. 12
Not that these small numbers really mat-
tered. Most military planners recognized that
the US atomic inventory and its delivery system
were numerically insufficient but qualitatively
adequate. In October 1946 President Harry S
Truman believed that there were not more than
'a half dozen' atomic bombs in the US stockpile
and 'that was enough to win a war' .13 American
war planning entered a state of flux as percep-
tions of the immense and revolutionary impor-
tance of the atomic bomb conflicted with its
limited numbers and uncharted military and
political implications. 14
Atomic Diplomacy
That this atomic potential was militarily insignifi-
cant in the early years of the 'Cold War' was
either a closely guarded secret or one of the
greatest examples of ignorance and naivete in
political and diplomatic history. One scholar
succinctly summarizes this 'paradox':
'Shortages in men, aircraft, and weapons
hindered the development of a strong force. In
coping with these problems, SAC's comman-
ders [under General George C Kenney] mis-
handled their crew resources, misdirected
training, and the command suffered a decline
in its capability to put the bombs on target. ...
The mere possession of atomic weapons and
planes to deliver them was not enough; over-
seas bases, intelligence, aircrews with the abili-
ty to fly their bombers through air defenses and
over the proper targets were also needed'.15
Politically, however, the US atomic monop-
oly was far more significant. In particular, the
US practice of speaking softly but carrying a
big stick had changed appreciably since
'Teddy' Roosevelt first advanced that aphorism
now that the 'stick' was the threat of atomic
bombing. For example, in November 1946 six
B-29s deployed to Rhein-Main Air Base (AB), in
the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in
response to the destruction of two US Army
Douglas C-47 Skytrains over Yugoslavia. This
wasthe:
'... first instance in which SAC bombers were
used as instruments of international diplomacy
... [and although not] regarded as a threat to
Russia, the presence of the B-29s and their rep-
utation as carriers of the A-bomb served notice
... to the Communists'.'·
On 24th June 1948, the Soviet Union block-
aded Berlin. Two days later Truman sent two
squadrons of B-29s to bases in England, fol-
lowed in July by two more squadrons. Press
releases described the B-29s as 'atomic capa-
14
ble', but none of those sent had been modified
to carry atomic bombs, and no weapons ever
left US soil. The B-29s were little more than a
bluff. R Gordon Arneson, the US Department of
State's senior advisor on nuclear issues said
that by:
'... sending the B-29s, we hoped to leave
the impression that ... they were armed with
nuclear weapons, and that we were prepared
to use them. " [it was] psychological warfare'.17
Even had the aircraft been atomic capable
and weapons deployed with them, their use
would have been of questionable military value
because:
'... it would still have required seven to nine
days for the three existing US atomic bomb
assembly teams to load 12 armed bombs into
combat aircraft for launching at enemy targets.
At that time, there were only ... 12 fully qualified
crews capable of making a combat drop with
an atomic bomb ... but their proficiency "was
not as high as desirable ... [because of the]
non-availability of proper training equipment'" .'8
It may never be known if the presence of the
B-29s indeed influenced Soviet actions in this
Berlin crisis, but it is clear that American policy
makers hoped they would."
LeMay and the SAC build up
On 19th October 1948, LeMay replaced Ken-
ney as SAC's Commanding General. Deeply
disturbed by what he properly saw as SAC's
inability to fulfil its mission, LeMay aggressively
tackled the issue of training. He made Kenney's
1948 bombing competition an annual affair,
and incorporated 'spot promotions' to recog-
nise outstanding performance and improve
morale. Equally concerned about shortages in
aircraft and personnel, LeMay demanded and
got priority for SAC in the bitter budget battles
going on in the Pentagon and in the halls of
Congress. In just two years, the number of
To protect the long range B-36 force, McDonnell
developed the XF-85 Goblin 'parasite' fighter to
.operate from a trapeze suspected within the
mother ship's bomb bay. The Goblin proved
unsuccessful and, during May 1953 trials were
undertaken using GRB-36F 49-2707 with a
specially-modified Republic GRF-84F
Thunderstreak. Intended to defend the
B-36 force and to underline the independent
nature of SAC, the trials did not lead to opera-
tional adoption. Ken Ellis collection
atomic capable bombers in his command
increased from fewer than 36 B-29s in 1948 to
over 250 B-29s, Boeing B-50s, and B-36s in
1950. Similarly, the number of atomic bomb
trained crews and weapons assembly teams
increased proportionately.20
By 1950 the two major issues which con-
fronted nuclear planners had been resolved:
there were now sufficient atomic bombs avail-
able and an adequate number of bombers and
properly trained crews to deliver them. Still, one
considerable obstacle remained which seri-
ously degraded the potential global striking
capability of SAC's bomber force - range.
The B-36 was unhindered by the range prob-
lem, but it suffered from operational limitations
that seriously degraded its combat potential. In
particular, it was still a piston-engined leviathan
that faced jet-powered Soviet MiG-15 'Fagots'
and the forthcoming MiG-17 'Frescos'.
Although the looped-hose method of air refu-
eling was in limited use by B-29s and B-50s at
this time, it was an awkward procedure that
demanded a level of crew proficiency higher
than SAC felt could be maintained through nor-
mal training. Further, the tankers still required
forward basing in order to rendezvous with the
their mated bombers en route from the US.
The best solution to the range problem lay in
an aggressive program to develop fully the
means and methods of aerial refueling.

Birth of Aerial Refueling
KB·50J 48-0119 demonstrating the value of air
refueling to Tactical Air Command. It is 'hooked
up' to, left to right: F-100F 56-4011; F-105D
61·0184 and RF-101C 56-0057. via Author
Between 1917 and 1921 several aviators pro-
posed schemes for picking up fuel from the
ground or transferring it aloft from another air-
plane.,,2 Among the first was Alexander P de
Seversky (then a pilot in the Imperial Russian
Navy), who in 1917 proposed increasing the
range of combat aircraft by refueling them in
flight.' Seversky went to the United States that
same year as part of a Russian naval mission
and, following the Bolshevik Revolution, re-
mained in the United States, where he was
appointed an aeronautical engineer in the War
Department. Encouraged by General William E
'Billy' Mitchell, Seversky applied for and
received the first patent for air-to-air refueling.'
In the preamble to his patent, filed on 13 June
1921, Seversky proposed 'large tankers to sup-
ply fuel to pursuit ships while in flight.' 5 Sever-
sky moved on to other projects, inclUding
founding RepubliC, and it fell to others to con-
tinue the de"elopment of air refueling.
Chapter Two
In 1918 Godfrey L Cabot, a US Navy
Reservist, suggested (as did other aviators)
that large aircraft might achieve non-stop trans-
Atlantic flight by picking up fuel containers from
surface vessels. The airplane would trail a
weighted cable into a suitable guide on the sur-
face vessel and engage a device on the con-
tainer which would then be hoisted up and its
contents dumped into the airplane's fuel tanks.
This scheme was intended to facilitate rapid
and safe air delivery of US-built airplanes to
France, but was later suggested as a means to
double the radius of action of combat aircraft
and to make possible commercial non-stop
trans-Atlantic services.
After several years of trials, Cabot eventually
managed to pick up a fuel container and
replenish an airplane, but the scheme was far
too clumsy and impracticable for large quanti-
ties of fuel. The procedure proved more useful
as a means of mail pick-up, however, and was
later demonstrated to the Post Office Depart-
ment and eventually put into operation by All
American Aviation in 1939.6
The first air-to-air fuel transfer took place as a
stunt on 12th November 1921, when wing-
walker Wesley May climbed from a Lincoln
Standard to a Curtiss IN-4 with a can of fuel
strapped to his back.' Others repeated the per-
formance but no practical applications were
attempted until 1923.
Inspired by the endurance and distance
records set by Lieutenants Fred W Kelly and
John MacReady in a US Army Air Service
Fokker T-2 while attempting a non-stop trans-
continental flight (finally achieved in May 1923),
pilots at Rockwell Field near San Diego, Califor-
nia, suggested in-flight refueling as a means to
extend endurance. Permission was granted to
attempt a refueled endurance record, and trials
began in April 1923 using de Havilland DHABs.
On 20th April two DHABs - under the com-
mand of Rockwell Field commander Major
Henry 'Hap' Arnold - completed the first suc-
cessful in-flight contact using a hose. No fuel
was transferred, but the test validated the con-
cept. The first successful fuel transfer by hose
took place on 27th June 1923, when a DHAB
stayed aloft for six hours, 38 minutes, refueled
twice by a second DH AB.
Arnold expounded the potential military
advantages of aerial refueling in a 1923 maga-
zine article, suggesting that military aircraft be
loaded with a full complement of crew and
15
 equipment but only a small amount offuel:
'After ... reaching an altitude of a few hundred
feet, a refueling plane can service the heavily-
loaded bombing or torpedo plane so that it will
have its tanks full thereby permitting the plane
to function to its extreme radius of action ....
There are probably many more [examples]
which will become apparent as the years go by."
During 27-28th August, Lieutenants Lowell H
Smith and John P Richter established an en-
durance record of 37hr 15min in a DHAB,
replenished with fuel, oil, and supplies from two
DHAB tankers. Another record setting flight
took place on 25th October, when a DHAB flew
non-stop from Sumas, Washington, on the US-
Canadian border, to Tijuana, Mexico, on the
US-Mexican border, in 12 hours, refueled three
times by two DHAB tankers.
The first fatal air refueling accident occurred
at Kelly Field, Texas, on 18th November 1923,
when the refueling hose became tangled in the
wings of the receiver. The tanker pilot, Lieu-
tenant P T Wagner, was killed in the ensuing
crash.' This accident and the subsequent dis-
persion of the participating pilots to other
16
duties effectively ended further US air refueling
trials for the next five years.
Foreign interest had been aroused by the US
Army flights, however, and within months of the
American accident refueling trials were under-
way in Europe. In June 1928, two pilots from
Belgium's Aeronautique Militaire raised the
refueled endurance record to 60hr 7min in a de
Havilland DH.9.
Revival of Interest
US military interest in aerial refueling resur-
faced late in 1928, when Major Carl Spaatz and
Captain Ira Eaker discussed the feasibility of
refueling a three-engined Atlantic C-2A from a
single-engined Douglas C-1. Air Corps app-
roval was given for trials to proceed, with the
intention of creating a new endurance record
and determining the effect of prolonged flight
on men and machine. On 1st January 1929, the
C-2A - dubbed simply'?' - took off from Los
Angeles Metropolitan Airport with Spaatz and
his crew of four. During the next seven days
they made some 50 exchanges with the C-1 for
fuel, oil, food, and even a wash basin.
The flight time of 150 hours, 14 minutes not
only set a new refueled endurance record but
also captured the public's imagination around
the world. Widely reported in the press, the
flight encouraged optimistic forecasts of the
future of aviation and instantly threw down the
gauntlet. Even before the flight was over, sever-
al civilian pilots announced plans for en-
durance flights. Attracted by the fame and
fortune associated with a new record, dozens
of fliers made the attempt during 1929, with the
highest time achieved being 420 hours aloft.
The Army planned to demonstrate a refueled
bombing mission during maneuvers on 21 st-
22nd May 1929, when a Keystone LB-7 was to
make a non-stop flight from Dayton, Ohio, to
New York City and back, dropping parachute
flares on its target. Fog prevented the tanker
from taking off, however. The LB-7 reached its
target unrefueled but landed to refuel before
returning to Ohio. This ended official Army
interest in air refueling until the Second World
War, although Army officers unofficially partici-
pated in several subsequent record attempts.
As the effort and expense necessary to set
new records grew, they became less frequent
and the public tired of them. Occasional
attempts continued until 1935 when, in a fitting
climax to this era, Fred and AI Key remained air-
borne for 653 hours in a Curtiss Robin named
Ole Miss. lO While these flights proved that pilot
and machine could remain airborne for weeks
at a time, few such flights were made for any
purpose other than record chasing, and they
demonstrated little technical innovation. In the
years following 1929, inventors filed numerous
refueling patents that showed originality and
imagination, but little was done to translate
these ideas into operable systems.
Early Foreign Developments
The American flights again stimulated interest
abroad. Between 1929 and 1936, refueling tri-
als were carried out in Germany, Great Britain,
Japan, and the Soviet Union.
In 1930 Britain embarked on an official
research program, with the Royal Aircraft
Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough directed
to develop a practical means for refueling large
aircraft in flight. During these trials, a variety of
aircraft tested several refueling methods with
varying degrees of success. The first Royal Air
Force (RAF) bomber specification to include
provision for in-flight refueling was issued as
part of Project B1 /35. This requirement for aeri-
al refueling was soon dropped in favor of
increased fuel capacity and more powerful
With a hose reel mounted in the lower nose, the
one-off Armstrong Whitworth AW.23, operated
by Flight Refuelling Ltd, transferring fuel to
Short 'C' Class flying-boat Cambria of Imperial
Airways over Southampton Water, 20th January
1938. Ken Ellis collection
engines, and the projected airplane eventually
became the Vickers Warwick.
At the same time, British pioneer long dis-
tance aviator Sir Alan J Cobham was planning a
non-stop refueled flight from England to India
in a single-engined Airspeed Courier mono-
plane." Cobham conducted numerous experi-
ments to find a safe and practical means of
refueling during the flight. With preparations
completed and tankers positioned, Cobham
and RAF Squadron Leader W Helmore set out
for India on 22nd September 1934. A throttle
control problem resulted in a forced-landing at
Malta, ending the record attempt. Determined
not to waste the two years of research, effort,
and expense, Cobham formed the company
Flight Refuelling Limited (FRL) in October 1934
to develop in-flight refueling. (The company
was renamed Cobham Ltd in 1996 in honor of
the founder.) Trials were carried out by both the
RAE and FRL until 1937, when the tests were
taken over by FRL under government funded
contracts.
While the RAE program focused on refueling
military aircraft, Cobham pressed the case for
refueled commercial services and obtained the
backing of Imperial Airways. At this time, non-
stop trans-Atlantic commercial services were in
their infancy and little payload could be carried
duetothe weight ofthe necessary fuel. To over-
come this disadvantage, the Germans devel-
oped a scheme of landing a flying-boat in the
Atlantic for replenishment and then catapulting
it into the air from a waiting surface vessel. The
British also developed a composite flying-boat
arrangement, with the upper component con-
tinuing on its own after being released at a suit-
able point on the journey. The lower half landed
near a waiting ship, refueled, and returned
home.
An alternative to these logistical nightmares
was to refuel in flight, either after take-off (to
increase the airplane's payload) or during the
journey (to increase the airplane's range).
Imperial Airways introduced the latter scheme
on 5th August 1939, with the maiden flight of
weekly non-stop trans-Atlantic mail service
between England and the United States.
A modified Shorts Empire flying-boat was
refueled by modified Handley Page Harrow
bomber-transports over Ireland and New-
foundland. The outbreak of war in Europe
ended this service in late September, after 15
air-refueled crossings.
Early Methods
Two principle means of refueling were devel-
oped prior to the Second World War: the
'cross-over' method and the 'looped hose' or
'ejector' method. The cross-over method was
conceived by Flight Lieutenant Richard Atch-
erley - an RAF officer involved in the early RAE
trials - and was first accomplished in March
1935. Both the tanker and receiver trailed a line
with a grapnel at the end. The receiver flew
above and acros's the path of the tanker line
and engaged it by means of the grapnels. The
lines were then winched in to the tanker where
the receiver's line was connected to the fuei
hose. The two airplanes maneuvered so that
fuel flowed by gravity to the receiver.
The looped hose (or ejector) method was
developed by FRL and used for the 1939 trans-
Atlantic service and, with improvements in
design and technique, in wartime and post-war
trials. The receiver trailed a weighted line from
the reception coupling in its tail, while the
tanker flew alongside and fired a projectile that
pulled a line that intercepted the receiver's line.
Grapnels on each line ensured engagement.
Both lines were then hauled into the tanker
where the weight was removed from the receiv-
er line. A bayonet fitting on this line was con-
nected to the tanker's hose nozzle which was
then winched back to the receiver. The nozzle
was drawn into the reception coupling by a
cable and held in place by locking the toggles.
Fuel flowed by gravity due to the relative posi-
tions of the aircraft. The receiver disconnected
by letting out the hose and line and then flying
away from the tanker causing the weak link in
the line to separate at a safe distance from both
airplanes.
Air Refueling and the Second World War
The advantages of aerial refueling had been
demonstrated by the many refueled endurance
flights and its military value had been acknowl-
edged by US military leaders and politicians.
There was still little official interest, however,
because of inter-service rivalry and nationalist
isolationist policies, both of which severely
affected the range and employment of bom-
bers. In Britain, FRL proposed several schemes
for using aerial refueling in wactime operations
but the Air Ministry rejected them because of
the anticipated difficulty of large scale opera-
tions, the cost and time involved in training
crews and modifying the airplanes, and the
promise of better airplanes which would make
air refueling unnecessary.
Studies and trials nonetheless continued
throughout the war years. In 1942, the US Army
Air Force ordered a set of British equipment for
installation in a Consolidated B-24D Liberator
tanker and a Boeing B-17E Flying Fortress
receiver. Flight trials were carried out the fol-
lowing year. Sample flight plans showed that,
with refueling, the B-17s could fly from Alaska's
Aleutian Islands to bomb Tokyo and then con-
tinue on to China. Although the scheme was
feasible, the longer ranged Boeing B-29 Super-
fortress would be available by the time the Lib-
erators and Fortresses could be modified and
crews trained, so the plan was dropped. Later
studies considered refueling B-29s from B-24
tankers but this was not pursued, again
because of the extensive modifications and
training required.
The difficulty of bombing Japan with conven-
tional bombers led the RAF to conclude in 1943
that aerial refueling was the only practical
means to fly the distances from available bases
in China, Burma, or the Philippines. Conse-
quently, FRL was asked to develop equipment
for use in Avro Lancasters. Plans for the pro-
posed 'Tiger Force' - as the British contribution
to Allied raids on Japan was known - called for
500 Lancaster and Lancaster Mk.IV (eventually
renamed the Lincoln) bombers supported by
500 Lancaster tankers. Refueling trials com-
menced in late 1944 but official opinion moved
away from aerial refueling in favor of increasing
the maximum gross weight (and hence fuel
capacity) of the bombers. In April 1945 the air
refueling requirement was canceled due to the
greater potential range of the Lincoln with
added fuel tanks as well as the anticipated
availability of Pacific island bases as American
forces advanced toward Japan.
Planning and development of 'Tiger Force'
continued with every intention of deploying to
the Far East. The use ofthe atomic bomb led to
an immediate end of the war, however, and the
production contract for aerial refueling equip-
ment was canceled. FRL retained the partially-
completed components, and the small batch of
development aircraft already equipped as
tankers and receivers was used in post-war civil
air refueling trials. Some of the unfinished
equipment was later updated and delivered to
the United States for use in Air Force and Navy
programs.
Post-War Development
Strategic Air Command was established on
26th March 1946, with the mission 'to conduct
long range offensive operations in any part of
the world' and 'to conduct maximum range
reconnaissance over land or sea.' 12 To accom-
plish these missions, SAC's bomber inventory
included 148 B-29s operated by six bomb
groups, with additional B-29s assigned during
1947 and 1948, and B-50s and B-36s expected
to enter service in 1948. Neither the B-29 nor
the B-50 had intercontinental range, so forward
basing in Allied nations was essential for cover-
age of all target areas. Although the B-36 did
have intercontinental range, its operational
future was then uncertain.
By late 1947 termination of the B-36 was a
distinct possibility given its slow speed and rec-
ognized vulnerability to Soviet jet fighters. The
B-36C - with variable discharge turbine
engines intended to increase speed over target
- suffered from developmental problems and
delays, resulting in its cancellation in early
1948. SAC's commander, General Kenney,
opposed the B-36 program and favored con-
verting existing B-36s into other roles, including
tankers." In January 1948 SAC endorsed this
conversion and urged that a formal air refueling
research and development program begin. On
26th February 1948, the Air Force awarded Air
Materiel Command (AMC) a contract for $1 mil-
lion to study an air refueling system for bom-
bardment aircraft, with SAC given the
responsibility for all 'operational suitability
tests.'
Almost immediately after the US Air Force
became an independent service in September
17
1947, a dispute erupted with the Navy over
which service could best carry out the strategic
nuclear delivery mission. In December 1947,
Rear Admiral Daniel Gallery, Assistant Chief of
Naval Operations (Guided Missiles), urged the
Navy to start an aggressive campaign showing
that the Navy could deliver an atom bomb more
effectively than could the Air Force." Citing the
vulnerability of the B-36 and the limited combat
radius of the B-29 and its need for politically
sensitive forward basing, Gallery argued that a
carrier-based bomber with a radius of action of
1,500 miles (2,413km) could be launched on
the high seas and be able to cover all targets in
Europe and most of Asia. He proposed that the
Navy be given the primary responsibility for
nuclear attack, with the Air Force having this
only as a secondary mission. To demonstrate
the feasibility of operating nuclear-armed
bombers from carriers, trials were carried out
during 1948 in which Lockheed P2V-2 Nep-
tunes were launched from the USS Coral Sea
and landed ashore. 15
Not surprisingly, this proposal fanned the
conflict between the Air Force and the Navy,
where the 'Gallery Memorandum' enjoyed
strong and vocal support as part of what came
to be known during 1949 as the 'Revolt of the
Admirals'. In an early effort to end the vitupera-
tive and divisive bickering, Secretary of De-
fense James V Forrestal called the chiefs of
staff together from 11-14th March 1948, for a
meeting at Key West Naval Base.'· An agree-
ment was reached recognizing the sole right of
the Air Force to maintain a strategic air arm for
nuclear weapons delivery, but permitted the
Navy to use atomic weapons against naval tar-
18
gets." As part of the Navy effort to develop fur-
ther tactics for delivering nuclear weapons from
carrier-based heavy aircraft, Navy squadrons
VC-5 and VC-6 operated 12 P2V-3Cs between
1949 and 1951 pending the introduction of the
carrier-based North American AJ Savage.
Unresolved Problem of Range
The Key West agreement still did not settle the
range issue. Air Force Secretary Stuart K
Symington told the Senate Armed Services
Committee on 25th March 1948, that the range
of the B-29 could be broadened by in-flight
refueling. Although AMC had since 1947 infor-
mally studied refueling B-29s, this research had
little urgency and no meaningful funding, and
hence few results.
In the wake of Symington's congressional
testimony, senior Air Force officers levied con-
siderable pressure on the Boeing company to
demonstrate - in only three days - aerial refuel-
ing with the B-29. Brigadier General Horace
Shepard, chief of Air Force procurement, suc-
cinctly described the task by saying, 'We've got
to transfer fuel in the air immediately. By this
weekend. Even if we have to do it with a tea-
spoon.'" A hastily installed unit consisting of
300ft (91.4m) of fire hose, reels, and cables·
transferred water instead of fuel from one B-29
to another, barely meeting the Easter deadline.
Boeing's initial test - Operation 'Drip' - was
completed at sundown on 28th March 1948. 19
This single successful flight was a long way
from an operational capability with a large fleet
of tankers and bombers operating world-wide
on no-notice operations. The only equipment
readily available in any quantity was that devel-
oped for the British 'Tiger Force' and then in
use supporting civilian refueling trials.'" Officers
from AMC and engineers such as Boeing's Cliff
Leisy flew to England to negotiate with FRL for
air refueling equipment to be installed in B-29s
even while Operation 'Drip' was under way.
Following trials with the FRL-equipped B-29,
SAC adopted a version of the BritiSh looped
hose system which remained in use through
the mid-1950s.
Initial Operations
The US Air Force Chief of Staff's annual report,
published in mid-1948 (when the future of the
B-36 was still in doubt), stated, after consider-
ing several methods of bombing targets at
extreme range, that 'an aircraft of acceptable
size could not be built to perform its mission at
the desired range unless air-to-air in-flight refu-
eling were employed.' The report also noted
that an extensive modification program was
under way to provide tankers and receivers in
the near future." One such future receiver was
a Boeing design that would become the B-52
Stratofortress.
Until these new airplanes could be delivered,
the Air Force requested that 92 B-29s be con-
verted into KB-29M tankers (code-named
'Superman'), and 74 B-29MRs, 57 B-50As, and
44 RB-50Bs converted into receivers (code-
named 'Ruralist'). 22 The 43rd AREFS and 509th
The YKB·29T 45·21734 demonstrating its ability
to suckle two RAF Gloster Meteors F.Bs (on the
wingtip drogues) and an F.4 operated by FRL in
the center) in July 1951. Ken Ellis collection
AREFS became the first air refueling units in the
US Air Force when they were activated on 19th
July 1948, and the first KB-29M was delivered
to the 43rd AREFS Iate/ the same year. SAC
demonstrated its new air refueling capability in
December 1948 when a B-50A made a 9,870
mile (15,883km) flight in 41 hours, 40 minutes,
refueled three times by KB-29M tankers. From
26th February through 2nd March 1949, B-50A
Lucky Lady /I completed the first non-stop
around-the-world flight, covering 23,452 miles
(37,741 km) in 94 hours, one minute with four in-
flight refuelings by 43rd AREFS KB-29M
tankers prepositioned along the way. The flight
proved the feasibility of long range bombing
and provided a dramatic indication of SAC's
operational readiness. General LeMay ex-
plained the flight's significance in less elegant
terms: 'We can now deliver an atomic bomb to
any place in the world that requires an atomic
bomb.' '3
Secretary Symington boasted that 'all of our
medium bombers are now intercontinental
bombers.' 24 SAC had finally acquired global
status with its air-refueled B-29 and B-50
bombers, continued forward basing in Europe,
and improved performance from the B-36. 25
Need for Improvement -
Although SAC now had an operational air refu-
eling capability, it suffered from fundamental
inadequacies that hindered its operational
value. While the looped hose system achieved
the object of range extension, its use of con-
tacting cables, hoses strung between aircraft,
and manual connection of cable to hose within
an unpressurized compartment in the tanker
seriously limited the speed and altitude at
which refueling could be conducted. These
lower altitudes and speeds largely negated the
benefits of air refueling. . tate the rendezvous. 32 They also endorsed an
Recognizing this, FRL considered ways of
adapting the looped hose system for semi-
automatic operation under the control of an
operator in a pressurized compartment, pri-
marily for use in civil aircraft. The looped hose
system itself was, however, part of the problem.
Operation 'Drip' had shown that air refueling
with the looped hose was feasible but not com-
pletely satisfactory. The gravity-fed fuel flow
rate was only 200 gallons per minute (gpm -
757 litres) instead of the desired 600gpm
(2,271 Iitres pm). Operations in the frigid Arctic
were not possible because the coiled hose
would freeze on the reel while the airplane was
still on the ground and could not be trailed out
in flight.'· In addition, the awkward position
required to maintain contact during air refuel-
ing posed considerable problems:
'Wingtip to wingtip position got [the receiver]
free of propeller downwash, but side visibility
was poor [in the B-29 and B-50]. Pilots got stiff
necks. Direct nose-to-tail was good for vision,
but the crew couldn't stand the buffeting. A
close staggered position worked best. .. with
the tanker 10ft behind and 25ft below the
receiver. The tanker would have the more expe-
rienced crew so it should have the [more diffi-
cultto maintain] rear position.'''
Refueling was itself more an acquired art
than a basic flying skill. By March 1949 only the
few SAC crews that had completed SAC's Tran-
sition Training School at MacDili AFB, Florida,
were qualified to perform aerial refueling. '8
The introduction of jet powered bombers into
SAC's inventory added another problem, as
the jet engines demanded a much higher fuel
consumption rate than their piston counter-
parts. Forthe new jets to reach their targets, for-
ward basing of bombers and tankers was still
necessary, even with in-flight refueling.
SAC was equally unhappy about relying on a
small foreign company - FRL - as the sole
source of equipment and training for the criti-
cally important air refueling program. This
dependency on foreign equipment was as dis-
tasteful to SAC's commanders as the depen-
dency on foreign bases and their host nation's
political goodwill. All of SAC's tankers were
equipped with refueling gear supplied by FRL,
and in 1949 both the 43rd AREFS and the 509th
AREFS 'lacked the equipment and crews to
conduct much [air refueling] training.' 29
Concerned about these inadequacies, SAC
began its own investigations into improved air
refueling systems. 30 Boeing was also deeply
interested in air refueling to improve the ranges
of the B-47 then undergoing flight tests and the
larger B-52 under development, as well as
improving the company's conversion work
already under way on piston powered tankers
and receivers. 31 In April 1948 Boeing began a
study of improved methods of refueling in an
effort to (1) reduce the performance penalty; (2)
achieve a satisfactory position. for contact and
refueling; (3) increase the fuel flow rate; and (4)
develop visual and electronic means to facili-
AMC proposal for a conference between AMC
and:
'... all interested aircraft manufacturers to
discuss the in-flight refueling methods current-
ly being used and developed by Boeing ... [as
well as] to acquaint other aircraft manufactur-
ers with the history and background of in-flight
refueling methods and to discuss the theory
and background of the flying boom method.' 33
British Solution
In 1948 FRL created a US subsidiary (Flight
Refueling Inc - FRI) to serve the North Ameri-
can market. Cobham visited the US that year to
explore other applications, meeting with Navy
and Air Force officers to discuss refueling sin-
gle-seatfighters. He promised a demonstration
in early 1949 to coincide with the visit of a US Air
Force technical mission to England. 34 After con-
sidering several methods derived from the
existing looped hose system to satisfy this new
mission, Cobham's engineers produced the
'probe and drogue'.
In the probe and drogue system, the tanker
carries a hose drum reel that holds the air refu-
eling hose. At the free end of this hose is a cou-
piing and drogue - popularly referred to as the
'basket'. The receiver has a forward-projecting
probe that is fitted with a nozzle. During refuel-
ing, the tanker trails the hose which takes up a
natural trail angle due to drogue drag, and the
receiver maneuvers to insert the probe into the
drogue. Once the nozzle engages the coupling
it is held in place by spring-loaded toggles. The
movement of the hose drum actuates switches
which open and close valves that allow fuel to
flow, and illuminate indicator lights showing the
appropriate drum position.
Only a small force is required to engage the
coupling, but a much greater force is required
to disengage, enabling contact to be main-
tained throughout a normal range of maneu-
vers. To prevent 'hose whip' when the receiver
makes contact, a constant retraction torque is
applied to the hose drum. Although insufficient
to retract the hose during normal trail, it is suffi-
cient to take up slack when tension on the
drogue is relieved by the forward motion of the
receiver.
There was little official British interest in this
scheme, and FRL was forced to use company
money for its initial development. Cobham did
manage to obtain an elderly Gloster Meteor III
with which to carry out initial trials. Tests began
with the Meteor and a Lancaster III tanker origi-
nally modified for 'Tiger Force' and that had
remained in use with FRL for further tests. The
first probe and drogue contact was made on
24th April 1949, and the US mission had its
promised demonstration a few days later. Sub-
sequent demonstrations to manufacturers, the
British armed services, civil servants, and politi-
cians did much to convince them that FRL had
indeed produced a practical method of refuel-
ing single-seat jet fighters. A 12-hour endur-
ance flight in August was widely publicized and
helped FRL acquire official support. Only then
did the Air Ministry place a contract with FRL for
continued development, although it empha-
sized that there was no current military require-
ment for air refueling.
The US Air Force was sufficiently impressed
with the FRL system to order, on 22nd August
1949, an applicability study of the probe and
drogue on US jet fighters. On 7th December
1949, the Air Force approved the installation of
the probe and drogue in six planes as part of
Project 'Outing'.
The Project 'Outing' airplanes included two
Republic F-84 Thunderjet receivers, two B-29
probe receivers (one equipped for a high fuel-
transfer rate, the other equipped for a low fuel-
transfer rate), a single-point B-29 tanker, and a
three-pointYKB-29Ttanker (45-21734). Follow-
ing initial tests in England, the two F-84s were
flown non-stop to the United States on 22nd
September 1950, in 'Fox Able Four',35 refueling
from Lincoln and B-29 tankers. One F-84 was
unable to complete its second refueling and the
pilot bailed out over Newfoundland. In July
1951 the three-point YKB-29T was the first to
demonstrate simultaneous refueling with the
assistance of two borrowed RAF Meteor F.8s.
19
(Sixteen RAF Meteor F.8s had been fitted with
probes for trials during 1951. Two of these,
together with a Meteor FA used by FRL, were
used for this demonstration.) The first combat
air refueling took place on 6th July 1951, when
a KB-29M refueled four Lockheed RF-80 Shoot-
ing Stars over Korea, using the FRL probe and
drogue. 36
Birth ofthe 'Flying Boom'
While FRL was busy trying to overcome the
mechanical and operational inadequacies
associated with the looped hose arrangement,
Boeing was equally busy with its own replace-
ment. Boeing's solution was to use a telescop-
ing pipe that was not vulnerable to freezing and
allowed a greater fuel flow rate than the hose.
The proposed pipe was 28ft (8.5m) long when
retracted and 48ft (14.6m) long when extend-
ed, and protruded forward from above the
tanker's cockpit. Recognizing the potential for
catastrophic failure, Air Force project officer
Captain Mack Elliott suggested putting the
tanker above the receiver and lowering the pipe
out the back of the tanker, or as Leisy
described it, 'lowering the boom'." Small aero-
dynamic surfaces called 'ruddevators' were
installed on the boom for control, allowing the
operator to 'fly' the boom into position and help
the receiver maintain contact during the off-
load.
The result was the Boeing Flying Boom. Lt
Colonel Tom Gerrity, in charge of the B-50 pro-
gram, quickly approved its development - par-
ticularly with the B-50 in mind. The Boeing
design would not only surmount the problems
associated with the looped hose system, it
would also rid the Air Force of its dependence
20
on British.equipment. However, Gerrity direct-
ed Boeing to continue work on the FRL system
in B-29 tankers and receivers until its flying
boom was operable.
The flying boom was a universally-mounted
telescopic device fitted in the tail of the tanker,
and was controlled by the boom operator from
the tail compartment. The boom was extended
and retracted by hydraulic power which drove
an endless chain loop. The boom nozzle mated
with a receptacle in the top of the receiver and
was held in place by hydraulically-powered
toggles. Signal coils in the nozzle and recepta-
cle activated relays that controlled boom func-
tions. Pilot director indicator (PDI) lights
mounted beneath the tanker assisted the
receiver pilot in maintaining correct air refueling
position. Excessive movement or exceeding
the limits of the refueling envelope caused an
automatic disconnect. When not in use the
boom was hoisted up by a steel cable and
stowed beneath and behind the fuselage. The
flying boom in use today on KC-135s differs lit-
tle from this prototype.
Flight trials of a 'dry' boom installed on two
modified RB-29Js, redesignated as YKB-29J
tankers, together with a B-29 boom receiver
commenced in October 1948, and quickly
proved the feasibility of the concept. To vali-
date the fuel transfer capability and increase
the transfer rate up to the desired 600gpm
(2,271 litres pm), Boeing constructed a 'boom
tower' at Wichita, Kansas, where a full-size
boom was lowered into an actual receiver air-
plane to check flow rates, pressures, and distri-
bution to the receiver's fuel tanks. Together
with a 'tank farm' set up at the Boeing power-
plant laboratory to simulate a tanker aircraft fuel
A KB·29P refuels a B-500, in June 1950 for the
appreciation of the world's press. The B-500
was built from the start as a 'receiver' with
additional pylon-mounted tanks under the
wings and a single refueling point above the
cockpit. Ken Ellis collection
system, these facilities enabled many of the ini-
tial problems to be easily overcome.
The flying boom was quickly recognized as a
success, and total of 116 B-29s were converted
to boom tankers and designated KB-29Ps. The
first KB-29P (44-86427) was delivered to the
97th AREFS at Biggs AFB, Texas, on 1st Sep-
tember 1950. Boeing instructors trained two
97th AREFS crews initially, which then returned
to Biggs AFB to serve as instructors for the rest
of the unit. The first two Air Force boom opera-
tors were Master Sergeants Curtis W Compton
and Frank L Hobart. 38
The first boom receivers were B-50Ds (also
from Biggs AFB), and were originally intended
to have the FRL hose refueling system
installed. SAC's insistence that they have the
boom receptacle rather than the hose system
delayed their initial delivery. The flying boom
was used to refuel a jet bomber for the first time
on 2nd February 1951 , when a KB-29P refueled
a North American RB-45C Tornado over
Edwards AFB, California. 39 On 14th July the first
combat refueling using the flying boom took
place with an RB-45C receiver over Korea.'o An
RB-45C made the first non-stop trans-Pacific
flight - from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, to Yokota
AB, Japan - on 29th July 1951, with two refuel-
ings from KB-29Ps.
 /
YKB-29J 44-86398 refueling an F-84G
Thunderjet - the laUer has its in-flight
refueling receptacle in the port wing. Such
trials quickly proved the validity of the flying
boom system for fighter aircraft as well as
bombers. Ken Ellis collection
Parallel and Conflicting Systems
The US Air Force now had at its disposal two
operating but incompatible air refueling sys-
tems: the British probe and drogue and the US
flying boom. In an especially fateful decision,
the Air Force decided to continue acquisition of
both systems. The result would foster years of
infighting within the Air Force, create artificial
operational limitations for every air refuelable
airplane in the Air Force (and the US Navy and
Marine Corps) inventory, and undermine the
desire to have a system compatible with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The primary motivation for the development
of a Air Force air refueling system was to extend
the range of SAC's nuclear armed strategic
bombers sufficiently to allow them to operate
from bases in the US, free from the restrictions
attendant with overseas basing in foreign
nations. Such bombers required large fuel
transfers necessitating lengthy contacts with
the tanker, a process that could quickly fatigue
a pilot, particularly one who had already flown
halfway around the world from America en
route to his target in the Soviet Union.
The Boeing Flying Boom offered a stable
transfer system capable of offloading large
quantities of fuel in a short period. This meant
that even a tired bomber pilot could get 'on the
boom' and stay there with assistance from the
boom operator and quickly get all the gas
required to complete the mission. Although the
flying boom easily satisfied SAC's need for air
refueling, it did not necessarily satisfy other
existing and potential commands or services
which required air refueling.
Growth of Fighter Refueling
The original tests of the probe and drogue sys-
tem in 'Project Outing' sufficiently validated the
concept to allow its immediate introduction into
combat operations. The single-point 8-29
tanker was assigned to the Far East Air Force
(FEAF) to support fighter combat operations in
Korea. Additionally, eight KB-29M tankers had
their looped hose system replaced with the FRL
probe and drogue. Nicknamed 'Quickie'
tankers, these too were deployed to the FEAF
and pressed into immediate combat support as
part of Project 'Hightide'.
'Hightide' was a three-phase program to
evaluate the probe and drogue system in com-
bat operations in Korea. Lockheed F-80 and
RF-80s, as well as additional F-84s, had a refu-
eling probe and' relief valve installed on their
wingtip fuel tanks. The Wingtip-mounted probe
.....
made it difficult for the receiver pilot to judge
the final closure to contact and usually required
several contacts for a complete fill up. Nonethe-
less, the wingtip probes provided a rapid
means to convert a large number of fighters
without considerable and time-consuming
modifications.
Following the initial training phase, Phase 2
involved refueled combat missions. Notable
among these was one involving an F-80C flown
by Lieutenant Colonel H W Dorris who
remained airborne for 14 hours, 15 minutes on
28th September 1951 . Dorris made five attacks
on various targets in North Korea and was refu-
eled eight times by two KB-29M 'Quickie'
tankers."
Phase 3 was the deployment of an entire
wing of fighters equipped with the probe and
drogue system. Forty-eight F-84Es of the 116th
Fighter Bomber Wing (FBW) completed the
first air refueled deployment to the Far East in
'May 1951. The next 'Hightide' deployment took
place in August 1951, with F-84Gs of the 31 st
Fighter Escort Wing (FEW) from Turner AFB,
Georgia. This unit flew its first refueled combat
mission on 27th August. 42
An operational phase was to have followed,
with other fighter groups being trained in aerial
refueling and additional aircraft being fitted with
probed tanks. SAC, however, was unwilling to
release further B-29s for conversion into
tankers and Project 'Hightide' ended. On 17th
January 1952, USAF Headquarters directed
SAC to send additional tankers to Korea, and
six KB-29Ms were deployed to Japan to sup-
port increasing fighter refueling operations. 43
The Boom and Fighter Refueling
SAC also operated several FEWs to protect
bombers from enemy interceptors. These
escort fighters suffered even greater range limi-
tations than their bomber counterparts, and
several innovative techniques were tested to
extend their range. These included cable tow-
ing, wingtip towing, and 'parasiting' (see page
14), but were all abandoned in favor of aerial
refueling."
The first jet fighter equipped for boom refuel-
··--r-r
, --
ing was the F-84G Thunderjet. The first delivery
was in 1951, but problems with refueling equip-
ment and the higher priority given to bomber
and tanker training delayed F-84G refueling
training until early 1952. The first mass fighter
deployment to demonstrate this new long
range capability was carried out in July 1952 as
part of 'Fox Peter One'.45 During this exercise,
58 F-84Gs of the 31 st FEW flew from Turner
AFB to Misawa AB and Chitose AB, Japan.'·
The F-84Gs made en route stops for fuel and
crew rest but were refueled by KB-29P tankers
on the over-water legs. Although the deploy-
ment took ten days, it was still several days
quicker than weather proofing the fighters for
surface shipment, transporting them by aircraft
carrier, and then preparing them on arrival.
An Unclear Decision
In early February 1952 SAC conducted a series
of demonstration flights at its Offutt AFB,
Nebraska, headquarters to evaluate and rec-
ommend a single air refueling system. Test
results showed that each system was best suit-
ed to a particular receiver. From the fighter
pilot's perspective:
'the drogue system is quite adaptable to
fighter aircraft... Once contact has been made
the problem of maintaining position is consid-
erably more simple than in the case of the
boom system. It should be possible to refuel
two or three aircraft at a time with the present
drogue arrangement although the rate offlow is
not as high as the boom system, the time differ-
ential realized between refueling of three fight-
ers at once and one at a time in the boom
system would most likely show to the advan-
tage of the drogue system. Once contact has
been made, probably the effect of turbulence
would be less in the drogue operation than it
would be in the boom system. The boom sys-
tem offers no particular problem with respect to
a fighter pilot maintaining his position, howev-
er, some consideration should be given to the
expense of the equipment, the necessity of
training the boom operators and the ever pre-
sent possibility of damaging the boom mecha-
nism or the nozzle itself to the extent that that
21
particular tanker would be inoperative. In the
case of the drogue, if one drogue is damaged
two alternates still remain for utilization by other
fighters .... Generally, it would appear that the
boom system is technically more complicated
than is the probe and drogue system. In sum-
mation, it is my opinion that the test has been
inadequate to conclusively determine the rela-
tive desirability of one system to the absolute
exclusion ofthe other system.' 47
SAC's bomber pilots clearly held a different
set of priorities:
'... 5. Pilot fatigue should be considered in
the evaluation of the two systems. The boom
system requires a high level of proficiency in
close-in formation. The probe-drogue system
requires the same level of proficiency in forma-
tion flying plus the responsibility of guiding the
receiver probe into contact with the drogue.
When a pilot is making the contact, it is neces-
sary to hold the receiver aircraft within 30in lim-
its in both altitude and direction. This requires
an extreme amount of concentration and
abnormal technique in the use of the controls.
After a pilot has flown for eight to ten hours in
any type bomber, his efficiency is lowered con-
siderably; thus, I doubt if he could ever estab-
lish contact a second time with probe-drogue
equipment, if an unintentional disconnect
occurred at heavy gross weights (140,000Ib).
The boom receiver pilot has only to obtain and
maintain position while the boom operator
establishes contact and transfers fuel.
'6.... The probe installation in the bomber
receiver and the 30in drogue, when in contact,
seriously restricts the area of visibility which
must be utilized in flying close-in formation ....
In certain allowable positions of the probe
receiver, the entire fuselage is blocked out of
view.... I attempted to maintain position with
radio silence using only my reference to the
tanker. I estimate an average time in contact to
be approximately one minute before either an
inner or outer limit disconnect occurred.
... There is no assistance available for the pilot
of a probe receiver in stopping the rate of clo-
sure after contact is made or in maintaining
position during a rapid increase in gross weight
while onloading fuel.' 48
These tests showed what SAC's bomber
pilots wanted, and in the absence of measur-
able opposition from the probe and drogue
evaluators, Major General John B Montgomery
Jr, SAC's Deputy Commander for Operations,
concluded that the flying boom represented
'the best solution to the in-flight refueling prob-
lems for the present time.' 49
Despite Montgomery's self-interested en-
dorsement of the flying boom, Air Research
and Development Command (ARDC) held the
opposite view and planned to recommend the
probe and drogue system as the standard for
future aircraft. In an effort to change or at least
defer this decision, Montgomery appealed
directly to old friends in the Pentagon:
'... I found B-29 probe hook-up much more
difficult to execute than the B-50 boom receiv-
22
er. In fact, for that particular airplane, I believe
only our best pilots, with lots of practice, could
maintain proficiency. If you don't believe me,
ask anyone [sic] of about ten other pilots out
here who tried it. 50
Montgomery acknowledged the fighter
pilots' preference for the probe and drogue but
dismissed it, saying 'as for the probe fighter, I
found it easier to handle than the boom job
although neither one presented any real pilot
problem.'5' Montgomery offered to repeat the
tests previously conducted at Offutt AFB, this
time to be impartially conducted by the Air
Force's test unit at Eglin AFB, Florida:
'. .. my entire investigation of the refueling
problem convinces me that Eglin is the outfit to
come up with the answer and not people who
take one or two flights (like me and that FEAF
fellow) ....You must admit that acceptance of
the fact at this time that the probe-drogue sys-
tem is superior (across the board) to the boom
system is in fact admitting that the USAF made
an erroneous decision on the boom. If we are
that stupid, we are equally capable of making
another bad decision on the Probe and
Drogue. We should give Eglin ample time and
opportunity to analyze this problem and make
recommendations. There are apparently both'
good and bad features in each system.' 52
Montgomery's vague mea culpa and
appeals fell on deaf ears. On 11th July 1952,
ARDC recommended the probe and drogue as
the standard Air Force air refueling system. At
LeMay's insistence, ARDC did not require that
the probe and drogue be retrofitted to existing
airplanes since this would hamper SAC's com-
bat capability during the conversion program.
ARDC's decision was based upon five con-
siderations: (1) price - the probe and drogue
cost was half that of the flying boom; (2) shorter
training time for probe and drogue tanker crew
members; (3) reduced accident hazard - 'the
probe and drogue unit has a larger formating
envelope and is therefore easier to fly and less
fatiguing to the receiver pilot,' - clearly favoring
the fighter pilot; (4) growth potential-the flying
boom was limited to speeds of '300mph lAS',
the perceived 'practical limit for boom maneu-
verability' - whereas proposed modifications to
the drogue would allow refueling at speeds in
excess of 300mph (482km/h); and (5) rate of
flow-although the boom could achieve the
desired 600gpm and the probe and drogue
could only reach 250gpm, proposals had been
received for 'flow rates up to 1,200 gpm' for the
probe and drogue. 53
Although the flying boom was superior to the
probe and drogue in several areas, particularly
its proven ability to satisfy SAC's refueling
needs, the probe and drogue was endorsed
based on unproven engineering proposals
which had yet to be thoroughly tested.
Nonetheless, on 13th August 1952, the Under-
secretary of the Air Force approved ARDC's
recommendation and the probe and drogue
became the Air Force's single standard air re-
fueling system.
Need for a Better Tanker
Although the KB-29Ps were satisfactory when
used with other B-29s and B-50s, SAC recog-
nized that they would be inadequate to refuel
the jet powered B-47 and B-52. In mid-1950
SAC therefore requested an 'improved aerial
refueling platform able to match the minimum
speed of the B-47.' 54 After considering several
available alternatives, in December 1950 SAC
selected a tanker version of the Boeing C-97
Stratofreighter transport.
The piston-engined KC-97A was capable of
carrying a greater quantity of fuel for offload
and its performance was barely sufficient to
accommodate the B-47. The KC-97 still had
notable limits. Because the maximum speed of
the KC-97 was below the minimum speed of the
B-47 at high gross weights, it was necessary to
perform a 'toboggan' maneuver in which both
tanker and receiver descended while in contact
to increase speed as the 8-47 became heavier.
In 1951 three C-97As had an improved flying
boom installed in place of the existing
clamshell cargo doors in the aft lower fuselage.
Initial tests validated the design and orders
were ultimately placed for more than 800 KC-97
tankers. The first KC-97E (51-0183) was deliv-
ered on 14th July 1951, to the 306th AREFS at
MacDiIlAFB.
Deliveries of the B-47B began in late 1951,
but due to crew training requirements and an
initial lack of operational refueling equipment in
the KC-97s, it was not possible to start training
B-47 crews in air refueling until April 1952. This
delayed training was further hampered by con··
stant equipment failure and operational prob-
lems. Despite these difficulties, the combat
radius of the B-47 increased threefold with two
or more refuelings 55
Overseas deployment of B-47 bomb wings
together with their KC-97 tanker squadrons
began in June 1953 when the 306th BW
deployed from MacDili AFB to RAF Fairford,
England 56 In August 1954 B-47s from Hunter
AFB, Georgia, flew a simulated bombing mis-
sion as part of Operation 'Leap Frog', landing in
North Africa after air refueling. 'Leap Frog'
showed that SAC's jet bombers no longer
required forward basing but could be stationed
in the US and still satisfy their strike commit-
ment. Nonetheless, their tankers still had to be
based overseas.
A Major Reversal
It was, no doubt, the large number of tankers
(by the end of 1952 SAC had 20 refueling
squadrons and 318 KB-29 and KC-97 tankers)
and LeMay's influence that reversed the Air
Force's decision on the probe and drogue sys-
tem. 57 Although the actual motivation for this
change has not been confirmed, LeMay cer-
tainly would have argued that because (1) the
ARDC recommendation did not require retro-
fitting the probe and drogue system to existing
tankers; (2) SAC had so many tankers with the
flying boom already installed (less than a third
were looped-hose equipped, and there were
Once established as an operational technique,
multiple in-flight refueling became a firm
favorite at continental US and European air
displays. Right: A three-point KB-50J 'towing' an
F·100, F-101 and a Douglas B-66 Destroyer at
an event in England. Below: A K.B-50J at rest in
an airshow line-up, 1959. The pylon-mounted
J47 turbojets are evident. Both Ken Ellis collection

only nine KB-29Ms); (3) the primary mission of

SAC's tankers was to refuel SAC's bombers;
(4) the Korean war had ended and the number
of fighter refuelings was dramatically reduced;
and (5) Boeing had announced the develop-
ment of a jet powered tanker designed specifi-
cally to refuel the B-47 and B-52, that any future
air refueling system should perforce be a flying
boom system. The flying boom was the Air
Force's de facto air refueling system, and
LeMay and SAC wanted to keep it that way.
On 14th July 1958, the Air Force formalized
what already existed, announcing that:
'... the flying.boom would be the standard for
its aircraft. The KC-97 and then the KC-135,
both with flying booms, had already created a
de facto standard. Combat aircraft without
boom-refuelable capabilities that were already
in service or in production were to retain their
installed or programmed refueling systems,
and boom-to-drogue adapters would be
employed by SAC tankers to fuel probe-
equipped aircraft on an interim basis. '5.

lAC and Air Refueling

Tactical Air Command (TAC), which controlled
the majority of the Air Force's fighters, re-
mained adamant in its support for the probe
and drogue method of air refueling, and quickly
recognized the need to acquire its own tankers.
The first of two TAC refueling squadrons was
activated in March 1954 and was equipped with
KB-29Ps. SAC KB-29Ps and KC-97s continued
to provide supplementary air refueling.
Concerned that large, slow, piston powered
tankers would be vulnerable in a jet dominated
combat area, TAC also evaluated fighter-to-
fighter refueling. During the late 1950s several
types (including the Republic F-84F Thunder-
streak, North American F-100 Super Sabre,
McDonnell F-101 Voodoo and Republic F-105
Thunderchief) were tested in the 'buddy' tanker
role. Although the bUddy tanker entered ser-
vice with the US Navy in 1957, it was not adopt-
ed by the Air Force.
In addition to the buddy tanker, TAC sought
a newer, more suitable heavy tanker, preferably
with multiple-point refueling. Several bombers
and transports were considered, including in
1955 a two-point Lockheed C-130 Hercules
tanker. In spite of performance limitations, how-
ever, only a three-point B-29 tanker similar to
that modified by FRL in Project 'Outing'
appeared to offer any immediate and realistic
multi-point capability. Hayes Aircraft Corpora-
tion modified one B-29 into a KB-29 before the
Air Force canceled this program. During 1955
the B-50 was withdrawn from bomber duties,
and Hayes converted the first of an eventual
total of 136 B-50As, RB-50Bs, and TB-50Hs to
the three-point tanker role which were assigned
to TAC pending further studies of its air refuel-
ing requirements.
At approXimately the same time, TAC devel-
oped the Composite Air Strike Force (CASF) ,
whose bombers, fighters, transports, and
reconnaissance aircraft could deploy world-
wide and operate independently for up to 30
days. This global mobility required both an
uninterrupted and rapid deployment capability.
Previous deployments proved this an unrealis-
tic expectation, particularly given complica-
tions such as bad weather or political and
diplomatic interference from other nations. Air
refueling appeared as the only viable solution
to the rapid deployment requirement, and the
June 1956 debut of the three-point KB-50
offered the means to achieve this goal.
Operation 'Mobile Baker' demonstrated this
new capability a few months later when a strike
force - including 16 F-84Fs, 16 F-100Cs, four
RF-84Fs, and four Douglas B-66s - flew to
Europe to participate in a NATO exercise. The
deployment was complicated by the need for
both probe and drogue and boom tankers, as
the F-100Cs and B-66s were probe-equipped
and the F-84Fs and RF-84Fs were boom
receivers. Subsequent CASF exercises validat-
ed the ability of the KB-50 fleet to support tacti-
cal combat aircraft deployments over long
distances on short notice.
The KB-50's limited performance became a
hindrance during refueling operations with
newer receivers such as the F-1 01, Lockheed
F-104C Starfighter, and the F-105. The tanker
was often forced to descend to a lower altitude
or carry out a toboggan maneuver in order for
the receiver to stay in contact. To improve the
KB-50's performance, J47 turbojets were fitted
in place of the underwing tanks.
In testimony to the House Defense Appropri-
ations Subcommittee in 1959, TAC Comman-
der General Otto P Weyland expressed his

23
concern about the obsolete equipment with
which TAC was forced to carry out its mission."
Specifically, he argued that the existing KB-50
fleet could not guarantee timely deployment of
US tactical aircraft.
'TAC needed a jet tanker and [Weyland]
would give its acquisition top priority even
though it was not a combat airplane. Such a
tanker was needed to provide the mobility to
get tactical forces to the right place at the right
time.' 60
TAC had looked enviously at SAC's KC-135
for some time, and although concerned about
its runway requirements, felt it would nonethe-
less satisfy the command's tanker needs.
SAC as Single Manager
TAC's plan to acquire KC-135s met with imme-
diate and formidable resistance from General
LeMay, now the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff. He
saw two tanker programs as redundant and
unnecessary, and, as the original purpose of
the tanker was to extend the range of SAC's
bombers, any use of these tankers for other
than bomber support undermined (in LeMay's
view) the ability of the US to project its nuclear
armada. In the age of the bomber and missile
gap (and a finite defense budget), support for
tactical projects at the expense of strategic pro-
jects was perceived as counterproductive to
US national security policy. He called for 'a sin-
gle tanker force equipped to provide support to
all combat operations requiring air refueling.' 61
SAC was not insensitive to TAC's refueling
needs, however, and in January 1959 initiated
plans to adapt a KC-135 boom for drogue refu-
eling. Actual testing began on 10th February
1959. Additional testing resumed on 26th
August 1959, with Operation 'Stay On II', which
'showed the need for an improved boom-to-
drogue adapter, increased rendezvous capa-
bility, modification to the fuel capacity of fighter
aircraft, and standardized training require-
ments for aircrews.' 62
On 3rd May 1960, LeMay announced the
approval of 'a single tanker force, SAC man-
aged and KC-135 equipped' in support of both
SAC and TAC training and combat needs. 63 The
single-manager program - with SAC in total
control- was scheduled for full implementation
by the end of FY63.
Operation 'Stay On 111', conducted from Feb-
ruary through March 1961, successfully demon-
strated the KC-135's drogue adapter, by
transferring 844,4401b (383,037kg) of fuel to
probe-equipped F-100 Super Sabres, F-101
Voodoos, F-105 Thunderchiefs, and RB-66
Destroyers. With a viable system to satisfy TAC
requirements at hand, the Air Force designated
SAC as the single manager for all KC-135 refu-
eling operations. On 17th November 1961,
Secretary of Defense Robert S McNamara
approved the program, which dedicated 70
KC-135s in support of TAC requirements when
needed, but were flown and managed by SAC
crews and commanders. SAC's reticence to
support routine TAC operations at the expense
24
of bomber support is underscored in a TAC his-
tory: 'The stage was being set for the incorpo-
rating of the KC-135 into [TAC] employment
plans, but it was obvious that SAC was not
enthusiastic.' 64
A conference held in December published
directives for joint SAC-TAC refueling opera-
tions. SAC's first major support of TAC require-
ments came during Operation 'Big Lift' in
October 1963. In all, 115 KC-135s provided air
refueling for 71 TAC fighters staging to Europe
in support of 'Big Lift' troop movements. 65
TAC's hopes for an independent jet tanker
force were effectively ended. KB-50 operations,
especially in Southeast Asia, continued until
late 1964 when the fleet was finally grounded
due to structural problems and corrosion.
US Naval and Marine Air Refueling
Concerned about the limited endurance of car-
rier-borne jet fighters, the US Navy saw the
probe and drogue as a relatively simple means
to increase endurance and provide several
operational benefits." North American Aviation
modified its XAJ-1 Savage into a tanker in 1952,
and refueling trials began with a Grumman
F9F-5 Panther and a McDonnell F2H Banshee.
Beginning in 1953 AJ-1 and AJ-2 Savages
assigned to Heavy Attack Squadrons were fit-
ted with a removable tanker kit and were used
as carrier-borne tankers. Navy fighters had
been fitted with probes from 1953 onward, and
in 1955 the Navy announced that all new fight-
ers would be so eqUipped for air refueling.
Few of the large Savages could fit on board a
carrier, however, and in an effort to increase the
availability of air refueling without sacrificing
limited deck space, the Navy began exploring
the use of external refueling stores carried on
single-seat attack types. These buddy tankers,
initially Douglas AD-6 Skyraiders and A4D-2
Skyhawks, entered service in 1957. The first
external refueling store in wide use was the
Douglas 0-704, and many units were still in use
30 years later.
Flying-boat tankers were also planned, and a
few Convair R3Y-2 Tradewinds were fitted with
four underwing refueling pods before the type
was withdrawn from service because of engine
problems. In August 1956 one of these tankers
simultaneously refueled four Grumman F9F-8
Cougars.
The US Marine Corps introduced air refuel-
ing during the mid 1950s, initially on the F9F-8
and the North American FJ-3 Fury. In 1957 the
Marines acquired A4D-2 buddy tankers. Seek-
ing their own independent assault transport!
tanker force, the Corps ordered the Lockheed
GV-1 (KC-130F), giving Marine fighter units the
ability to deploy rapidly over long distances.
Continued British Developments
Although the probe and drogue was a British
invention, the RAF was slow to adopt it." Fol-
lowing squadron evaluation trials carried out in
1951, the Air Staff acknowledged the opera-
tional advantages of air refueling, but turned
down any acquisition because of a concern
that buying tankers would limit purchases of
front-line fighters.'·
A review in the early 1950s of operational
requirements for the V-bomber force (Vickers
Valiant, Avro Vulcan and the Handley Page Vic-
tor) showed that coverage of potential targets
in the Soviet Union required a radius of action
greater than that available with the basic air-
craft. Various means to extend the V-bombers'
range were considered, including exceeding
the maximum gross take-off weight which
would necessitate rocket-assisted take-offs.
Before any of the V-bombers flew, FRL
showed that the range and bomb load of each
could be significantly increased by single or
multiple refueling. FRL's development of self-
contained tanker kits (primarily for US Air Force
and Navy operations), which could be quickly
installed or removed in the bombers once the
fixed piping had been incorporated, provided
an immediate solution to refueling the 'V-force'.
Finally, the success of air refueling in the United
States, coupled with intensive lobbying by FRL,
prompted the Air Staff to decide in late 1952 to
adopt the probe and drogue system for the V-
force.
The Mk.16 Hose Drum Unit was installed in a
Valiant, and trials of Val iant-to-Vali ant refueling
commenced in 1957. Squadron trials began
the following year, and in 1962 two Valiant
squadrons became dedicated tanker units.
Vulcan and Victor squadrons began air refuel-
ing training in the early 1960s and in June 1961 ,
a Vulcan B.1 A of 617 Squadron flew non-stop
from the England to Australia with air refueling
from Valiant tankers.
RAF fighter squadrons also began air refuel-
ing training in the early 1960s, and the Royal
Navy introduced air refueling in 1961.
Limits and Implications
Although the usefulness of aerial refueling had
been made apparent through tests and opera-
tions in air forces and by companies around the
world, the availability of a suitable tanker was
another matter entirely. Despite the obvious
operational limitations of piston tankers such
as the KB-29 or the KC-97, government spon-
sorship and funding in the US and abroad of a
jet tanker was not forthcoming. It remained for
the aerospace industry to take the initiative, a
bold move that had little obvious chance for
success.

Developmental History
The origin and development of the KC-135
were inextricably interwoven with that of the
Boeing 707 jet airliner, as both tanker and airlin-
er were the progeny of a single unsolicited
company-funded jet transport prototype. From
this common ancestry, no doubt, derives the
erroneous notion that the KC-135 is a military
version ofthe 707. At best, the Air Force saw the
KC-135 as only an interim solution to its air refu-
eling needs, and the purchase of large quanti-
ties of these tankers took place under unusual
circumstances. Further, KC-135 and 707 pro-
duction was inseparably linked and the subject
of considerable controversy between Boeing
and the Air Force. As with any new weapons
system, the KC-135 was beset with technical
problems, some of which continue four
decades later to affect its performance and
capability.
Following the Second World War, consider-
able efforts were made in Britain, North Ameri-
ca, France, and the Soviet Union to develop a
jet transport. The British pioneered the field
with the Rolls-Royce Nene-powered Avro Lan-
Chapter Three
castrian I, which first flew on 14th August 1946,
and on 19th September 1946 - flying on the
Nenes only - became the 'world's first jet airlin-
er by making three passenger flights carrying
[non-fare-paying] representatives of the Press
as well as Ministry officials and other passen-
gers.' 1 Britain's de Havilland Comet 1, which
first flew on 27th July 1949, became the world's
first turbojet airliner to enter service, beginning
commercial operations on 2nd May 1952. The
Soviet Union's Tupolev Tu-1 04 'Camel' was the
world's second jet airliner, entering commercial
service on 15th September 1956.
North American efforts to develop a jet trans-
port were not as visible as those in Britain but
were by no means insignificant. The Avro
Canada C-102 Jetliner was the first turbojet
commercial aircraft designed as such ab initio.
Its maiden flight was on 10th August 1949, but
no orders were forthcoming and the program
was discontinued in 1951. The first jet transport
developed in the US was a four-engined variant
of the Chase XCG-20 glider. It first flew on 21 st
April 1951 , becoming the first jet transport to fly
From its inception the 'Dash 80' was intended to
serve as a proof-of-concept demonstrator for a
military jet transport and jet tanker. On its
seventh flight it conducted rendezvous and
refueling procedures with a B-52, although it
lacked an air refueling boom during this flight.
Eventually Boeing installed a boom operator's
pod and a flying boom on the 'Dash 80' for
in-flight evaluation. USAF A139, author's collection
in the US and the first transport in the world to
fly with pod-mounted engines. It was not until
26th October 1958, that the US had a commer-
cial jet - the Boeing 707 - in service, and France
followed by introducing Sud Caravelle service
on 6th May 1959.
Development at Boeing
Boeing started jet transport feasibility studies
as early as 1946, undergoing as many as 150
'paper airplane' iterations before choosing its
final design. In the late 1940s airline officials
25
were highly skeptical of the economic viability
of operating jet transports. Boeing responded
to these concerns with volumes of test data and
detailed studies of military heavy jet operations,
in particular those ofthe company's widely pro-
duced B-47 Stratojet.
The greatest concern of potential airline cus-
tomers was the perception that jet engines
were inefficient and that the design compromis-
es necessary in order to achieve high speed
were such that this type of power was useful
only for military combat aircraft, where tactical
considerations justified the 'luxury' of very high
speeds 2
Boeing showed that although jet engines
consumed approximately 20% more fuel per
thrust horsepower than existing reciprocating
engines, they resulted in reduced drag due to
the engine's small size and eliminated the air-
flow disturbances created by the propeller slip-
stream. Since a jet transport could travel at
speeds nearly twice those of existing piston-
powered transports and carry more while en
route, a jet could, according to Boeing, have a
'work capacity ... three to four times that of the
larger present-day transports,' earning consid-
erably more revenue than its conventionally-
powered predecessor. 3
Boeing's experience with military jet aircraft
showed that jet maintenance was no greater
than that for non-jet aircraft. In fact, airframe
complexity actually decreased with jets.' This
reduction in complexity contributed to in-
creased operational safety as jets benefitted
from a sizeable increase in performance. Their
increased take-off, climb, and cruise capability
easily allowed them to exceed minimum safety
regulations for reciprocating engine aircraft.
Overall, Boeing was convinced that a jet
transport would be successful not only with the
military but the airlines as well. It remained only
to convince both parties ...
Genesis
The company's first proposal, dating to 1947,
was based upon the B-47. Designated the
Model 473-1, it was powered by two Rolls-
Royce Nenes and could carry 27 passengers 5
By 1949 this design had matured into the
Model 473-30 and wind tunnel testing began,
but Boeing engineers were dissatisfied with the
design's narrow tricycle landing gear arrange-
ment. s Although this limitation is usually given
as the primary reason for the design's discon-
tinuation, John E Steiner, former Vice President
for Corporate Product Development at Boeing,
offers a different reason for the termination of
the 473-60 project: 'we were unable to serious-
ly interest [sic] the major airlines in starting the
program.' 7 Most likely both ofthese issues con-
spired to doom the 473-60 project.
It was yet another Boeing airplane that had
the best potential for the demanding metamor-
phosis into the company's new jet transport.
Boeing suggested that its Model 367, known in
the military as the C-97 Stratofreighter (and
later as the KC-97) and to the airlines as the
26
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, have its four piston
engines replaced with turboprop engines. Still,
this was not the jet transport Boeing envisaged.
By the end of 1950 Boeing proposed further
changes to the 367, incorporating a thin swept
wing and empennage, and four jet engines
mounted in pairs in a single pod beneath each
wing.·
During 1951 Boeing proposed a tanker vari-
ant of the jet-powered Model 367 to the Air
Force. This offer was tied closely to SAC's pre-
cious B-52 Stratofortress strategic bomber. As
Vaughn Blumenthal, Senior Aerodynamicist for
the B-52 program remembered:
'In October, 1948, emphasis on the B-52
design was changed from a propellered air-
plane to a pure jet which required double refu-
eling. In late 1949, the gross weight of the B-52
was increased so that only outbound refueling
was needed. A tanker, however, was a basic
requirement for the B-52 from late 1948 on-
ward.'9
This contrasts sharply with Air Force records
that suggest the B-52 was initially designed to
operate without aerial refueling because at the
time no practical means existed to refuel the air-
plane. According to one Air Force source, it
was not until 1953 that plans were even devel:
oped to conduct air refueling tests between the
B-52 and the KC-97.'o
Despite official interest, SAC's heavy finan-
cial commitment to an operational fleet of B-47s
and KC-97s and its projected acquisition of a
fleet of B-52s precluded any commitment to
this new tanker effort: 'Boeing already has too
many Air Force projects.' 'The money's needed
for bombers.' 'B-47s can be made into jet
tankers at less cost.' 11 On 17th August 1951,
the Air Force officially rejected Boeing's jet
tanker/transport. Steiner recalls that 'by ab~ut
the end of 1951, we became convinced that we
could not sell a new tanker for the reasons
[noted above]. It was this realization that pro-
pelled us to consider a company-financed pro-
totype.' 12 Boeing was undaunted, going on to
produce an entirely new airplane - the Model
367-80 (also dubbed 'Project X').13 This design
retained the overall appearance of its prede-
cessors, had a slimmer fuselage and, most
notably, had each of its four Pratt & Whitney
J57-P-1 jet engines located in separate pods,
two beneath each wing."
On 26th March 1952, Boeing's President,
William M Allen, distributed a memorandum to
his division heads asking if they felt that Boeing
could fly a prototype jet transport within two
years. Allen stipUlated that the design and con-
struction of this private venture must not
impede existing or potential military contracts.
Within a week of the first flight of the XB-52 on
15th April 1952, senior Boeing officials met to
summarize their findings:
'Jim Barton of Cost Accounting said the pro-
totype could be built for $13 million to $15 mil-
lion. Maynard Pennell said the plane would
meet the range requirements of a military tank-
er and would have three times the work capaci-
ty of the C-97 [Stratofreighter]. As a commer-
cial airplane its ... operating costs would be
competitive. [George] Schairer said the same
prototype could be used to demonstrate both a
military and a commercial transport and could
provide the performance data needed for pro-
duction airplanes. Chief engineer Lysle Wood
said engineering manpower was available. Ex-
perimental manager AI Jacobson said manu-
facturing manpower and floor space would be
available. [Wellwood] Beall said Pratt & Whit-
ney would have engines. John Yeasting said
the prototype would provide the cost figures
needed for pricing production models.' 15
Less than a month later, on 22nd April 1952,
Boeing's board of directors unanimously app-
roved $15 million (and later added another $1
million) of company funds, more than twice the
company's 1951 net profits, for further develop-
ment and construction of a prototype airplane.
The new airplane was now designated the
Model 707, but Boeing chose to keep its new
prototype under wraps and referred to it simply
as the Boeing 367-80." Subsequent airliners
would be designated as Model 707s, tankers
as Model 717s.
In August 1952 Allen announced that Boe-
ing: '[had] for some time been engaged in a
company-funded project which will enable it to
demonstrate a prototype jet airplane of new
design to the armed services and the commer'
cial airlines in the summer of 1954.' 17
As a military venture, the as-yet unidentified
airplane would function as a jet transport and
tanker, and as a commercial venture the new
airplane would fill the jet transport production
void on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Beyond that, a heavy veil of secrecy enveloped
this novel design."
Construction of the Model 367-80 prototype
began in October 1952, and Boeing continued
specialized work on the tanker variant. In March
1954 Boeing revealed that the new airplane
would be 'ideally suited for high speed, high
altitude tanker-transport duties,' and would be
capable of refueling existing and future jet
bombers, fighters, and reconnaissance aircraft
'at or near their operational altitudes.' '9
As the roll-out neared for Boeing's new air-
plane, Allen elaborated his company's motiva-
tion for building the 367-80:
'Boeing's first consideration ... was the nation's
security. [Allen] made it clear that Boeing's
principal aim was to fill what it considered a
military need.
'That need,' he explained, 'was a jet tanker
for aerial refueling. At the same time, and in the
commercial interest, we believed America
should no longer delay getting into the jet field.
We only regret that economic considerations
forced us to wait as long as we did.' 20
The 'economic considerations' Allen des-
cribed were the pervasive fears in parts of the
company about the lack of Boeing's financial
success in the commercial market. He never let
the commercial transport staff forget that the
company's primary objective was to build a jet
Boeing built the prototype KC-135 alongside the
KC-97 production line. The KC-135 traces its
design to a swept-wing, jet-powered variant of
the KC·97, the Boeing Model 367. By mid 1952
this interim design had become the famous
Boeing 367-80, and construction began in
October 1952 on this common ancestor of the
KC-135 and the 707. Author's collection
tanker for the Air Force, and that a commercial
jet transport was of lesser (but nonetheless sig-
nificant) importance. Allen insisted that the pro-
totype be renamed the 367-80, so that the
commercial airliner staff 'would not forget
about' the tanker requirement, a decision that
did not sit well with Boeing's commercial airline
division." By emphasizing the 367-80's tanker/
transport role, the Air Force would become the
launch customer not only for the KC-135 but
provide the kernel for 707 production. This
strategy required suborning Boeing's commer-
cial jet airliner priorities to those of the military
tanker/transport. Arguably, without the consid-
erable support within the company for the jet
tanker program, there might never have been
sufficient confidence to build the highly suc-
cessful 707 jet airliner or its equally successful
offspring."
The new airplane, known informally as the
'Dash 80', was rolled-out on 15th May 1954,
two months ahead of schedule, and was chris-
tened by Mrs William E Boeing with two bottles
of champagne, one for each of the two names
the airplane bore: Stratoliner for its commer-
cial uses and Stratotanker for its military oper-
ations.'3 The 'Dash 80' first flew on 15th July
1954.
Air Force Tanker Requirements
Although the Air Force chose not to fund early
research and development of the 'Dash 80', it
was not uninterested in Boeing's proposed jet
tanker. At the SAC Requirements Conference
held from 18-19th November 1953, General
LeMay, SAC's commander, called for 200 jet
tankers to be procured with fiscal year (FY)
1954 funds, clearly with the Boeing proposal in
mind.'4 On 30th November 1953, the Air Force
Air Research and Development Command
(ARDC) directed the Wright Air Development
Center CNADC) , beginning 14th December
1953, to evaluate the Air Force requirement for
a jet tanker, finally acknowledging Boeing's
foresight of just such an airplane. 25
SAC was not the only Air Force command
interested in this airplane. Tactical Air Com-
mand was originally interested in the KC-135
during its development, but the runway it
required and its lack of a three-point refueling
capability were unsuitable for TAC's needs, pri-
marily the support of the command's world-
wide jet fighter deployments and operations.
LeMay, however, wanted the new jet tanker to
refuel nuclear-laden SAC B-47s and B-52s en
route to their communist targets. Any diversion
of airplanes to TAC would, SAC leaders ar-
gued, seriously undermine SAC's ability to
carry out its nuclear strike mission, the Air
Force's highest priority."
The Air Force considered a number of tanker
proposals: two from Boeing (one for a 'light-
weight' version of the KC-135 with a 261,0001 b
[11,793kg] gross weight and another for a
'heavyweight' with a 295,0001b [13,381 kg]
gross weight), a tanker version of the Douglas
DC-8 jet airliner proposal (with a gross weight
of 330,0001b [14,968kg] and powered by J67
engines), the proposed Douglas XC-132 turbo-
prop, and WADC's 'Design 1018.' '7
The Air Force tanker program, however, was
subject to considerable internal confusion and
lack of direction despite the immediate and
pressing need for a jet tanker.'8 One officer
called the tanker program 'neither well planned
nor cohesive.'" Although SAC did not want the
turboprop-powered C-132,. an Air Force Air
Council memo of 5th November 1953, recom-
mended 'immediate programming for C-132
aircraft ... toward support of B-52 and [Convair]
B-58 [Hustler] bombers.' 30 The Air Council
reversed itself by 12th February 1954, insisting
27
instead on obtaining 'a jet tanker inventory in
consonance with operational needs as soon as
feasible, considering both engineering and
budget aspects ... ' 31 It was not until 5th May
1954, that the Air Force officially announced
both the requirement for a jet tanker and that a
design competition would begin. ARDC invited
Boeing, Convair, Douglas, Fairchild, Lock-
heed, and Martin to participate in the Jet
Tanker!Transport Design Parameter Study that
started on 18th June 1954.32
Despite official existence of the procurement
competition, four of the five competitors held
few illusions that they might win. Rumors from
both the Pentagon and ARDC headquarters at
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, intimated that
Boeing's heavyweight proposal enjoyed the
influential support of General LeMay and Gen-
eral Thomas Power. Such rumors were not
without some basis. LeMay's official journal
shows on 3rd May 1954, that although the com-
petition 'killed' the KB-36 and KB-52 proposals,
it did not 'close the field on the Boeing tanker',
and that LeMay wanted 'no delay' in procuring
ajettanker, clearly revealing his preferences. In
a 12th May 1954, 'phone conversation between
Allen and Major Gen John P McConnell, SAC's
Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, McConnell told
Allen that LeMay was 'concerned' that SAC was
'already too late in getting a jet tanker'. Aware
that a shorter competition favored the Boeing
design, McConnell added that he 'did not know
whether or not [LeMay] could effect any short-
ening of the time period' involved. There is no
evidence that LeMay did unfairly influence the
competition, but the impression was there that
he had the power to do so. These rumors were
to induce the Air Force to announce in late June
1954 that it had not already surreptitiously
selected the Boeing tanker and would indeed
honor ARDC's recommendation. 33
Boeing was not about to lose whatever initia-
tive it might have had. On the 'Dash 80's' sev-
enth flight, it practiced rendezvous and air
refueling procedures with a B-52, a task it
would continue to perform throughout the de-
velopment of the KC-135. The message of the
22nd July 1954, demonstration flight was clear:
while the other competitors were talking about
building a tanker, Boeing was flying one. 34 Boe-
ing took the competition very seriously, and
feared that the winner would undoubtedly be
from southern CalifGrnia due to immense politi-
cal pressure being exerted. 35
On 30th July 1954, with the tanker competi-
tion well under way, ARDC recommended (with
LeMay's concurrence) purchasing 70 to 100
'interim' tankers, specifically the Boeing 367-80
tanker proposal, which Boeing now called the
367-138B and would later redesignate as the
iv1odeI717. These airplanes would provide SAC
with an immediate source of jet tankers 'pend-
ing availability of the aircraft selected as a result
ofthe current competition.' 3.
With the full support of LeMay and Power, the
Air Force decided on 3rd August 1954, to buy
the interim tankers. Two days later, Air Force
28
Secretary Harold E Talbott announced that the
service would procure 29 jet tankers from Boe-
ing. 37 On 6th August 1954, Procurement Autho-
rization 55-27 provided $150 million for these
29 airplanes, fueling speculation that Boeing's
proposal had already been chosen for the full
tanker contract despite repeated Air Force
denials. 3 • Less than two weeks later (and prior
to the 27th August 1954, competition deadline),
the Air Force announced the expenditure of
$240 million for 88 additional Boeing interim
tankers. 39 By all appearances, Boeing had won;
what remained seemed academic.
Competition Results
The outcome was not altogether as predicted.
During October 1954 Air Materiel Command
(AMC) recommended that from a production
standpoint, Boeing should produce only the
interim tanker and that either Douglas or Lock-
heed should build the full production tanker.
Further, Secretary of Defense Charles E Wilson
was reconsidering the 27th August purchase of
the 88 additional KC-135As that Charles Ander-
son, Deputy Secretary of Defense, had app-
roved and announced without his consent
while Wilson was out of Washington, DC.40
Much to the relief of Boeing executives and
SAC commanders, Wilson reaffirmed this pur-
chase. Boeing's tanker was still known as the
'ultimate configuration', underscoring the Air
Force's confidence in its selection."
That decision came in February 1955. 42 Tal-
bott announced that Lockheed's proposal had
won the tanker design competition on the basis
of its technical potential, and that at least one
Lockheed prototype would be purchased and
built immediately.43 There was more to Talbott's
announcement, however, as he directed that
KC-135A orders with Boeing would increase to
$700 million, sufficient to purchase 169 new
planes in addition to the 117 already ordered.
Paradoxically, the winner of the tanker competi-
tion was funded to build only a prototype
whereas one of the losers was funded to build a
sizeable fleet of airplanes.
The motivation for this irregular selection
may never be known. Both the Air Force and
the Department of Defense (DoD) made it clear
that a second source tanker would be both pro-
hibitivelyexpensive (in excess of $100 million)
and a logistics nightmare. ARDC and AMC ag-
reed that two competing designs would unnec-
essarily complicate SAC's logi~tics support
and recommended selection of only one: Boe-
ing's 'ultimate configuration'. SAC concurred,
arguing that two tankers would require dupli-
cate logistics systems, and SAC's desired
tanker crew interchangeability program would
require training in both systems, again need-
lessly duplicating costs.
There was little doubt SAC supported the
Boeing tanker. Satisfied for over a decade with
Boeing products in the form of B-29s, B-50s,
KC-97s, B-47s (and soon B-52s), it seemed nat-
ural 'not to switch horses in midstream'. In
addition, the US was locked in a fevered strate-
gic weapons build-up with the Soviet Union,
and the KC-135A's imminent availability was a
significant factor in its selection." Clearly, the
Boeing tanker enjoyed considerable advan-
tages in the competition, and it is not altogether
unreasonable that it should have been chosen
as the single source tanker.
Speculatively, Lockheed's selection as the
winner was more an act offace than of pragma-
tism, particularly in view of the considerable
political pressure applied to have the contract
awarded to Lockheed. By announcing that
Lockheed had won the competition, the Air
Force could claim impartiality in selecting the
tanker, thus defusing the many charges that
Boeing had won the competition even before it
had begun. The Air Force would buy additional
Boeing tankers as a stop-gap measure until the
Lockheed tanker was ready. The Air Force
could then declare that it was neither possible
nor preferable to buy two tankers, and, unfortu-
nately for Lockheed, the credible availability of
the Boeing KC-135A made it the only realistic
choice.
Regardless of the means of its selection, the
KC-135 had become the de facto Air Force jet
tanker. Despite its merit, it still faced at least one
final attempt to end its acquisition. As part of an
effort throughout the DoD to decrease the num-
ber of airplanes in the inventories of its con-
stituent services, one study recommended that
the KC-135A be cancelled. Testifying before
the House Appropriations Committee, Assis-
tant Secretary of Defense for Applications Engi-
neering Frank Newbury described his office's
goal of reducing the number of different types
of aircraft in service to a minimum. 'Based on a
technical review', he stated:
'... it was recommended that the KC-135 be
discontinued and replaced by converted B-36
or B-52 aircraft, until such time as the character-
istics of a special jet tanker can be more perma-
nently delineated.' 45
Despite the recommendations of this review,
the KC-135 by this time enjoyed the fullest sup-
port of Defense Secretary Wilson, who over-
ruled Newbury's recommended cancellation.
The selection of the Boeing KC-135 as the
new jet tanker attracted the critical congres-
sional attention of the Surveys and Investiga-
tions Staff of the House Appropriations
Committee. As part of their overall investigation
of irregularities in DoD weapons system pro-
curement, the staff sought relevant 'docu-
ments, files or records' associated with the 'J57
engine program and the Boeing KC-135 jet
tanker program'. Air Force Headquarters res-
ponded grudgingly to these requests, creating
what the congressional staff called 'serious
delays' in producing the requested materiaL 4•
As a result of its inquiry, the staff criticized Air
Force tanker procurement policies in three
areas:
'(a) Boeing's apparent anticipation of Air
Force need for a jet tanker prior to the Air
Force's decision and the resulting directed pro-
curement from Boeing, (b) lack of knowledge
KC-135A 55-3118 at the final assembly point on
the Boeing production line. The first KC-135
was completed in 1956, long before the final
.plane, the Air Force challenged the investiga-
contract was signed in 1958. Each of the first
29 KC·135As cost $7,478,528, more than
$650,000 per airplane over the original
agreed·upon price. Boeing P-16576, courtesy
Marilyn Phipps
by the Air Force that Boeing was working in an
Air Force facility on the 707 project from June
1952 to August 1952, and (c) lack of knowledge
by the Air Force and the Navy of diversion of
four J-57 engines from Pratt & Whitney, in
November and December 1953, to Boeing for
commercial purposes. The clear inference is
something was wrong in the way Boeing got the
jump on its competitors.' 47
The Air Force responded to these criticisms
first by defending its purchase of Boeing
tankers despite Lockheed's selection as the
winner of the jet tanker program: 'the desire to
produce an optimum tanker conflicted with the
operational urgency for a weapons system at
an earlier date'. Consequently, Air Force Head-
quarters decided that 'Lockheed had won the
design competition but that earlier availability
and the less expensive Boeing proposal offset
the optimum tanker proposed by Lockheed.' 4'
As to any benefits accrued by Boeing as a
result of the availability of its military jet tanker
prior to any Air Force request for such an air-
tors' judgement. An Air Force representative
wished that 'more contractors had the courage
of their convictions to carryon development at
their own expense in anticipation of military
requirements.' 49
The Air Force dismissed Boeing's use of Air
Force facilities at Renton for the 707 project,
saying that the company had already reim-
bursed the Air Force for use of its facilities and
had been warned against allowing the 707 pro-
ject to interfere with existing Air Force pro-
grams underway at Boeing. 50
In true parochial fashion, the Air Force pas-
sed the blame to the Navy over the diversion of
J57 engines to Boeing for use in the 'Dash 80'.
According to the Air Force, the Navy had con-
trol of the Pratt & Whitney program. Acknowl-
edging its responsibility, the Navy said that the
engines 'were shipped without the [Navy's]
knowledge ... " but:
'did not result in any diversion of Govern-
ment-owned engines, did not delay delivery of
engines to the Government, did not result in
any increased cost to the Government, and did
not result in any breach of security.' 51
With this congressional catharsis, questions
over irregularities in the KC-135 purchase
came to an end. For Lockheed, the results did
not mean vindication or additional sales. For
Boeing, it validated its multi-million dollar gam-
ble in building the tanker prototype. For the Air
Force, particularly SAC, it meant more tankers
sooner than later, with a commensurate in-
crease in strategic capability. This was not,
however, the end of procurement problems for
the KC-135.
Contract Difficulties
Following the procurement announcement,
negotiations started on the production con-
tract. At the first meeting on 13th December
1954, Boeing presented three KC-135 produc-
tion schemes. The first would produce 13 air-
planes per month and required no additions to
the production facility at Boeing's Renton,
Washington, plant. New facilities would, how-
ever, be required at Larson AFB, Washington,
where acceptance flight testing would be
undertaken. The second proposal provided for
21 airplanes per month but required additional
assembly jigs for the Renton plant, as well as
the previously mentioned increase in testing
facilities at Larson AFB. In this proposal, some
40% of the work would be subcontracted. The
third proposal would generate 44 airplanes per
month and, like the previous proposal, required
expansion of both the Renton facilities and Lar-
29
son AFB. AMC selected the first plan, arguing
that any greater production would exceed the
'present requirements that exist for the KC-
135A airplane.' 52
The use of the 'Dash 80' in the flight test pro-
gram was the focus of a second negotiating
conference held on 15th December. Boeing
requested indemnification amounting to
$13,500,000 should the prototype be des-
troyed or damaged beyond repair during the
flight test program. The Air Force rejected this
figure, considering it more than the fair value of
the airplane. 53 Instead, the Air Force reminded
Boeing that the company would benefit in its
commercial efforts, particularly the 707 pro-
gram, thanks to the KC-135 flight test program.
AMC recommended that the Air Force pay for
95% of the flight test program while Boeing pay
the remaining 5%. Not surprisingly, Boeing
rejected this offer.
The two parties met again on 6th January
1955, with the Air Force now agreeing to
indemnify Boeing for use of the company's air-
plane, albeit with certain restrictions. The Air
Force would not be liable if the damage or loss
occurred during a flight not considered part of
the KC-135 flight test program or if the damage
was covered by existing insurance. In addition,
the Air Force could use government facilities to
repair any damage. Finally, if the 'Dash 80' was
damaged beyond repair or otherwise lost, Boe-
ing could choose to (a) receive, at no cost, one
of the first seven KC-135As, (b) build a new 707
or KC-135 at government expense for company
use, or (c) accept a cash settlement for the loss,
not to exceed $7,500,000. 54 The Air Force also
agreed to pay all expenses of the test program,
and the flight test contract was completed.
Negotiations then stalled on the production
contract for Boeing's fee for each airplane. The
Air Force first offered a fee of 6%, which Boeing
rejected. The Air Force refused to process the
completed flight test contract until the produc-
tion contract was completed, despite Boeing's
insistence that the two could be resolved as
separate issues.
At a 21st January meeting, the Air Force
maintained its unwillingness to separate the
flight test and production contracts. As the
'Dash 80' was already involved in flight testing,
Boeing announced it would discontinue flying
the airplane because of the contract difficulties.
Another meeting on 15th February met with
equal failure and 'no future plans to resume
negotiations.' 55 The KC-135 was now hostage
to the inability of the Air Force and Boeing to
agree upon a suitable price per airplane neces-
sary to complete the production contract.
A final conference was held on 9th June
1955, with Boeing and the Air Force each ten-
dering several proposals. After 'due considera-
tion', Boeing accepted a modified version of
one proposal. The agreement called for:
'(1) a fixed-price-incentive type contract with-
out reset, (2) a target cost of $184,313,447, (3)
a target fee of 8% of the target cost, (4) a Gov-
ernment-Boeing split of 75-25% of the overrun
30
or underrun, and (5) a maximum 12% profit ceil-
ing on the target cost.' 56
This translated into a profit for Boeing of
$15,200,000 for the first 29 airplanes.
On 30th September 1955, over a year after
announcing the procurement of the KC-135A,
contracts finally authorized both flight testing
and full scale production of the 29 'interim'
tankers. Major General David H Baker, Director
of Procurement and Production, Headquarters
AMC, approved contract AF 33(600)-2841 0, for
eleven items with four more added through
subsequent negotiations, listed in Table 1.
In January 1956 Boeing and AMC met to
negotiate an incentive contract for 68 additional
KC-135s, 20 fewer than originally approved in
August 1954. AMC proposed that the cost be
negotiated in February 1957, as by then three
KC-135s would be built and realistic figures
upon which to base future costs would be avail-
able. Boeing rejected this offer, fearing that an
increase in labor rates in California aircraft
companies would spread to Seattle and there-
by increase KC-135 manufacturing costs. The
recommended AMC price would not allow Boe-
ing to pass on labor costs and maintain its profit
margin by increasing the KC-135's price to the
Air Force. Without an agreement, negotiations
continued.
By the end of February 1956 Boeing finally
agreed to $145,800,024 for the 68 airplanes as
proposed by the Air Force, with a billing price of
$2,144,118 per KC-135. Both the Air Force and
Boeing agreed to reset this figure after the third
airplane (from the original 29) was completed.
On 5th June 1956, contract AF 33(600)-31525
was finally sealed. Additional Air Force require-
ments for tankers resulted in further orders. 57 By
15th April 1958, 426 KC-135s had been or-
dered, with an eventual total of 810 tankers
ordered and 732 delivered through the con-
tracts listed in Table 2.
Both Boeing and the Air Force were quick to
recognize the KC-135's potential for uses other
than aerial refueling. 58 SAC identified the Stra-
totanker as the basis for its future airborne com-
mand post as well as the replacement for the
RB-47 in the strategic reconnaissance role. In
addition, SAC wanted six C-135 transports for
use as administrative aircraft5. The Military Air
Transport Service (MATS) saw the C-135 as an
ideal airplane to expedite high priority passen-
gers and cargo. It would also be the first global-
capable jet airplane for MATS, the only major
command in the Air Force still relying exclusive-
lyon propeller driven aircraft in a burgeoning
age of jet airplanes. 60
Before the production line closed, two for-
eign governments expressed interest in pur-
chasing KC-135s. Canada was unable to agree
upon a contract prior to the production line's
closure, and instead bought five Boeing 707
Series 347Cs for use as tanker/transports. The
French were more successful and, although
embroiled in considerable controversy, con-
cluded a deal for a dozen C-135Fs.61 Specific
KC-135 variant contracts are shown in Table 3.
Problem of Co-production
The Air Force was quick to remind Boeing that
its commercial projects, notably the 707 airlin-
er, would benefit from the testing and develop-
ment of the KC-135. In addition, both Boeing
and the Air Force recognized that many 707
parts could be produced on equipment de-
signed to fabricate KC-135 parts, construction
equipment paid for by the government as part
of the KC-135 contract.
The Air Force addressed this potential prob-
lem when it announced that Boeing had won
the 'interim' tanker contract. Secretary Talbott
and General LeMay insisted that as part of this
contract, Boeing was obligated to complete
and deliver all KC-135s to the Air Force prior to
beginning any commercial production using
this equipment. 52 Concern about the effect this
restriction might have on as-yet non-existent
commercial sales prompted Boeing officials to
declare that they could produce the 707 with-
out delaying or interrupting the agreed upon
KC-135 delivery schedule. 6'
Roger E Lewis, Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Materiel, responded firmly to Boe-
ing's claim:
'[The Air Force] bought that airplane to meet
a military requirement and until we are satisfied
that the military requirement is going to be met,
we are not going to talk about anything else ...
There is no authority given [Boeing] to use any
of the work we are doing for purposes other
than meeting our requirements for tanker air-
planes.' 64
Discussions between the Air Force and Boe-
ing ensued, resolving the existing differences
and concerns over coproduction. Talbott is-
sued a press release on 13th July 1955, stating
that there was 'no objection to Boeing building
commercial jet aircraft concurrent with its pro-
duction of military jet tanker transports'. Lewis
added that he had no objections to Boeing
building 'commercial aircraft on Air Force tool-
ing procured for the KC-135 tanker, provided
the Government's interests were protected.' 65
Despite these pronouncements, problems
did arise from coproduction, specifically the
use of facilities, special tools, and sharing of
benefits. The first two problems were resolved
with a minimum of diffiCUlty, but the sharing of
benefits produced a major stumbling block in
the production pathway.
The first 707 was scheduled for completion
concurrently with the 1OOth KC-135. This meant
that as a result of the KC-135 'learning curve',
707 labor costs would be significantly lower
than those for the KC-135. Boeing argued that if
the company shared the 'learning curve' bene-
fits, then the Air Force should share in the cost
of developing the 707 and in its Phase I flight
test program.
Boeing's actual commercial benefits from
the KC-135 'learning curve' were not as great
as anticipated. On 13th October 1955, Pan
American World Airways ordered 25 as-yet
unflown Douglas DC-8s and only 20 707s. Pan-
Am chose the DC-8 because of its larger wing
Table 1 - Contract AF 33(600)-28410 Authorizations· responded by increasing the 707's overall span 707s produced with KC-135 tooling and
Item Purpose Amount by 10ft (3.0m) with a new wing planform from $60,000 per airplane for the second 100 707s
midway between the inboard and outboard so produced. The Air Force and Boeing agreed
1 Design and fabrication of 29 KC-135As $197,899,072.26
2 Spare parts for Item 1, above $15,664,495.00 engines to the wing root. The fuselage diameter to negotiate further reimbursements should
3 Ground support equipment $1,674,750.00 remained unchanged, but its length was 707 production exceed 200 units. At the time,
4 Training parts, tools, and equipment $1,000,000.00 increased. This new airliner was designated the neither Boeing nor the Air Force would have
5 Handbooks and publications $1,159,451.00 707-300. dared predict that the 707 production line
6 Static test article
As a result of these design changes, the 707 would remain open for nearly 35 years and pro-
7 Mock up
8 Wind tunnel test models
grew less and less similar to the KC-135, and duce over 900 airplanes.
9 Two copies of the summary bills of materials two separate production lines developed. Finally, during October 1958, the definitive
10 Contractor's personnel training program 'Some common production space and joint agreement was settled for the initial KC-135
11 Engineering and specification changes $2,233,000.00 overhead allowed for some cost saving, but contract, signed four years earlier. Price for the
12 Flight simulator $51,265.33 only 22% of parts remained common between first 29 airplanes was $216,877,318, an in-
13 Mobile training units and graphic aids $700,000.00
the two programs.' 70 The problems of copro- crease of almost 10% (or some $9 million), with
14 Engineering changes required for
Item 13, above $73,000.00 duction became less complicated logistically, a cost per airplane of $7,478,528 - over
15 Hydrostatic test article $998,000.00 but remained economically troublesome. $650,000 more per airplane than originally
In a special report presented during October agreed.
1955, by Nate Silverston of AMC's Cargo and
Table 2 - KC-135A Contracts and Deliveries Special Aircraft Branch, to General W T Thur- Initial Testing
KC-135A Airplanes in Airplanes man, AMC's Deputy Director of Procurement, Before the first KC-135A ever flew, it had
Contract Number Original Contract Delivered the Air Force, stated that Boeing was asking the already benefitted from an extensive test pro-
AF 33(600)-28410 29 29 Air Force 'to recognize costs incurred ... in the gram designed to protect it from a fatal problem
AF 33(600)-31525 88 68 development of the 707 which the contractor which had beset its European counterpart. Dur-
AF 33(600)-33012 118 118 had publicly announced would not be shared ing its early months of operations, the DH
AF 33(600)-34694 157 130
AF 33(600)-37871 81 81
by the [Air Force] in the event of any procure- Comet 1 suffered several catastrophic failures
AF 33(600)-40063 86 56 ment of KC-135s.' 71 Boeing agreed not to while climbing to high altitude. Tests at the RAE
AF 33(600)-41979 65 65 amortize the 707 prototype development costs at Farnborough revealed that these were
AF 33(600)-43416 84 84 in the KC-135, but now the company had chan- caused by fuselage failure at the corners of
AF 33(657)-9694 88 88 ged its position. The report further stated that square apertures resulting from cyclic cabin
AF 33(657)-12292 13 13
regardless of any Air Force contribution to the pressurization." AMC was concerned that simi-
Total 810 " 732· 70Ts development costs, Boeing would still be lar problems might befall America's fledgling
able to sell the 707 for from 15-18% cheaper
than could its competitors in the jet airliner mar-
Table 3 - KC-135 Variant Contracts and Deliveries
ket, in part because of experience gained from
Model Contract Number Number Type
Type Number Ordered Delivered Total
KC-135 production.
Consequently, the Air Force insisted that as a
KC-1358 AF 33(600)-43416 5 5
quid pro quo for joint production there would
AF 33(657)-9694 12 12 17
RC-135A AF 33(657)-9694 9 4 4 be a sharing of the KC-135 'learning curve' but
RC-135B AF 33(657)-9694 1 1 no Air Force participation in 707 development
AF 33(657)-12292 9 9 10 and flight test costs. On 14th May 1956, the Air
C-135A AF 33(600)-40063 10 10 Force and Boeing agreed in principle to Boe-
AF 33(600)-41979 5 5 15
ing's use of KC-135 tooling to produce the 707
C-135B AF 33(600)-41979 15 15
AF 33 (600)-43416 15 15 30 provided it did not interfere with or delay Stra-
C-135F AF 33 (657)-9694 12 12 12 totanker production. By July the Air Force
authorized joint use of the KC-135 assembly
Total 93 88
process, and by 16th October procedures to
accomplish this were completed and in place."
and higher gross weight than that of the 707, Although the logistics and finances of copro-
and purchased only a token number of 707s duction now seemed resolved, the Air Force
because of their earlier delivery date, consider- was still dissatisfied with several legal issues
ing them only interim equipment. On 25th stemming from the coproduction arrange-
October 1955, United Airlines also ordered the ments. On 15th February 1956, Assistant Air
DC-8, selecting it over the 707 because of its Force General Counsel William Munves stated
wider fuselage cross section. Boeing respond- that the Secretary of the Air Force must first get
ed by increasing the 707 fuselage diameter the approval of the Senate Armed Services
beyond that of the DC-8, and was rewarded on Committee before allowing Boeing to use the
8th November 1955, with an order for 30 707- KC-135 facilities for 707 production if the com-
100s from American Airlines. s9 Boeing offered pany's annual rent exceeded $25,000. What
this new wider fuselage to Pan American, W.(:!ich followed became an extensive if not tedious
promptly accepted the change for its 20 "ili(- legal exercise in property taxes." Boeing engineers prepare the KC-135A
planes. A new agreement between the Air Force and hydrostatic test (HST) article for submersion in
Despite the fuselage improvements, the 707 Boeing was signed on 6th March 1958, provid- the 423,000 gallon (1,601,224 Iitres) tank for
Series 100 (or -1 00) still could not compete with ing for the joint use of government special tool- pressurization testing. These tests revealed
minor weaknesses in the KC-135's design, and
the DC-8 on international routes. The DC-8's ing and equipment. The company's production
changes were incorporated into the fleet to
larger wing could carry more fuel and allow a of 707s could not interfere with KC-135 produc- prevent catastrophic fuselage failures such as
higher take-off gross weight, both crucial seil- tion and Boeing would reimburse the govern- those which befell the British DH Comet 1.
ing points in the jet airliner competition. Boeing ment $110,000 per airplane for the first 100 Boeing P-18583, courtesy Marilyn Phipps

31
high altitude jet transport program, especially
the KC-135. The Comet 1's troubles would
'affect not only British aviation, but jet develop-
ments ... the world over, including the Boeing
707 and the wide range of military aircraft now
in operation and on the drawing boards.' 75
In October 1955 AMC directed that a hydro-
static test program be undertaken to study the
KC-135's vulnerability to these pressurization
problems and to determine the type, location,
and intensity of pressure stresses the KC-135
could endure over its normal lifetime before
suffering structural failure. These underwater
tests were similar to those the British conduct-
ed as part of their efforts to identify the Comet's
structural problems. 76 Specific conditions to be
tested included cabin pressures, fin loads,
wind gusts of up to 50ft per second, and land-
ing loads.
These tests required that a KC-135 fuselage,
a complete center wing section, and the front
and rear wing spar fittings (all of which weighed
some 50,0001b - 22,680kg) be submerged in a
water tank and then be subjected to varying
pressurization schedules and 'gust' loads. No
Air Force serial number or Boeing construction
number was allocated to the hydrostatic test
article, although it was built between the sev-
enth and eighth KC-135s on the assembly line.
The tank, located at Boeing's Seattle plant, was
130ft (39.6m) long, 20ft (6.0m) wide and deep,
had a capacity of 423,000 gallons (1,601,224
Iitres), and weighed 3,600,000Ib (163,296kg).
Draining and refilling the tank took approxi-
mately six hours.
Water was pumped into the tank and the
fuselage pressurization cycle started. After the
32
cabin reached the maximum differential pres-
sure appropriate for high altitude cruise, the
cabin pressure was decreased over a span of
four minutes. Once fully depressurized, the
cycle was then repeated. During the four
minute depressurization, 14 hydraulic jacks ap-
plied pressures on the outside of the fuselage
at predetermined places, simulating gust or
maneuver load pressures which the airplane
might encounter in flight. Five jacks were locat-
ed forward of the wing, nine were located aft of
the wing, and two jacks applied torsion loads to
the tail. 77 In all 25 gust simulations composed a
complete testing spectrum, equating to a six-
hour mission."
Boeing Project engineer A I Ostlund reported
in October 1957 that after completing 3,650 test
spectra (91,250 gusts), results showed con-
vincingly that the KC-135 fuselage structure
was sound. The tests represented approxi-
mately ten years of use (about 21,000 flying
hours) without 'significant structural failure'."
In addition to verifying the structural integrity of
the KC-135, the hydrostatic test article pro-
duced several engineering changes, such as
improvements to the fuel bulkhead shear ties
and clips, as well as the fuel bulkhead webs in
the upper and side walls of the nose wheel well.
After 12,155 test spectra (303,875 gusts simu-
lating some 72,930 flying hours), engineers
intentionally damaged the test article. A 12in
(30cm) crack appeared in the fuselage skin
between sections FS1248 and FS1260, and a
4in (10cm) crack was detected in the lower aft
corner of one of the overwing escape hatches.
These were repaired and crack propagation
and repair data were obtained.
The first Stratotanker - dubbed City of Renton -
is rolled·out on 18th July 1956. Despite the
fact that Lockheed had won the Air Force's
jet tanker competition over a year earlier,
strong Boeing supporters such as General
Curtis LeMay and Air Force Secretary Harold
Talbott ensured that SAC would receive no
fewer than 286 KC-135As before the first
Lockheed jet tanker was even scheduled to
roll-out. Boeing P-17116, courtesy Marilyn Phipps
By December 1957 Colonel A G Leslie, Chief
of the Tanker Weapons System Project Office,
concluded that the structural failures found dur-
ing the hydrostatic testing could 'reasonably be
expected to occur during [the KC-135's] ser-
vice life', and recommended incorporating the
identified engineering changes into the entire
fleet. so
Additional testing was undertaken during
October 1957 with an unserialled static test air-
frame complete except for engines, electrical
equipment, and other non-structural systems."
Major wing failure occurred at 110% of the
design ultimate load, after deflecting through
an arc of approximately 12ft 6in (3.8m) upward
and 4ft (1.2m) downward.
Over 100 different tests were conducted on
the fuselage, wings, flaps, engine mounts,
doors, and many smaller components. Boeing
concluded that KC-135s could operate at gross
weights as high as 325,0001b (147,420kg), well
above the 295,0001b (133,812kg) required, but
the airplane was power limited at these high
weights by its inadequate engines."
 Roll-out and Early Flights
The first KC-135A Stratotanker rolled-out of
Boeing's Renton facility on 18th July 1956,
together with the 888th and last KC-97. With
considerable fanfare, the first jet tanker was
named City of Renton, and Mrs Joseph R Bax-
ter, wife of Renton's mayor, christened it with a
bottle of water from the nearby river. 83 The City
of Renton, along with several of her sister ships,
would spend its next few years participating in
acceptance flight tests conducted by Boeing
and the Air Force. 8'
Following nearly a month and a half of
ground tests, the KC-135A first flew on 31 st
August 1956, eleven days ahead of the first
flight date Boeing promised when the produc-
tion papers were signed almost two years earli-
er. The flight lasted one hour and 19 minutes,

..
~
with R L 'Dix' Loesch in the left seat and A M
'Tex' Johnston in the right seat, flying from Ren-
ton to Boeing Field in Seattle.
Although the 'Dash 80' had pioneered much
of the KC-135A's test program, there were some
surprises with the KC-135A. During a Phase I
test flight on 18th October 1956, while attempt-
ing to determine the amount of pressure
required to control the KC-135's rudder, it be-
gan to flutter violently. Before the plane's air~
speed could be reduced sufficiently, oscillations
ripped some of the metal skin from the vertical
fin." Following considerable wind tunnel test-
ing, Boeing attempted to correct the flutter by
installing a hydraulic rudder damper at the top
of the vertical fin. A flight test on 27th November
1956, showed this damper to be ineffective,
with the flutter consistently recurring above
Mach 0.8. The Air Force representative at Boe-
ing reported that 'until this flutter problem is
fUlly resolved, full impact on testing schedules,
production, and scheduled deliveries cannot
be determined' .86 Despite these 'teething prob-
lems', confidence remained high among SAC's
leaders. A little over a week before the initial
ef roll-out ceremony, LeMay told a SAC comman-
e, der's conference that there was 'no major prob-
Ir- lem in the KC-135 program'. 87
Ie On 30th December 1955, the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations at the AFFTC at Edwards
1e AFB directed that the first KC-135A would par-
re ticipate in Phase II flight testing. The initial por-
tion took place at Boeing Field with Air Force
19 crews flying the airplane and support provided
ir- by Boeing personnel. 88 The airplane still lacked
:al a remedy for its rudder flutter problem. Boeing
81
recommended that until this was corrected, all
1e KC-135s would be limited to speeds below that
)h which induced the flutter, and ARDC approved
rd a limiting airspeed of 0.9 Mach. How this would
affect the KC-135A's testing program was a
source of some concern:
:S, '... while this flutter problem has not caused
19 any major program revisions up to this time, it
5S has certainly reduced [Boeing's] capability to
all incorporate any additional changes early in
ut production that may be desired as a result of
)h Phase I and Phase II flighttest experience.' 89
From 25th January through 27th February
Mrs Joseph R Baxter, wife of the mayor of
Renton, Washington, christens the prototype
KC-135A with a bottle of water from the nearby
Cedar River. Boeing 'bet the farm' on the
success of the KC-135 and potential jet
airliner sales. Failure of both could have
crippled the company despite its production
of B-47s and B-52s. Author's collection
1957, the first KC-135A conducted 12 test
flights totaling 55 hours, 35 minutes to check
Boeing's 'estimated performance and stability
data ... to determine if the [specified] stability
and control requirements ... were met'.90 Cap-
tain Charles L Gandy served as project pilot,
with B Lyle Schofield as project engineer.
Results of the Phase II tests were mixed. The
airplane was described as 'a great improve-
ment over previous tanker aircraft in speed, alti-
tude, and fuel off-load capabilities. The flight
characteristics generally are good' .91 An offload
of 26,650 gallons (100,880 Iitres) of fuel could
be achieved by the KC-135 versus only 14,980
gallons (56,705litres) from the KC-97F. Air refu-
eling altitudes were now compatible with the
operational altitudes of existing bombers and
fighters, increasing from 18,000ft (5,485m) with
the KC-97F to 35,000ft (10,668m) with the Stra-
totanker, significantly enhancing the range of
the B-47 and B-52. The test KC-135A was now
limited to Mach 0.87 or 350 knots indicated air-
speed (KIAS) because of the rudder flutter,
although test crews felt that this speed could be
easily exceeded. Service ceiling at military
power with a take-off gross weight of 242,5001b
(1 09,998kg) was 39,500ft (12,039m), with a sea
level rate of climb of 2,200ft (670.5m) per
minute. 9'
The KC-135A's performance in the approach
and landing modes was far superior to any
existing large transports. A self-contained fuel-
air starter in the KC-135's No.4 engine allowed
engine starts without the aid of ground equip-
ment, a definite advantage for alert responses,
although this was not without its own develop-
mental difficulties.
Despite these advantages, the KC-135A was
beset by three critical deficiencies which seri-
ously compromised its refueling mission:
'(1) poor dynamic lateral direction stability,
(2) high boom maneuvering stick forces and
inadequate control of the flying boom, and (3)
unsafe heavy weight take-off and initial climb
performance under engine out conditions.' 93
At extremely low speeds the airplane was
especially susceptible to high sink rates, abrupt
pitch-up tendencies, and an excessive stall buf-
fet range. Further, under asymmetric power
conditions, full rudder deflection could not be
obtained below 140 KIAS without placing the
airplane in a dangerous flight attitude.
The poor dynamic lateral directional instabili-
ty (also known as 'dutch roll' - so named
because of its resemblance to the rhythmic
rocking and rolling motion of an ice skater)
was, in part, inherent in the KC-135A's swept-
wing design." Boeing was well aware of this
problem, and intended to use a yaw damper to
alleviate it. Unfortunately, the yaw damper was
part of the yet-to-be-installed and tested Lear
MC-1 autopilot, which itself was the subject of
considerable developmental problems. Until
the autopilot with yaw damper could be
installed, dutch roll remained a serious prob-
lem, especially during air refueling and landing.

33
 Air refueling operations 'were not completely
satisfactory', and were difficult to accomplish
even in lightly turbulent air. Other deficiencies
included unsatisfactory crew escape provision,
particularly for high speed or other than normal
g-Ioading conditions, ie no ejection seats, and
there was no oxygen source for use by passen-
gers carried in the cargo compartment. 'Ex-
treme forces' were required to maneuver the
aerial refueling boom and the available control
envelope of the boom was 'unacceptable'."'
The boom operator's prone couch was inade-
quate, the boom pod was bitterly cold and
lacked any means of emergency egress, and
there was insufficient visibility of the receiver
during aerial refueling.
Of major concern were the unsatisfactory
take-off and initial climb performance due to
'insufficient power' under engine-out condi-
tions. The first airplane was equipped with non-
production Pratt & Whitney J57-P-29A engines
rated at 10,5001b (46.7kN) of thrust (dry) and
12,1 OOlb (53.8kN) of thrust with water injection.
Although the more powerful J57-P-43Ws (rated
at 13,7501b [61.6kN) of static thrust with water
injection) were installed on the other test air-
34
planes (and the KC-135A fleet), the 'insufficient
power' problem remained. For example, at a
gross weight of 262,0001b (118,843kg), landing
gear down, and the flaps set at the prescribed
0
40 take-off position, the KC-135A had a zero
rate of climb with only three engines operat-
ing. 96 Because SAC planned to operate the type
with a gross take-off weight of 297,0001b
(134, 719kg), this meant that an engine-out air-
plane could neither climb nor maintain altitude
and would most likely crash after take-off.
Solutions to these problems were immedi-
ately forthcoming, but not necessarily immedi-
ately implemented. These included:
'(1) improvements to make the KC-135A fully
capable of performing its design mission, (2)
improvements to eliminate annoying and dis-
tracting factors in aircraft operation, (3) items of
major importance which required further study
and development, and (4) deficiencies of a sec-
ondary importance but which should be cor-
rected in production aircraft.' 97
The Lear MC-1 autopilot and yaw damper
were installed on most subsequent test air-
planes, and AFFTC undertook are-evaluation
of the KC-135A's lateral instability problem.
The moment of truth. 'Dix' Loesch climbs the
ladder on 31st August 1956, for the KC-135's
maiden flight. 'Tex' Johnston awaits, wearing a
new pair of cowboy boots custom made for the
inaugural flight - his long-standing tradition.
They brought good luck to the 1hr 19 min first
flight, and a long life to the KC-135 production
run and operational lifetime.
Boeing P-17342, courtesy Marilyn Phipps
Reliability of the autopilot, however, was 'poor',
and the yaw damper was considered 'unsatis-
factory' at its existing stage of development; the
lateral instability remained'"
Despite the increased thrust available with
the production J57-P-43Ws, the KC-135A's
engine-out performance remained unsatisfac-
tory, particularly under high gross weight oper-
ating conditions.
Unorthodox Proposals
In January 1958 the All American engineering
firm offered a unique solution to resolve two of
the most significant problems with the KC-135:
its poor take-off performance when fully loaded
for wartime conditions (as when it was on alert);
 and its inability to disperse to small airports The wingtip pod had the advantage of being 20 minute flight from Seattle on 28th May 1958,
(and their short runways) in an effort to reduce removable when not required and could be defined the new boom envelope for three Mach
the tanker's vulnerability to a pre-emptive or transported easily inside the KC-135 when numbers at 35,000ft (10,668m) during repeat-
sneak attack. deploying to a short field where the pods would ed contacts with a B-52. AFFTC personnel
Using two Turbo-Cat launchers and four then be installed. The pods had aerodynamic found that boom control was improved although
arresting gear units (each valued at $2.6 mil- intake covers which closed following take-off to some aspects were still unsatisfactory (such as
lion), All American claimed tbat it could launch reduce drag during cruise, offered good slow poor control olthe boom through the automatic
five fully loaded B-52s and four KC-135As in speed performance, and reduced foreign object disconnect envelope) .'05
less than 15 minutes, with the first launch in less damage (FOD) during ground operations. Boeing used the second KC-135A (55-3119)
than seven minutes and using less than 5,000ft The booster engines offered a considerable for static air load survey tests, and five others
(1 ,524m)of runway." The Turbo-Cat launchers increase in performance. With four wingtip were used for other phase testing. KC-135A 55-
were powered by six Allison J33-A-16A jet en- XJ99s, the KC-135's take-off ground roll de- 3122 participated in the Phase IV performance
gines, generating some 50,000hp (37,300kW) creased from the existing 10,900ft (3,322m) to evaluation, 55-3124 took part in the Phase IV
for launch with an unspecified number of gs. 5,700ft (1,737m). When operating from short Stability tests, 55-3121 was destined for Phase
The arresting cables were attached to large runways, the airplane was normally limited to a V adverse weather tests, and KC-135As 55-
plungers which would distribute the landing air- gross weight at take-off of 228,0001b 3125 and 55-3126 conducted Phase VI func-
plane's energy through huge cylinders of water (103,420kg), a figure which increased to tional development tests. The Air Force bailed
alongside and beneath the runway. The com- 296,0001b (134,265kg) with the addition of the 56-3591 back to Boeing for high gross weight
pany promised to stop KC-135s (at up to four boosters, allowing the airplane to double and air refueling compatibility testing.
350,0001b [158,760kg] gross weight) in less its fuel offload available from 41 ,000 to 82,0001b
than 2,000ft (609m) of runway under 1.5g con- (18,591 to 37, 195kg). The first flight test was Performance Tests
ditions at two minute intervals. projected to take place 28 months after pro- From 1st June 1957, through 17th February
This radical program found favor among few gram approval and Allison promised initial 1958, AFFTC evaluated KC-135A 55-3122 as
of SAC's leaders. While it offered an unusual delivery ten months after that. By 1970, howev- part of Phase IV performance testing, involving
solution to a major problem, SAC commanders er, sufficient research had been undertaken on 34 flights totaling 77 hours, 55 minutes. The
felt that it smacked too much of naval carrier re-engining the KC-135 to eliminate the need project pilot was Major Reese S Martin, with
operations. Having just endured a major inter- for these boosters. Marion H Yancey as project engineer. Specific
service budget and policy battle over the merits Following Phase II testing, 55-3118 returned test goals were the acquisition of performance
of new Air Force strategic bombers versus to Boeing. By late February 1957 Boeing had data to revise the KC-135A's flight handbook
additional Navy carriers, it is not surprising that stiffened the vertical fin by overlapping addi- and Standard Aircraft Characteristics Charts. 106
despite initial funding, the Air Force allowed tional skin on the top portion of the fin and by This airplane had production J57-P-43Ws and
this proposal to die a quiet death. 100 installing dual rudder tab dampers to provide had a basic weight of 97,0001b (43,999kg) plus
Large jet arrested landings were not so easily more constant control over existing rudder 1,0001b (453kg) of test equipment. It could
ignored. The FAA actually tested its Boeing 720 oscillations. These modifications were suffi- offload 26,300 gallons (99,556 litres) of fuel at a
(N113) complete with tail hook at NAS Lake- cient to correct the rudder flutter problem. As rate of 900 gallons (3,406 litres) per minute,
hurst, New Jersey, in 1962. The $966,000 con- they were considered the result of a design with a nontransferable reserve of 1,200 gallons
tract with All American was part of a competition flaw, Boeing paid for the modification. '04 (4,542Iitres).
with the E W Bliss Company's Launch and In an effort to rectify the poor air refueling Phase IV Performance test results confirmed
Recovery Equipment Division for an airliner boom control, Boeing tested a hydraulically- the problems identified by KC-135A 55-3118
launch and arresting system. Airline interest in powered boom on 55-3118. A single six hour, during Phase II tests:
this effort, not surprisingly, also failed to materi-
alize. '01 Additionally, Boeing proposed a carrier
on-board delivery (COD) variant of its 727 tri-jet
airliner, going so far as demonstrating the air-
plane's capabilities on the simulated carrier
deck at Patuxent River, Maryland. '02
A 1970 proposal suggested that either two or
four Rolls Royce-Allison XJ99 booster engines
be added to the KC-135's existing four Pratt &
Whitney turbojets. 103 Studies with Boeing indi-
cated that two booster engines installed at
r', each wingtip was the most suitable arrange-
s- ment, with alternate locations including the
1e lower rear fuselage (similar to the Boeing 727)
or in Whitcomb fairings on top of each wing.
th
.os
c-
In addition to evaluating catapult launchers and
arresting cable landing systems, engineers
sought to improve the KC-135's poor heavy-
weight performance by installing booster pods,
either in a wingtip configuration or in pods
Ig slung beneath each wing between the two J57
Df engines. Like the jet-augmented 8-36, the
booster engines were intended for use during
5:
take-off, but could be used during cruise.
d Otherwise, they were closed off to reduce drag.
); Jim Moseley collection

35

'The capability of the KC-135A to accomplish
its design mission is seriously compromised by
the following problem areas.
'1. Reduced take-off gross weights required
by critical field length based on a 10,OOOft run-
way being available to using commands.
'2. High boom maneuvering stick forces and
inadequate control of the boom throughout its
automatic disconnect envelope.
'3. Lateral-direction oscillations occurring at
refueling speeds and altitudes make off-load-
ing almost impossible in heavy turbulence
without stability augmentation. Refueling
under these conditions may be marginal even
with stability augmentation.' 107
Estimated take-off performance data were
too optimistic as the airplane's gross weight
increased. At the maximum gross take-off
weight of 297,OOOIb (134,719kg), the KC-135A
required a ground roll of 9,250ft (282,819m) on
0
a standard day [59 Fahrenheit (F) and sea
level pressure].
On a hot, high pressure altitude day, ground
roll increased requiring the KC-135A to download
fuel or it could not take-off, both undesirable
wartime alternatives. lOB Maximum level flight
speed was Mach 0.882 at 30,000ft (9, 144m) at
148,5001b (67,359kg), and Mach 0.842 at
35,OOOft (10,668m) at 252,OOOlb (114,307kg).
Mission range was 2,932 nautical miles
(5,432km) with a transfer of 94,8001b (43,001 kg)
offuel."l9
36
Another shortcoming was the KC-135A's
inability to 'buddy' refuel the 8-58 Hustler. This
involved flying in formation with the 8-58 from
take-off to the refueling. As the Hustler flew at
supersonic speeds, the KC-135A could not
maintain formation with it.
Two solutions were forwarded. The first
required the 8-58 to fly at subsonic speed to the
air refueling point with the KC-135A, on-load
fuel, and then accelerate to supersonic speed
forthe remainder of its flight. This profile so seri-
ously degraded the 8-58's range and perfor-
mance that it required more fuel to accomplish
the mission with the tanker than without any
'buddy' air refueling at all. The other solution
involved the installation of afterburners on the
KC-135A's engines. Realistically, the KC-135A
was simply not suited for supersonic flight, and
both ideas were dismissed. 11O The boom was
also limited to 288 KIAS, forcing the 8-58 to
refuel in a region where it suffered from exces-
sive drag and required more fuel. Efforts were
made to correct this deficiency and the boom
placard speed was increased to 330 KIAS."1
The method eventually used to refuel 8-58s
was the same as that used to refuel 8-47s from
KC-97s. 8y prepositioning the tanker at forward
operating locations, the 8-58 and KC-135 could
take-off at the same time and, with the 8-58 at
supersonic speed, the two would reach the air
refueling point simultaneously, alleviating the
need for 'buddy' refueling.
Results of the KC-135A's initial evaluation nig
were mixed. In flight tests from Edwards AFB, est
55-3118 showed good qualities - superior 'USl
speed, range, altitude, and fuel off-load when
nal
compared with its predecessor, the KC-97.
The new tanker also showed its bad side - thE
poor dutch roll Characteristics, inadequate mE
boom handling qualities, and a critical lack
of power, particularly in heavy-weight or art
engine out situations. USAF, author's collection
sp
After completing initial Phase I and II flight icil
tests at Edwards AFB, 55-3118 returned to tic
Boeing where it continued test and evaluation se
duties for Boeing until 1960, when it was vic
eventually transferred to Wright-Patterson AFB.
im
High-visibility dayglo markings have faded to
white, and the rudder bears AFFTC markings tel
no longer present on the vertical stabilizer. ar
Boeing P-25196, courtesy Marilyn Phipps pl.
d
tic
th
bl
m
In order to obtain complete handling, stabili- m
ty, and control data and to verify 80eing's com- it
pliance with military design specifications, u:
KC-135A 55-3124 participated in Phase IV sta-
qility tests from 15th June 1957, through 11th
February 1958 (although one such flight was 't"t
undertaken by KC-135A 55-3122). Project pilot 1
was Major Jones P Siegler and Charles C I<
Crawford served as the project engineer. The (
program involved 22 flights totaling 112 1
hours.'" 55-3124 lacked several systems t
installed on other airplanes, including the water t
injection and a brake anti-skid systems. A com-
plete autopilot was not installed until half-way
through the test program. The airplane was
equipped with a 170in (4.3m) long nose boom
containing airspeed systems and test vanes
. designed to measure angle of attack and
sideslip forces.
Phase IV tests involved flights in a variety of
configurations ranging from take-off through
approach and landing. Test results were no dif-
ferent than those obtained previously:
'Excessive stick lightening and force gradi-
ent reversal with increasing load factors reduce
safe maneuvering capabilities. With an out-
board engine failure, there is insufficient rudder
power for adequate control during take-off at
calibrated speeds less than 136 knots ... This
deficiency will be more critical on aircraft
equipped with water injection.' 113
Problems with the air refueling boom and the
boom compartment environment remained.
Test personnel were, however, favorably im-
pressed with the KC-135A's altitude, range,
speed, and fuel off-load capabilities, and rec-
ommended 27 improvements which they felt
would alleviate the serious inadequacies in the
KC-135A's development.
Adverse Weather Testing
In order to verify the all-weather capability ofthe
KC-135, Phase V Adverse Weather tests were
conducted to:
'(a) determine instrument condition and
 night flying characteristics of the KC-135; (b)
I, establish pilot procedures and techniques for
use during these conditions; (c) obtain prelimi-
nary icing data to determine the adequacy of
the existing anti-ice equipment; and (d) recom-
mend corrections for identified discrepancies.' 114
The icing tests would be conducted under
artificial conditions, ie produced by a water
spray tanker in front of the test airplane. Actual
icing conditions would be evaluated in the Arc-
tic portion of the Phase V tests. 55-3121 was
selected for all of these tests, having been pre-
viously fitted by Boeing with a complete test
:8.
instrumentation suite measuring 342 parame-
ters (including 141 temperature, 95 pressure,
and 61 electrical power readings). The test air-
plane also incorporated the latest engineering
change proposals (ECPs) installed on produc-
tion airplanes and retrofitted to those already in
the fleet. The airplane lacked an autopilot,
brake anti-skid system, and carried test equip-
ment in the aft portion of the cargo compart-
Jili- ment. While it was equipped with J57-P-43Ws,
m- it lacked the necessary internal plumbing to
ns, use water injection.
ta- The airplane was delivered for testing to
Ith Wright-Patterson AFB on 30th April 1957, with
'as the first adverse weather test flight on 2nd May
lot 1957.'15 Project pilots were Major Lewis E
C Kesterson and Captain Frank L Wright, with
he Captain Frank J Passarello as project engineer.
12 The airplane flew 22 flights, accumulating 78
ns hours, 40 minutes of flying time. Of that, 20
ter hours, five minutes was in actual instrument fly-
m- ing conditions. The last test flight was on 22nd
ay June 1957, after which the airplane began Arc-
as tic testing.
>m Test results were favorable, with no signifi-
es cant increase in pilot workload during instru-
1d ment flying conditions. The pilots' instrument
panels were found to be poorly arranged, and
of were tested in several configurations prior to
~h choosing an acceptable final layout. Handling
Iif- in turbulence was notably less successful. The
KC-135 suffered excessive roll and yaw in con-
jj- ditions of light to moderate turbulence due to
ce the lack of a yaw damper. During an inadvertent
It- thunderstorm penetration by another test fleet
er KC-135, the airplane experienced heavy turbu-
0
at lence and yawed some 25 either side of cen-
lis ter, an excessive rate for a large airplane."·
3.ft Artificial icing tests were accomplished in
conjunction with a KB-29 tanker and included
1e three icing runs totaling approximately one
d. hour, 15 minutes. At this stage of development,
n- early KC-135As incorporated a wing and em-
Ie, pennage surface anti-icing system which
,c- removed over 1 in (2.5cm) of ice on the leading
3.lt edge of the wings and stabilizers within one
1e minute of activation. Despite this impressive
capability, this equipment was deleted on pro-
duction airplanes because it required extensive
regular maintenance. Further, the engine bleed
1e air ducts along the leading edge of the wing
re adequately heated the wing leading edge to
prevent icing, whtle ice build-up on the empen-
Id nage was not considered sufficient to require a
special anti-icing system. The pitot system was
particularly vulnerable to icing. The unheated
pitot mast was replaced during the tests with a
heated mast from a B-52. The KC-135 wind-
shield heating system was also inadequate and
identified for improvement.
Overall, the Phase V tests showed that the
KC-135 had 'satisfactory handling qualities for
instrument flight if flown according to the pro-
cedures recommended' by the test report. The
report emphasized the poor handling of the air-
plane in turbulence due to the lack of a yaw
damper, and otherwise identified nine unsatis-
factory areas in the airplane's adverse weather
capabilities. ll7
The same KC-135 was then subjected to
extreme cold conditions to:
'(a) determine the adequacy of the airplane's
systems while operating in very cold weather;
(b) identify and correct any design deficiencies
which would detract from cold weather opera-
tions; (c) determine changes or additions to the
KC-135A flight handbook; and (d) compile
environmental data for design purposes.' ".
Static ground tests were undertaken at the
Air Force's Climatic Projects Laboratory at Eg-
lin AFB with the Arctic tests conducted at Eiel-
son AFB, Alaska. Results of these tests were of
particular interest to SAC, as KC-135s had
already been delivered to (or were scheduled
for) locations noted for their extreme winters
(such as Minot AFB, North Dakota, or Loring
AFB, Maine).
On 24th June 1957, 55-3121 arrived at Eglin
AFB for static tests with a total flying time of 137
hours, five minutes. Project pilot was again
Major Kesterson, with project engineers Cap-
tain William C Dale and Second Lieutenant
Reed S Nelson of WADC's Directorate of Flight
and All-Weather Testing. The airplane was
positioned in the laboratory on 9th July 1957,
and configured for testing. Exhaust ducts were
attached to engines Nos.2 and 4, and the air-
plane was moored to the hangar floor and the
landing gear restrained with cables. A fuel trail-
er was positioned behind the KC-135 and a
standard air refueling receptacle was fitted to a
makeshift stand for boom and refueling tests.
Approximately 30,OOOIb (13,608kg) of fuel were
transferred to this 'receiver' at each tempera-
ture tested.
On 13th July the temperature in the laborato-
ry hangar was lowered from a hot Florida sum-
mer's day to a balmy 70°F and allowed to
stabilize. Following a cold-soak period of 48
hours, testing began on 15th July 1957. On
20th July, the temperature was further lowered
to OaF, and, following the requisite 48 hour cold-
soak period, the tests were repeated. A week
later the temperature was lowered to -30°F,
and the process repeated. The temperature
was reset to -65°F on 3rd August and the final
series of tests completed. On 22nd August, the
temperature was raised to + 70°F prior to
removing the airplane from the test hangar.
Static testing ended on 26th August 1957, and
after a complete inspection, the airplane re-
turned to Wright-Patterson AFB on 16th Sep-
tember 1957.
Following routine modification and the incor-
poration of additional ECPs, 55-3121 departed
Wright-Patterson AFB on 14th November 1957,
for Eielson AFB. While in Alaska the airplane
did not receive any special cold-protective
measures, although it was placed in a hangar
for 16 days while undergoing repair of the left
hydraulic system.'" The airplane made 16
flights totaling 75 hours, ten minutes, with take-
offs made in temperatures ranging from +22°
to -36°F. Testing was completed and the air-
plane returned to Wright-Patterson AFB on
24th February 1958.
Arctic test results were disappointing, but
useful. A number of weaknesses were identi-
fied which compromised the airplane's Arctic
mission capability, and 69 Unsatisfactory
Reports were submitted for review as a result of
the tests."o Most notable among these were
inadequate directional control on take-off and
continued poor reliability of the engine starter
system. The time required to repair cold-
induced deficiencies further degraded the cold
weather capability.'21 After more than 30 years,
many of the problems identified in these tests
remain uncorrected. For example, the need to
preheat engines and fuel control units still
exists. Although this requirement might only
hamper routine operations, it potentially nulli-
fies the KC-135's quick reaction start and
launch capability. Rudder authority for direc-
tional control in engine-out take-offs remains
likewise degraded without adequate hydraulic
warmup time prior to flight.
Phase V adverse weather testing concluded
with hot weather evaluations at MCAS Yuma,
Arizona. Dates and results of these tests have
not been made available for this history.
KC-135As 55-3125 and 55-3126 participated
in tests designed 'to provide an engineering
evaluation of the functional characteristics, dur-
ability and maintainability of the aircraft, the
individual components and systems, and the
complete support system'.'" These tests were
conducted from 4th June 1957, through 8th
November 1957, and required 577 hours, 20
minutes of flying time. Additional data were
acquired from the other test aircraft also locat-
ed at Edwards AFB. Project officer was Lieu-
tenant Colonel George A Kirsch, project pilot
was Captain Charles Gandy Jr, and project
engineer was First Lieutenant Douglas Nielsen.
Phase VI Functional Development Testing
focused upon three main areas: pilot familiar-
ization, systems evaluation, and functional reli-
ability. Half of the flying time was dedicated to
systems evaluation with the remainder of flying
hours divided between pilot familiarization and
functional reliability tests.
Five pilots from the 93rd AREFS, 93rd BW,
Castle AFB, California, were qualified during
Phase VI testing. These pilots would serve as
the initial cadre of instructors at Castle AFB
when that base began operational conversion
and training of SAC flight crews.'" Over 1,000
37

SAC line maintenance personnel received on-
the-job training as well.
Systems evaluations included rigorous and
exhaustive operation of hydraulic, pneumatic,
engine, fuel, and other component systems,
usually at their operating limits. Based on a two-
shift six-day work week during the first three
months of the program (and a two-shift five-day
work week during the final two months), the
KC-135A demonstrated an out-of-commission
time of 2.4 hours for every hour of in-commis-
sion time, with an overall in-commission rate of
57.2%.'2'
KC-135A 55-3125 was fitted with special
equipment for a landing gear load survey. In
September 1957 it flew to Seattle where it was
taxied over a variety of surfaces. These landing
gear load tests would help to validate Boeing's
'heavyweight' tanker, now the de facto winner
in the Air Force's tanker competition.
The Phase VI final report identified numerous
areas of concern for KC-135A maintenance and
logistics personnel, specifying 98 deficiencies
which required correction. For example, the air-
plane suffered from excessive fuel tank conta-
mination as well as a high malfunction rate of
the electronic navigation equipment. In gener-
al, however, the report was favorable:
"Overall aircraft maintenance required a total
of 35 direct man-hours/flying for hour [sic] dur-
ing the Phase VI test which was very favorable
for an aircraft this size. Accessibility for mainte-
nance and the general maintenance environ-
ment, with minor exceptions, are considered
excellent.' 125
Accelerated Production Problems
Although the one-of-a-kind 'Dash 80' had ade-
quately demonstrated the concept and feasibil-
ity of a jet transport and tanker, it could not
inherently validate the individual components
and production methods involved in the mass
assembly of the KC-135. As with many new
weapon systems, problems with a few compo-
nents degraded the overall success of the Stra-
totanker. Part of this derived from the KC-135's
expedited procurement schedule. Boeing had
little more than two years to deliver the first
example, dramatically reducing the amount of
time available to design and develop many of
the subsystems intended for the new airplane.
38
In December 1954 Boeing engineer A I Ost-
lund expressed concern that the accelerated
delivery schedule failed to allow sufficient time
to develop and flight test the KC-135's autopilot
system. Instead he recommended the selec-
tion of an 'off-the-shelf' autopilot. Several new
systems were considered but not chosen as
they had yet to complete testing, while the
Sperry A-12D autopilot (used on the B-47) was
available but deemed 'somewhat obsolete' and
'should not be considered for the tanker air-
planes.' '2.
Of the two remaining autopilot candidates,
Boeing preferred the Minneapolis-Honeywell
MH-43 over the Lear L-10. The former would be
easier to incorporate, had a proven operational
record in the North American F-89D Scorpion,
had effectively eliminated existing problems
with the autopilot vertical gyro unit, was farther
advanced than the Lear product, and the engi-
neering staff at Honeywell enjoyed the fullest
confidence of the Boeing engineers.'27
The Air Force, however, proved unrespon-
sive to Boeing's request for the necessary engi-
neering specifications needed to select an
autopilot. Specifically, WADC could not agree
upon a satisfactory interpretation of purchasing
regulations to allow the release of the requisite
data.'2·lt was not until 4th March 1955, after five
months of bureaucratic wrangling, that bids
were finally mailed to autopilot manufacturers.
During June 1955, ten months after the need
for an autopilot was established, AMC selected
the unproven Lear autopilot for the KC-135 129
Why Lear was selected over the recommended
Honeywell system is not known.
The KC-135's autopilot was now designated
as government-furnished aircraft equipment
(GFAE). As Boeing predicted, Lear failed to de-
liver the prototype autopilots on schedule. By
October 1955 this delay was seen to 'critically
affect the reliability of production autopilots in
the KC-135A'. 130 A strike at the Lear plant and
engineering problems further compromised
production.
It was not until 9th July 1956, some 13
months after Lear was contracted to deliver an
off-the-shelf autopilot, that the first MC-1 sys-
tem (formerly designated the L-10) was test
flown in the 'Dash 80'. By September 1956 the
autopilot had demonstrated a consistent track
In the latter half of 1957, KC-135A 55-3125
(along with 55-3126) participated in Phase VI
tests. During these tests, the initial SAC cadre
of pilots, navigators, 'boomers', and ground
crew received their initial qualification on the
new airplane. Note the lack of leading edge
flaps, which were not added until 1959, improv·
ing the KC-135's stall speed by six knots.
USAF, author's collection
record offailures. Continued engineering prob-
lems and a shortage of usable autopilot com- s
ponents further aggravated the situation. Boeing r
was forced to deliver the first tankers without A
autopilots and a major retrofit program seemed
inevitable.'3'
By January 1958, a year and a half after the
KC-135's first flight, the autopilot problem was
still unresolved. Boeing was pressed to deliver
KC-135s to the Air Force without operable auto-
pilots as those units delivered by Lear were
found to be riddled with discrepancies and
even unsafe.'32 AMC intervened directly with
Lear and instituted strict production control
measures that it hoped would rectify the disap-
pointing situation; these were marginally suc-
cessful. Autopilot problems were to plague the
KC-135 fleet for the next four decades.
Engine Selection
The KC-135 was designed from the outset with
Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojets. The first three air-
planes had J57-P-29Ws, although these were
eventually replaced with the same J57-P-31 Ws
installed on the other 26 interim tankers. AMC's
goal was to use the J57-P-43W engine in both
fleets of KC-135s and B-52s, enabling the Air
Force to reduce its engine inventory. Since the
tankers and bombers were usually co-located,
the common engine would reduce mainte-
nance and logistics problems, and allow for
'out-of-the-can' engine interchangeability.'33
However, AMC planners were pessimistic that
the engine production rate required to achieve
this goal could not be attained until the 80th
tanker was ready for engine installation.
By May 1956 sufficient J57-P-43Ws had
been produced to install them instead of the
J57-P-31Ws on the first 29 airplanes. SAC
argued, however, that these interim tankers
would be used only for training and should not
receive the costly modifications necessary to
alter the existing water injection system.'34The
J57-P-31 W used a lower water injection flow
rate than did the J57-P-43W which required .a
more extensive water injection system. Further,
the more powerful water injection pumps in the
newer engines were still unproven. As of April
1957, some KC-135s were moving along the
assembly line with concrete blocks suspended
from the engine pylons simulating the weight
and moment of the absent engines.'3'
AMC recommended that the J57-P-31Ws be
uprated, that Boeing intensify its efforts to dev-
elop the high capacity water pump, and that the
J57-P-43W engine be installed on the fourth
 and subsequent examples. Should Boeing's under Project 'Quick Switch', and the lighter and TF33-PW-102s. A more recent solution to
pump improvement efforts fail, Pratt & Whitney engines installed on the B-52. Although this the fuel icing problem has been the addition to
re
was instructed to make a 'derating' kit de- would result in significant savings, it effectively the fuel of an anti-icing mixture.
signed to make it possible to use J57-P-43Ws negated the out-of-the-can interchangeability The No.4 engine Hamilton-Standard fuel air
on the first 29 airplanes but with a decreased for the KC-135 and B-52, which was always starter, used to ground start that engine (the
ov· water injection rate. These developmental ef- more illusory than practical. For example, in others were then started pneumatically by
forts were successful and Boeing installed the addition to the basic engine, a Quick Engine bleed air from the No.4 engine), was yet anoth-
J57-P-43Ws on the remaining undelivered air- Change (QEC) kit included a nose ring cowl, er source of unsatisfactory performance. Since
planes. nose dome, starter and associated ducting, the first airplane had been delivered, the fuel air
Accelerated development of the J57-P-43W water tubing and pumps, tail cone, exhaust starters had a dismal 50% failure rate, usually
engine was not without its side effects. A proce- duct, plus other associated parts, all necessary requiring four or five attempts per successful
ob- dure for the rapid spot welding of the first four to adapt a bare engine to the KC-135 or B-52. start. Redesign of the combustion chamber,
lm- stages of the engine's aluminum stator vanes Once configured with its appropriate QEC kit, among other engineering changes, corrected
ing resulted in flaws in 68 engines delivered to the the engine then had to be installed in a specific this problem. A later solution involved the
out Air Force, necessitating considerable repair position (Nos.1, 2 or 3, or 4 on the KC-135, or installation of a 3,0001b per square inch (psi)
led work. inboard or outboard in each pylon on the B-52) , metal air bottle in the No.4 engine strut. 136 Com-
On 16th October 1956, AMC directed that the further reducing simple engine interchange- pressed air was piped from this bottle to the
the steel J57-P/F-59W engine replace the titanium ability. starter for engine start, after which a small elec-
vas J57-P-43W engine in the KC-135. The steel The J57-P/F-59W was not without develop- trically-operated compressor recharged the
ver engine weighed 400 pounds more than the tita- mental problems of its own. Repeated in- bottle for the next start. This system was sub-
Ito- nium version but cost $100,000 less per stances of icing in the engine fuel controls ject to considerable maintenance and was
ere engine. Tankers already delivered with the tita- resulted in mission aborts and engine flame- eventually replaced beginning in November
Ind nium J57-P-43W engines would be retrofitted outs. Although icing was not a new phenome- 1962 by more capable starters and ground
lith non, the need to resolve this problem became start carts (and explosive cartridge starters for
trol acute because of the routine high altitude oper- alert starts).
3p- ations of the KC-135 and B-52. As the airplanes By December 1957 repeated overheating of
uc- climbed to high altitude, water droplets in the the KC-i35's hydraulic system reached near-
the fuel froze and blocked fuel lines and control epidemic proportions. Designed to operate at
Seven KC-135s appear in varying stages of
completion on the Renton assembly line.
units, starving the engine offuel. temperatures from _65· Centigrade (C) to
Visible in the upper left are two 707s. The fix involved stricter attention to avoiding +160·C, the actual pump, reservoir, and return
Accelerated KC-135 production brought with it fuel tank contamination (in the form of a fungus line temperature ranged between +400°C and
lith a number of problems, ranging from a lack of that thrived in the tanks) and the installation of +450°C.137 Filters and cooling loops were in-
:lir- engines to autopilots. Co-production with the fuel system heaters in the KC-135. These fuel stalled to increase both the air flow over and
707 brought contract wrangles that jeopardized
3re heaters have since been removed from J57-P/ surface area of the hydraulic system. Filters
707 deliveries to an anxious airline community
Ns willing to buy DC·as from Boeing's competitor. F-43W and J57-P/F-59W engines and either also removed foreign particles which clogged
~'s Boeing P-18689, courtesy Marilyn Phipps removed or deactivated in TF33-P-5, TF33-P-9, pumps and caused them to run hotter.
lth
Air
he
3d,
te-
for
133

lat
ve
lth

ad
he
\C
lrs
lot
to
he
)w
I,a
er,
he
)ril
he
3d
Iht

)e
~v­

1e
th

39
Wet versus Dry
The adverse effects resulting from the short
time available to Boeing to produce the first
Stratotanker affected not only the subsystems
installed on the airplane but its overall design
as well. To increase engine thrust, demineral-
ized water could be injected into each engine
for nearly two minutes beginning at take-off and
continuing through initial climbout, adding
approximately 2,2501b (10.0kN) of thrust per
engine.
Boeing engineers felt that four separate
water injection control systems would be need-
lessly repetitive and instead settled on two sys-
tems. The left system provided water for the two
left engines and the right system provided
water for the two right engines. This arrange-
ment ignored the disastrous potential given the
loss of one system during the critical take-off
phase, particularly when the airplane was
extremely heavy with fuel or under strong or
gusty crosswind conditions. Should water in-
jection be lost on one side, the extra 4,5001b
(20.1 kN) of thrust on the opposite side would
provide greater lift and raise that wing, leading
to a low altitude stall or cartwheel and crash.
After several crashes due to loss of thrust on
one side during take-off, Boeing redesigned
the water injection system to the inboard
engine-outboard engine pair system. By 1969
all KC-135A, C-135F, and C-135A airframes
and their derivatives which used water injection
had the newer and somewhat safer system.
Still, the water injection system left a great deal
to be desired in terms of operational restric-
tions, temperature constraints, maintenance
and logistics, and safety. Consequently, Boe-
ing recommended that the KC-135A's J57 tur-
bojet engines be replaced with TF33 turbofan
engines, increasing thrust by over 6,8001b
(30.2kN) per engine.
MAC accepted this recommendation for its
30 new C-135Bs, a wise move considering the
same engine core was installed in their new
Lockheed C-141 A Starlifters. SAC was not
impressed and installed the turbofan only on its
new fleet of 17 KC-135B airborne command
posts and ten RC-135B aerial reconnaissance
platforms. Boeing made an offer to deliver
future KC-135As with the newer engines along
with a re-engining program for those already
delivered (well over 400 airplanes), but SAC
declined. The reason for this has never been
made clear. Unconfirmed reports suggest that
SAC did not want to complicate its logistics sys-
tem with two sets of engines. Another report
claims that SAC could not afford the re-engin-
ing without sacrificing undelivered airplanes.
Yet another report, however apocryphal, con-
tends that LeMay, when told of the fuel savings
offered by the new turbofan, responded that
'gas is cheap, engines aren't'. Twenty years
later, SAC found that gas was no longer cheap,
and the same engines it was now buying for the
KC-135E were far more expensive than they
were when Boeing first offered the conversion.
The turbofan engines also eliminated the tur-
40
bojets' need for demineralized water to in-
crease take-off thrust. Each full load of water
weighed nearly three tons, weight not available
as extra fuel or cargo, and demineralized water
costs nearly the same as jet fuel. When water
was unavailable, take-off loads were de-
creased, hence requiring more than one air-
plane to do the job of a single tanker. When the
water injection system failed, the water was
dumped overboard to decrease weight further
for a 'dry' take-off. Millions of dollars could have
been saved by eliminating the need for dem-
ineralized water, more than enough to re-
engine the entire fleet several times over.
The turbojet engines used on the KC-135 -
particularly when augmented with water injec-
tion - produced a deafening noise. This caused
considerable sonic damage to the aft fuselage,
an area especially vulnerable to dynamic stress-
es in turns and maneuvering flight. To strength-
en the aft fuselage, 25 circumferential bands
2in (5cm) wide were bonded onto the exterior
of the airplane aft of the wing root and forward
of the horizontal stabilizer. These bands are on
all variants of the KC-135, regardless of engine
type.
By the end of 1958, when the 200th KC-135
took off on its maiden flight, the fleet' was
already showing signs of structural weakness
such as cFacks in the wing splice plates. By
1961 fractures appeared in wing leading edge
panels and in the wing skin, a problem that had
not only structural implications but, since the
KC-135 has a 'wet' wing, meant dangerous fuel
leak problems. Changes were made to produc-
tion airplanes, but those in service continued
operations without a fix pending a decision by
Boeing and Air Force engineers.
This decision was reached on 10th July
1961, when Project 'Wing Fix' was instituted at
the Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area (OCAMA)
at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.'" The airplanes most
in need of repair (32 were considered 'critical')
were fixed first, followed by the balance of the
KC-135 fleet. The urgency of this problem was
considerable, as nearly two months later an
unmodified aircraft landed with a 27in (68.5cm)
crack in the wing, caused by an overstressed
wing fastener. This occurred after only 970 total
flight hours, a problem forecast by static testing
not to occur until 7,640 flight hours.
Over the next two years, these structural
problems were eventually minimized, if not re-
solved. One problem remained, however,
which SAC considered 'the most significant
KC-135 concern in 1962': rudder directional
stability and control characteristics.'39
The KC-135A, like the 'Dash 80' prototype,
was designed and built with the so-called
'short' vertical stabilizer. The rudder was manu-
ally operated, meaning that rudder displace-
ment was contingent upon the strength in the
pilot's leg. Flight tests found that the amount of
rudder available to the pilot in an asymmetric
engine situation (especially following the loss
of an outboard engine at full take-off thrust with
water injection operating) was inadequate, and
the pilot could not control the airplane within
the safe design parameters.
In addition, training on the 707 required-that
pilots be able to maintain aircraft control follow-
ing the rapid cut-off of an outboard engine with
the other three engines at full take-off power
and at take-off airspeed. If the pilot failed to
react immediately and allowed excessive yaw
to build up, there was insufficient rudder auth-
ority to control the airplane and it would roll and
yaw rapidly. If still close to the ground, the air-
plane could drag a wingtip and cartwheel. Even
if the pilot intervened early, the initial abrupt
yaw is said to have on at least one occasion
created enough transverse g-forces to throw off
an outboard engine.
OCAMA proposed installing a hydraulically
powered rudder boost and an extended verti-
cal fin on a KC-135 as early as 1st November
1962. Boeing engineers redesigned the vertical
stabilizer, increasing its height by 40in (101 cm)
and increasing the surface area of the rudder.
Beginning with the 583rd KC-135A (62-3532), a
powered rudder boost system was installed
which used hydraulic pressure to move the rud-
der, dramatically reducing the pilot's workload
in engine-out conditions. Airplanes not yet
delivered had the new tail installed while still on
the assembly line, while field modification kits
for those already in service were installed at
OCAMA. Collateral work included elevator con-
trol modification, corrosion control, lower wing
reskin, and landing gear enhancement. The
first KC-135 retrofitted under this program was
from the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB.140 The 'tall
tail' greatly improved the KC-135's handling,
especially under extreme engine-out condi-
tions. In the words of Joseph Sutter, Chief of
Boeing Transport Division's aerodynamics unit
during the development of the 367-80, KC-135,
and 707, 'lots of power and lots of tail, I believe,
make for a successful airplane and a happy
pilot'.'"
By 1966 Project 'Wing Fix' was drawing to a
close, and the extended vertical stabilizer and
rudder power boost modification had been
installed on all previously unequipped exam-
ples. Unfortunately, another structural problem
began to appear: fatigue cracks in the vertical
stabilizer attachment points."2 By mid-1968 the
entire KC-135 fleet had been inspected and
unsafe aircraft had been modified.
The crash of KC-135A 56-3655 on 30th July
1968, due to the failure and separation of the
vertical stabilizer, cast serious doubts on the
safety of the KC-135 tail modifications.'" Within
a week of the crash, OCAMA had identified a fix
for the problem and presented a plan to modify
all KC-135s. On 8th August 1968, this program
was given the name 'Pacer Fin', and work
began around the clock, eventually resulting in
two ten hour shifts working seven days a week
at OCAMA and at Kadena AB, Okinawa, where
KC-135s supporting Southeast Asia combat
operations were modified. This accelerated
pace continued until 18th September 1968,
when OCAMA had modified 600 KC-135s. The
:hin

hat
)w-

lith
"fer
to
aw
Ith-
Ind
3.ir-
'en
Jpt
on
off

illy
rti-
ler
;al
n)
~r.

,a
3d
d-
3.d
et
In
its
at
n-
Ig
Ie
IS
III
~, Pilot response to the 'Dash 80' and the KC·135
Ii- was extremely positive. It was easier to handle
)f than earlier piston-powered 'heavies', had
fewer controls or indicators to worry about
lit during flight, and had a wide performance
5, range, enabling it to cruise at high speed but
operate at low speeds for approach and . span leading edge flaps and/or slats.
'y landing. As with any new airplane, however,
there were a variety of anomalies to identify
and resolve, many of which resulted from
a operations in extreme cold. Boeing P17830
d courtesy Paul H. Minert collection
n 000 and Air Force reactions to budget require-
I-
n gic bombers. The original contract specified a
II program formally ended on 27th September as
e the 688th KC-135 was handed over to SAC in a
d well-publicized ceremony. Overall, a total of
767 KC-135s of all variants received the 'Pacer
y Fin' modification, with up to 20 KC-135s modi-
e fied each day and returned to service the fol-
lowing afternoon. '44
At the slow speeds flown during take-off and
approach and landing, airflow separation lead-
ing to a wing stall begins on the wing leading
edge inboard of the outboard pylon. To in-
crease the stall margin for the KC-135 in this
slow speed regime, leading edge flaps were
installed beginning in March 1959. These flaps
are located from midway between the wing
pylons to the outer pylon, and lower the stall
speed by six knots. They extend approximately
100' when the flaps are lowered and retract
when the flaps are raised or when (on airplanes
so equipped) the NO.1 engine thrust reverser is
actuated, thus preventing damage to the lead-
ing edge flaps due to jet blast. Lessons learned
from these flaps were applied to the remainder
of Boeing's jet fleet, all of which now use full-
Production Increases
The KC-135A production rate itself was subject
to external influences, typically in the form of
ments and a growing Soviet build-up of strate-
production rate of 13 KC-135As per month,
although this was eventually increased once
production began. The appearance ofthe Sovi-
et Union's Tupolev Tu-16 'Badger' intermediate
and Tu-20 'Bear' and Myasishchev Mya-4
'Bison' strategic bombers fueled Air Force fears
over the perceived erosion of American strate-
gic superiority over its communist adversary.
Consequently, the Air Force asked to increase
the production rate of the B-52 and KC-135, the
two key elements in its own strategic modern-
ization program. Before the first KC-135A flew,
over $150 million had been requested and
approved to increase the KC-135A production
rate. 145 SAC's position was on production num-
bers was unequivocal: 'In order to realize a truly
intercontinental capability, SAC must promote
the procurement of tankers on a 1.1 [sic] ratio
with B-52 aircraft'.146 By 1st July 1958, Boeing
was asked to deliver 20 airplanes per month (as
well as necessary spare parts and equip-
ment)."?
Despite this initial increase in the tanker pro-
duction rate (which actually peaked at 15 air-
planes per month), money was not available in
FY58 to sustain this accelerated level. A 'fund
expenditure limitation' was imposed on all Boe-
ing contracts as of 27th September 1957, and
by 7th November 1957, Boeing, AMC, and the
Air Force had agreed upon a reduced produc-
tion rate, and 27 tankers (58-0131 through 58-
0157) were cancelled. 148 Overall, the delivery
rate dropped dramatically from 15 airplanes
per month to an average of six tankers per
month until KC-135 production ended. An addi-
tional 30 KC-135As were cancelled (60-0379
through 60-0408). These 30 airplanes were
never given Boeing construction numbers. 149
Flying the KC-135: Early Impressions
Despite the many apparent problems and defi-
ciencies inherent in the KC-135, the airplane
proved immensely popular with its crews, long
accustomed to flying the tedious KC-97. The
following report by Boeing's Senior Experimen-
tal Test Pilot 'Dix' Loesch, written in October
1957, is representative of the enthusiasm and
general pilot acceptance of the KC-135, and
merits repeating in full. Although in some
places it appears to contradict flight test re-
sults, the report was written before these tests

41
 were reported or even undertaken. KC-135
crew members will quickly recognize many
familiar features described in this report (such
as the nose wheel rotation technique and the
approach to initial buffet in stalls).
'The advent of the Boeing KC-135 jet tanker-
transport as an operational airplane in the
Strategic Air Command is sure to arouse ques-
tions from aircrews on the flight characteristics
of this newest addition to our air power inventory.
'As project pilot for the KC-135 and as one of
the pilots who conducted the maiden flight and
a large share of the flight testing on the proto-
type, a brief description from my personal
experiences regarding the handling and perfor-
mance characteristics we have in the new air-
plane may be beneficial to crewmen who will be
flying the KC-135s.
'The Boeing 707 prototype, from which the
KC-135 was developed, has been flying for
more than three years. Early in this airplane's
test program we proved the feasibility of jet-to-
jet refueling by means of the new high speed
Boeing Flying Boom developed from the sys-
tem on the KC-97 Stratofreighter. The charac-
teristics of the prototype, with improvements in
some areas, are found in the KC-135s.
'Pilots who have been handling transports
should find it simple to convert to the KC-135.
The jet tanker-transports are similar to present-
day transports and tankers in handling, with the
new airplane having the advantages. It has
excellent stability and control, and generally
speaking, control response is better than you
have with today's transports.
'The primary controls are manually operated,
internally balanced and tab-controlled. The
pilot can check the ailerons, elevators and rud-
der on the ground for freedom of movement of
both the tab and control surface because addi-
tional control column or rudder movement at
the end of the tab travel moves the entire sur-
face. Also, it's nice to know that there are no
gust locks to worry about on this airplane. In
place of gust locks there are built-in gust
dampers.
'The lateral control is a little unusual in com-
parison with present transports. There are two
sets of ailerons: an outboard set which only
operates when flaps are down and an inboard
set which operates at all speeds. The ailerons
are assisted by wing spoilers on the upper sur-
face which are activated by hydraulic pressure
and which are very effective at high speeds and
Mach numbers where a wing with ailerons only
tends to lose control. These spoilers retain their
effectiveness right down to the stalling speed of
the aircraft. The spoilers are also effective
speed brakes. Using spoilers as speed brakes
in conjunction with the landing gear, which can
be used at up to 320 knots, providers] possible
descent rates as high as 18,000ft [5,486m] per
minute.
'Pilots will find the cockpit well laid out. It is
much simpler than that of the usual four-engine
transport of today, due to the jet engines. They
don't require propeller pitch controls, feather-
42
.....
ing buttons, manifold pressure gauges and
other instruments and controls peculiar to pis-
ton-engines. Visibility from the cockpit is excel-
lent.
'As with other jet aircraft, the KC-135 can be
almost entirely checked for flight before start-
ing engines, and take-off can be made immedi-
ately after a power check on the runway.
'The airplane has conventional tricycle gear,
with the main gear made up of four-wheel
bogies. The turning radius is a little greater than
with airplanes which have dual-wheel gear
because excessive scrubbing and high torque
loads would occur on the inside gear if it was
used as a pivot. The main gear is a little closer
to the center of gravity than most transports,
and the nose can be lifted off at a speed consid-
erably under normal take-off speed. The best
and safest technique is to leave the nose wheel
on the runway until about five knots below take-
off speed, otherwise the airplane will take
longer to get airborne.
'The fore-and-aft trimming on the KC-135 is
done by varying the angle of incidence of the
horizontal stabilizer, just as on the prototype.
The stabilizer is trimmed by means of and 'up'
or 'down' button on the control wheel. A manu-
al trim wheel on the pedestal can be used to
manually drive the stabilizer in the event the
motor system fails. Before take-off, the stabiliz-
er should be set so that only a small pull force is
needed to lift off at takeoff speed. Elevator
effectiveness is high enough and forces are low
enough such that the airplane can be flown off
with almost any setting of the stabilizer. Once
you are off and climbing, or cruising, the pitch
trim by the adjustable stabilizer is highly effec-
tive at all speeds and the control column is in
the same position with the center of gravity at
any point. At high Mach numbers, trim remains
effective.
'Most transport pilots are flying airplanes
which do not have the capability of exceeding
lAS limits. This is not true of a jet transport
which can easily exceed placard speeds at low
altitudes. Pilots will need to be alert regarding
this until they have acquired a feel for power
settings and for the sound and vibration build-
up which occurs at higher speeds.
'The KC-135 has nearly two and a half times
as good lateral control as the KC-97. Its direc-
tional control is effective enough to handle an
outboard engine failure at speeds below take-
off speed except at very light weights. In normal
flight the KC-135 is a 'one-hand' airplane. Yet
stick force per 'g' is high enough to prevent the
pilot from accidentally loading the airplane
beyond its limits.
'Although higher fuel consumption rates are
apparent, the attention required to the ground
miles versus fuel consumed does not increase
since cruising speeds are so much higher and
consequently tend to minimize variables such
as wind, temperature, etc.
'We have done complete stalls in the KC-135
with the airplane in all configurations and with
the stick all the way back. The airplane has
nearly perfect stalling characteristics. There is a
small tendency to roll, and any roll can be coun-
teracted by the lateral control which remair:1s
effective throug hout the stall. As you approach
the stall, buffeting begins 12% to 16% above
the stall speed and increases as the stall is
approached. You can't mistake it. At the stall,
the nose falls straight through the horizon.
Absence of propeller slipstream cause power-
off and power-on stalling speeds to be virtually
the same.
'Let down can be controlled by means of the
spoilers, used as speedbrakes. On the ap-
proach, if you are above the ILS glidepath or
desired approach path, you can apply speed-
brakes to descend to it. In the pattern, and on
the approach, the KC-135 is able to stay behind
today's airplanes. Its speed, while about
600mph [956km/h] for high cruising speed, is
only 125 knots [143mph - 231km/h] during
final at normal landing weights.
'Approach is a little more nose high than in
present-day transport and tanker aircraft, but
visibility is excellent and there is no difficulty in
judging clearance over obstacles or height
above the runway. It's a good idea to keep the
airplane trimmed hands-off during final
approach, rather than with the slight nose
down trim used in some airplanes. Once on the
ground, getting the nose wheel down early and
raising the speedbrakes will greatly aid in mini-
mizing ground roll. Ninety per cent of the
weight of the airplane is on the main gear at
landing speeds after the nose gear is on and
the speed brakes raised.
'More than 100 pilots have already flown the
prototype. Even those without any previous
knowledge of the airplane, or of jet airplanes of
any kind, have experienced no difficulty in mak-
ing successful take-offs and landings. None of
the differences between the KC-135 and pre-
sent-day transports should be of any real con-
cern. The general simplicity of operation will, by
far, be the biggest difference encountered and
bears out the old maxim that progress marches
from the complex to the simple.
'If pilot enthusiasm, as far as the prototype is
concerned, is a guide for acceptance of the
KC-135, then the KC-135s should be one of the
best liked airplanes in the Air Force. I would
predict that any difficulty that arises will not be
in getting pilots in the KC-135s, but in keeping
them out.' 150
 isa Chapter Four
,un-
lins
~ch
:we
I is
tall,
on.
Airframe, Powerplant and Systems
ter-
~lIy

the
~p-

or
3d-
on
nd
Jut
, is
ng

in
lut
in
jht
he
lal
se
he
ld
ni-
le
at
ld

1e
JS
of
k-
of
e-
n-
ly
Id
JS
The KC-135A f1ightdeck represented a
is substantial improvement over that in piston-
powered aircraft. There were fewer dials, levers
Ie
and switches in Boeing's new jet. By today's
Ie standards, however, the KC·135A cockpit is
Id outdated, prompting numerous changes,
Ie including proposals for a 'glass' cockpit.
g via Author
When KC-135 'crew dogs' need to review how
a piece of equipment on board their airplane
works, where it gets its power and how much it
uses, or what to do when it breaks and goes
'Tango Uniform', they turn to the ubiquitous
'Dash One', the KC-135 flight manual. Within
minutes, their eyes begin to glaze over and
they are overwhelmed with the uncontrollable
urge to take a 'combat nap'. The 'Dash One'
has struck again.
It would be easy to describe the KC-135A
and its variants simply by transferring huge
blocks of text from the 'Dash One' to these
pages. However, in addition to running the seri-
ous risk of putting readers to sleep or at least
inducing a strong soporific effect, this tedious
approach misses the essential flavor of how the
KC-135's components shape the airplane's
day-to-day use. For example, as the 'Dash One'
dryly records:
'The KC-135A is a four-engine swept-wing jet
tanker capable of sustained high-altitude cru-
ise and high speed flight. The fuselage is divid-
ed into a pressurized compartment which
includes the cockpit, the cargo compartment,
the lower nose compartment, and the boom
operator's compartment. The unpressurized
lower deck beneath the cargo compartment
houses fuel tanks, the landing gear, and other
equipment.'
Hardly the stuff to inspire any bUdding young
Curt LeMays or Chuck Yeagers!
What is not recorded in these terse sen-
tences is that the cargo compartment, in reality
a dark, hot and stuffy steam tunnel in warm
weather and an icebox in cold weather, can
induce even the strongest-stomached flier to
lose more than his lunch during a two-hour
'pattern only' flight consisting of dozens of
take-offs, landings, and missed approaches,
not all of them planned. What is not written on
page 1-1 is that the lower nose compartment,
popUlarly known as the 'hell hole', is the place
that navigators are loathe to go during flight to
replace burned-out radar components. There-
fore, the material covered in this chapter is pre-
sented in the same general sequence as in the
'Dash One', but with the added perspective of a
long-suffering 'crew dog' who knows that what
the 'Dash One' says and what it really means
are often two distinctly different things.
ENGINES
J57 Turbojets
The Pratt & Whitney J57-P-29A was installed
only on a few of the initial Stratotankers, and

43
Table 4- KC-135 Engine Summary o
USAF Water Thrust a
Designation Turbojet Turbofan Injection Reversers Thrust'
J57-P-29A Y 10,500/12,100 a
(470/542)
J57·P/F·43W Y N 11,200/12,925 b
(50.1/579)
tI
J57·P/F·59W Y N 11,200/12,925
(50.1/579) b
TF33-P-5 Y 16,050/- e
(71.9/-) s
TF33-P-9 16,050/- tl
(71.9/-)
TF33-PW-102 Y 16,050
s
(71.9/-) c
F1 08-CF-l 00 N'* 22,000 r
(98.5/-) s
'Thrust is expressed as Ib st dry/wel and (kN st dry/wet).Thrust is milITary
rated thrust (MRT) in pounds with the engine mounted on the airplane during a
standard day. Wet thrust is take-off rated thrust (TRT). Source: 'Dash One'.
"Re·engined RC-135s will not be equipped with thrust reversers.

Table 5 - Production Engine Installation

Engine MDS Installations To reduce engine costs as the fleet size The left wing of an EC-135 shows the airplane'S
grew, the titanium items were replaced with TF33-P-9s. These lack the thrust reversers
J57-P/F-43W EC-135K, JKC-135A, KC-135A, NKC-135A,
found on the TF33-P-5 and TF33-PW-102s. The
RC-135T steel parts. The result was the J57-P/F-59W, by
presence of the turbocompressor ducts above
J57-P/F-59W C-135A, C-135F, EC-135A, EC-135G, far the most numerous engine in use on the each engine inlet should not be taken for
EC-135H, EC-135K, EC-135L, EC-135N, Stratotanker. Although the steel -59W weighs granted. Not all engines carried this small
EC-135P, JKC-135A, KC-135A, KC-135A-II,
KC-135A-VIII, KC-135D, KC-135Q, KC-135R, approximately 400lb (181 kg) more than the tita- inlet and in some instances the duct was not
nium -43Ws, it cost $100,000 less per engine used and closed off. George R Cockle
KC-135T, NC-135A, NKC-135A, RC-135A,
RC-135D, VC-135A (when purehased in the 1950s).
TF33-P-5 C-135B, C-135C, EC-135B, OC-135B, The J57 is an axial-flow engine with two com- passes 10,000ft (3,048m) altitude. The water
OC-135W, RC-135E, RC-135M, RC-135S, pressor sections. Low pressure bleed air is tank is located between the main landing gear
RC-135W, RC-135X, TC-135B, TC-135S,
used for pneumatic starting and air condition· wells, and the water drain mast is underneath
TC-135W, VC-135B, WC-135B, WC-135W
TF33-P-9 EC-135C, EC-135J, KC·135B, RC·135B, ing, stabilizer trim pressurization, and defrost- the fuselage just aft of the main gear wells.
RC-135C, RC-135U, RC-135V ing the celestial sighting and boom operator's Using the water injection system can be a
TF33-PW-102 C-135E, EC-135E, EC-135H, EC-135K, sighting window, as well as cockpit and boom nightmare, especially for an inexperienced co-
EC-135N, EC-135Y, KC-135D, KC-135E, pod heat. High pressure bleed air is used for, pilot. First, two sets of take-off data must be
NKC-135E, RC-135T
among other things, engine anti-icing, hyd- computed, one for the planned 'wet' take-off
F1 08-CF-1 00 C-135FR, KC-135R, KC-135T
raulic reservoir pressurization, and engine and one for a 'dry' take-off in the event the 'wet'
water injection pumps. is not used due to temperature changes or
The engines can be started pneumatically by mechanical failure of the water injection sys-
Table 6 - Engine Parameter Comparisons
high pressure air from a ground cart or bleed air tem. (Computing take-off data manually is often
Maximum Maximum from another engine. They can also be started treated as the arithmetic equivalent of proving
Engine Type Thrust Continuous EGT
Ib st (kN) by an explosive cartridge in each engine (some Einstein's equations!)
early models were equipped for cartridge starts Starting the water system requires flipping a
J57 12,925 wet 560 C
0

(57.9 wet)
TF33 16,050 490 C
0 started simultaneously with the cartridges.
(71.9)
F108 22,000 855 C
0
(985)
was quickly replaced by later J57 versions. The
first J57 variant to enter operational service was
the J57-P/F-43W. The 'P' in the designation
indicates that the engine was built by Pratt &
Whitney and the 'F' indicates that the engine
was built by Ford Aerospace, being respective-
ly designated J57-P-43 or J57-F-43. They are
otherwise identical, and for ease of reference
are commonly referred to with the 'P/F' desig-
nation. The 'W' suffix indicates the capability of
water injection for thrust augmentation, earning
these engines the ignominious nickname of
'Steamjets' (with the airplanes called 'Water
Wagons'). The J57-P/F-43Ws are made of tita-
nium as a weight saving measure, a benefit off-
set by a commensurate increase in cost.
in the No.4 engine only). All engines can be
There were two engine cartridge configurations
when on alert, with 'carts' installed in the NO.1
and NO.1 engine, or the 'Quick Start' mode,
with 'carts' in all four engines, ensuring mini-
mum time required to launch. Alert starts were
fairly dramatic events, as black smoke engulfed
not only the airplane but the crew chief who
monitored the engine start, prompting the use
of gas masks when the airplane was in the
Quick Start configuration.
Above 20°F, demineralized water can be
injected into the air inlet and diffuser section of
each engine. This increases the density of inlet
and combustion air, resulting in increased
thrust (and the characteristic dense black
smoke and noise). Water injection is intended
for take-off use only, and the 670 gallon (2,536
litres) tank provides the airplane with sufficient
water for approximately two minutes. Unused
water should be drained before the airplane
switch on the co-pilot's front instrument panel.
Unfortunately for many an embarrassed co-
pilot, the switch to start the water injection is
next to the switch to drain the water tank...
There is no guarantee that starting the water
injection system will necessarily mean that
each engine will 'take' the water. Pilots have
learned a number of tricks to force-start the
water, ranging from banging a fist on the throt-
tle quadrant (where additional activation swit-
ches are located) to setting the delinquent
engine's revolutions per minute (rpm) above
80% and then starting the water, the reverse of
the normal procedure. In addition, water injec-
tion can fail after the take-off has started, and at
times can be tantamount to losing an engine
during take-off.
Water injection and alert operations were a
constant source of problems, particularly in
cold weather climates. A water heater kept the
0 0
water from freezing between 20 and 40 F, but
water had to be removed below 20°F. This

44
 often meant downloading water in the evening
as temperatures dropped and then uploading
water during the day, a sizeable headache for
any crew chief.
Water augmentation originally may have
been an effective means of improving engine
thrust at take-off, but in the long run was proba-
bly more trouble and more costly than re-
engining the fleet. Nonetheless, the black
smoke and thundering roar of a 'Steam Jet'
trundling down a long runway, clawing for air-
speed, barely getting airborne before the end
of the runway, all the while converting jet fuel to
noise and smoke, made for an impressive
sight. It was not so impressive, however, for any
following aircraft, such as those that might be in
a minimum interval take-off (MITO) 12 seconds
behind the preceding airplane, obscured in
black smoke that also hid the runway. To many
KC-135 'crew dogs', however, the black smoke
and roar were an integral part of the 'Sound of
Freedom'.
a's
TF33 Turbofans
a
Three types of TF33s are in use on different ver-
sions of the Stratotanker: TF33-P-5, -P-9, and
-PW-102. The following description applies to
the TF33-P-5, with variations noted below.
The TF33-P-5 is a twin-spool axial-flow turbo-
fan engine priorities approximately 16,0501b
Iter (71.9kN) of thrust. Eight blow-in doors on the
ear nose cowl open to provide additional air to the
ath engine during high power settings, such as
during take-off. The doors are spring loaded to
3 a the closed position and open by means of dif-
~o­ ferential pressure.
be The engine has low and high pressure com-
·off pressor sections. Low pressure compressor
let' bleed air is used for pneumatic starting, air con-
or ditioning, and window defrosting. High pres-
ys- sure bleed air is used for engine anti-ice,
:en hydraulic pressurization, the fuel heater, and
ng thrust reverser actuation.
The TF33-P-5 and -PW-102 have fan and
Ja core thrust reversers. The fan section reverser
leI. consists of a cowl ring, 12 blocker doors, and
:0- pneumatic actuators. The reversers are manu-
is ally activated by a lever on each throttle. The
c. lever can only be moved to the 'interlock' posi-
ler tion when the throttle is in idle and the aircraft
lat weight is on the landing gear, thus preventing
ve reverse thrust in flight. When actuated, fan
he exhaust air is deflected forward by the blocker
Jt- doors to produce reverse thrust. The core rev-
lit- erser consists of a sliding reverser sleeve,
int pneumatic actuators, and 'clamshell' reversers
ve and circumferential cascade vane openings.
of The sleeve moves aft to expose the cascade
'c- vane openings and the clamshells close, forc-
at ing thrust forward out through the cascade
1e vanes. To prevent damage to the leading edge
flap due to reverse thrust, the leading edge
a flaps retract when the number one reverse
in thrust lever is actuated.
1e Interestingly, availability of thrust reversers is
ut not a normal consideration in planning take-
is offs (in the case of an abort) or landings (to
decrease stopping distance). As there is al-
ways the possibility of thrust reverser failure or
asymmetric actuation, crews do not routinely
plan take-off data under the assumption that
thrust reversers will be available in the event of
an abort. Using thrust reversers means a
greater stopping capacity, hence a higher deci-
sion speed at which to initiate an abort, thus
allowing take-offs at higher gross weights or on
shorter runways. Similarly, use of thrust
reversers upon landing is not a standard part of
landing data computation.
This is not to suggest that thrust reversers
are never or seldom used, or that in some spe-
cial situations (as in operational reconnais-
sance missions launched from Shemya AFB,
Alaska) are not taken into consideration in take-
off planning. As with all things mechanical,
thrust reversers on the TF33s do not always
work as advertised, and current operational
doctrine emphasizes a conservative approach
to their use for planning purposes.
None of the TF33s use water injection. They
are markedly quieter and produce less smoke
than do the J57s, but still leave quite an audible
impression during full-powertake-offs.
. F1 08 Turbofans
The military designation of the CFM Internation-
al CFM-56 high-bypass turbofan engine is
F1 OS-CF-1 00; the 'CF' is the builder designa-
tion. The engine develops 22,0001b (9S.5kN) of
thrust from -62° to +S6°F, with thrust decreas-
ing at ambienttemperatures above +S6°F.
The engine is divided into five major sec-
tions: a four-stage low-pressure high-bypass
fan section, a nine-stage high-pressure com-
pressor section, a combustion' section, the tur-
bine or core section, and engine accessories. A
redundant detection system warns of engine
fire and engine compartment overheat, and two
fire extinguisher bottles are installed in each
wing for use in either engine, a feature not
found on other engines used on KC-135s. At
present, only the KC-135R, 'T and C-135FR use
the F1 OS-CF-1 00, although plans call for the
entire RC-135 fleet to be converted as well
(retaining their designations prior to conver-
sion).
The KC-135R's pneumatic system uses fifth-
stage bleed air from the compressor section for
engine start, anti-ice, and environmental regu-
lation. The engines can be started via the auxil-
iary power unit (APU), an operating engine, or
by ground cart. A power management control
automatically maintains the desired thrust rat-
ing regardless of changes in altitude or Mach
number. A turbine engine monitoring system
provides a record of engine operation for post-
flight analysis, increasing engine life and facili-
tating maintenance.
Currently, none of the F10Ss are equipped
with thrust reversers. Widely considered a
needlessly expensive luxury, this omission was
dictated as much by operational doctrine as by
simple economics. Thrust reversers are primar-
ily intended for use during landing to stop a
heavy airplane. Since the intended mission of
the KC-135R was to offload all available fuel to
nuclear-armed bombers, it would thus land at
extremely light weight nearly devoid of fuel. By
improving the KC-135R's braking system, there
would be no need to install expensive (and
heavy) thrust reversers.
The lack of reversers has been a central
issue in the re-engining of RC-135s, which have
high landing weights and must often operate
from short or icy runways. Still, as an economy
measure the re-engined RC-135s will not
receive F10Ss equipped with thrust reversers.
Another consideration in the F10S thrust re-
verser controversy has been in the assignment
of KC-135Rs without reversers to Air National
Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve (AFRES)
units that previously operated KC-135Es
equipped with them.
Using thrust reversers, KC-135Es are able to
slow down after landing to exit the runway at
the high speed taxiway, as do reverser-equipped
airliners. Despite their improved braking poten-
tial, KC-135Rs are not always able to slow to a
safe exit speed until after passing the high
speed taxiway, forcing the airplane to taxi to the
end in order to exit, thus tying up the active run-
way. This increases congestion at busy civil air-
ports such as Chicago's O'Hare lAP, especially
in bad weather. Reservations notwithstanding,
during 1991 Wisconsin became the first ANG
unit to convert from the KC-135E to KC-135R -
without thrust reversers - with a number of
other Guard and Reserve units following suit.
SYSTEMS
Hydraulics
Two independent hydraulic systems supply
fluid to operate the hydraulically-actuated com-
ponents. The left hydraulic system is pressur-
ized by two pumps driven by the numbers one
and two engines, and provides hydraulic power
for the inboard spoilers, forward air refueling
pumps, landing gear, and pilot's brakes. The
right hydraulic system supplies the outboard
spoilers, the aft air refueling pumps, co-pilot's
brakes, nose wheel steering, co-pilot's instru-
ment power gyro, boom controls, flaps, leading
edge flaps, and the powered rudder. On air-
planes with an in-flight refueling (IFR) system,
the slipway doors are powered by the right
hydraulic system, with baCk-Up from the left. On
the KC-135R, the right system also provides
hydraulic pressure for the APU start system.
Although the two systems are independent,
there is a cross-over capability, enabling cru-
cial components such as the landing gear,
main flaps, air refueling boom, and powered
rudder to be powered by the opposite system
should their primary hydraulic source fail.
Fuel
The KC-135 has six integral wing tanks in a
'wet' wing and a combination bladder and inte-
gral center wing tank, a forward and aft fuse-
lage body tank. Beginning with KC-135A
45
55-3127 an upper deck tank was also fitted.
The body tanks are located in the lower fuse-
lage beneath the main deck floor beams. The
forward tank consists of four bladder cells (only
three if the upper deck tank is not installed),
and the aft tank has five bladder cells. The
upper deck tank is in the cargo compartment
between the boom operator's compartment
and the aft pressure bulkhead. Two hydrauli-
cally powered air refueling pumps (one for-
ward, one aft) are located in each body tank.
The upper deck tank operates via gravity feed,
emptying into the aft body tank.
Each wing houses a reserve tank near the
wingtip and two main wing fuel tanks. Two
boost pumps are in each main wing tank, and
two override pumps are located in the center
wing tank. The reserve tanks feed by gravity
flow into the outboard main tanks. Main wing
tank fuel also can be fed by gravity to the aft
body fuel tank. Center wing fuel can be gravity
fed to the forward body tank.
Fuel in all tanks can be used by the KC-135
or offloaded to a receiver, although approxi-
mately 300 gallons (1,135 litres) per main wing
tank (known as 'standpipe fuel') is retained for
tanker use only. On the KC-135A, total usable
fuel (with upper deck installed) is 30,000 gal-
lons (113,562 litres - 195,000Ib/88,452kg). On
the KC-135R, total usable fuel (with upper deck
installed) is 31,275 gallons (118,388 litres -
203,288Ib/92,211 kg). Total fuel capacity is
reduced on those airplanes with fuel tanks re-
moved or weight limited due to the addition of
mission equipment or cargo.
An engine fuel manifold in the wing provides
fuel to each engine from any main wing tank or
the center wing tank. An air refueling manifold
carries fuel from both body tanks to the air refu-
eling boom. This manifold can also be used to
feed the tanker's engines via the wing manifold.
Fuel may be dumped through the air refueling
boom when required. On airplanes without an
air refueling boom, fuel dump capability is pro-
vided by a fuel dump tube beneath the aft fuse-
lage. On airplanes equipped with an IFR
system, an IFR manifold allows fuel to be
onloaded into any tank.
The airplane is equipped for single point
ground refueling through a receptacle in the
right main gear well. Primary fuel was JP-4
(NATO code F40), since replaced by JP-8.
Acceptable alternates include JP-5 and com-
mercial grade Jet A, A-1 , and B.
Air Refueling
The boom operator lies prone on a couch in the
boom operator's compartment. The air refuel-
ing boom is manually controlled by means of a
side-stick controller on the right hand side for
boom control, and a lever on the left hand side
for boom extension. Boom movement is by
hydraulics and control is through the boom's
ruddevators. Extension and retraction are pro-
vided by a hydraulically powered reversible
motor. The boom may be manually stowed via
a hoist in the event of hydraulic failure.
46
By moving the side-stick controller, the
boom operator literally flies the boom to the de-
sired position. Movement of the boom behind
and below the aircraft can also steer the air-
plane. As the boom moves to one side it
induces drag sufficient to turn the KC-135 in
that direction. As the boom is raised or lowered,
the drags affect the tanker's airspeed.
A mirror in the boom operator's compart-
ment enables the boom operator to see
receivers aft of the airplane from O· to 15· be-
low the horizon, an area otherwise obscured by
the empennage. Normal vision extends down-
ward to 48· below the horizon.
There are two types of air refueling booms: a
standard speed boom and a high speed boom.
The standard speed boom was installed on the
first 345 airplanes. The high speed boom has a
5in (12.7cm) extension to the boom latching
fairing where it retracts to join the fuselage.
With few exceptions, all of the high speed
booms have a boundary layer control feature
that improves boom stability at high speeds.
Located around the boom latching fairing, this
consists of thin secondary skins coated with
coarse aluminum oxide grit.
The boom itself consists of two concentric
tubular sections, and is 28ft (8.5m) long fully
retracted and 47ft (14.3m) long fully extended.
The boom can move through an envelope 30·
to either side of centerline, plus 12.5· above the
horizon, and minus 50· below the horizon. Nor-
mal boom position for air refueling is 30· below
the horizon, 12ft (3.6m) extension (40ft [12.1 m)
total), and along the tanker's centerline.
After contact is made, the boom electrical
system sends a signal enabling automatic fuel
transfer to the receiver proVided at least one air
refueling pump is operating and fuel is avail-
able through the air refueling manifold. The
receiver pilot director indicator lights (POls) are
also activated. In addition, automatic boom
limit switches are activated to effect a discon-
nect if the boom reaches an envelope limit.
Some tankers have a boom interphone system,
enabling the boom operator to talk with the
receiver crew (if also eqUipped with the system)
in a radio-silent environment.
The KC-135 has a number of high-intensity
lights for night operation. Under-body illumina-
tion lights are installed on the inside of the
inboard engine pylons and shine on the under-
side of the fuselage. Underwing illumination
lights are installed in the fuselage fairing aft of
the wing and illuminate the underside of the
wing and engines. Engine nacelle and leading
edge lights are installed in the forward fuselage
above and forward of the wing leading edge.
Two small boom nozzle lights are located in the
upper portion of the boom nozzle fairing. These
emit a near ultra-violet light that causes the
luminous colored boom markings to fluoresce
during night operations.
A fin-tip air refueling floodlight has been
installed retroactively, providing the boom
operator with additional illumination of the
receiver envelope to aid in night refueling, par-
ticularly with darkly camouflaged receivers.
KC-135Qs and 'Ts have a special receiver
envelope illumination light that is fully de-.
scribed in the KC-135Q section (page 68). The
intensity of all of the air refueling illumination
lights can be controlled by the boom operator.
POls are located beneath the forward fuse-
lage between the nose gear and the main gear.
These consist of two rows of lights: the left row
(facing forward from the receiver position) is for
height and the right row is for extension. Azi-
muth guidance is provided by a broad yellow
stripe painted beneath the length of the KC-135
centerline. Additional elevation guidance is
available in the form of a small white line which,
when visually placed by the receiver pilot in a
position where it seems to touch the tip of one
of the tanker's UHF radio antennas, shows the
30· elevation position.
The POls have green lights that indicate rela-
tive position of the receiver by means of electri-
cal relays from the boom. The extension POI
has a centered light, an intermediate light, and
a full extension light in each direction, with the
letter 'A' for aft and 'F' for forward (indicating
the desired direction to move). The elevation
POI has a centered light, an intermediate light,
and full elevation light in each direction, with
the letter 'u' for up and '0' for down. With the
receiver in the center of the envelope, the two
centered POls are illuminated, producing what
is known as 'Captain's Bars', resembling the
shoulder rank worn by US captains.
As the receiver moves throughout the enve-
lope, the POls reflect that position. For exam-
ple, if an intermediate aft light is illuminated, the
receiver has backed to 14ft (4.2m) extension. If
the red full extension light is illuminated, the
receiver has reached the aft limit of 16ft (4.8m).
Combinations of lights indicate in-between
positions (ie an intermediate aft light and a red
full extension light mean approximately 15ft
[4.5m) aft extension.)
The boom drogue adapter (BOA) can be
installed prior to flight to refuel probe-equipped
receivers. This weighs an additional 1431b
(64.8kg) including trapped fuel.
On airplanes equipped with an ARR system,
slipway doors cover the receptacle above the
the navigator's station on top of the forward
fuselage.
Electrical
The KC-135A has a 3-phase, 115/200 volt, 400
cycle AC system, and a 28 volt DC system, with
a battery as a secondary source of DC power.
Electrical power is provided to a bus which then
powers the appropriate equipment. The gener-
ators must operate in parallel prior to bringing
them on line, an automatic feature in the KC-
135R, KC-135T, and some TF33-equipped air-
planes. Should one or more generator fail, a
bus allows the remaining generator(s) to pick
up the load, although some equipment (eg the
water injection system) requires power from all
three generators.
A hydraulically-powered generator provides
ers. The flying boom in use on KC-135s is
essentially unchanged from the one developed
iver
by Boeing during 1948. The boom operator
de- actually flies the boom into position by
The controling two black ruddervators.
lion Author's collection
tor.
Ise-
3ar. 115/200 volt AC power to the co-pilot's instru-
'ow ment power system as an emergency back-up
for in the event of total electrical failure. When con-
\zi- nected to a transformer rectifier, it provides 28
ow volt DC power. Two transformer-rectifiers con-
135 vert 115/200 volt AC power into 28 volt DC
is power. DC battery power is provided by a 24
ch, volt 22 amp nicad battery located in the toilet
na compartment. The battery has a separate
me transformer rectifier.
the
Flight Controls
lla- The KC-135 is equipped with conventional
:tri- ailerons, elevators, and rudder. These are actu-
'01 ated by cables from the pilot's and co-pilot's
nd control columns which move 'flying tabs' in the
:he appropriate control surface. Little effort is
ng required to displace these tabs, and the resul-
on tant aerodynamic pressures move the larger
ht, control surface.
'ith Two sets of ailerons and two sets of hydraulF
he cally-powered spoilers on each wing provide
NO lateral control. The inboard ailerons (common-
lat ly referred to as 'high speed ailerons') are used
he throughout the entire speed range, and the out-
board ailerons (commonly referred to as 'low
fe- speed ailerons') are locked out unless the out-
m- board flaps are extended, with full effectiveness
0
he achieved at 23 or more of flap extension. At
. If high speeds the outboard ailerons are extreme-
he ly effective and would otherwise induce abrupt
n). and possibly extreme rolling motions. Using
en the less effective inboard spoilers at high speed
3d ensures smooth aircraft control.
5ft The ailerons move by an innovative system.
Movement of the control column actuates a
Je cable which displaces the flying tab in the trail-
3d ing edge of the aileron. Deflection of this tab
lib causes an air load on the tab which moves the
control surface. A balance bay cavity is located
n, forward of the aileron. Pressure changes on the
le control surface of the aileron are transmitted to
rd this balance chamber. As deflection increases
and aerodynamic loads are the greatest, the
balance forces are also at a maximum. This
reduces the amount of force and effort the pilot
JO must use to move the control surface. Although
th not as effective as modern hydraulically-boost-
~r . ed flight controls, it is a notable improvement
m over contemporary control designs where
ir- pilots simply ran out of strength to control the
Ig airplane at high speeds. Since the KC-135 was
designed as a 'high speed jet tanker', solving
'r- this problem was a major design consideration.
a Pitch control is provided by elevators. Inputs
:k from the control columns are transmitted via
Ie cables to the elevator control tabs which then
ill aerodynamically position the elevators. Pitch
trim is provided by varying the angle of inci-
dence of the entire horizontal stabilizer by
means of a jackscrew. The pilot or co-pilot may
electrically trim the aircraft, the pilot may manu-
ally trim the aircraft, and the autopilot can elec-
trically trim the aircraft.
The KC-135 rudder is capable of both manu-
al and hydraulically-powered operations, with
the boosted mode used in all normal opera-
tions. Powered rudder deflection is by a
hydraulic control unit. In the powered mode,
the rudder tab moves opposite the rudder
0
through 17 of deflection. At greater deflec-
tions, the tab reverses and acts as a rudder
antibalance tab, and a 'Q-spring' system pro-
vides the pilot with an artificial sense of rudder
feel. Ram air from the Q-inlet on the leading
edge of the vertical stabilizer produces a
mechanically transmitted force to the rudder
pedals.
As airspeed increases, rudder deflection has
?1 greater effect on the longitudinal axis of the
airplane. Conversely, as the airplane slows,
more rudder travel is needed to account for
asymmetric forces or yaw. To ensure that the
airplane is not overstressed at high speeds and
that the pilot has sufficient controllability at low
speeds, there are two rudder power pressure
ranges. As the airplane slows and the inboard
flaps are extended beyond 50, the rudder
power moves into the high range (2800-3050
psi), maximizing rudder deflection potential. As
the airplane's speed increases and the flaps
are retracted, the rudder power moves into the
low range (800-1175psi).
Manual operation of the rudder without
hydraulic power is via a control tab on the trail-
ing edge of the rudder which operates the
same as the aileron system. Maximum deflec-
0
tion in the manual mode is approximately 12 .
Each wing has an outboard flap, an inboard
flap, two leading edge Krueger-style flaps, and
a fillet flap. The main flaps each have a fore flap.
0 0
Normal take-off setti ng is either 20 or 30 ,
depending upon gross weight, runway avail-
able, desired engine thrust and other consider-
0
ations. Originally, there was a 40 setting for
take-off, but in the aftermath of the first KC-135
accident, this was deleted. Landing settings
0
range from 30 (used in some emergency and
abnormal situations) to 50°, the full flap posi-
tion. Some pilots feel that 'flap 40' landings are
smoother than 'flap 50' landings, but to a good
pilot the flap setting is irrelevant.
Flaps are moved by two connected hydrauli-
cally-powered drive motors, oneforthe inboard
flaps and one for the outboard flaps. In the
event of right side hydraulic failure, the left sys-
tem can be crossed over to provide sufficient
hydraUlic pressure to operate the flaps. In addi-
tion, the flaps can be operated manually by
turning a pair of bypass handles in the cargo
compartment floor. In some airplanes which
have equipment or cargo that would cover
these access ports, the flaps can be operated
by a secondary electrical drive.
The leading edge flaps extend when the out-
0
board flaps are extended beyond 9.5 and
0
retract when the flaps are retracted above 6 .
Leading edge flaps improve the low speed per-
formance ofthe aircraft, and add approximately
6kts (11.1 km/h) to the stall speed. On airplanes
so equipped, the leading edge flaps retract
when the No.1 engine thrust reverser is actuat-
ed, thus preventing blast damage to the lead-
ing edge flap.
Lateral control of the airplane is augmented
by four spoilers, two on each wing. Spoiler
0
deflection limits are 60 and are usable throug-
hout the entire speed range. Maximum roll rate
0
can be achieved at approximately 30 . Deflec-
tion is based on control wheel displacement
and is automatic unless disabled by the spoiler
cutout switches.
The spoilers can be used as speed brakes by
moving the speed brake handle. In this case, all
four spoilers extend simUltaneously. Speed
brakes can be used throughout the speed
range, but at higher speeds the deflection is
decreased due to spoiler blowdown.
Landing Gear and Brakes
The KC-135 has a tricycle landing gear
arrangement. The nose gear has two tires on a
steerable strut, and the main gear have four
tires each on a single truck.
47

The nose gear is steerable through approxi-
mately 55° either side of centerline, but is nor-
mally limited to 45° deflection. Steering is by
means of a small wheel on the pilot's left for-
ward side panel. In the KC-135R the primary
means of steering is the rudder pedals,
although the steering wheel must still be used
for acute turns.
The landing gear is extended and retracted
hydraulically using left side hydraulics. The
nose gear retracts forward into the nose gear
well in the fuselage and the main gear retract
into gear wells in the fuselage. Normal gear
retraction and extension takes ten seconds,
although this can increase in extremely cold
weather or when hydraulic pressure is re-
duced. The gear are both hydraulically and
mechanically locked in the up or down posi-
tion. They may be manually extended from
within the cockpit (nose gear) and in the floor of
the cargo compartment (main gear).
The KC-135 has segmented rotor brakes.
Most are four-rotor brakes, although some air-
craft (especially those that land at high gross
weights such as the cargo and reconnaissance
variants) have more powerful five-rotor brakes.
Braking may be accomplished from either
the pilot's or the co-pilot's position. Only the
pilot's side provides anti-skid capability which
removes braking from a skidding wheel and
allows the wheel to spin up to speed. The pilot
then reapplies brakes to slow the airplane fur-
ther. Some aircraft have an improved modulat-
ed anti-skid system that anticipates a skid by
monitoring rate of change of wheel speed anq
immediately reduces braking force just enough
to allow the wheel to resume speed. Braking
48
ope
Sine
KC-
gle
bott
as tl
thar
'pro
antE
ato~
S
as t
son
labl
tion
tele
disc
fUSE
SA-
F
dUe
gle
(RC
gro
lanl
witl
de;
fon
13!
rae
force is then automatically reapplied, giving the An outstanding view of the flaps and speed de:
best possible stopping capability, especially on brakes on RC-135V 64-14842 during roll-out at in(;
Offutt AFB. Clearly visible are the two main
wet or icy runways. A reserve brake hydraulic aul
wing flaps, the slotted flaps ahead of them, the
accumulator provides for at least one emer- fillet flap immediately behind the main gear, and tra
gency brake actuation in the event of loss of left the deployed speed brakes. George R Cockle (IF
side hydraulics (and hence pilot's brakes).
The KC-135R has a beefier landing gear to
support the increase in gross weight. It also has The KC-135R normally takes off fully pressur-
five-rotor brakes and Mk.1I1 modulating anti- ized (and somewhat more temperate inside)
skid system, as do a number of special use air- . because of its increase in thrust (and hence
planes such as EC-135s and RC-135s. excess bleed air), providing for a more pleasant
cockpit environment.
Pressurization and Air Conditioning
Low pressure bleed air from each engine pro- Radio and Navigation Equipment
vides air for pneumatic starting, window A list of the communications and navigation
defrosting, stabilizer trim actuator pressuriza- equipment installed in the KC-135 and its vari-
tion and the cabin air conditioning and pressur- ants would fill volumes without providing any
ization system. The KC-135 has a single air better understanding of the airplane or its capa-
conditioning pack with a ram air intake located bilities. The following description applies to the
at the underside of the leading edge of the right communications suite on the KC-135 tanker.
wing root, while other variants such as RC-135s Other airplanes such as the EC-135s have
have an additional air conditioning system highly specialized suites, many of which are
installed to accommodate the increased cool- unique to each airframe.
ing demands of their special equipment. Air- The KC-135 has two Ultra-high frequency
planes equipped with this extra air conditioning (UHF) radios with 20-channel preset storage
system have an additional ram air intake on the capability. UHF 1 radio is fitted with have quick
underside of the leading edge of the left wing. frequency-hopping equipment, providing a
All of the air conditioning and cabin pressur- measure of communications security. Other
ization systems are automated with manual systems are available to provide encrypted
backup provided. Ordinarily, the airplane is secure voice capability. The KC-135 also car-
un pressurized (and without air conditioning or ries a high frequency (HF) radio for long-range
heating) on initial take-off to prevent a decrease communications.
of engine thrust due to loss of the bleed air. Other radios carried on specialized KC-135s
Because of extreme heat in the cockpit, it has include dual very-high frequency (VHF) radios
been reported that KC-135A pattern training in addition to the two UHF radios. These VHF
sorties at bases in Thailand sometimes were radios were first prevalent among KC-135s
flown with the pilots' windows open! assigned to the Guard and Reserve as they
 operate from civilian fields that prefer VHF.
Since Operation 'Desert Storm', most KC-135As,
KC-135Qs and KC-135Rs have acquired a sin-
gle VHF radio. All RC-135s are equipped with
both UHF and VHF radios. Other variants such
as the EC-135 and RC-135 typically have more
than one HF radio, with the telltale wingtip HF
'probes' visible in addition to the long wire
antenna on the fuselage and the probe antenna
atop the vertical stabilizer.
Some of the special variant airplanes (such
as the RC-135s, the airborne command posts,
some KC-135Qs and KC-135Ts, and the refue-
lable KC-135Rs) have a satellite communica-
tions (SATCOM) capability, both for voice and
teletype. The SATCOM antenna is a white flat
disc mounted atop a small pylon on the upper
fuselage. Some airplanes have more than one
SATCOM antenna.
For navigation, the KC-135 is equipped with
dual VHF omnidirectional radios (VORs), a sin-
gle tactical aerial navigation (TACAN) system
(RC-135s have two) capable of both air-to-
ground and air-to-air modes, and an instrument
landing system (ILS) All variants are equipped
with a single AN/APN-59 radar used for ren-
dezvous, navigation, station-keeping during
formation flight, and weather avoidance. RC"
135s have two transmitter/receivers for this
radar. A radar beacon (later replaced by a ren-
dezvous beacon) is installed for the air refuel-
at ing rendezvous. A transponder provides
automatic position and altitude reporting to air
the
and
traffic control and an identification, friend or foe
(IFF) function.
Following the loss of a KC-135A in 1968 due
to excessive take-off rotation in bad weather,
the FD-109 flight director and rotation/go-
around (RGA) system was installed. The atti-
tude direction indicator (ADI) incorporates a
command bar that provides steering guidance
for selected headings, pitch guidance for alti-
tude changes, and a safe take-off or go-around
pitch attitude (compensating for engine out
conditions). French tankers do not have the
FD-109 RGA system. Each ADI is connected to
a horizontal situation indicator (HSI) for display
of navigational information. The autopilot may
be coupled to the ILS, but lacks an autoland
feature. Contingent upon funding, the HSI (and
most likely the ADI) will be replaced by an
active-matrix liquid crystal display, bringing the
KC-135 into the 'modern world' with a 'glass
cockpit'.
The primary navigational aid is a Carousel
IVE Inertial Navigation System (INS) and a
Doppler Navigation System (DNS). The INS
continuously computes navigation information
over a great circle route using the shortest
course, and can be coupled to the pilot's flight
director and to the autopilot. The DNS performs
a similar function and is coupled to the co-
pilot's flight director.
Some specialized variants are equipped with
a stellar-inertial system, which updates the INS
with an astro-tracker. A global positioning satel-
lite (GPS) system provides additional naviga-
tional data for extremely precise positioning.
GPS and a Joint Tactical Information Distribu-
tion System (JTIDS) datalink have been evalu-
ated for installation on the entire tanker fleet.
JTIDS is intended to improve tanker survivabili-
ty and enhance mission effectiveness. An addi-
tional information management system under
consideration for installation in the KC-135 fleet
is the Multi-Source Tactical System (MSTS).
This system will enable aircraft to receive near-
real-time information updates via satellite. The
major advantage for the tanker fleet is the ability
to receive time-critical mission updates within
minutes of the change occurring. Thus a tanker
en route to refuel a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy cross-
ing the ocean can be rerouted elsewhere to
refuel a strike package, complete with a detailed
mission plan, all transmitted via satellite.
The KC-135 can refuel prObe-equipped
receivers by using the boom drogue adapter, or
BOA. The boom is fully extended and can be
displaced to the left or right to facilitate
refueling by receivers with offset probes, as in
the case of this VF-213 F-14A Tomcat some-
where over the Pacific Ocean in 1985. Hitting
the basket is not as easy as it might seem!
Paul R Brown

sur-
ide)
nce
,ant

tion
lari-
any
lpa-
the
ker.
ave
are

ncy
3.ge
lick
I a
:her
ted
:ar-
1ge

35s
ios
HF·
l5s
ley

49
Personal observations on two elements of the KC-135 from the author:
Passin'Gas
From a tanker crew's perspective, the KC-
135 gets the job done without the bells and
whistles found on the KC-10 and 707
tankers. For the co-pilot, planning and deliv-
ering a heavy fuel offload to multiple
receivers is a 'word problem from hell'. Figur-
ing center of gravity and fuel management
during a transoceanic fighter 'drag' is not a
simple process. When occasionally the co-
pilot's eyes glaze over and cluelessness sets
in during an offload, many an aircraft com-
mander feels as if he's solo trying to fly the
airplane (no doubt autopilot off), co-ordinate
a complicated flight clearance to avoid thun-
derstorms the size of Kansas and figure out
how much fuel and from which tanks to give
an extra 1,0001b (453kg) to a General
Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) F-16
Fighting Falcon somewhere over the Pacific
Ocean. This is where crew co-ordination
comes in, as the navigator can take over
working on the flight clearance and the boom
operator can offer fuel management sugges-
tions even while refueling the receivers. The
Which Engine is Best?
I can vividly recall my first heavyweight,
water-injected take-off made in the blistering
heat and high pressure altitude ofthe Indiana
summer. After what seemed like hours, the
airplane finally reached rotation speed and
lumbered into the air with almost none of
Grissom AFB's two-mile (3.2km) long run-
way remaining. McConnell AFB had just
begun converting to the KC-135R and we all
longed for the opportunity to get our hands
on the throttles of those big turbofans. Before
I got my chance to fly the 'R, however, I
moved on to airplanes equipped with the
TF33, fell in love, and remain respectful of,
but not fully converted to the F1 08s.
All three engine types have their advan-
tages and disadvantages, and good pilots
can coax all the performance they need from
any engine while minimizing its weaknesses.
The J57 turbojets had superb high altitude
response and performance, not suffering
from fan-lapse, a decrease in available fan
bypass thrust as altitude increases. During
one of my first left seat flights as an aircraft
commander in training, my wing commander
threw the book out the window, pulled three
throttles to idle (only one was authorized at
idle for practice emergency procedures),
and let me fly a radar pattern to landing usi ng
only one engine. It sure wouldn't work if the
airplane was fat with gas (Which could be
dumped), but it did show that the old 'A
50
Stratotanker's greatest asset is its crews, and
no high-tech gizmo can replace that.
With fighters, air refueling in the KC-135
can be as smooth as silk or a real rodeo,
depending upon the receiver pilot's skills and
experience behind the tanker. Boom opera-
tors earn their pay refueling the McDonnell
Douglas F-4 Phantom II with its tiny recepta-
cle, especially at night or in bad weather.
Boomers deserve a big bonus if the Phan-
toms are Luftwaffe F-4Fs on training sorties-
the ultimate 'cowboys' on wild broncos.
Refueling a 'heavy' like a C-5 or a Boeing
E-4 airborne command post can be an
equally challenging experience. As the C-5
moves in to the contact position, its 'bow
wave' pushes the tanker tail upward,
destablizing the tanker platform. Normally
the autopilot corrects this slowly and
smoothly. In the event of a breakaway or
emergency separation, things can get pretty
hairy very fast as the C-5 backs out rapidly.
For a receiver, the KC-135 has its quirks.
Airplanes equipped with an air refueling
probe must suffer with the BDA, a hard bas-
ket that has claimed many a dented or dam-
model could fly even if some aerodynami-
cists thought that it shouldn't.
One limit to the 'A model was the maxi-
mum authorized pitch angle during climb out
of 15·. This was due to the 297,0001b
(134,719kg) Emergency War Order (EWO)
gross weight at take-off, assuming four
engines operating (this pitch was to be cut in
half should one engine fail). When they
rewrote the 'Dash One' for the jets equipped
with the TF33, they left this restriction in place
despite the extra 4,0001b (1 ,814kg) of thrust
per engine over the J57 (with water injec-
tion). A lot of people in SAC failed to appreci-
ate the capability of the TF33-equipped
airplanes, which could keep up with the best
fighters and could even outclimb the venera-
ble F-4 Phantom (but that's another story).
On a 30· below zero day at Eielson AFB,
Alaska, in the nearly empty TC-135S, we
were airborne in less than 2,400ft (731 m) of
runway, kept the airspeed at three-engine
climb speed plus 10 knots, and still acceler-
ated as the nose passed through 50· nose
up. We leveled off at 24,000ft (7,315m) in a lit-
tle under four minutes. A KC-135R would
eventually claim a number of time-to-climb
records, but it could have been done in our
trainer long before that. The obstacle was
always the old heads who said 'you can't do
that, the "Dash One" says so', and who
refused to believe that any KC-135 variant
could behave as anything other than a 'pig in
space'.
aged receiver, or has broken off on and stuck
to the air refueling probe. Plugging a Cessna
OA-37B Dragonfly into the basket on a turbu-
lent day was a challenge to this pilot, all for
600lb (272kg) of fuel. Wingtip refueling pods
should alleviate this considerably.
Despite the inherent danger in mid-air
refueling, only four KC-135s have been lost
in collisions during air refueling (two with B-
52s, one with a B-47, and one with an F-1 05),
although a number of other receivers, includ-
ing a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, have been
lost following collisions with KC-135s.
A tanker crew dog's job is not very glam-
orous and is often looked down upon with
contempt by the 'fighter jocks', 'bomber
pukes', and 'trash haulers' who rely upon
tanker toads for the fuel necessary to com-
plete their mission. To a 'Thud Driver' over
North Vietnam, however, the words 'You're
taking fuel' often meant the difference
between buying a round at the bar for the
tanker crew later that night and becoming an
uninvited, non-paying guest at the 'Hanoi
Hilton'. And that, after all, is the ultimate mea-
sure of success of a tanker crew's mission.
The 'R model was sure impressive, espe-
cially for someone accustomed to 'Steam
Jets', and was noticeably better than the
TF33-equipped airplanes, but not to the
same degree as the difference from the 'A
model. Its increase in power was a welcome
improvement in both performance and
offload capacity. One of the early 'R model
.instructor pilots was never reluctant to point
Fo
out that an 'R could offload more fuel over a SYI
longer distance than could a KC-10, as the du
KC-10 burned more fuel to carry its heavier su
weight the same distance, thus reducing its in
co
fuel available for offload. Cruise efficiency
of
and fuel burn is notably better with the F108 KC
engine. On the RC-135s, for example, most tai
of their missions can be accomplished with- gr,
out air refueling once they are re-engined.
With this increase in performance, howev-
er, comes an increase in handling sensitivity,
n
especially at light weights and under some
re
engine-out conditions. An engine failure
of
assist system (EFAS) and series yaw damper
to
(SYD) account for most situations, but it is a
SI
simple matter in the simulator to fail an
K<
engine, watch the EFAS/SYD overcorrect
b<
and put the airplane in the grass before most
pilots can react. The bigger engines are
th
more vulnerable to icing than the J57 and
ar
TF33, and because of their larger frontal area
nl
and side profile tend to make the jet more
A
vulnerable to wind gusts. The 'R model is a
al
blast to fly, and gives new meaning to the tt-
name'F-135'.
(F
(l

:k
la
1-
lr
Is
ir
,t
I-
),
j-
n
1-
h
n
1-
Ir
e
e
For over 35 years, Castle AFB has been
synonymous with KC-135 training. Dense fog
during the winter, blistering heat during the
summer, and comparatively spartan facilities
in the nearby community of Atwater all
contributed to every 'Crew Dog's' recollection
of their stay at Castle AFB. Interestingly, all the
KC·135As illustrated above lack the ubiquitous
tail stand inserted when the airplane is on the
ground. Robert D Archer collection
The history of the KC-135 can be considered a
reflection of the history of SAC during its years
of growth from adolescence to maturity and on
to its demise in 1992. Indeed, with the end of
SAC came the retirement of a large number of
KC-135As and almost all of the EC-135 air-
borne command post fleet, reflecting the elimi-
nation of nearly 40% of SAC's mission. Despite
this drastic reduction in numbers, the KC-135
and its variants remain very much in service,
now as part of the new major commands in the
Air Force such as Air Combat Command (ACC)
and Air Mobility Command (AMC) , as well as
theater forces such as Pacific Air Forces
(PACAF) and United States Air Forces Europe
(USAFE).
Chapter Five
Tankers
The first KC-135A (55-3127) was delivered on
28th June 1957, to the 93rd AREFS, 93rd BWat
Castle AFB, California, the new tanker's train-
ing and replacement squadron. The first Stra-
totankers delivered to operational units arrived
by year's end at the 42nd AREFS, 42nd BW at
Loring AFB and the 99th AREFS, 4050th
AREFW, at Westover AFB, Massachusetts.'
These units also received the first B-52s Strato-
fortresses, emphasizing the closely integrated
role of the new jet tanker with SAC's premier
bomber.
Both pilots and military planners greeted the
arrival of the jet-powered KC-135 with enthusi-
asm. It was an exciting improvement over the
KC-97 and raised the status of the tanker crew
to near equals of SAC's 'glamorous' jet bomber
crew. Crewmembers accustomed to the sheer
physical effort needed to fly the KC-97 were
thrilled with the KC-135. No longer did the
boom operator have to turn the heavy four-
bladed propellers through two complete revo-
lutions prior to flight. The 'boomer', who also
served as the load master, found the KC-135
significantly easier to load with cargo and pas-
sengers than the KC-97 with its two decks and
ladders and its four cargo bay fuel tanks.
!
-I
/
The KC-135 required less ground support
and servicing when away from its home base.
The boom operator acted as the crew chief and
had only to supervise ground refueling via the
airplane's single point refueling system and
check the oil in the four engines and the
hydraulic fluid level in each wing, tasks that nor-
mally took many hours with the KC-97. This
ease of servicing was particularly useful when
KC-135s deployed to civilian or remote air-
fields, away from the normal support equip-
ment and personnel that the KC-97 required.
The KC-135 was not without peculiarities,
most of which were common to large swept-
wing jet aircraft like the B-47 and the B-52. For
example, pilots occasionally found themselves
spinning in circles on icy ramps and runways
under asymmetric high power conditions.
'Though the KC-135 was a beauty, it had its
teething problems. Hydraulics overheated (no
coolers), the engine fuel control units froze up
(no heaters), it wouldn't take-off on three eng-
ines, no matter how far down the runway you
were (killed many refueling crews those first
years), air engine starter failure blew a lot of ORis
(Operational Readiness Inspections), and [the
KC-135] didn't often forgive a pilot boo-boo.
51
Still, when the KC-135 was churning just right,
your blood was up and you both were a thing of
beauty - we were a proud and happy gang of
fly boys in those days.
'I suspect the crews flying today feel pretty
much the same as we did - darn proud to be on
such a fine team and a grand ride to boot.' 2
Crewmembers were not the only ones
impressed with the new jet tanker. On 12th
September 1957, the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff
(JCS) was treated to a flight in KC-135A 55-
3127. Following a briefing at SAC headquarters
at Offutt AFB, the JCS flew to Peterson Field,
Colorado. The primary purpose of this flight
was to familiarize the Chiefs with the Air Force's
newest weapon. 3 On board the one hour, 55
minute flight commanded by Major Salvador
Felices, 93rd AREFS operations officer, were
Air Force General Nathan F Twining, chairman
of the JCS, General Thomas D White, Air Force
Chief of Staff, Admiral Arleigh A Burke, Chief of
Naval Operations, General Maxwell D Taylor,
Army Chief of Staff, and General Randolph
McC Pate, Marine Corps Commandant. The
chiefs observed an aerial refueling of a B-47
from Lincoln AFB, Nebraska. They each briefly
flew the KC-135 and were 'very impressed' by.
its performance and its "'triple-purpose capa-
bilities refueling, troop carrying and cargo
hauling."
A Change in Strategy
The jet-powered KC-135 also changed the way
military planners viewed strategic bombing
operations. The KC-135s could refuel at the
same altitudes and speeds as their bombers,
eliminating time-consuming and fuel-wasting
air refuelings at the low altitudes and speeds
required by KC-97s. As the range of SAC's
bombers increased, the number of targets they
could reach also increased. Conversely, with
fewer and faster air refuelings, the time in which
the targets could be struck was reduced con-
siderably.'
52
Most importantly, it was no longer necessary upon which SAC (and ultimately the United
for tankers to be deployed to forward bases in States) would base its aerial nuclear deterrent nu(
order to rendezvous with a jet bomber en route capability. .firs
to its targets. KC-135s could now be based with wei
B-47s and B-52s, launch with them, fly in forma- 'Chrome Dome' an<
tion with them to the refueling point, offload the In an age of 'think tanks' and blue ribbon pan· wei
required fuel, and then land at forward recovery els' dedicated to strategic nuclear issues, US
bases to refuel and prepare for post-strike or Albert Wohlstetter of the RAND Corporation an<
second strike refuelings. Although KC-135s did upset SAC's apple cart during the mid-1950s ale
deploy to dispersal bases, this was more a sur- by publishing a seminal report on the vulnera- the
vival measure against surprise attack than due bility of SAC bases and bombers, and hence the
to any operational need to launch ahead of the America's deterrent force, to Soviet surprise al
bombers. attack, especially by Soviet ICBMs.' Vulnerabil- we
This is not to suggest that SAC changed its ity quickly became a critical issue in SAC plan- pul
war plans completely. SAC continued to use ning. A 1959 military study revealed that out of sio
the 'Leap Frog' method of refueling bombers SAC's 174 'heavy tankers', only 18 could sur-
en route to their targets. Tankers located at vive a surprise attack of Soviet ICBMs and iou
northern tier bases would take-off, refuel SLBMs, too few to refuel even a meaningfUl bOI
bombers from the same or nearby bases, and number of the 139 surviving 'heavy bombers'.' KC
then land at forward bases for a quick refueling. One means of overcoming this vulnerability ma
Once reloaded with fuel, these tankers would to surprise attack was an airborne alert force, in nUl
launch to refuel bombers that had taken off sev- which KC-135s played an essential role. In rad
eral hours earlier from southern SAC bases. November 1957 CINCSAC General Thomas S sig
Consequently, this 'Leap Frog' method Power revealed that some of SAC's B-52s were ye,
enabled SAC to send more bombers toward airborne and that they were 'bombed up and a'
the target faster than if time was needed to they don't carry bows and arrows'." As part of ten
deploy tankers to a forward operating base'" Operation 'Chrome Dome', a small number of Gn
One significant effect beyond the increased B-52s was maintained on airborne alert, orbit- fro
operational flexibility of SAC's new jet tanker ing in large areas over the Mediterranean Sea, (pi
fleet, particularly after the 1st October 1957, the north western Pacific Ocean, and the Arctic to
commencement of ground alert, was the co- Ocean. gr,
location of mated bombers and tankers. KC-97 its
crews seldom sat alert with the bomber crews in~
they were scheduled to refuel. Instead, the -97s ea.
would deploy to Goose Bay, Newfoundland, for From the very beginning the KC-135's primary bo
purpose was to refuel SAC's bomber fleet in
example, to await their mated bombers which thE
support of the Emergency War Order (EWO)
were launched from bases in New England. mission. During the KC-135's early years, an
Now KC-135s sat alert at the same base (usual- Boeing wasted little effort in trying to sell in~
ly in the same building) with their mated additional KC-135s to the Air Force, exemplified to
bombers. They participated in ground training by this publicity photo showing the first im
KC·135A refueling B-52C 54-2676. Boeing had
and mission study together, flew training sor- es
reason to be optimistic, as SAC commander
ties together, and while on alert ate, slept and General LeMay envisaged a need for as many po
waited together. The KC-135 can be argued to as 1,300 of the jet tankers by the early 1960s. We
have been the catalyst that forged the team Boeing 17492, Paul H Miner! collection reI
of
be
ce
sq
ed
cr;
at
se
1S
ar
LE
di:
cc
10:
th
th
ail
ta
ar
ar
lited 'Chrome Dome' represented a significant
-rent nuclear strike potential, both retaliatory and
first-strike. Once executed, the airborne B-52s
were only short distances from Soviet territory
and, until the advent of operational ICBMs,
Jan- were the fastest means to strike targets in the
ues, USSR. Alert missions were 24-26 hours long,
Ilion and another B-52 was launched to replace the
150s alert B-52 before it could return to land. Given
lera- the duration of the 'Chrome Dome' mission and
mce the distances involved, the B-52s required aeri-
Jrise al refueling, usually from KC-135As (which
abil- were themselves not on airborne alert). SAC
llan- publicly announced the existence of these mis-
ut of sions on 18th January 1961 .'D
sur- 'Chrome Dome' acquired a rather ignomin-
and ious reputation when B-52G 58-0256 on air-
19ful borne alert on 17th January 1966 collided with
~rs' .8 KC-135A 61-0273 while refueling over Palo-
Jility mares, Spain (see Appendix C). Two of the four
:e, in nuclear bombs on board the B-52 released
J. In radioactive material and one bomb required a
as S significant multi-national effort to recover. Two
r.rere years and four days later B-52G 58-0188 flying
and a 'Chrome Dome' mission crashed while at-
Irt of tempting an emergency landing at Thule AB,
er of Greenland, again releasing radioactive residue
lrbit- from its nuclear weapons. These two accidents
Sea, (plus other earlier crashes) surely contributed
.rctic to the termination of the 'Chrome Dome' pro-
gram in 1968, but were not solely responsible for
its demise. B-52s and KC-135s were in increas-
ing demand for combat operations in South-
east Asia. In addition, rising operating costs (for
Iry both bombers and tankers), the demands
1
these missions placed on the aircrews that flew
and units that supported them, and the increas-
ing maturity of SAC's ICBM force all combined
ified to end routine airborne nuclear alert. Further,
improvements to US early warning systems,
especially platforms such as the Defense Sup-
port Program (DSP) satellite, offered increased
ny
IS. warning time of an impending attack and hence
reduced the need for airborne alert as a means
of strike force survivability."
The closing months of 1957 marked the
beginning of the end for the KC-135's prede-
cessors. On 1st November 1957, the last
squadron equipped with KB-29s was deactivat-
ed and its airplanes relegated to the Military Air-
craft Storage and Disposition Center (MASDC)
at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.
That same month a KC-135A set the first of a
series of world records. On 11-12th November
1957, General LeMay flew KC-135A 55-3126 to
and from Argentina as part of operation 'Long
Legs', earning the Harmon Trophy (see Appen-
dix F). The following year saw even more re-
cords fall to the KC-135A, as well as the first
loss of one of the new jet tankers, a tragic event
that took place during one record-setting flight.
Other SAC airplanes such as the B-52 and
lhe Convair B-58 Hustler set records requiring
air refueling, demonstrating the value of the jet
lanker's speed over the piston-powered KB-50
and KC-97, emphasizing the superior speed
and range of the KC-135A.
That this translated into increased striking
power for SAC's bomber force was certainly
not lost on the Soviet Union. At a time when the
US and the USSR were claiming military superi-
ority over each other, these record-setting
flights forcefully demonstrated to the Soviets
and the world that SAC bombers, refueled en
route by jet tankers, could strike their targets
anywhere in the world from bases in the United
States." 'Long Legs' in particular underscored
the continuing value of the manned bomber,
soon to be pronounced dead by American and
Soviet adherents of ballistic missiles. A New
York Times editorial hailed LeMay's flight, say-
ing that it
'... demonstrated that manned aircraft are
still far from being ready for the antiquated role
assigned to them in some quarters as the result
of the advent of the guided missile. This flight
gives an effective answer to those who would
sing a swan song for the manned interconti-
nental air force and for this reassuring demon-
stration General LeMay deserves the plaudits
of the nation and of the free world. 13
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had previ-
ously challenged the US to an accuracy 'duel'
designed to 'prove the superiority of [Soviet]
missiles and rockets'. As the result of its perfor-
rnance in Operation 'Long Legs', US Defense
Secretary Neil H McElroy chose the KC-135 to
represent the US. McElroy said that with LeMay
atthe controls of the KC-135, '... there would be
no question about who would win .... ' 14 Not
surprisingly, this duel never took place.
The KC-135 fleet flexed its operational mus-
cle from 13-15th October 1959 in Operation
'Fast Move'. This was the first major exercise
involving the new tanker, 70 KC-135s and 86
KC-97s deployed to forward bases in the north-
east US and Canada to refuel 29 B-52s and 164
B-47s, simulating the dispersal of the alert force
and its improved survivability.'s
The arrival of the KC-135 also meant that the
KC-97 could be removed from SAC service and
be retired or transferred to the Air Force's
reserve components. On 1st July 1961, the
126th AREFW of the Illinois Air National Guard
(ANG) was equipped with the KC-97 to become
the first ANG tanker wing. In May 1964 the jet-
augmented KC-97L entered service with the
126th AREFW, enhancing the older tanker's
lagging ability to operate with existing jet air-
planes. These KC-97Ls were particularly valu-
able in supporting ANG and Air Force Reserve
(AFRES) jet fighter deployments and opera-
tions, filling in the tanker shortfall caused by
TAC's increasing demands.
Tankers, Bombers, and Missiles
The turn of the decade saw the expansion of
the ICBM program to such a degree that the
future of the manned bomber force (and the
tanker fleet required to support it) appeared to
be in jeopardy. On 11th December 1961, Sec-
retary of Defense Robert S McNamara said:
'... the introduction of ballistic missiles is
already exerting a major impact on the size,
composition, and deployment of the manned
bomber force, and this impact will become
greater in the years ahead. As the number of ...
ballistic missiles increases, requirements for
strategic aircraft will be gradually reduced.
Simultaneously, the growing enemy missile
capability will make grounded aircraft more vul-
nerable to sudden attack, and further readiness
measures will have to be taken to increase the
survivability rate of the strategic bomber force.' 16
The implications were rnyopic and chilling.
As McNamara pressed the US toward a strate-
gic weapon system which, once launched,
could never be recalled, the flexibility of Ameri-
can defense decreased drastically. Because
bombers (and their tankers) could be recalled
after launch, a bomber launch might serve as
sufficient warning to the USSR that the US was
serious about its national security interests.
The bombers' long flight times from the US to
Soviet airspace (eight hours or more) allowed
for a final measure of negotiations in this time of
crisis. Should the Soviets and the United States
reach an agreement, the bombers (and their
tankers) could be recalled before any nuclear
weapons were employed.
ICBMs, however, cannot be recalled once
launched, and the flight time to their targets is
on the order of 30 minutes. Sea-launched mis-
siles take even less time, possibly as little as
five to ten minutes. Once launched, there is no
other recourse but for the other side to launch
its ICBMs lest they be destroyed by the oppo-
nent's first-strike missiles. With a strategic
deterrent force composed of only ICBMs, once
the first missile is launched, there would be no
outcomes other than the cataclysrnic nuclear
exchange that everyone feared was both immi-
nent and inevitable, or immediate surrender
and devastation by the nation under attack.
Despite the flexibility that encouraged the
continued development and operation of man-
ned strategic bombers (and their tankers),
McNamara chose instead to view the price of
deterrence with his economist's eye. ICBMs
were cheaperto produce, required significantly
less maintenance and training, had no need for
a fleet of support tankers, needed only a token
crew to launch dozens of missiles, and seemed
an overall cost-effective approach to defense
procurement. By eliminating the manned bom-
ber (or at a minimum emasculating it) as McNa-
mara envisaged, the only major options open
to the US were holocaust or surrender; there
was no 'in-between'. Given the fears of what a
post-nuclear world might be like, the likelihood
of an American president 'pushing the button'
for anything other than a direct attack on Ameri-
can soil was next to nothing.
This particularly worried America's Euro-
pean allies who feared that the US pledge to
consider an attack by the USSR on Europe as
an attack on the US was little more than political
hyperbole. Would the US launch its ICBMs
against Russia if Soviet tanks invaded the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany? European leaders
were unconvinced.
53
 AsS)
inclul
avail,
dram
numt
shu«
then I
procE
howe
no-ne
alwa
in fro
Rober

'AI
.. , [it
blos~
immE
time~
two e
most
broul
pilot!
Ra
laton
.;-
ed t
railc,
-----~ Gen
this
The United States could, however, increase Resistance to McNamara's policy ensured The flexibility of the manned bomber over the alert
the number of bombers on alert or launch them that the bomber force stayed firmly entrenched ICBM became readily apparent during the solic
Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. SAC
to their 'fail safe' points, sending a strong mes- as one-third of America's nuclear deterrent app~
B-47s, B-52s, KC-97s, and KC-135s were placed
sage to the Soviets to withdraw before escala- triad, maintaining US strategic flexibility. on ground alert in anticipation of any nuclear sup~

tion into a global thermonuclear exchange.
There were still, however, a number of 'old
bomber pilots' in the Air Force command struc-
ture who were firmly convinced of the value of
strategic bombing and who distrusted the
'whiz-kid newness' of the ICBM or their value
'as an independent strike force sufficiently reli-
able in themselves'. LeMay especially was con-
cerned about the operational reliability of the
missiles: 'We have never fired a missile with an
atomic warhead on it. ... So there is always
some question: will they work? ... To this day I
think everybody has one reservation: we never
shot a missile under war conditions.' LeMay
needed proven - not promising - weapons,
telling Air Force Chief of Staff General Nathan F
Twining on 26th November 1955, that until the
ICBM's 'capabilities are proven, we must estab-
lish initial [strategic] objectives and utilize
demonstrably effective weapons systems',
which he unequivocally identified as SAC's
proposed fleet of 1,900 'B-52 aircraft, the only
proven delivery system' coupled with 'some
1,300 KC-135 tankers in support'. 17
LeMay was equally worried about the ability
of the new ICBMs to hit their targets: 'The accu-
racy of the first missiles was nothing to jump up
and down about, either'. General Jack J Catton
echoed this concern:
'There you are, shooting a rocket like a can-
non, and it is going to go 5,000 miles and be
within a mile of the aiming point. That was just
hard for me to comprehend. That makes you
apprehensive."
Events in October 1962 proved the merit of
the manned bomber over the ICBM. Among
SAC's responses to the Cuban missile crisis
were an increase in the number of airborne
alert B-52s and the dispersal of B-47 and B-52
bombers to civilian airfields across the nation,
presenting Soviet missiles and bombers with
an overwhelming number of targets. Had the
USSR launched an attack, there were too many
bomber dispersal bases to ensure that all
would be targeted and destroyed (in addition to
the missile silos), leaving the Soviet Union vul-
nerable to an unacceptably devastating nuc-
lear retaliatory attack. Without this bomber
option in an ICBM-only force America could
have only acquiesced to the Soviet action in
Cuba or 'pushed the button'. Instead, the flexi-
bility with which President John F Kennedy
could employ his strategic nuclear forces
helped to convince Khrushchev of US resolve
to use those forces, resulting, in part, in the
withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.
A hidden implication of the strategic bomber
issue was its demand upon SAC's tanker force.
If the bombers were phased out there would be
little need for tankers to support them. Those
already built could support TAC's fighter com-
mitment, and the cancellation of existing and
future orders would result in significant defense
bUdget savings. What Kennedy's 'best and
brightest' could not do was predict the future,
particularly the exponential growth in demand
for air refueling by airplanes, commands, ser-
vices, and nations other than SAC's bombers
confrontation between the US and the Soviet KC-1
Union. KC-135As from the 4136th SWat Mather Ead
AFB on alert during the height of the crisis. car,
Joe Bruch collection
ploy
werE
men
T~
neCE
pair~
and TAC's fighters. Had the tanker fleet been 196'
cut or production terminated in 1961 or 1962, mai~
the availability of tankers in the 1990s would be tion~
less than half of the existing level, already inad· whe
equate in the event of a major sustained com· half
bat operation. The implication for KC-135 dire
variants (such as reconnaissance platforms be r
and airborne command posts) would have
been even more disturbing. These special air· The
frames were built or converted to satisfy specif· SAG
ic needs, and their construction or modification and
would have been impossible given a shortage wha
oftankers. The value of these variants and their hoS'
influence on the evolution of US national secu· ope
rity policy will be shown subsequently. Their ne\1
absence cannot be minimized. rec
As more and more bombers and their Vie
tankers were placed on alert (with some 19l
crewmembers on alert for up to three weeks out anc
of every four), the need to maintain the profi- SUI
ciency of their crews increased dramatically. 'Ur
Every three KC-135 bases shared a single flight 191
simulator, but crews on alert at two of the three 18
bases could not train in the simulator with any of
degree of regularity. me

54
 As SAC ground alert commitments increased,
including the seven-day alert cycle, time
available for flight training decreased
dramatically. SAC responded by acquiring a
number of railcar cockpit simulators that
shuttled between SAC bases. Alert crews could
then maintain their skills, especially emergency
procedures, without flying. For many crews,
however, arrival of the simulator meant
no-notice evaluations by Stan-Eval, which
.. ' ' 1. always carried the risk of unwanted notoriety
~J in front of the wing commander.
IJj. Robert D Archer collection

'Alert was the dog days to all crew members.

... [it] started out as three-day tours but soon
blossomed to seven days with a mission flown
immediately after. We got 3\f days off, but most
times you were faced with that seven day tour
two or three times a month. Flying became al-
most a new experience each time. They
brought the train simulator in often to keep the
pilots proficient.' 19
Rather than buy additional fixed-base simu-
lators, CINCSAC General Power recommend-
ed the purchase of mobile simulators on
railcars. He wrote to Air Force Vice Chief of Staff
General LeMay on 29th June 1961: 'I consider
this action essential to support the increased
he alert posture, as well as for flying safety, and Additional refueling capability was available Table 7 - Major Air Refueling Programs in SEA
solicit your support in obtaining expeditious in the form ofTAC's fewKB-50s and the handful (excludes missions in support of the USS Pueblo)
approval of this project'.'o Power got LeMay's of remaining SAC KC-97s. SAC tankers also Name Primary Base Mission
lced
ar support. The Air Force accepted the first mobile provided air refueling and airlift support for
'Lima Mike' Trans-Pacitic fighter
It KC-135 flight simulator on 1st December 1961 . Andersen AFB, Guam-based B-47s, as well as deployments
ther Each simulator, mounted in a Pullman railroad refueling for RB-47, KC-135A-1I and KC-135A
'Yankee Team' Clark AB Support tactical
car, served four different bases. Once de- reconnaissance operations throughout the strikes in Laos
ployed to a base, all pilots, even those on alert, Western Pacific. Major air refueling programs 'Foreign Clark AB Renamed from
were able to use it to practice routine instru- unique to the war in Southeast,Asia are listed in Legion' 'Yankee Team'
mentflying and emergency procedures." Table7. 'Tamale Pete' Kadena AB Planning name for
The KC-135s themselves were undergoing Formally acknowledged SAC operations in Okinawa TIF
necessary improvements and fleetwide' re- .SEA began in February 1964 when Lockheed 'Young Tiger' Kadena AB Refuel tactical air
pairs. For example, beginning in September U-2s conducted photographic reconnaissance operations in SEA
been 1961 the KC-135 had experienced excessive of South Vietnam's borders." Increasing hostil- 'Tiger Cub' Don Muang lAP Relocation of
1962, main landing gear wheel failures, and inspec- ities over Laos (including the loss of two Vought 'Foreign Legion' TTF
Id be tions revealed a high number of unsatisfactory F-8 Crusaders on reconnaissance missions) 'Arc Light' t Refuel B-52
inad- wheels in service. SAC completed a one-and-a- elicited a more militant US response. On 7th operations in SEA
:om- half year fleetwide study on 6th May 1963, June 1964, the JCS directed SAC to move four 'King Cobra' Takhli RTAFB Supplement 'Tiger
:-135 directing that the original magnesium wheels (later increased to six) KC-135s from Andersen Cub'TIF
Jrms be replaced with stronger aluminum ones." AFB to Clark AB, Republic of the Philippines, to 'Giant Cobra' U-Tapao RTNAB Supplement 'Tiger
have support planned strikes in Laos by US Air Force Cub'TIF
II air- The Southeast Asia Years tactical bombers. This tanker deployment - 'Jumping Jack' Emergency post-
lecif- SAC tanker operations in Southeast Asia (SEA) part of 'Lima Mike X' - became known as the mission B-52
ation and the Pacific did not begin in mid-1964 with 'Yankee Team' Tanker Task Force (TTF), ac- refueling
tage what is traditionally considered the onset of quiring its name from the reconnaissance mis- 'Glass Key' Ching Chuan Kang Supplement 'Young
hostilities in Vietnam. Early KC-135 refueling sions then being flown over Laos.'6 All six AB Tiger' and 'Arc Light'
their
:ecu- operations in SEA included support for McDon- 'Yankee Team' tankers were placed on 30- 'Bullet Shot' § Deploy B-52s and
KC- t 35s to SEA
rheir nell RF-1 01 C Voodoos flying 'Pipe Stem' minute strip alert, ready to refuel as directed by
in t972
reconnaissance missions over the Republic of the JCS.27
'Constant Deploy tactical
their Vietnam from 20th October to 21 st November The first KC-135 missions in support of com-
Guard' aircraft to SEA, 1972
ome 1961. 23 Trans-Pacific fighter deployments to bat operations took place on 9th June 1964,
50ut and from bases in the Far East required KC-135 when four 'Yankee Team' KC-135s refueled * 'Lima Mike' missions flown from US and overseas bases
>rofi- support, often operating under the nickname eight North American F-1 00 Super Sabres over t 'Arc Light' tanker missions were flown initially from Kadena
:ally. 'Lima Mike'. From July 1962 through June Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam, en route to tar- AB and iater Ching Chuan Kang AB
light 1963, SAC provided 200 KC-135s in support of gets on the Plaines des Jarres in Laos. Post- :j: 'Jumping Jack' missions typically were conducted from
'Arc Light' refueling bases as well as Andersen AFB
hree 18 major TAC overseas movements. By the end strike refueling occurred over southern Laos.
§ 'Bullet Shot' and 'Constant Guard' missions were flown
any of the year, SAC tankers supported eleven The 'Yankee Team' tankers were immediately from US and overseas bases
more such movements. '4 prepared for another mission on 13th June, but

55

this did not take place. On 15th June the 'Yan-
kee Team' KC-135s returned to Andersen AFB
but were still susceptible to short notice
demands for tanker support. They also res-
umed participation in the TAC deployments 2 "
FollOWing the disclosure of the Gulf of Tonkin
incident, on 5th August the JCS ordered the re-
establishment of the 'Yankee Team' TIF at
Clark AB with eight KC-135s. TAC deployed 84
fighters to the Western Pacific, requiring 172 air
refueling sorties and 48 KC-135s, including
those at Clark AB plus those at Andersen AFB
and Hickam AFB, Hawaii.
On 3rd September 1964, the 'Yankee Team'
TIF was renamed 'Foreign Legion', with the
next strike refueling mission on 28th Septem-
ber 1964.29 'Foreign Legion' was purely an in-
terim organization, little more than 'a mighty
sparse ops room consisting primarily of a crew
and aircraft roster and a phone to Saigon'.
Plans were well under way to establish a tanker
task force at Kadena AB, Okinawa, early in
1965. The TIF at Kadena AB would have as its
primary mission the daily refueling operations
throughout SEA, theater training, and prepara-
tion for the introduction of B-52s involved with
conventional bombing in SEA." Specific refuel-
ing assignments would include:
'(1) tactical aircraft, mainly those performing
photographic and reconnaissance missions
over North Vietnam; (2) PACAF aircraft operat-
ing out of Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, and
the Philippines, including those on inter-theater
56
/ " '.. G. S. AIR FORCE"'":\
0035
A problems, and a lack of well defined tactical
missions; and (3) SAC aircraft which meant
bombers on training missions in addition to
reconnaissance aircraft.' 31
A forward operating location would also be
established at Don Muang International Airport
(lAP), Thailand. 32 Planning for the Okinawa TIF
acquired the nickname 'Tamale Pete'.
Operations at Kadena AB were scheduled to
commence no later than 31 st January 1965,
although TAC preferred a December 1964
operational capability.""
The crash in late 1964 of one of TAC's elderly
KB-50s and the subsequent grounding of the
remaining fleet due to widespread airframe cor-
rosion forced a reappraisal of the tanker task
force deployment schedule. KC-135s were
equally vulnerable to corrosion, and AFSC rec-
ommended painting the airplane as a preven-
tive measure. OCAMA began painting KC-135s
on 7th October 1964, a process expected to
take two years forthe entire fleet."
With the elimination of the KB-50 fleet, TAC
was now completely without its own tanker fleet
and was wholly dependent upon SAC for air
refueling, creating an excessive demand for
SAC tanker support. During 1964 SAC retired
five KC-97 squadrons and discontinued KC-97
operations at Sondrestrom AB, Greenland, and
Namao RCAF Station, Canada, leaving Har-
mon AB, Newfoundland, as the sole remaining
KC-97 overseas base." As the KC-97s retired,
the burden on KC-135s to refuel alert B-47s and
B-52s increased. KC-135s were also in in-
The arrival of four KC-135As in the Philippines ThE
on 8th June 1964, marked the beginning of on 1~
nearly a decade of tan ker task force operations
from'
in support of combat operations in Southeast
Asia. From the outset SAC crews and 0179
maintenance personnel were faced with 320th
numerous challenges to be overcome: brutally refuel
hot and humid weather, highly flexible mission the IT
tasking, frequent emergency refuelings,
limita
significant senior-level command and control
ed b~
combat operating procedures. All of these track!
problems were either resolved or minimized. eral ~
Author's collection accOl
ing Sl
Philip
and i
Although SAC tanker crews had trained with
dezv(
TAC fighters, KC-135 crews were used to a
single B-52 receiver. By 1965, a year after Altl
tanker operations began in Southeast Asia, only<
tanker crews had grown accustomed to large base,
formations of fighters thirsty for fuel, often in coulc
life-threatening situations. Tanker 'saves'
ablel
became the stuff of flying legends, saving both
a fighter and its crew: KC-135A 57-1461, named ing d
Ark-La-Tex, refuels six F-105Ds en route to area!
targets 'up north'. Joe Bruch collection ABel
fuel
tankE
forthl
pres:
tank!
creased demand for conventional support, as ited
in May 1964 when 20 KC-135s participated in whel
Operation 'Desert Strike', a joint Army-Air depl<
Force exercise. Losing any KC-135s to the pro- 'TigE
posed TIF was not a prospect welcomed by atin~
SAC planners.
The final KC-135A (64-14840) was delivered
to the 380th AREFS, 380th SAW at Plattsburgh
AFB, New York, on 12th January 1965. On the Sust
revel
same day, the 4252nd SW was activated at
withi
Kadena AB and tanker operations from there the,
assigned the nickname 'Young Tiger'. The first 196"1
'Young Tiger' operational mission was flown on sine-
25th January 1965. 36 A force of 15 KC-135s was KC-1
and
anticipated to be in place by 30th June 1965,
impi
with a portion of those airplanes on temporary culn
duty (TDY) to Don Muang lAP. KC-"
On 11th February, however, the 4252nd SW Tom
received notice of the impending arrival of addi-
tional KC-135s in support of 'Arc Light' B-52
conventional bombing operations conducted
from Andersen AFB.37 On 12-13th February, 32
KC-135s arrived at Kadena AB, overwhelming
the facilities there. SAC's plan to conduct B-52
operations in the Western Pacific had failed to
account for adequate tanker support and the
necessary organizational infrastructure. For the
first time SAC tankers were involved in a con-
ventional wartime situation, not a practice
nuclear war generation or an alert dispersal,
and the differences were quickly apparent. By
mid-1965 there were 45 KC-135s in place at
Kadena AB which had provisions for only 15.
Only the 15 'Young Tiger' KC-135s were avail-
able for fighter support while the remaining 30
'Arc Light' KC-135s were held in reserve for
operations with B-52s, a restriction that was
soon removed.'"
nes The first 'Arc Light' B-52 mission took place The first 'King Cobra' refuelings took place lAP came to a halt. During 1966 the 75 KC-135s
on 18th June 1965, conducted by 27 B-52Fs on 15th September. The Thais finally granted in SEA had flown 18,203 sorties and transferred
lions
from the 7th and 320th BWs. Two B-52s (57- approval for a permanent tanker base at Takhli more than 850 million pounds of fuel. 45 The
1St
0179 from the 7th BW and 57-0047 from the RTAFB on 20th December 1965. build-up of tanker forces in Thailand continued
320th SW) were lost in a mid-air collision in the During the last six months of 1965, Kadena- through 1967. Fuel requirements for PACAF
ally refueling area, and the overall military effect of based KC-135s flew over 4,000 sorties - some fighters alone doubled from 1.8 million pounds
;ion the mission was of questionable value. 39 The 65% ofthe 4252nd SW's refueling missions - in per day to 3.7 million.'·
limitations ofthe air refueling plan were correct- support of PACAF. 43 At the end of 1965 there An additional issue facing tanker operations
'01
II ed by an increase in the number of refueling were 40 KC-135s at Kadena AB, ten at Takhli in SEA was which command - PACAF's 7th Air
tracks at different altitudes, increasing their lat- RTAFB, and five at Don Muang lAP. The tankers Force or SAC - controlled the tanker assets
d. eral separation, instituting timing triangles to flew more than 9,200 sorties, conducted 31,250 available. PACAF planners sought to increase
account for flight timing discrepancies, relocat- refuelings, and transferred 315 million pounds the number of tankers available, especially over
ing some of the refueling tracks closer to the of fuel. 44 laos and near North Vietnam for post-strike air
Philippine Islands, and eventually developing refueling. SAC commanders argued that these
and implementing the en route refueling ren- Sustained Operations plans placed the KC-135s in unnecessary high-
h
dezvous procedure.'o On 10th November 1965, the last KC-97 in SAC risk situations. Because SAC still felt that the
Although KC-135s based in Thailand flew was removed from ground alert at the 9th primary mission of the KC-135 fleet was sup-
only one-third the total sorties per day as those AREFS, 9th SAW, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, port of the Single Integrated Operations Plan
ge based in Okinawa, the Thailand-based tankers The last two KC-97s were removed from SAC's (SlOP) - the attack plan executed in the event
in could offload nearly three times the fuel avail- inventory on 21 st December 1965, when one of a nuclear war - anything that placed even a
able from Kadena tankers given the shorter fly- airplane each from the 100th AREFS at Pease single tanker at risk was detrimental to SAC's
30th
med ing distances from Thailand to the air refueling AFB, New Hampshire, and the 384th AREFS at mission of strategic deterrence. 47 In addition,
areas." Despite this obvious benefit, Kadena Westover AFB were flown to MASDC. Although PACAF wanted the KC-135s moved out ofTak-
AB enjoyed greater access to the source of jet KC-97s would remain in ANG service for quite hli RTAFB to allow increased fighter operations
fuel via a seaborne logistics pipeline. Still, some time, there were no more piston-powered from there, a trade-off that would dramatically
tanker basing in Thailand was not immediately tankers in SAC. affect SAC's ability to satisfy PACAF's refueling
forthcoming. Considerable Thai diplomatic By June 1966 B-52s in SEA dropped approxi- needs.
pressure sought to decrease or eliminate the mately 8,000 tons of bombs per month and at
tankers completely at Don Muang lAP, and lim- year's end had flown over 5,000 sorties. Be- Fighters, not Bombers
rt, as ited basing facilities were to be found else- cause the B-52s flew great distances from This increase in demand by PACAF fighters
ed in where in SEA." In September 1965, KC-135s Andersen AFB or Kadena AB, the need for air placed tanker planners and crews in a consid-
y-Air deployed to Takhli RTAFB to supplement the refueling en route to and from the target was erable predicament. Accustomed to support-
i pro- 'Tiger Cub' TIF aircraft at Don Muang lAP, cre- absolute. Tactical fighter-bomber operations ing B-52s whose missions were planned in
id by atingthe 'King Cobra' TIF. increased as well, placing a commensurate minute detail days in advance of the flight, the
demand on the tanker fleet in SEA. To accom- need for extremely flexible tanker crew re-
fered modate these new requirements, SAC estab- sponses to fighter missions and emergencies
lurgh lished an additional tanker base at Sattahip, taxed the training of even the most experienced
n the Sustained KC·135 operations in Southeast Asia Thailand, and sent more tankers to SEA, usual- tanker crewmember. Instead of one or two
revealed a number of inherent inadequacies
,d at ly from the same wing as the B-52s deployed to scheduled bomber receivers, dozens of fight-
within the KC·135 fleet, nearly all of which were
there the result of the underpowered J57 engines. By Andersen AFB. ers - most of them unscheduled and in desper-
3 first 1967 SAC's premier tanker had changed little The 4258th SW was activated at U-Tapao ate need of the gas intended for other receivers
vn on since 1960, when this photo of 99th BW RTNAB (formerly Sattahip) on 2nd June 1966, - could show up for air refueling. The strain on
,was KC·135A 56·3638 was taken at Westover AFB, with the first 'Giant Cobra' TIF sortie from U- the KC-135s themselves was considerable.
and it was clearly time for a substantial
1965, Tapao RTNAB on 11 th August; 15 tankers had Flights were typically at extremely high or maxi-
improvement. The result was the KC·X program,
orary culminating with the re·engined KC·135E and
been assigned there by September. Takhli mum gross weights, the airplanes flew more
KC·135R, and the newly developed KC·10. RTAFB remained a forward operating location sorties and accrued more flying hours than nor-
jSW Tom Hildreth (FOl). By October operations at Don Muang mal, and occasionally landed at their maximum
addi-
S-52
Jcted
y,32
ming
B-52
ed to
j the
lrthe
con-
lctice
,rsal,
It. By
ce at
y 15.
~vail­
Ig30
e for
was

57

gross landing weights to avoid dumping valu-
able fuel.
Compromises satisfied most of the con-
tentious issues, and the results were effective.
For example, air refueling altitudes were low-
ered and the air refueling tracks were extended
farther north (to 20· north latitude). PACAF
commander Lieutenant General William W
Momyer, wrote to thank CINCSAC General
John 0 Ryan:
'I would like to extend my personal apprecia-
tion for the increased KC-135 tanker support
now being provided to my Tactical Forces in
Southeast Asia....
'The professionalism and "Can Do" attitude
of your KC-135 tanker crews ... in meeting my
complex operational requirements, have given
me the flexibility to make adjustments to a daily
changing tactical situation. My employment of
forces has been materially improved by their
sustained high level of performance.' 48
An excerpt from another letter of apprecia-
tion from an F-4 crew epitomized the more per-
sonal thanks PACAF owed the KC-135 crews:
'This [fuel] emergency ... could have ended
in the loss of an F-4 and the loss or imprison-
ment of the crew had it not been for the immedi-
ate and professional assistance rendered by
the crew of [the KC-l35]. Our heartiestthanks.' 4'
Despite these improvements in relations be-
tween SAC and PACAF, there would be more
demands to expand tanker operations in sup-
port of both 'Arc Light' and 'Young Tiger' mis-
sions. By the end of 1967, KC-135s flew nearly
23,000 sorties and dispensed over 1.1 billion
pounds of fuel in support of 'Arc Light' B-52s
and 'Young Tiger' operations. 50
The sustained tanker operations in SEA sig-
nificantly affected SAC's strategic deterrent
operations and plans. The increase in conven-
tional combat operations in SEA did not alter
the need to maintain the alert force, nominally
about 40% of SAC's fleet. This was surely a
hardship for tanker and bomber crews who
were scheduled for a deployment to SEA for up
to six months only to return home and spend at
least half (and usually more) of the remaining
time on alert, away from their families and
homes.
Operations in SEA emphasized the KC-135's
58
Despite the reputation that the late 1960s and Offer
early 1970s were characterized by huge tanker activi
task forces in Southeast Asia, a considerable
fuel ~
number of KC·135s remained at home in sup·
port of SlOP commitments. This placed great prob
demands on flight and maintenance crews, who haza
were either TDY to Southeast Asia or home on coml
alert, with little time for flying or family left base
over. These demands contributed in large part
to re
to the exodus of KC-135 fliers from the Air
Force after the war. KC-135A 68-00318 at
forCE
McClellan AFB, May 1967. Photo by Peter B. RTNi
Lewis, Rene J. Francillon collection ploy
took
ings
At the beginning of February there were 94 while
KC-135s in-theater, with over two thirds of the man'
airplanes based at U-Tapao RTNAB and Kade· CCK
na AB. Tanker missions were divided among of'G
inadequacies. The need for long runways, for 'Young Tiger', 'Arc Light', 'Commando Royal', Or
example, underscored the airplane's limited reconnaissance, 'Port Bow', and 'Jumping son,
dispersal field capability while on alert. The Jack' emergency post-mission B-52 refuelings, of 1!
poor performance of the KC-135's engines An increase in 'Young Tiger' tanker sorties from exter
under high pressure altitude or high tempera- 53 to 66 sorties per day placed an even greater
ture conditions and their need for demineral- demand on the tanker assets in theater. On
ized water for augmented thrust take-ofts all 29th February the eight KC-135s at Takhli
dictated a replacement, or at least an improve- RTAFB relocated to U-Tapao RTNAB, making Althc
deer,
ment, to the basic KC-135 airframe. In June the 'Young Tiger' TIF the largest in SEA with 40
1969
1967 SAC requested a new 'advanced capabili- ai rplanes. Additional KC-135s needed to sup· figur
ty tanker', based on an entirely new airframe port this increase in operations over Vietnam Addi
with TF39 high-bypass turbofan engines, or at and Korea would be based at the new facility on to Sc
a minimum, a significantly improved version of Taiwan. sup~
accc
the KC-135. This 'KC-X' proposal would even- Taiwan is nearly as close to the Gulf 01
sust
tually lead to the KC-135R and the KC-1 0 (and, Tonkin as the bases in Thailand and typically appl
indirectly, the KC-135E), but still would not fully an hour's flight closer than Kadena AB (given Kuw
satisfy SAC's long-term tanker inadequacies. 51 variations in winds aloft and weather condi· tacti
The beginning of 1968 presented two major tions). As early as 1966 plans were under con·
problems for US military forces in the Pacific. sideration for the basing of up to 15 KC-135s on
On 23rd January North Korea seized the USS Taiwan but political obstructions and lack of a
Pueblo, a US naval intelligence-gathering ship. base large enough and with adequate support
As part of Operation 'Port Bow', 26 B-52s and facilities delayed these plans.
nine KC-135s deployed to Southeast Asia.. Nonetheless, construction began in 1966 for
These bombers were operationally separate a 'multi-role base', originally known as Kung
from the 'Arc Light' B-52s and were committed Kuan AB, to accommodate 15 KC-135s, plus 30
to possible conventional (and nuclear) strikes B-52s, and a wing of C-130s. Political sensitivi·
against North Korea. The tankers stopped briefly ties (ie the base's proximity to the PRC) eventu·
at Kadena AB prior to continuing to the newly- ally precluded B-52 operations. By the end of
completed airbase at Ching Chuan Kang, Tai- 1966 the Nationalist Chinese government reo
wan. A tenth KC-135 was added to the 'Port named the base Ching Chuan Kang AB. With
Bow' group while at Kadena AB. All 'Port Bow' construction well under way, preparations were
tankers were in place on Taiwan by 7th Febru- made to activate the 4220th AREFS (which
ary, as were five 'Combat Lightning' radio relay reported to the 4252nd SW) on 2nd January
airplanes. 52 During 'Combat Fox', four task 1967. However, Air Force Headquarters noti-
forces of 20, 16, 12, and nine KC-135s refueled fied SAC on 18th November 1966, that due to
additional tactical aircraft deployed in response heightened political pressures Ching Chuan
to the Pueblo seizure. Once these tactical ass- Kang AB would be unavailable for SAC's poten-
ets were in position, KC-135s refueled them on tial use, although it could divert airplanes there
a daily basis as part of 'Commando Royal'.53 in the event of bad weather at its other Pacific
On 30th January North Vietnamese, Viet bases. 55 Interestingly, Nationalist Chinese offi-
Cong, and People's Republic of China (PRC) cials were kept in the dark about SAC's use of
forces launched the Tet Offensive. The US the base 'until such time as the US Depart-
response to this series of majo'r assaults was ments of State and Defense were ready to
Operation 'Niagara', an air offensive that nec- advisethem'.56
essitated a considerable increase in tanker By mid-1967 Ching Chuan Kang AB (popu-
support for the rise in both tactical fighter and larly referred to as 'CCK') was nearly complet-
B-52 operations. B-52 sorties, for example, ed with one exception. The base had grossly
rose from 800 per month to 1,200 per month as inadequate access to the fuel distribution sys-
of 1st February. By 15th February the number tem on Taiwan, certainly unacceptable for a
increased again to 1,800 per month. 54 tanker base. The Pueblo seizure and the Tel
,and Offensive provided the needed pressure to North Vietnam and the Demilitarized Zone. thing which could not be guaranteed under sur-
anker activate CCK as a SAC tanker base. Still, the These halts decreased the overall demand on prise attack conditions. 59 The dispersal pro-
able
fuel shortage there remained while other major KC-135 operations, although this was gradual gram evolved further into satellite basing which
sup-
reat problems such as inadequate air traffic control, and took place over the ensuing six months. By was designed to protect SAC alert aircraft from
s,who hazardous terrain, and inadequate manning all the end of 1968 SAC tanker operations in SEA the increasing threat of SLBMs. B-52s and their
le on complicated initial operations from the new exceeded all previous levels, with some 32,000 KC-135s from the 72nd BW, Ramey AFB, Puer-
ft base. In addition, Japanese political pressure sorties completing more than 129,000 refuel- to Rico, were placed on alert at Homestead
! part
to remove combat airplanes from Kadena AB ings (of which 114,744 involved tactical aircraft) AFB, Florida, on 20th February 1969. With the
ir
forced the based B-52s to move to U-Tapao and transferring 1.6 billion pounds offuel.'7 test successfully completed on 20th May, the
RTNAB and the KC-135s at U-Tapao to rede- satellite basing program went into effect on 1st
ploy to CCK. As part of this redeployment, CCK Dispersal of the Alert Force July.'"
took over 'Arc Light' and 'Young Tiger' refuel- The increased number of SAC B-52s and Stra- With the advent of President Johnson's
ings as well as all combat lightning operations, totankers in SEA decreased the number avail- November bombing halt, tanker sortie num-
'ere 94 while Kadena AB took over the entire 'Com- able for alert in support of the SlOP: 75 bers decreased through 1969. 'Arc Light' sor-
. of the mando Royal' mission. KC-135 operations from bombers (38% of the required alert force) and ties dropped from 1,BOO to 1,400 by 6th October
Kade- CCK were known by the operational nickname 53 tankers (27%) had been removed from alert with a commensurate decrease in air refuel-
lmong of 'Glass Key'. to support SEA operations. 58 With fewer air- ings. 'Young Tiger' refueling sorties also de-
Royal', On 1st April 1968, President Lyndon B John- planes available to execute the SlOP, SAC creased, although the total number of air
Imping son ordered a halt to all bombing sorties north sought some means to improve their survivabil- refuelings increased to a record level (ie each
elings. of 19' North latitude. Seven months later he ity in the event of a surprise attack against the tanker refueled more airplanes per sortie). By
lsfrom extended this prohibition to all bombing of US. The success of the dispersal program used year's end, KC-135s had conducted 138,164
)reater during the Cuban Missile Crisis provided the refuelings over 28,000 sorties while transferring
er. On answer. 1.4 billion pounds offuel. 61
Takhli B-52s and KC-135s were deployed to military As part of a major organizational change
naking Although sortie count and aircraft numbers and civilian airfields around the United States. within SAC on 1st April 1970, the 4252nd SWat
decreased in the wake of President Johnson's
Nith40 Not only did this increase the number of targets Kadena AB was replaced by the 376th SW, and
1969 bombing halt of North Vietnam, these
o sup- figures increased dramatically during 1972. necessary for the Soviet Union to attack to the 4258th SWat U-Tapao RTNAB was re-
ietnam Additional tankers and strike aircraft deployed . ensure the destruction of SAC's nuclear deter- placed by the 307th SW. 62 Sortie numbers con-
:i1ityon to Southeast Asia, and tanker demands to rent force, it allowed more airplanes to become tinued to wane, with 'Arc Light' missions
support these transpacific movements rose airborne in the event of a surprise attack. As dropping to the 1,000 level by late summer of
accordingly. The lessons of tanker support for
3ulf of there were fewer airplanes at each site, they 1970. Tanker missions from CCK fell to nearly
sustained aerial combat operations were
pically applied some 20 years later over Iraq and
could all become airborne in the short amount zero, with 'Combat Lightning' continuing oper-
(given Kuwait, validating the KC-135's crucial role in of time available, unlike the longer time needed ations from there until 14th November 1970,
condi- tactical operations. Author's collection to launch a large number of airplanes, some- when they moved to U-Tapao RTNAB. CCK
lrcon-
35son
~k of a
upport

366 for
, Kung
)Ius 30
,nsitivi-
'ventu-
end of
ent re-
3. With
swere
(which
muary
s noti-
due to
Chuan
poten-
,there
Pacific
,e offi-
use of
>epart-
ldy to

(popu-
mplet-
lrossly
,n sys-
, for a
1e Tet

59
tanker operations officially ended on 31 st Janu-
ary 1971.63 Overall tanker numbers declined
from 71 in mid-1970 to 48 in December 1970.
During 1970, KC-135s flew 19,540 sorties and
transferred 888.2 million pounds offuel. 64
A brief surge in US tactical and B-52 missions
in May 1971 temporarily increased the number
of tankers in-theater to 51. On 1st July 1971 , the
909th AREFS was assigned to the 376th SWat
Kadena (where it joined the 82nd SRS which
flew RC-135Ms), replacing two TDY tanker task
forces. Equipped with ten KC-135As, the 909th
also had five KC-135Qs, the latter for SR-71
support. 65 Tanker sorties again increased at the
end of 1971 with the beginning of the 'Com-
mando Hunt VII' interdiction campaign against
supplies from North Vietnam and PRC. Still, the
total number of refuelings in 1971 decreased
from previous years: 14,400 sorties with 62,200
refuelings which offloaded 618.5 million
pounds offuel. 66
Intelligence reports in early 1972 of in-
creased communist activity in preparation for
what was believed to be a major offensive
against South Vietnam spurred an immense
and rapid bUild-up of SAC forces in SEA. On 8th
February 1972, 29 B-52s and ten KC-135s
deployed to Andersen AFB and Kadena AB,
respectively, as part of 'Bullet Shot 1'.67 'Arc
Light' refuelings increased to 1,500 per month.
Additional tactical aircraft were deployed to
SEA as part of 'Constant Guard', with the first
such deployment taking· place between 6th and
12th April when three tanker task forces of 13
KC-135s each (all from bases in the US) escort-
ed two squadrons of F-4Es and one squadron
of F-1 05G 'Wild Weasel' Thunderchiefs to Korat
RTAFB, Thailand."
Six more KC-135s went to SEA under 'Bullet
Shot II' in April, three more in 'Bullet Shot II
Extension' later the same month, and three
more KC-135s went to Kadena AB and seven
went to U-Tapao RTNAB in mid-April under
'Bullet Shot 111'.69 'Constant Guard' sorties con-
tinued and a 'Constant Guard IIA' task force
was established on 2nd May at Clark AB with 12
KC-135s but was almost immediately replaced
on 10th May with eleven new KC-135s as part of
'Constant Guard liB'. This unit fell under the
operational control of the 316th SW as Detach-
ment 2, but was soon renamed Operating
Location Clark Field (OL-CF). Four squadrons
of F-4s deployed to SEA from Holloman AFB,
New Mexico, beginning on 3rd Mayas part of
'Constant Guard III'. Two more KC-135s
deployed to Kadena AB at the end of Mayas
part of 'Bullet Shot IV', bringing the total num-
ber of tankers at Kadena AB to 26 'Bullet Shot'
airplanes, six 'Combat Lightning; airplanes,
and the existing 28 airplanes already in place in
January." By the middle of 1972, there were
172 KC-135s based in SEA and the Far East. 71
The increase in tanker numbers necessitated
a major organizational change. The 307th SW
gave up control of its KC-135s to the 31 Oth SW
(P) [Provisional] on 1st June. On 5th June the
4101 st AREFS (P) was activated at Takhli
60
RTAFB and the 41 02nd AREFS (P) was activat-
ed at Clark AB." As part of a plan to relieve the
crowded basing conditions in SEA, 13 KC-135s
deployed in June to Don Muang lAP in Thai-
land, with the 4103rd AREFS (P) activating
there on 1st July. Seven KC-135s also dep-
loyed to Korat RTAFB in June, with the 4104th
AREFS (P) activating there on 9th June.
Two thirds of the KC-135s in SEA - 114 air-
planes - were 'Young Tiger' aircraft refueling
tactical combat aircraft while the remainder
were Kadena AB aircraft supporting 'Arc Light'
B-52 air refueling, 'Combat Lightning' radio
relay, reconnaissance support, and other SAC
and PACAF missions." 'Arc Light' missions
increased to 2,250 per month by mid-April, ris-
ing to a record 3,150 per month by the end of
June, a level sustained until the start of 'line-
backer II' in December.
Tactical deployments continued as 48 Gen-
eral Dynamics F-111 As moved in September to
Takhli RTAFB under 'Constant Guard V' and 72
Vought A-7D Corsair lis deployed in October to
Korat RTAFB under 'Constant Guard VI'. Bas-
ing limitations forced the termination of KC-135
operations from Don Muang lAP and the
41 03rd AREFS (P) was inactivated 8th October
1972, while the 4014th AREFS (P) was inacti-
vated one month later.
Beginning on 18th December, B-52s and tac-
tical combat aircraft commenced 'Linebacker
II', a series of massive airstrikes against North
Vietnam, particularly in the Hanoi-Haiphong
area. KC-135s flew 1,312 sorties during this
'eleven day war," providing 4,593 air refuelings.
'Linebacker II' missions ended on 29th Decem-
ber. The next day North Vietnam announced its
willingness to resume peace negotiations. At
year's end, KC-135s had flown 34,700 sorties,
conducted 115,272 refuelings, and transferred
morethan 1.4 billion pounds offuel. 74
Tanker sorties continued to support US
bombing of Vietnam until 27th January 1973,
when an agreement ending the war was signed
in Paris. Combat operations did not cease
entirely as strikes against Laotian and Cambo-
dian targets continued until 15th August 1973
(a date mandated by Congress), when B-52s
struck a target in Cambodia. In nearly a decade
of combat operations in SEA, KC-135s flew
194,687 sorties, conducted 813,878 in-flight
refuelings, and transferred 8,963,700,000
pounds (1.4 billion gallons) offuel. 75
Historians will long dispute the role and effi-
cacy of airpower in the war in Southeast Asia.
Critics claim that for nine years air strikes pro-
duced no measurable victory at the incredible
expense of wasted fuel, money, airplanes, and
the lives of hundreds of fliers and thousands of
civilian casualties. Airpower apologists claim
that political interference and meddling - from
the White House to the Pentagon to the offices
of admirals and generals far removed from the
tactical situation - hindered air operations by
forcing them to attack meaningless targets in a
war of attrition driven by ill-defined political
goals. Irrespective of these claims, the events
of 1967,1973, and 1991 have shown the effeo Altho~
tiveness of an air force committed to a swrn Reser
decisive victory. The Israeli Air Force played thl ~~.~~
pivotal role in Israel's victory in two major wars subst;
and the air campaign in Operation 'Deser rested
Storm' again demonstrated the value of a well dwind
orchestrated aerial assault with clearly define< Janua
military objectives designed to fulfill clear~ ~::G~,
defined political obJectives. Tom H
Regardless of the view to which historians a
the air war in Southeast Asia finally ascribe, thl
influence of the KC-135 was unequivocal. With
out KC-135s strike aircraft could not reach a
return from their targets. Without KC-135s com prosp
bat air patrol fighters could not loiter lon~ plans
enough to protect strike and reconnaissancr craft 1
aircraft from enemy MiGs. Without KC-135! Jame
more airplanes and fliers would have been 10 Novel
due to combat-intensive fuel starvation. Clear· a ha
Iy, the operational effects and breadth of influ· advar
ence of the KC-135 equals or exceeds that d woulc
any other single airplane involved in the war in mane
Southeast Asia. full-sc
Iml
Post-War Years comil
With the end of direct American combat opera com~
tions in Southeast Asia, SAC focused its atten· arhal
tion once again on its primary mission . poor
preparing to execute the SlOP. One of the tion E
major problems confronting SAC was the se gatio
lection of the advanced tanker - now known a! KC-1
the Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft (ATCA)- durin
as well as the necessary improvements to the tude
KC-135 fleet. The need for an advanced multi· late
purpose tanker derived from a combination 01 the F
lessons learned from operations in Southeasl Thet
Asia, SAC's continuing commitment to its SlOP on 41
bomber force, and a growing need to support achie
the aircraft of US Navy and Marine Corps, as flight
well as those of allied nations. soml
By the end of 1973 no official decision had acro:
been made concerning selection of the appr
advanced tanker, so on 15th December 1973, teml
SAC submitted revised requirements for its Th
advanced tanker, stressing the existing tanker lar n
fleet's inability to support SAC's current and thee
projected bomber refueling requirements, as of t~
well as Military Airlift Command's (MAC's) airlift rese
and fuel needs. SAC reiterated its desire that thrOl
the proposed ATCA should be a derivative 01 this
an existing commercial civilian transport air· Defe
craft.'6 As early as 12th December 1969, AFSC 1281
recommended the purchase of either the Lock· the
heed C-5 or Boeing 747 for the advanced threE
tanker, arguing that 'when modified for aerial plan
refueling, either plane would provide at least AI
four times the transfer capability of the KC-135'. tank
Air Force Headquarters felt otherwise, and rec· time
ommended only a modified version of the Stra- rege
totanker. The wide-body tanker was still not a ever
dead issue, and Boeing demonstrated a 747 be f
configured as a tanker in mid-1972. 77 crev
In January 1974 AFSC accelerated the ad- Ric~
vanced tanker program and allocated $20 57-1
million for its development. By the end of the Rid
year efforts to procure the new tanker were pro· AFB
ceeding with great urgency (in the face of a to re
1 effec- Although Air National Guard and Air Force
1 swift, Reserve units had previously flown tankers, in
the form of KC-97s, it was not until 1975 that
'edthe
KC·135s entered the reserve fleet. By 1995 a
rwars, substantial percentage of US tanker capability
Desert rested with reserve units, as active duty forces
a well- dwindled. KC-135A 58-0068, photographed in
efined January 1980, as part of the New Hampshire
ANG, has since been re-engined into a KC-135E,
clearly
the mainstay of ANG tanker operations.
Tom Hildreth
ans of
)e, the
. With-
~ch or
,com- prospective $18 million budget cut), including
. long plans to purchase a fleet of up to 150 new air-
sance craft the following year. Secretary of Defense
:-135s James R Schlesinger recommended on 22nd
m lost November 1974, the immediate purchase of ATCA and the KC-135R aid Rumsfeld approved production of two
Clear- a half dozen 747s for conversion to the Plans to acquire large numbers of the ATCA McDonnell Douglas KC-10 ATCA prototypes.
f influ- advanced tanker-cargo configuration. These halted in early 1975 after a DoD study conclud- Outgoing President Gerald R Ford increased
hat of would assess and demonstrate the perfor- ed that 'the current tanker force can adequately the ATCA development purchase, to six KC-1 Os,
war in mance of the proposed airplane, scheduled for support the SlOP and contingencies both and increased the overall purchase to 91 air-
full-scale production in 1976. today and in the future' .'9 Funding for the ATCA planes." Incoming President Jimmy Carter
Improvements to the KC-135 were also forth- was completely cut except for a token to study halted procurement of the ATCA on 19th Febru-
coming. The KC-135's ASN-6/7 navigation the 'modifications necessary to make wide- ary 1977, as too expensive and a financial
lpera- computer and associated APN-81 doppler rad- body aircraft capable of carrying outsize threat to the rewinging program for the Lock-
allen- ar had been plagued by a high failure rate. This cargo'.80 heed C-5 (being undertaken in Carter's home
ion - poor reliability meant that the KC-135's naviga c By August 1975 the ATCA's cargo mission state of Georgia). Carter also cancelled SAC's
)f the tion system could not meet international navi- was emphasized over its tanker role, as Air Rockwell B-1 bomber (later to be resurrected
1e se- gation accuracy standards, which limited the Force Chief of Staff General David C Jones and named the Lancer) in favor of the air
wn as KC-135 to altitudes below 29,000ft (8,839m) informed CINCSACGeneral Russell E Dougher- launched cruise missile (ALCM). SAC was now
CAl - during transoceanic operations. This low alti- ty that the Air Force needed a new wide-body without replacement aircraft for its two primary
to the tude wasted a considerable amount of fuel. In cargo aircraft, not an increased capacity tan- aircraft, the B-52 and the KC-135, both of which
multi- late 1973, SAC recommended installation of ker, and that development of the ATCA - pri- were already between 20 and 30 years old.
ion of the Palletized Inertial Navigation System (PINS). marily as a cargo plane - would resume. In an effort to salvage some kind of improved
heast The first trans-Atlantic PINS mission was flown Simultaneously, the Secretary of Defense tanker, DoD requested an evaluation of the
SlOP on 4th March 1974, and test flights eventually increased the levy on SAC's refueling assets by benefits of re-engining the KC-135. The Air
Ipport achieved a 96.7% reliability. The higher altitude directing it to provide the peacetime training Force took the study a step farther, requesting
)s, as flights resulted in considerable fuel savings, and transoceanic movements of US Navy and information on the benefits of rewinging the
some 128,0001b (58,060kg) per week on flights Marine Corps tactical aircraft.·' Paradoxically, KC-135 as well as adding new engines. Both of
1 had across the Atlantic." On 22nd March 1974, SAC SAC's tanker force was being asked to do more these proposals were ostensibly offered as
f the approved replacing the existing navigation sys- with less. complementary measures to the ATCA rather
1973, tem on the entire fleet with the new PINS. For example, KC-135s continued to provide than as outright replacements for what seemed
or its The Air Force in general and SAC in particu- air refueling to tactical aircraft in Southeast Asia an otherwise dead program.
anker lar r~duced their active duty forces following as well as to B-52s during early- to mid-1975. In SAC released a study on 24th March 1977,
t and the end of the war in SEA. An increasing portion April KC-135s supported Operations 'Eagle touting the improved fleXibility and capability of
Is, as of the tanker mission was handed over to Pull' and 'Frequent Wind', the evacuations of a re-engined KC-135. The study showed that
airlift reserve forces, a trend that would continue US and allied personnel from Phnom Penh, modern engines would allow KC-135s to oper-
3 that through the following two decades. As part of Cambodia, and Saigon, respectively. On 12th ate from shorter runways, allow take-offs at a
ive of this reduction, in July 1974 Secretary of May, KC-135s refueled combat aircraft partici- heavier gross weight, reduce fuel consumption
rt air- Defense Schlesinger directed SAC to transfer pating in the rescue of crewmen on board the and environmental pollutants, and lower main-
!l.FSC 128KC-135AstotheANG and the AFRES. Over USS Mayaguez, a freighter captured by Cam- tenance and operating costs. 83 In August SAC
Lock- the next four years (eventually reduced to bodian pirates. Some 20 'Young Tiger' aircrews followed this recommendation with a modifica-
lnced three), 16 units would each receive eight air- provided nearly 24 hours of continuous refuel- tion program to reskin the lower wing of the
aerial planes. ing coverage for the operation. The end of 1975 fleet. The current KC-135 wing skin was prone
least Although ANG units had previously operated also brought the end of a major KC-135 pres- to cracking and had a life expectancy of 10,000
·135'. tankers in t.he form of KC-97s, this was the first ence in Southeast Asia as 17 KC-135s from U- flying hours. By reskinning the wings with the
j rec- time they operated the KC-135. SAC would Tapao RTNAB escorted 36 A-7s from Korat same material used on commercial 707s, the
Stra- regain operational control of the aircraft in the RTAFB back to Hill AFB, Utah. 'Young Tiger' life expectancy ofthe KC-135 would increase to
not a event of war, although the airplanes would still had finally come to an end. 27,000 flying hours, providing air refueling for
1747 be flown and maintained by ANG and AFRES The ATCA issue did not end, however, and SAC well into the 21 st century. The reskinning
crews. On 18th April 1975, the 301 st AREFS at remained controversial. SAC was adamant that program, known as TCTO 989, began in
a ad- Rickenbacker AFB, Ohio, transferred KC-135A it needed a new tanker to satisfy its existing (let earnest with more than 640 KC-135s, EC-135s
$20 57·1507 to the 145th AREFS (ANG) , also at alone future) needs, and that the ATCA could and RC-135s at a rate of up to six per month at a
If the Rickenbacker AFB. The 183rd AREFS at Pease satisfy both SAC's tanker requirement and total cost of $400 million.·'
ipro- AFB, New Hampshire was the second ANG unit MAC's wide-body transport requirement. On The re-engining plans were fraught with con-
of a to receive KC-135s. 6th November 1976, Secretary of Defense Don- troversy. Despite claims by Boeing engineers

61

General Arrangement KC-135ME
that the first airplane could be re-engined by
1981, Representative Les Aspin (and later Sec-
retary of Defense under President Bill Clinton)
announced with pontifical accuracy 'there is
just no way that the Air Force could re-engine a
single active KC-135 airplane by 1981'.85 In-
stead, Aspin asserted that 'the first re-engined
KC-135 ... could not go into service until at least
1985' 86 Aspin would no doubt rue this prognos-
tication when by mid-1982 nearly two dozen
KC-135 variants re-engined with TF33-PW-
102s were in operational service. The Air Force
Chief of Staff likewise opposed the re-engining
program, primarily because of its financial
threat to the ATCA. General Jones warned Con-
gress early in 1978 that 'it would cost more to
modify KC-135s than to buy DC-1 0 airliners for
conversion into tanker aircraft', a disingenuous
claim as Jones wanted the ATCA not for aerial
refueling butfor cargo and troop transport. 8?
Proposed Variants
Baseline performance for both the re-engined
and rewinged proposals required that the new
airplane launch under Emergency War Order
(EWO) conditions, fly 2,000nm (3,706km) to
rendezvous with its bomber receiver, offload
91 ,0001b (41,277kg) of fuel, and then continue
an additional 1,OOOnm (1 ,853km) to the tanker
recovery base. Five major proposals survived
the initial evaluation phase. Two were based on
simply re-engining the KC-135, and the other
three assumed a change both of wing and
engine.
KC·135p·7: Installation ofTF33-P-7 engines
on existing KC-135s would increase its overall
fuel capacity to 202,8001b (91,990kg) with a
maximum gross weight of 315,4001b (143,065kg).
Maximum engine thrust would increase from
62
Among the numerous proposals put forward to TF33-P-7s and the wing would be the same as perfe
improve the take-off performance, range, and on the 707-300 series of airliners. The KC-135's and
payload of the KC-135 was a radical 'mixed
wing span woul<;i increase from 130ft 10in prav,
engine' configuration. The inboard engine
would be similar to the CFM56 eventually (39.65m) to 142ft 5in (43.44m) with an increase nificc
installed on the KC-135R, and the outboard in total wing area from 2,433ft' (226.0m') to SL
engine would be the old water-injected J57. 3,101ft' (288.8m'). Maximum gross weighl mod
Increased surface area on the horizontal would rise to 374,4001b (169,827kg) and fuel deliv
stabilizers and improved brakes were among
offload would increase by 55,0001b (24,948kg) wher
the other modifications included in the
proposal. Not surprisingly, this design never or range would go up by 2,000nm (3,707km). SeriE
made it off the drawing board. KC·135X: This variant was a KC-135A with a engil
Jim Moseley collection 707-300 wing and four CFM-56 or JT10D en· foll01
gines installed. The KC-135X maximum gross tinuE
weight increased to 376,4001b (170,735kg) anne
13,0001b (5,896kg) per engine to 21,0001b while offload rose 61 ,0001b (27,669kg) or range - 12
(9,525kg) per engine. The fuel offload to a improved by 2,600nm (4,817km). As with the Brov
receiver would increase by 23,0001b (10,432kg) KC-135H, the landing gear would be improved SAC
or the total range flown increased by 900nm and an increased-span horizontal stabilizer W
(1,667km). A new horizontal stabilizer (en- installed. SAC
larged from 500 to 545ft' [46.4 to 50.6m'] at the KC·135Y: The most expensive Boeing pro·
outboard tips as on the 707) and new landing posal was the KC-135Y. Costing some $10,6
gear struts comprised the other major structur- million per airplane, this variant would use
al modifications forthis proposal. CFM-56 or JT1 OD engines and a new supercrit·
Fron
KC·135ME: This idea was perhaps the most ical wing incorporating the latest technology in
SAC
radical solution to the KC-135 problem and cer- aerodynamic design. It would have the same sinc,
tainly one of the most unusual proposals of the airframe improvements as the KC-135X bul crelll
jet age. The KC-135ME - 'Mixed Engine' - have an increased maximum gross weight 01 incr4
incorporated two different engine types on the 424,0001b (192,326kg). This variant could pilot
KC-'
same airplane. The inboard engines would' be 'offload an additional 69,0001b (31,298kg) 01
SAC
in the 'ten-ton class', specifically the SNECMN fuel or extend its range by 3,200nm (5,929km), qual
General Electric CFM-56 turbofan, while the As it did over 25 years earlier with the 367-80, pilol
outboard engine would remain the existing J57 Boeing felt that a flying demonstrator was a far com
turbojets8 Fuel capacity on the KC-135ME more effective evaluation tool (and salesman) bott
in Sl
would increase to 202,8001b (91,990kg) and than any number of paper proposals. Boeing
airli
the airplane would have a maximum gross converted the last commercial 707 built into a cre~
weight of 317,8001b (144, 154kg). New landing demonstrator by installing four CFM-56s on a res I
gear struts would allow the airplane to operate 707-3W6C, which made its first flight on 27th Ligl
at these higher gross weights, and the in- November 1979. The airplane - redesignated a
creased span horizontal stabilizer (as on the 707-700 - was registered N707QT and made a
KC-135P-7) would improve pitch authority. The grand tour of 15 SAC, ANG, AFRES, and AFLC
'mixed engine' version would increase offload. bases to allow as many pilots and senior offi·
by 26,0001b (11 ,793kg) or range by 1,1 OOnm cers as possible to fly the airplane and experi·
(2,038km). Boeing's estimated cost for conver- ence the improved performance first hand. The
sion of a portion of the KC-135 fleet into 'MEs quieter engines were also a major selling poinl
was the lowest of all the proposals, with a cost to the surrounding civilian communities, as the
projection of $3.7 million per airplane. Boeing roar of jet engines is not always interpreted as
projected a first flight for the new configuration the 'Sound of Freedom' at 4:30am! The
in 1979 with production aircraft delivered in demonstrator easily confirmed the value of the
1982. improved engines, using 'less runway, left a
KC·135H: To satisfy the Air Force's request cleaner exhaust and was considerably quieter
for a proposal which included the benefits of an than the [existing] KC-135s'.89
improved wing, Boeing resorted to an accessi- Funding restricted the total amount of modifi·
ble and proven solution: The engines would be cations that could be undertaken, and the Air
Force opted for the new engines but not the
new wing, the opinion being that the improved
Another proposal intended to replace the noisy
KC·135A was a Boeing 707 equipped with quiet
CFM56 high-bypass turbofan engines. N707QT
visited Offutt AFB on 8th May 1980, as part of a
sales tour designed to garner support for the
purchase of several hundred of these airplanes.
Tight budgets precluded the acquisition of a
new tanker fleet, but the engines impressed
SAC officials sufficiently to order the
re-engining of the KC-135A fleet. George R
Cockle, author's collection
lme as performance from the engines was sufficient proposals may have been quid pro quos for the Command in which the new pilots could gain
:-135's and the extra funds necessary to buy the im- purchase of any new tankers, ATCAs or im- experience as part of the Accelerated Co-pilot
1 10in proved wing were not offset by sufficiently sig- proved KC-135s. SAC was desperate to Enrichment (ACE) program (later renamed Avi-
~rease nificant performance improvements. increase its number of tankers and by request- ation Career Enhancement to avoid demean-
m2) to SUbsequently, the demonstrator was de- ing a smaller number of the expensive ATCA, ing co-pilots). On 1st October 1993, Beechcraft
Neight modified, had JT3D engines re-installed, and coupled with an increase in the operational per- C-12Fs were added to Air Mobility Command
ld fuel delivered to the Royal Moroccan Air Force formance of existing KC-135s, SAC could final- (AMC) tanker bases and the entire ACE pro-
J48kg) where it currently serves as a tanker. The 707 ly circumvent the political infighting and satisfy gram renamed the Companion Trainer pro-
(m). Series 700 demonstrations validated the re- its current and projected tanker requirements. gram. The Companion Trainer program ended
with a engining proposals, and orders for KC-135Rs In short, ATCA could never replace the KC-135 in 1995.
lD en- followed. The ATCA acquisition imbroglio con- in SAC. Numbers alone precluded a one-for- Pilot retention became a major issue across
gross tinued until Secretary of Defense Harold Brown one replacement, and the fact that each ATCA the Air Force, particularly in the KC-135 com-
'35kg) announced the acquisition of a 'small number' was 'equivalent' to several KC-135s was mean- munity, where retention plummeted from 76%
range -12 to 20 ATCAs. On 19th December 1977, ingless when that ATCA needed to be at more in FY83 to a dismal 36% in FY87. 91 The issues
th the Brown approved production of the KC-1 0, with than one place at one time to refuel multiple that drove pilots from SAC seldom included the
lroved SAC eventually receiving 60. receivers. Still, the ATCA fulfilled an important much-ballyhooed 'salary' concerns voiced by
bilizer While it may never be possible to confirm, need in the air refueling community. The KC-10 Air Force generals. Instead, pilots left because
SAC's re-engining, rewinging, and reskinning became an integral part of fighter deployments they flew too little, spent too much time on alert,
g pro- and other collateral air refueling missions, while and were faced with administrative duties cre-
$10.6 the improved KC-135s remained the essential ated as 'make work' jobs designed to give the
j use tanker component of the SlOP, SAC's primary appearance of productivity. Promotions and
,ercrit- mission. 90 commands went to those who had 'punched
From the mid 1970s through the mid 1980s,
ogyin the right tickets' (duties that seldom involved
SAC's tanker force faced its greatest challenge
same since its inception - the changing nature of its A Change in the Cockpit flying, emphasizing instead military schooling,
X but crew force. Fewer flying hours, substantially The greatest single change affecting SAC dur- the right staff positions, and first-name relation-
ght of increased alert time, a number of former fighter ing the years after Vietnam was a change in its ships with the right generals).
pilots from SEA assigned to permanent duty in people. Crews spent more time on alert and In many respects, similar issues confronted
could
KC·135s, and the introduction of women into
<g) of less time flying, particularly when compared SAC crewmembers from its infancy through its
SAC flight crews all challenged the retention of
9km). quality personnel. Two out of three KC-135 with the hours flown during operations in SEA. adolescence during Vietnam. Then, however,
37-80, pilots voluntarily left the Air Force upon From the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s, pilots (and especially navigators and boom
s a far completion of their pilot-training commitment, morale and retention in the tanker crew force operators) had little choice but to stay in the Air
,man) both in disgust over conditions within SAC and declined markedly. Co-pilots accrued so few Force until retirement given the poor prospects
in search of greener pastures with commercial
oeing flying hours that upgrade to aircraft comman- for jobs in the civilian world. With the burgeon-
airlines. In this 21st October 1977, photograph,
into a crews from the 380th BW at Plattsburgh AFB
der became extremely difficult. Consequently, ing airline industry watching the bulk of its
; on a respond to a practice alert in former 'Combat SAC employed Cessna T-37 'Tweet' and pilots retire because of age, SAC pilots (and to
1 27th Lightning' KC-135A 63-8881. Author's collection Northrop T-38 Talon trainers from Air Training some degree other rated crewmembers) in the
3ted a
lade a
AFLC
lr offi-
,xperi-
j, The
point
3S the
ed as
The
of the
left a
uieter

lodifi-
1e Air
)t the
roved

loisy
quiet
7QT
I of a
:he
anes.
a
d

63

1980s and 1990s elected to vote with their feet,
leaving SAC with a young and inexperienced
force led by commanders with little operational
experience. Even after 'Desert Storm' empha-
sized the need for a broad base of experience
in the tanker and reconnaissance community,
mandated reductions in force continue to chase
away quality crewmembers.
Another major personnel issue was not
unique to SAC or even the Air Force, but was an
issue facing American society as a whole. On
23rd March 1978, Captain Sandra M Scott - the
first female pilot in SAC - was assigned to the
904th AREFS at Mather AFB, California. Two
female KC-135 navigators at Mather AFB
became the first women in SAC to perform alert
duties on 27th April 1978.
By congressional edict, women were barred
from any military position considered to be a
combat role. Since, by definition, the tanker
role is combat support, women could be and
were assigned to the KC-135. The presence of
women on SAC tanker crews (including EC-135s
and RC-135s) was a positive step toward the
notion of equal opportunity in the Air Force for
both men and women. However, it begged the
issue of women's involvement in combat.
As part of the SlOP, for example, tankers
crewed by women were just as likely to be tar-
gets for hostile long range fighters and surface-
to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft artillery
(AAA) fired by enemy naval pickets as were the
B-52s, FB-111 s, B-1 s, and Northrop B-2s
crewed by men. In fact, tankers are an easier
target because they lack the extensive elec-
tronic countermeasures and infrared defensive
systems installed in bombers to protect them. If
the tanker is shot down before it refuels its
mated bomber, than that bomber's effective-
ness may be significantly reduced and it might
well be unable to strike its primary target(s).
The same argument may be applied to tanker
missions in support of fighters and ground
attack aircraft during conventional warfare.
During 'Desert Storm', administrative battles
raged in headquarters offices over whether
SAC RC-135s and KC-135s with female crew-
members on board that overflew Iraq and
64
KC-135s of all varieties supported Coalition colla~
operations during 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert sion (
Storm'. In 28 weeks of build-up and combat
operations, KC-135s flew 28,500 sorties to
taoke
refuel 85,000 receivers while offloading nearly equal
1.3 billion pounds of fuel. Despite being one of opera
the oldest US aircraft serving in the GUlf,
KC·135s achieved an impressive 90% mission 'DeSE
capable rate. KC·135Q 58·0074 of the 9th SRW
The f
prepares to depart from Riyadh AB, Saudi
Arabia. Author defen
Augu:
KC-1,
Emira
exerc
neSSi
During 12-14th March 1980, two B-52Hs flew Iraqi;:
nonstop around the world." CINCSAC General Be!
Richard H Ellis praised the flight for showing sed ir
SAC's 'ability to rapidly project [sic] US milita~ Pacifi
power to any point in the world in a matter 01 and
Kuwait could log combat time (as required by hours' (see Appendix F)." The same year the (11,21
Air Force Regulation 60-1), or should instead JCS created the Rapid Deployment Joint Tas~ McDc
log combat support time, as women were not Force (RDJTF), that would respond on short sever
allowed in combat. A decision was finally notice with conventional weapons to any loca· more
reached that women could log combat time, tion worldwide. SAC contributed the Strategic planE
another step toward opening the door that per- Projection Force - SPF - that would consist 01 ANG
mitted women not only to fly SAC aircraft in B-52s, KC-135s, SR-71 s, U-2s, RC-135s, and route
combat, but eventually placed them in fighters EC-135s!' SAC tested the SPF on 22-25th effort
and attack aircraft in all the services, as well as September 1980, at Whiteman AFB, Missouri, 13 At
B-52s. 92 as part of 'Busy Prairie'. KC-135As also vatec
The existem:e of women in SAC's crew force deployed to Saudi Arabia in October to refuel Rese
has been of no little concern to the crewmem- TAC Boeing E-3A Sentry Airborne Warning and mobi
bers themselves. Issues ranging from billeting Control System (AWACS) missions. One year and F
to fraternization to the emotional fears of later B-52Hs flew non-stop from Minot AFB to alon(
spouses have been slowly resolved with the simulated targets in Egypt and back as part 01 the IT
results showing a workable solution. Still sensi- Operation' Bright Star 82'. Many of these les· brid(;
tive is the issue of discrimination, both positive sons were applied to tanker operations during Sauc
and negative, affecting women crewmembers. Operations 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm'. DL
Marginal women pilots, for example, are contin- Indeed, the commander of strategic air forces viceE
ued long after their male equivalents have been during 'Desert Storm', Brigadier General Pal forCE
dismissed or assigned to desk jobs. Given two Caruana, said that KC-135 fleet modernization, a'pe
equally qualified crewmembers, one male and release of strategic assets to theater comman· woul
the other female, if the male is promoted over ders, and global 'bare bones' exercises during As w
the female then the Air Force is vulnerable to the 1980s were indirectly responsible for the Asia,
the sensitive accusation of sexual discrimina- success of air refueling assets during the 1990· ity dl
tion. As with the civilian community, the Air 91 Gulf operation.'· ed ei
Force is inclined to err on the side which is least Modifications to the KC-135A continued with in a
inclined to scream the loudest! the Delco Carousel IV-E INS and DNS. By the werE
These problems are not unique to the Air end of 1980 over half the fleet was equipped to th
Force; indeed they represent issues affecting with the new and more reliable system." 'Mig
American society as a whole. They are new to Throughout the 1980s, the arrival of reo port
the Air Force, however, where organization tra- engined KC-135s meant that an increasing Ovel
ditionally has been based upon the un- number of important air refueling missions ferriE
definable and highly subjective notions of the were assigned to these more capable plat· carg
brotherhood of aviators and the camaraderie of forms while the KC-135As seemed to become Tt
combat. SAC's exposure to the sensitive issue 'alert queens'. Still, the 'Steam Jet' continued to 275
of integrating women into its tightly-formed provide yeoman's service along with KC-10s er,
crews has been through the KC-135. 93 On the during 'Urgent Fury', the October 1983 US spe!
whole, however, the issue has been resolved invasion of Grenada, and 'EI Dorado Canyon', con1
not by any institutional regulation but by the the April 1986 attack on terrorist targets in tracl
crewmembers themselves, as women have Libya. spal
gained acceptance as fliers always have over Substantial changes in the world order dur- pie,
the years, by virtue of their flying skills and com- ing the 1990s signalled the beginning of the beel
mitment to 'the team' rather than by virtue of end for the KC-135A's operational life, while MUE
their chromosomes!' simultaneously reaffirming the need and the dad
The onset of a new decade brought with it a value of a large aerial refueling fleet. the I
new role for SAC tankers and bombers - con- Most notable among these events were the M
ventional force projection on a global scale. dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the ensuing pha
In collapse ofthe Soviet Union, and the Iraqi inva-
iert sion of Kuwait. Of these, the Gulf War tested
at
tanker operations and capabilities at a level
larly equal to, if not greater than the 'Young Tiger'
ne of operations in Southeast Asia.
;ion 'Desert Storm'
;RW
The first US aerial assets dedicated to the
defense of Saudi Arabia in the wake of the 2nd
August 1990, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait were two
KC-135Rs already deployed to the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) as part of 'Ivory Justice', an
exercise intended to improve UAE pilot readi-
ness and overall security in the face of potential
s flew Iraqi aggression against Emirate oil fields.'oo
aneral Beginning 9th August, KC-135s were pres-
owing sed into service to establish both Atlantic and
lilitary Pacific 'Air Bridges' between the United States
tter of and the Persian Gulf. For the 7,000 mile
ar the (11,265km) flight (taking 16 hours flying time),
tTask McDonnell Douglas F-15E Eagles required
short seven refuelings each, and F-4Gs required
'loca- more than double that at 15 refuelings per air-
ategic plane. 1O ' Nearly 100 tankers, many of them from
sist of ANG and AFRES units, refueled fighters en
i, and route to the Gulf. This represented a major
~-25th effort by Guard and Reserve tanker units, with
isouri, 13 ANG and three Reserve KC-135E units acti"
also vated for full-time duty. Some 80 Guard and
refuel Reserve tankers and 5,000 personnel were
Igand mobilized throughout the Gulf Crisis. Guard
3 year and Reserve KC-135Es and active duty -135As,
IFB to along with a number of KC-10s, represented
Jart of the majority of the tanker types used in these air
;e les- bridges, freeing the KC-135Rs for duty in the
juring Saudi peninsula.'02
;torm'. During 'Desert Shield', pilots from all US ser-
forces vices, as well as those from other Coalition air
al Pat forces, were able to hone their refueling skills in
~ation, a'peacetime training environment', skills which
nman- would become crucial during 'Desert Storm'.'03
juring As with 'Young Tiger' operations in Southeast
or the Asia, KC-135s also served in a transport capac-
1990- ity during the Gulf Crisis. Although SAC resist-
ed efforts to use its tankers (especially KC-1 Os)
dwith in a purely cargo role, KC-135s nonetheless
3y the were a small but integral part of the supply lines
lipped lothe Gulf.'04 During January 1991, SAC began
'Mighty Express', a KC-135 operation in sup-
of re- port of deployed B-52 operations in the Gulf.
lasing Over a four month period, these six KC-135s
3sions ferried 680 personnel and nearly 200 tons of
l plat- cargo.'05
lcome Throughout the course of the war, more than
ued to 275 tanker sorties per day refueled strike, fight-
:C-10s er, reconnaissance, surveillance, transport,
l3 US special mission, and airborne command and
nyon', control aircraft in the 60-plus air refueling
ets in tracks, several of which extended into Iraqi air-
spaces. Without these 'deep' tracks, for exam-
lr dur- ple, Lockheed F-117 Nighthawks would have
of the been unable to fly from their base at Khamis
while Mushayt, Saudi Arabia, to their targets in Bagh-
ld the dad and return, a distance more than double
the F-117's operational range.'o,
re the Most of the air refuelings during the initial
Isuing phase of 'Desert Storm' were conducted in
radio silence. In addition, encrypted radio
transmissions were used with reduced com-
munication procedures to facilitate some ren-
dezvous and refueling efforts. Most KC-135s
lacked the necessary radios to communicate
with many Allied aircraft, but these were in-
stalled throughout the course of the war.'o,
Communications were vital to both mission effec-
tivenessand safety, as the primary limitation on
tanker operations was airspace congestion.
Over the course of the Gulf Crisis, KC-135s
deployed to and operated from nearly two
dozen bases in France, Greece, Spain, Egypt,
Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the UK (see
Appendix E). KC-135s also deployed to Incirlik
AB, Turkey, in support of Joint Task Force
'Proven Force' .'08 Just as they had been during
the war in SEA, so too were basing rights dur-
ing 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm' an issue
of considerable diplomatic delicacy. For exam-
ple, the US presence at Hellenikon AB, Athens,
Greece, was due to conclude on 1st February
1991, two weeks after the projected start of the
war, and efforts had long been underway to
reduce the American operations there. Conse-
quently, SAC ordered that the base remain in
operation despite being in a nearly 'bare-
bones' status. Further diplomatic efforts en-
abled KC-135A basing at Moron AB in Spain.
Most notable among European tanker bases
was the KC-135R detachment at Mont de
Marsan, France, an Armee de l'Air C-135FR
base. This was the first time since 1966, when
French President Charles de Gaulle withdrew
France from NATO and expelled US forces
from French soil, that US aircraft had been
deployed to France.'Og
During the 22 weeks of Operation 'Desert
Shield', KC-135s flew 11 ,500 refueling sorties
while logging nearly 75,000 flying hours. They
refueled more than 33,000 receivers and trans-
ferred 455 million pounds of fuel. During the six
weeks of Operation 'Desert Storm', a force of
262 KC-135s flew an impressive 17,000 sorties
over 66,000 flying hours. KC-135s refueled
almost 52,000 receivers and offloaded 812 mil-
lion pounds of fuel, numbers equivalent to a
year's worth of operations in Southeast Asia."°
Even more impressive was the 30-year old
Stratotanker's operational record: not one air
refueling was missed for reasons other than
weather. If a KC-135 'broke', there was another
to take its place; KC-135 mission capable rates
exceeded 90%.'"
The Gulf War offered substantial lessons for
the future of aerial refueling. As the Gulf War Air
Power Survey recounts:
'The success of the aerial attacks also
depended on the ability to mass formations of
aircraft, made possible by an extensive net-
work of aerial refueling KC-135 aircraft. High-
technology played a crucial role, but just as
crucial was the ability to employ nearly 200
tankers at a time, organize and maneuver large
attack formations, stage large airlifts routinely,
and conduct continuous aircraft carrier opera-
tions ... ' 112
All of these efforts were heavily dependent
upon the availability of air refueling, which, by
virtue of sheer numbers, meant KC-135s. 113 The
Survey continues:
The ... KC-135R made disproportionate con-
tributions to the refueling effort ... because of
the increased tactical flexibility bestowed by its
highly fuel-efficientturbofan engines.' '14
The Gulf War also highlighted a number of
shortcomings and inadequacies within the fleet
of KC-135s. These included the need for basket
adapters (BDAs) for KC-135s to refuel probe-
equipped aircraft, and a keen awareness that
KC-135A and KC-135Q performance was 'mar-
ginal' and wholly dependent upon the availabil-
ity of demineralized water for wet take-offs
necessary at high gross weights in hot temper-
atures. Further, in terms of mission capability, it
took two KC-135As or KC-135Qs to replace a
single KC-135R, and operating locations for
these 'Steam Jets' were limited to bases with-
out noise or pollution restrictions." 5
End of the 'Cold War'
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
client states in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
the immediate need for Strategic Air Com-
mand's SlOP mission decreased materially."°
In the absence of a major threat, justifying an
extensive fleet of aircraft and bases was in-
creasingly impossible. Base closures coupled
with force reductions, have spelled the end for
the KC-135A. KC-135As not scheduled for con-
version to KC-135Rs or KC-135Es have been
placed in long term storage, some have been
identified for transfer to foreign countries after
conversion to KC-135R configuration, and
some may even be scrapped.
On 27th September 1991 , along with guests
from the UK, I joined an old friend and EC-135
'back-ender' on a visit to the SAC underground
command post. Our private tour started late
that evening, ironically, as every television in
the facility was tuned to President George
Bush's historic address directing that all US
strategic bombers immediately stand down
from their alert posture. ICBMs, airborne com-
mand posts, and tankers would likewise come
off alert. The following day US Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney signed the order imple-
menting Bush's directive. By 3pm on 28th Sep-
tember, SAC's bombers, tankers, and ICBMs
were off alert.
In his address President Bush also an-
nounced the end of SAC and the formation of a
new command, designated the United States
Strategic Command (STRATCOM). This new
command would have no assets of its own, but,
in the event of increasing tensions, would
assume operational control over all US nuclear
offensive alert systems, including ballistic mis-
sile submarines. Founded on 21 st March 1946,
under General George Kenney, Strategic Air
Command was inactivated 1st June 1992. Gen-
eral George L 'Lee' Butler, the last CINCSAC,
became STRATCOM's first commander.
An era had come quietly to an end.
65

The Future
The next three years would see changes to the
KC-135 fleet as radical as nearly 40 years earli-
er when the jet-powered KC-135 replaced the
piston-powered KC-97 and KB-50. Terms like
'tanker shortfall', 'third pilot', 'composite wing',
'privatization', and 'multi-point tanker' entered
the military lexicon. Broadly speaking, the mis-
sion of the KC-135 - aerial refueling - remained
the same. What changed was how the tankers
and their crews were expected to accomplish
this mission.
Issues affecting crews were and are substan-
tial. With the end of SAC, KC-135s were as-
signed primarily to Air Mobility Command
(AMC), although a few KC-135 units became
part of Air Combat Command (ACC). For
crews, this represented a material change not
only in the way things were done but in the way
the command took care of its people. Tanker
crews assigned to AMC found themselves
immersed in a 'transport' culture, and their mis-
sion changed accordingly. Modifications to
KC-135s included rollers to allow easier load-
ing of palletized container cargo. As Lockheed
C-141 s were grounded for wing cracks due to
the stressful conditions inherent in heavy-
weight cargo flights, KC-135s were pressed
into service to supplant the Starlifter's de-
creased capacity. The KC-135 has never been
well suited for use as a cargo transport (see
Chapter Seven) and its use as a transport dra-
matically reduces its useful life as a tanker. With
no realistic KC-135 replacement in sight, this
shortsightedness may prove disastrous during
the first decade of the 21 st century.117
KC-135 crews assigned to ACC's composite
wings faced equal challenges. Although co-
located with the fighters and strike aircraft they
would refuel during a crisis, a benefit which
results in improved training, tanker crews were
typically the 'low men on the totem pole' in
terms of promotions, job recommendations,
and other personnel benefits. With the demise
of SAC, the Air Force had become a 'fighter
66
TANKE
KC·135
One EC
naissan
relainec
were cc
airplane
fcrusei
The
HowevE
KC-135
'KC-13~
lar bul
planes
world's
planes'
fuel. Th
It is
receive
lion 101
callyinl
value a
has an
endura
ingly d'
lances,
KC-13~
pilot's world', and tanker crews were clearly on The sign of things to come - Air Combat ing anc
the margins."· Navigators, in particular, have Command KC-135R 62-3572, assigned to the refuel I
366th Wing, taxies past one of its stablemates byolhe
been hit hardest by these personnel issues,
during a 15th June 1993, deployment exercise ed Stal
with many being 'chased out' of the Air Force from Mountain Home AFB to Volk Field. The KC-13!
through myopic involuntary reductions in force. idea of the composite wing, a unit having KC-13!
Changes within the cockpit have been equal- several disparate aircraft types, has met with increa:
ly dramatic. Force reductions lowered the de- mixed reaction, but has generally been
successful. William R Peake Modif
mand for pilots, creating a glut of new pilots E-Syst
who were still in training during the early 1990s. refuel,
With fewer cockpits available, these flight train- tion of wingtip pods to allow simultaneous refu· and a~
ing graduates were assigned as 'banked' pilots eling of two probe-equipped receivers, or to ralion
install,
to non-flying jobs, sometimes for up to three allow a KC-135 to refuel both probe-equipped Mo
years, before getting a flying assignment. Even receivers and receptacle-equipped receivers 'a. Co
then, the flying assignments have not always on the same sortie. Pioneered by and now in sta
been desirable. For example, in late 1993 AMC service with the French on their C-135FRs, this liOi
established the Third Pilot program, which took multi-point refueling program has been 'on·
banked pilots, trained them as navigators, and again, off-again', as a consequence of budget Extel
then placed them in KC-135 units."o . cuts. At present, it remains just a proposal for disti
Even initial and recurring training have been US tankers.'22 Other measures offered to ease by tI
inst,
subject to substantial alterations. During 1992 the boom-to-receiver shortfall include combi· year
AFMC awarded FlightSafety an $86 million nation strike/fuel tanks, equipping aircraft such the:
contract to provide all initial aircrew qualifica- as the F-16 with a probe to facilitate buddy refu· knm
fore,
tion and recurring simulator training to KC-135 eling, installing drogue pods on the aft fuselage
(ARI
pilots.'2o Although these civilian simulator of the KC-135, and converting civilian 707s into opel
instructors are all highly experienced former tankers operated by a private consortium, servo to rE
KC-135 instructor pilots, they are not permitted ing not only the US but its allied forces at a bar· nota
to stay current in piloting the KC-135, hindering gain-basement cost of $6,500 per hour.'23
their value to young and relatively inexperi- Finally, there is at least some tentative dis·
enced tanker pilots. cussion about a replacement for the KC-135.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, KC-135s have Scheduled to remain in service until the year
received a number of substantial improvements 2040, the KC-135 will have by then seen an
to reduce crew workload and increase mission operational life of 84 years, the equivalent of
capability. Under 'Pacer Crag', the KC-135 will Sopwith Camels, Zeppelins, and sabre-wield·
acquire a color weather radar, Global Position- ing cavalrymen fighting in 'Desert Storm'. The
ing Satellite (GPS) navigation equipment, and a need for a new heavy jet tanker is thus consid·
new flight management and cockpit display, erable, and proposals include a tanker variant
moving the KC-135 into the world of the 'glass ofthe Boeing 767 widebody jet liner, converting
cockpit'. Some KC-135s will also receive sop- former airline DC-1Os into additional KC-10s,
histicated electronic gear, such as the Joint and even resurrecting the tanker 747.
Force Air Component Commander Situational Given the vagaries of Pentagon and can·
Awareness System (JSAS), a secure and en- gressional budgeting priorities, the 'fighter
crypted means to provide crews with a real- mentality' that pervades current Air Force plan-
time 'big picture' look at the aerial battlefield.'21 ning, and the high cost of a small number of air-
The most significant proposal to enhance the frames, such a replacement is hardly a
KC-135's mission effectiveness is the installa- foregone conclusion.'24
 TANKERS-AIRCRAFT DETAILED
KC·135A (ARR)
One EC-135A, two EC-135Ps, three RC-135Ds, and two recon-
naissance KC-135Rs were demodified into KC-135A tankers but
retained the in-flight refueling (IFR) system installed when they
were converted into air refueling receiver '(ARR) special purpose
airplanes.'25 A ninth airplane was configured with the IFR system
for use as arefueling trainer."6
The official designation for these airplanes remains KC-135A.
However, they are colloquially distinguished from their standard
KC-135A counterparts by several unofficial designations such as
'KC-135A(RT)' which stands for 'refuelable tanker' - or the popu-
lar but equally unofficial 'RT-135'. Another name for these air-
planes is 'Christine' tankers, after Christine Jorgensen, the
world's first successful sex-change patient, areference to the air-
planes' 'AC-DC' ability to switch roles and receive as well as give
luel. They are referred to in this book as 'KC-135A (ARR)'.127
It is surprising that only these nine KC-135s are capable of
receiver air refueling. Installation of IFR in every KC-135, in addi-
lion to the wing reskin and re-engining programs, would dramati-
cally increase the operational value of the entire KC-135 fleet. The
value of an air refuelable tanker was not lost on the KC-1 0which
has an IFR system installed, increasing its range, flexibility, and
endurance on station. As the KC-135 mission becomes increas-
ingly dedicated to contingency operations and ever longer dis-
tances, installing an IFR system would give large numbers of
KC-135s the ability to fly intercontinental distances while escort-
ing and refueling fighters or bombers, loiter in an anchor area to
e refuel them during an operation while being refueled themselves
tes by other tankers, and then escort them back to bases in the Unit-
ise ed States. At present, only the 59 remaining KC-10 and the nine
KC-135 (ARR) tankers have this flexibility. There are nearly 500
KC-135Es and KC-135Rs available for modification, and the
th increase in operational value would be significant."6
Modifications and Differences
E·Systems converted the former special-mission airplanes into
reluelable tankers by 'removing the special mission equipment
refu- and avionics modifications associated with the [existing] configu-
Dr to ration and performing the airframe modifications and equipment
installations required forthe KC-135 tanker/ cargo mission.'2'
)ped Modifications to the former RC-135Ds include:
ivers 'a. Converting the navigator station from the special mission dual
lW in station configuration to the tanker/cargo mission configura-
, this tion,
'on-
Idget Externally the KC-135A (ARR) tankers could be
~I for distinguished from their 'buck' tanker cohorts
by the presence of a white SATCOM antenna
ease
installed on the KC-135A {ARR)s. For many
Imbi- years the refuelable tankers were assigned to
such the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB, popularly
refu- known as 'Tanker Heaven'. Unfortunately, few
force planners incorporated the KC-135A
llage
(ARR)'s increased flexibility into their
; into operational planning, although the 1980 effort
serv- to rescue US hostages in Teheran may be a
I bar- notable exception. Mike Franczek
I dis-
-135.
year
nan
nt of
field-
The
nsid-
Iriant
rting
-10s,
con-
)hter
)Ian-
If air-
Iy a
b. Converting the HF and UHF communication from special pur-
pose configuration to the more general purpose tanker/cargo
configuration,
c. Converting the special purpose navigation systems configu-
rations to the more general purpose AN/APN-99 configuration,
d. Modifying the search radar systems from the special purpose
configurations now installed to the more general purpose
AN/APN-59 configuration required for the tanker/cargo mis-
sion,
e. Modifying the interior of the aircraft to conform to the general
arrangement and structural requirements of the KC-135
tanker/cargo mission.
Removing the existing special purpose radomes and anten-
nas associated with the RC-135 missions [sic] and modifying
the exterior arrangement to general KC-135 configuration.' '30
The first full demonstration of the KC-135A (ARR)'s potential
came soon after the delivery in 1979 of the first KC-135A (ARR) to
the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB, Indiana. Three KC-135As and
'two modified KC-135 Air Refuelable Tankers [ARTs]' were used
to deploy four McDonnell Douglas RF-4C Phantom lis from Shaw
AFB, South Carolina, to Spain. Benefits of the 'ART' were obvi-
ous: ' ... one advantage of the ART is the availability of greater
fuel offloads with the use of fewer tanker aircraft. Also, the ART
will playa key role in conserving resources. Because of the ART's
dual capability, this [deployment to Spain] saved the use of one
airframe, seven-and-a-half hours flying time and approximately
15,000 gallons offuel' .'31
KC-135A (ARR)s also supported the failed US rescue mission
to Teheran, Iran. According to at least one source, the 'RT-135s'
refueled the MC-130s and AC-130s en route to 'Desert One', the
landing site at which the mission was eventually aborted.'32
Although unconfirmed, other sources suggest that the 'ARTs'
instead refueled 'unidentified' assets. These sources also hint
that for these missions the 'RT-135s' deployed to a 'highly sensi-
tive' location, from which US aircraft had never before operated.
All but one KC-135A (ARR) have been converted into KC-135R
(ARR)s; the exception became the prototype KC-135E (ARR).
58-0011 E-Systems converted this EC-135P to KC-135A
(ARR) status by 28th July 1976, when it was assigned to the
93rd BW at Castle AFB. By 1979 it had been assigned to the
305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. On 27th April 1989, it returned to
the 305th AREFW after conversion into a KC-135R (ARR).
58-0018 E-Systems converted this EC-135P into a KC-135A
(ARR) by 31 st March 1976, when it was assigned to the 2nd BW
at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. By 1979 it had been assigned to
the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. On 17th February 1989, it
returned to the 305th AREFW after conversion to a KC-135R
(ARR)
58-0124 E-Systems converted this KC-135A into a KC-135A
(ARR) for use as a refueling trainer. Assigned to the 55th SRW
at Offutt AFB, this airplane was used for initial and recurring air
refueling training by EC-135 and RC-135 flight crews. It was
never an airborne command post or areconnaissance platform.
By 1979 it had been transferred to the 305th AREFW at Grissom
AFB. On 12th May 1989, it returned to the 305th AREFW after
conversion into a KC-135R (ARR).
58-0126 E-Systems demodified this recce KC-135R into a
KC-135A (ARR) during 1976. By 1979 it had been assigned to
the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. On 13th January 1989, it
returned to the 305th after conversion into a KC-135R (ARR).
59-1514 E-Systems demodified this recce KC-135R into a
KC-135A (ARR) beginning in January 1973. In September 1981
this airplane received TF33-PW-1 02s and became the prototype
KC-135E. In March 1982 it was assigned to the 55th SRW at
Offutt AFB for use as an air refueling trainer.
60·0356 This RC-135D was delivered to E-Systems for con-
version into a KC-135A (ARR) on 4th January 1978. By 1979 it
had been assigned to the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. On 5th
January 1989, it returned to the 305th AREFW after conversion
into a KC-135R (ARR).
60-0357 This RC-135D was delivered to E-Systems for con-
version into a KC-135A (ARR) during 1976. By 1979 it had been
assigned to the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. On 5th July
1988, it returned to the 305th after conversion into a KC-135R
(ARR).
60-0362 This RC-135D was delivered to E-Systems for con-
version to a KC-135A (ARR) in 1976. By 1979 it had been
assigned to the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. On 27th May
1988, it returned to the 305th AREFW after KC-135 (ARR) con-
version.
61-0293 This EC-135A was delivered to E-Systems for con-
version into a KC-135A (ARR). It was assigned to the 305th
AREFWat Grissom AFB. In August 1982 it received F108-CF-
100 engines and became the prototype KC-135R and was used
by Boeing and AFSC for testing. On 29th June 1984, it returned
to SAC.
KC·135D
By the end of 1971 the RC-135A photomapping program waster-
minated and the airplanes identified for storage or other uses
(see Chapter Ten). Three airplanes are believed to have been
assigned directly to the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB as command
support aircraft (CSA). The fourth RC-135A (63-8060) was stored
at MASDC from 29th June through 27th July 1972. While there it
was given the storage code CA001. Two RC-135As (63-8058 and
63-8060) were also loaned to the ANG for flying and maintenance
training, as had been some of the RC-135Ds.
Beginning in 1979 all four RC-135As were delivered to E-Sys-
tems for conversion into tankers under program R-Q6076. It was
not practical to convert the four airplanes into KC-135As given the
extensive airframe differences (over 70 major engineering
changes) between the KC-135A (Boeing Models 717-100 and
717-148) and the RC-135A (Boeing Model 739-700). Notable
among these differences were the RC-135A's electrically-pow-
ered secondary wing-flap drive mechanism (the KC-135A has a
manually-powered secondary wing-flap drive mechanism) and
the RC-135A's second air conditioning system needed to cool
the on-board photo-mapping equipment. The RC-135As had
VHF radios in addition to KC-135A standard complement of UHF
radios. As a result of these significant differences, the four con-
verted airplanes were redesignated KC-135Ds.
Following this conversion the four KC-135Ds were delivered
to the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. During 1989-1991 all four
KC-135Ds had their J57-P/F-59W engines replaced with TF33-
PW-1 02s and were transferred to the Alaska ANG's 168th AREFS,
176th CompG at Eielson AFB.13J As the entire fleet of KC-135Ds
(all four) received the new engines, they remained as KC-135Ds
rather than be redesignated as KC-135Es. By mid-1995, after the
Alaska ANG unit converted to KC-135Rs, their KC-135Ds were
transferred to other ANG units, including Arizona's 197th AREFS,
67
 Another 'oddball' tanker variant is the of a n
KC-135D. Originally an RC-135A photo-mapping 'Q'w,
airplane, the four airplanes were demodified dures
into 'buck' tankers. They were eventually Given
re-engined with TF33-PW-102s and assigned to of-sec
Air National Guard units. KC-135D 63·8059 from conc,

--,.. -

-- iJ. S. AIR FORCE'

J -' -
-'" ~...
"-
•
the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB on 25th
October 1987, visiting Castle AFB.
Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
reaso
To
the KI
deck
I
repla<
consi,
the Sl
were
liners
fuel. F
161st AREFG at Sky Harbor lAP and California's 196th AREFS, displays and controls, series yaw damper (SYD), and horizontal with more scheduled for conversion. Four KC-135Ds have been 4fuel
163rd ARW at March AFB.'34 They have since all been reassigned stabilizers. Originally the KC-135E was to have the 70Ts vertical modified to 'E standards but remain designated KC·135Ds, and KC-1:
together at Forbes Field in Topeka, with the 117th AREFS, 190th stabilizer installed, but this was not undertaken. The first 18 707 20 special purpose KC-135s have received the new engines. By theA
ARW of the Kansas ANG. donors came from American Airlines while the next 16 were for- 1994 at least ten KC-135Es had been identified for re-engining Tr
mer Trans World Airlines airplanes. Donor 707s were stripped at with CFM56s, converting them into KC-135Rs. Eventually, all 01 135Q
KC·135E MASDC and the parts then shipped to BMAC at Wichita, Kansas. the KC-135Es are scheduled for conversion into KC-135Rs bj 1962
The re·engining of SAC's KC-135s with the CFM-56 engine was The engines were overhauled and other components were refur- 1998."9 with I
originally limited to those assigned to active duty units and was bished before installation on the KC-135E. prodl
not planned for those assigned to ANG or AFRES units.'" These The most visible difference between the KC-135A and the KC- KC-135E (ARR) used
units had equal requirements for new engines, as well as several 135E is the new engines on the KC-135E. Prior to installation on The first KC-135A to be re-engined with TF33-PW-102 turbofan to the
obligations not levied against the active duty units. For example, the KC-135E, the 707 engines were modified to incorporate engines was KC-135A (ARR) 59-1514, formerly areconnaissance n
ANG and AFRES units are typically located at civilian airfields sur- hydraulic pumps on all four engines (707s lacked these on the KC-135R. This choice was not without good reason. The IFR sys· AREF
rounded by residential areas highly sensitive to jet airplane noise. Nos.1 and 4 engines). The engine bleed air system was also tem installed when the airplane was converted into a reconnais· homE
AKC-135 water-injected take-off is louder than many fighter after- changed. KC-135E cabin pressurization is bleed air from the sance platform was retained, allowing the prototype KC-135Elo the u
burner take-offs and proved to be of special concern to the com- ninth-stage compressors on all four engines (707s had air-driven be refueled to its maximum in-flight gross weight, which exceed· an Ai
munity surrounding the airport.'" Further, ANG units at locations turbo-compressors installed in engine strut forward fairings on ed the take-off maximum gross weight. porte
such as Salt Lake City lAP, Utah, and Sky Harbor lAP at Phoenix, two and later three engines) and the 707 turbo-compressors are Once the tests were finished, 59-1514 became an air refueling shou
Arizona, suffer from high temperatures and high pressure alti- removed from the strut, although the fairings remain. The intake trainer for flight crews who operated turbofan-equipped EC-1355 AFB
tudes that decrease the maximum allowable gross take-off and exhaust ducts for this vestigial system are sealed shut. The and RC-135s, replacing turbojet-equipped KC-135A (ARR) 58- to thE
weight (and hence fuel on board). KC-135E retains the 707 nose cowl and engine anti-ice system. 0124. Using only 58-0124, crews were forced to acquire theirifli. B'
In addition to noise reduction, benefits of the JT3D (redesig- The TF33-PW-l02 engine includes a forward fan and aft core tial proficiency in a turbojet, acquire and maintain operationiiJ insel
nated by the Air Force as TF33-PW-102s) over the J57 engine thrust reverser (whose structure and function are described in proficiency in aturbofan airplane, and then continue to train in the at Be
include an increase in take-off thrust from 13,750 to 18,OOOlb Chapter 4). The water injection system is removed on the KC- turbojet. The differences in engine performance (such as spool· ation
(61.6 to 80.6kN), meaning that TF33-PW-1 02 equipped airplanes 135E. Modifications to the brakes on the KC-135E include Mk.ll up time, fan lapse, thrust available, and need for water injection) mitlT
require 2,00Oft (609m) less runway for take-off than J57- antiskid system and five-rotor brakes. ANG KC-135Es have been all made this aneedlessly complicated training program.
equipped airplanes. Compared with the J57, the new engines modrried to carry an Air Combat Maneuvering and Instrumenta- The refuelable KC-135E was delivered in March 1982 to the
have 12% less fuel consumption, 60% noise reduction, 90% tion (ACMI) pod, allowing the airplane to be more fully integrated 55th SRW at Offutt AFB, but was also briefly assigned to the 3051h Witl
reduction in pollution, reverse thrust, and up to 400% improved into fighter exercises. AREFW. At Offutt AFB '514' is flown primarily by crews of the 2nd For
reliability.'" Congress appropriated $37.3 million in June 1981 for Cockp~ changes in the KC-135E include changing the pilot's ACCS (and later the 7th ACCS) as aproficiency trainer. Previous· AFE
the re-engining of ANG and AFRES KC-135s with JT3D engines aisle stand to accommodate the new throttles with thrust reverser Iy crews from the 38th SRS used it for asimiiar purpose, but the ove
previously used on surplus 707 airliners. Boeing received the actuators and the new start levers. KC-135E tankers have car- 22nd April 1988, arrival of the TC-135W eliminated the generiiJ
contract for the conversion on 18th September 1981 with a tridge start capability on all four engines while this feature is need for crews from the 38th SRS to use 59-1514, although they
scheduled delivery on 30th January 1982. retained only on the NO.3 engine on special purpose KC-135Es. continue to fly the airplane on an infrequent basis.
Engine start features are otherwise similar to those ofthe C-135B.
Modifications and Differences Engine instruments from the 707 installed in the KC-135E are the C·135F/FR
The Air Force delivered KC-135A (ARR) 59-1514 to the Boeing engine pressure ratio (EPR), fuel flow, and oil pressure indica- French version of the KC-135, covered separately in Chapter Six,
Military Airplane Company (BMAC) on 30th September 1981, tors. Exhaust gas temperature (EGT) and tachometer (RPM) indi-
and the newly re-engined airplane first flew on 19th January cators from the KC-135A are retained. An oil temperature gauge KC·135Q
1982. Four days ahead of schedule, on 26th January 1982, Boe- similartothatfitted ontheC-135B is also installed. Some nine months prior to the successful destruction of a Lock·
ing returned the first KC-135E to the Air Force. The first 18 air- Other than the special purpose airplanes modified with the heed U-2 by SAMs on 1st May 1960, while on a reconnaissance
planes converted with the new engines were all special purpose TF33-PW-102s, the KC-135Es are used exclusively by the ANG overflight of the Soviet Union, the Central Intelligence Agency
KC-135s variants, and are listed in Table 8below. and AFRES. Not surprisingly, crew reception to the KC-135E has (CIA) accepted Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson's design for a new
Parts common to the KC-135E and its donor 707 include the been extremely positive: strategic reconnaissance airplane. 18' The newest product of the
engines (including struts, cowls, and thrust reversers), cockpit 'The performance capabilities ofthe KC-135E are very impres- 'Skunk Works' -the A-12 - would fly in excess of three times the
sive when compared with the KC-135A. It gives pilots a much speed of sound and at altitudes above 80,00011 (24,384m), far
Table 8 - Original TF33-PW-1 02 Conversions more comfortable feeling knowing that at our normal training beyond the reach of the SAMs that claimed Gary Powers' U-2.
take-off gross weights of 180,0001b [8,164kg], we have ground The A-12 was originally intended to operate unrefueled but the
MDS Serial No. Re-engined New MDS rolls of about 3,00011 [914m], initial climb rates at four-engine installation of additional sensors on the airplane increased tts
KC-135A 59-1514 30 Jan 82 KC-135E climbout speeds of 3,500fpm [1 ,066m/min], and available climb gross weight and reduced its available fuel capacity, limiting it to
EC-135K 59-1518 24 Apr 82 EC-135K gradients of 22%. It is not unusual to see a 15" nose high pitch less than an hour of useful flight time. The solution to this short·
RC-135T 55-3121 1 Mar 82 RC-135T attitude and 250 KIAS and then have to reduce power to avoid coming lay in aerial refueling.
EC-135H 61-0286 10 May 82 EC-135H exceeding pitch and airspeed restrictions while all the time show- An early Skunk Works proposal for a U-2 follow-on burned
EC-135K 55-3118 ing a5,000tfpm rate of climb. hydrogen fuel and the A-12 was no less exotic. The A-12's PF-l
9 Mar 82 EC-135K
'On the other end of aflying mission the KC-135E again excels fuel was extremely caustic and eroded existing fuel bladders and
C-135N 60-0375 3 May 82 C-135E
compared w~h the Amodel. No more Dutch roll on final approach fuel lines.'" Any tanker that would carry the fuel required speciiiJ
EC-135H 61-0274 27 Feb 82 EC-135H
on bumpy and turbulent days thanks to the yaw damper that fuel tanks and lines separate from those needed to haul the
EC-135P 58-0022 17 May 82 EC-135P replaces the autopilot rudder axis. tanker's own regular JP-4 jet fuel. The actual rendezvous and
EC-135N 61-0330 20 Mar 82 EC-135E 'The most important change, though, as far as safety and refueling procedures would also differ dramatically for the Mach
C-135N 60-0372 24 May 82 C-135E operating capability compared with the KC-135A, is having 3-plus A-12, requiring additional navigation and communication
NKC-135A 55-3135 27 Mar 82 NKC-135E reverse thrust and five-rotor brakes with the modulating antiskid equipment. The solution to these demands was the KC-135A.
EC-135H 61-0282 15 Jun 82 EC-135H system. They take away virtually all of our stopping problems on The CIA sponsored the modification of the initial cadre of KC·
EC-135H 61-0285 6 Apr 82 EC-135H landing. Even with adelayed braking [factor] of 0.80 it is possible 135As during 1961-62. It is unclear if they were redesignated KC·
EC-135H 61-0291 8 Jun 82 EC-135H to stop a 185,0001b [83,916kg] KC-135E in 3,800ft [1,158m] 1350s at that time.-The number of KC-135Qs converted was
EC-135N 60-0374 10 Apr 82 EC-135E using full reverse. Where reverse thrust really becomes a big determined by the minimum number needed to sustain maxi·
EC-135P 58-0019 23 Jun 82 EC-135P safety factor is on we1 or icy runways. mum flight operations for 10 A-12s. Fewer than 20 KC-135Qs
C-135A 60-0376 17 Apr 82 C-135E '... you just can't beat our JT3D-3B-powered Air National were initially converted, all of which were relatively low-time air·
NKC-135A 55-3129 28 Jun 82 NKC-135E Guard KC-135Es.' 138 frames with good maintenance records. On 16th June 1966,
As of 1991,147 KC-135As had been modified into KC-135Es, Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) specified the redesignation

68
 of anumber of KC-135As as KC-135Qs.'" Why the series suffix
,ping 'Q' was selected is unknown. Using normal designation proce-
~d dures, the KC-135Q should have been called the KC-135C.'"
Given the extremely secretive development of the A-12, this out-
!d to of-sequence designation might best be explained by security
from concerns. Still, official Air Force documents record no 'special
reason forgiving itthe Qdesignation.' '« .
To accommodate the A-12's special fuel, the fuel tank liners in
the KC-135Q's forward body, center wing, aft body, and upper
deck fuel tanks, along with the air refueling manifold were
replaced with aspecial ceramic liner impervious to PF-1, adding
considerable weight to the airplane. The eventual use of JP-7 for
the SR-71 eliminated the need for these ceramic linings, which
were eventually removed and replaced by the standard rubber
liners. JP-7 is usable by the KC-135Q, although not as a primary
fuel. Following an 'air flush' of the JP-7, the KC-135Q can use JP-
ebeen 4fuel in all of its tanks, as well as offload it to a receiver. Indeed,
)s, and KC-135Qs have been routinely used to refuel receivers other than
les. By theA-12 or it successors.
19ining The first air refueling operations involving the A-12 and KC-
(, all of 1350 took place between the time of the A-12's first flight in April
5Rs by 1962 and sometime in July 1962. The A-12s were still equipped
with two Pratt & Whitney J75 engines (pending delivery of the
production Pratt & Whitney J58s) , and initial air refueling tests
used JP-4. KC-135Q flights were undertaken by crews assigned
Irbofan to the 903rd AREFS, 4126th SW based at Beale AFB, California.'45
,sance The KC-135Qs were originally to be assigned to the 924th
:Rsys- AREFS, 93rd BW at Castle AFB, which was closer to the desert
mnais- home of the A-12s at Groom Lake, Nevada. The development of
35Eto the Lockheed SR-71 altered this plan. Since the SR-71 would be
xceed- an Air Force asset (versus the A-12 which was a CIA asset sup-
ported by KC-135Qs), SAC felt that the SR-71s and KC-135Qs
fueling should be co-located. Beale AFB was better suited than Castle
>135s AFB to support SR-71 operations, so the KC-135Q mission went
IR) 58- tothe 903rd AREFS.
leir ini- By the end of 1966 21 KC-135Qs had been modified and were
ational in service with the 903rd AREFS - by now part ofthe 456th SAW-
linthe at Beale AFB.ln addition to their support of SR-71 and A-12 oper-
spool- ations, the KC-135Qs and their crews shared operational com-
lction) mitments with B-52Gs assigned to the 744th BS, also stationed at
to the
i305th With the 1992 closure of the Alaska Tanker Task
le2nd Force, the Alaska ANG's 168th AREFS at Eielson
,vious- AFB now provides nearly all aerial refueling
Jut the over Alaska. Jim Benson
:eneral
lhthey
Beale AFB. As the demands on the KC-135Qs grew, it became
clear that the fleet would have to grow to accommodate these
increasing requirements.
Part of this demand for an increased number of KC-135Qs
stemmed from the need for a large number of ready-to-go spare
aircraft. Since A-12 and SR-71 missions were critically dependent
upon receipt of their scheduled fuel at each refueling point, a
ground or air abort by aKC-135Q effectively scrubbed the entire
reconnaissance mission. This was especially frustrating if the
affected tanker was scheduled for the initial air refueling. Stan-
dard procedures called for the SR-71 to take-off with 55 to 60%
full fuel load to ensure that the pilot could maintain lateral maxi-
mum control in the event of an engine failure on take-off.'" As
each A-12 and SR-71 mission cost as much as several hundred
thousand dollars, it was absurd to cancel it because of aproblem
with a single tanker. Consequently, both air and ground spares
were required for many operational sorties. The A-12s and SR-
71 s had to get their fuel, regardless of how many tankers were
needed to get it there.
In 1967 crews from the 70th AREFS, 43rd BWat Little Rock
AFB, Arkansas, and the 306th AREFS, 306th BW at McCoy AFB,
Florida, completed training in SR-71 refueling procedures. Addi-
tional airplanes began conversion into KC-135Qs, with 20 KC-
135As from the 70th AREFS and 15 from the 306th AREFS
selected for modification, with the work for these 35 conversions
undertaken by OCAMA. Because of the expense involved, SAC
elected to convert only a portion of these airplanes into KC-
135Qs. The remainder, known informally as 'partial Qs', did not
have the full avionics suite, although the intention was that it
could be installed with sufficient notice prior to amission. Realisti-
cally, this proved difficult to undertake, if ever. Olthe 56 KC-135Q
conversions, 21 were full modifications and 35 were partial Qs.
Two KC-135Qs have been lost (see Appendix C).
The additional airplanes were quickly put to use, particularly
in operations in Southeast Asia, with ten KC-135Qs from Beale
AFB deploying to Kadena AB between 27th September 1967,
and 30th October 1967. As each KC-135Q arrived there, a KC-
135A would depart for the 4258th SWat U-Tapao RTNAB.
According to a SAC history, these first KC-135Q missions from
Kadena AB were 'bomber refueling missions'.'" As the first
reported operational mission of an A-12 in Southeast Asia was
flown from Kadena AB in August 1967 - and certainly required
KC-135Q support - the KC-135Qs must have arrived sooner than
reported and clearly refueled more than just 'bombers'.'48 SR-71
operations in Southeast Asia began in 1968 with the first SR-71
flight over North Vietnam in April of that year, flown by the late
General (then-Major) Jerome F 'Jerry' O'Malley and then-Major
Edward Payne.'"
All KC-135Qs were initially assigned to the 903rd AREFS,
4126th SWat Beale AFB. On 1st February 1963, the 4126th SW
was inactivated and replaced by the 456th BW. The 9th AREFS
was activated as part of the 456th BW on 1st January 1970. The
456th BW was inactivated on 30th September 1975, and
replaced by the 17th BW, which itself was inactivated on 30th
September 1976. The 903rd AREFS was likewise inactivated, and
the 9th AREFS reassigned to the 1OOth AREFW, newly assigned
to Beale AFB.
The 349th AREFS joined the 9th AREFS as part of the 100th
AREFW on 30th March 1976. The 9th AREFS was replaced by the
350th AREFS on 28th January 1982. The 1OOth AREFWwas inac-
tivated on 15th March 1983, and the 349th AREFS and 350th
AREFS absorbed in situ by the 9th SRW. After the 1st September
1991, reorganization of the Air Force, the 9th SRW became the
9th Wing, and on 1st June 1992, the 349th AREFS was inactivat-
ed. Subsequently, KC-135Qs were assigned to anumber of ACC
or AMC wings.
During Operations 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm', KC-
135Qs from the 9th SRW were assigned to the 1700th AREFS (P),
1700th AREFW (P), at Riyadh AB, Saudi Arabia, beginning in
August 1990, and to the 1709th AREFS (P), 1709th AREFW (P),
King Abdul Aziz lAP, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, beginning in January
1991.
Partial 'Qs have been assigned to the 380th BW at Plattsburgh
AFB and to the 376th SWat Kadena AB. Beale AFB has had both
partial 'Qs and fully-equipped KC-135Qs.
The major differences between the KC-135Q and other KC-
135s are primarily related to the fuel system and rendezvous and
communications equipment. The KC-135Q utilizes two single-
point refueling receptacles-one in each main landing gear
wheel well-whereas other KC-135s have only one located in the
right main gear well. On the KC-135Q, the left system services the
airplane's wing tanks and the right system services the body fuel
tanks (the forward body, center wing, and aft body tanks plus the
upper deck tank). JP-7 is normally carried only in the body fuel
tanks. To account for changes in the airplane's center-of-gravity
(cg) during SR-71 refueling operations, 850lb (385kg) of ballast
was added to the lower nose compartment. The KC-135Q can
simultaneously carry a maximum of 74,4901b (33,788kg) of JP-7
and 11 O,OOOlb (49,896kg) of standard JP-4.'51J
Rendezvous and communications equipment differences
include the addition of a third UHF radio and an AN/ARN-90
TACAN, both located at the navigator's station. The third UHF

:erSix.

! Lock-

,sance
gency
a new
o/the
lesthe
n), far
" U-2.
lut the
led its
19itto
short-

,urned
, PF-1
rsand
pecial
ul the
sand
Mach
cation
A.
lfKC-
dKC-
j was
maxi-
35Qs
Ie air-
1966,
lation

69

radio - an AN/ARC-50 known as 'Comm 3' - also provided dis-
tance measurement between the KC-135Q and A-12/ SR-71.'" In
the partial Q, Comm 3 was the sole source of air-to-air distance
measurement for the rendezvous with an A-12 or SR-71. The
power of the Comm 3is considerable, with two KC-135Qs report-
ed to have maintained ranging out to a distance of 700 miles
(1,126km).
The TACAN provided the SR-71 with range and bearing data
for ahead-on rendezvous, but in early use was notoriously unreli-
able in the air-to-air mode.'" KC-135Qs were at one time
equipped with LORAN-A for precise maintenance of their orbit at
air refueling control points (ARCPs) beyond the range of existing
navigational aids such as TACANs. This equipment has since
been removed.
In the late 1980s asatellite communications (SATCOM) anten-
na was installed on the upper forward fuselage. Strobe lights are
installed on the upper and lower fuselage and tail. Similar strobes
mounted on the wingtips were deactivated after several wing fires
and explosions were attributed to them. On some KC-135Qs the
boom operator has a boom interphone system installed which
allows radio silent communication with the receiver once boom
contact is made, afeature particularly well liked by Special Oper-
ations Command receivers.'" Asearchlight is mounted in the tail
cone of the KC-135Q illuminates the air refueling envelope. This
feature was installed as part of the KC-135Q modification and is
different from the tail-mounted floodlight (TMF) later installed on
all KC-135s and KC-135Qs. All KC-135Qs have high-speed air
refueling booms.".
The partial 'Qs lack the ARN-90 TACAN and did not have the
LORAN-A installed. The partial 'Os may have the third UHF radio
removed or a VHF radio installed in place of the second UHF
radio.
Refueling operations with the A-12 and SR-71 were certainly
unique and demanding. As the receivers were on classified
reconnaissance missions, operational and communications
security were much more stringent than in routine tanker opera-
tions. The dependency of the receiver on the tanker, especially at
times when divert bases were closed due to bad weather or were
unavailable due to political considerations, made the rendezvous
and refueling critical both to the success of the mission and the
safety of the receiver and crew. The aerodynamic dissimilarity of
the subsonic KC-1350 and its triple-sonic receiver dictated apre-
cise rendezvous, and the actual air refueling was conducted at
the limits of each airplane's operational envelope.
There were two types of rendezvous used by KC-1350s dur-
ing missions in support of A-12s and SR-71s. The first of these,
known as the 'cold' rendezvous, was used when the receiver was
subsonic prior to the air refueling, such as for the initial onload
after take-off or during pilot qualification training. The 'hot' ren-
dezvous was used when the receiver was supersonic prior to the
air refueling, such as during an operational mission or ferry flight.
Other than differences in timing, these two procedures were iden-
tical.
Under extreme or degraded conditions such as poor visibility
or radio silent operations, KC-1350s dumped a small amount of
fuel, leaving avisible trail for the receiver crew to follow to find the
tanker, a practice not limited to A-12 or SR-71 operations but
used when needed by all tankers.'ss The KC-1350's strobe lights
helped the receiver pilot to spot the tanker in the final stages of
70
KC-1
ElevE
rollec
1982
expe,
100 l
engir
bert(
appn
buy. I
In
engir
offuE
Fil
, -'"1 - tIl-- 1982.
U. S. AIR FORCE c- on 4t
Flighi
flight
anott
40,OC
70,OC
ing p
proto
weigl
01
the rendezvous, reducing unnecessary delays during the closure Best known because of its many duties with the buttt
to contact. 55th SRW at Offutt AFB, KC-135E (ARR) 59-1514 ing n
SR-71 refueling was particularly delicate and required consid- also served briefly with the 305th AREFW at comr
erable skill by the receiver pilot to maintain visual and physical Grissom AFB. This rare photograph shows '514' APU
contact during refueling. On 17th June 1970, SR-71A 64-17970 wearing 305th AREFW markings during a groul
collided with the horizontal stabilizer of its KC-1350 tanker during winter's visit to Offutt AFB. Prior to serving as groUi
air refueling over Texas. The SR-71 lost its nose and became the prototype KC-135E, 59-1514 was involved carts
uncontrollable; the crew ejected safely.'" Although one of the with a number of reconnaissance related quid
tanker's horizontal stabilizers was almost completely separated programs, and residue from its many theA
from the aircraft, the tanker crew was able to maintain control, configurations still appears on the airplane, start
pinpoint the downed SR-71 crew, and return safely to Beale AFB such as the covered windows above the word onds
forrecovery. '57 'Air' on the forward fuselage. Author's collection each
Normal refueling for the SR-71 was conducted at 355 KIAS - twoc
red-line speed for the KC-1350 - and at block altitude of Tt
FL26D-FL270, an altitude lower than SR-71 crews preferred but Refueling the Lockheed F-117A has become a duty for the areo
as high as a KC-1350 'fat with gas' could go while maintaining KC-135Q, although this is not believed to be due to any special air (SYD
355 KIAS.'58 Nearthe end ofthe air refueling, the SR-71 was at the refueling requirement on the part of the F-117. Rather, KC-135Q mary
limits of its subsonic heavy weight performance capability, and crews are familiar with the many sensitive refueling procedures pOWE
often used one afterburner in order to stay in contact with the required in the type of operations the F-117 likely undertakes. ,. runw
tanker.'" Tests with KC-135Rs showed a 25 knot increase in the Perhaps the most intriguing role for the KC-1350 is a repeat- runw
tanker's maximum speed, allowing the SR-71 to refuel at 375 ed, but unverified, association with an unidentified and highly help~
KIAS, a considerable improvement, especially during heavy classified 'black' aircraft. Reports of 'Qs flying with diamond- EFA~
weight operations.'oo Refueling operations with KC-1 Os increased shaped airplanes from Beale AFB, occasionally in conjunction autol
the base refueling block up to 33,000ft (1 0,058m)and the speed with two F-117s, continue to surface.'" The KC-1350 has also es a'
to Mach 0.88.'61 been associated with the 'Black Horse' program, a single-stage
Both of these improvements came to naught with the 1990 fo orbit research effort yet to leave the drawing board.'os
cancellation of the SR-71 program, and the unique mission of the For what appears to be a variety of reasons, none singularly The
KC-t 350 appeared to be extinct.'" Six SR-7t s are reportedly compelling, Congress approved funds during 1994 to reactivate AFIl
'mothballed' in the event they are needed for future reconnais- US Air Force SR-71 reconnaissance operations. Ostensibly to nea
sance operations, but as they were not used during Operation provide areconnaissance capability that had yet to reach opera- sysl
'Desert Shield' or 'Desert Storm' this potential seemed to be more tional status in the form of advanced drones or perhaps some affe
fantasy than fact. highly secret SR-71 replacement, the SR-71 slowly inched back eng
A debate of the merits of the cancellation of the SR-71 pro- toward life. Relying upon NASA's still-operational research SR-
gram is far beyond the domain of this history. However, the con- 71 s for training, six former SR-71 crewmembers formed a new
tributions of A-12s and SR-71s to the intelligence-gathering detachment in 1995 for an airplane without a mission but with
capabilities of the US and its Allies, to the development of $100 million in funding. Aerial refueling for the newly reactivated
advanced-technology aerospace vehicles, and to the national SR-71 fleet would come primarily from KC-1 Os, not KC-1350s or
pride of the Air Force, the American aerospace industry, and the KC-135Ts.'70
American people, surely would not have been possible without This tangential association with reconnaissance is typical of
the 30 years of unseen and unheralded support by KC-1350s. previous KC-1350 operations. 'Q-crews' have always worked in
In early 1990 there were indications that some of the 'Os an undefined world. An integral part of the reconnaissance mis-
would be stored in AMARC. The rest would lose their special elec- sion, their shoulder patch boasts of being part of 'Team Recce',
tronic equipment and fuel tanks, be converted into KC-135Es or along with the SR-71 and the U-2. Still, they are not part of the
KC-135Rs and be distributed to other SAC or ANG and AFRES reconnaissance community, particularly as viewed by some of
refueling units, thereto join KC-135As, KC-135Es, and other KC- their RC-135 counterparts who, on a shoulder patch, provide a
135Rs in support of contingency and SlOP commitments.'" To stinging and impromptu spelling lesson with the reminder that
date this has not happened, and all 54 remaining KC-1350s have 'There are no 'Os' in 'Reconnaissance'. Regardless, there are no
received CFM56 engines and are now ,redesignated KC-135Ts. more 'Q models'.
The last to be converted was 58-0099, which departed Fairchild KC-1350 serial numbers:
AFB, Washington on 29th September 1995.'~ 58-0039*17'58-0061 58-0088* 58-1029* 59-1480 60-0336
Known KC-1350 missions after the demise of the SR-71 have 58-0042 58-0062 58-089* 59-1460 59-1490* 60-0337
been varied and interesting. One such duty has been as dedicat- 58-0045 58-0065 58-0094* 59-1462 59-1504* 60-0338
edtransportsfor JP-7fuel. LiketheSR-71, the U-2also uses JP-7, 58-0046 58-0069 58-0095* 59-1464 59-151 0 60-0339
and the need to carry this exotic fuel to remote locations in su p- 58-0047 58-0071* 58-0099* 59-1467 59-1512* 60-0342
port of U-2R operations makes the 'Q' well suited as a highly 58-0049 58-0072 58-0103* 59-1468 59-1513* 60-0343
mobile'ground-based fuel storage tank.'65 It is widely believed 58-0050 58-0074* 58-0112* 59-1470 59-1520* 60-0344
that 'Os were the primary source of JP-7for U-2R operations from 58-0054* 58-0077 58-0117* 59-1471 59-1523* 60-0345
Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, although official reports show 58-0055 58-0084* 58-0125* 59-1474 60-0335 60-0346
this was undertaken by KC-1 Os and C-141 s, not KC-1350s.'66 58-0060 58-0086* *denotes full KC-1350, others 'partial Qs'.
 KC·135R
Eleven months ahead of schedule and under budget, BMAC
rolled out the first KC-135R from its Wichita facility on 22nd June
1982, revealing an entirely new airplane with a service life
expectancy through the year 2050, an operational life of nearly
100 years per airplane. Although the original intent was 10 re-
engine 642 KC-135Rs by 1993, budget limitations kept that num-
ber to nearly 250 by the end of 1990. Unit cost was estimated at
approximately $16.3 million per airplane given a 300-airplane
buy. By 1995 nearly 400 KC-135Rs had been converted. on
In addition to the improved performance gained by the new
engines, BMAC estimated afuel savings of 2.3-3.2 million barrels
offuel annually, saving $1.1 billion in 15 years of operations.
First flight of the KC-135R was scheduled for 13th August
1982, but, as with its roll-out, the airplane flew ahead of schedule
on 4th August with BMAC pilot Charles Gebhardt in command.
Flight test results were both immediate and dramatic. Given a
night profile of a 2,000nm (3,706km) cruise to refuel followed by
another 2,000 nm return to base, a KC-135A can only offload
4O,0001b (18,144kg) of fuel. By contrast, a KC-135R can offload
70,OOOlb (31 ,752kg) of fuel under the same conditions. The test-
ing pace was accelerated by using a refuelable KC-135 as the
prototype, which allowed the accomplishment of three heavy-
weightfluttertests on one flight instead ofthe normal three flights.
Obvious changes to the KC-135R are the new F108 engines,
the butthe differences are far more extensive than asimple re-engin-
514 ing might suggest. The water injection system was removed
completely. The old APU was taken out and replaced with a dual
;14' APU system. Under normal conditions, one APU provides
ground power and starting capability, eliminating the need for
IS ground power equipment such as electrical and air pressure
j carts. Under EWO conditions, both APUs can be run to allow for a
quick start. As crews climb the crew entry chute they can press
lheAPU EWO start button, ensuring that sufficient air pressure to
slart two engines simultaneously is available within eleven sec-
'd onds. Two engine and cowl fire extinguishers are installed in
In each wing. The two extinguishers may be used individually on
Iwodifferent engines or both on one engine.
The horizontal stabilizers are increased in surface area as they
lr the are on the KC-135E and C-135B derivatives. Aseries yaw damper
ialair (SYD) is installed to replace the autopilot rudder axis as the pri-
1350 mary means of damping dutch roll. Under asymmetric high
jures power conditions, pilot response time to engine failure on the
es. l67 runway is typically too slow to avoid running off the side of the
peat- runway. An engine failure assist system (EFAS) is installed which
lighly helps alleviate (but does not eliminate) this problem. When the
lOnd- EFAS senses an rpm difference between the outboard engines it
Iction automatically initiates a26' per second rudder input and increas-
; also es available rudder authority. Under light gross weights the
,tage
ularly The prototype KC-135R 61-0293 visits Offutt
tivate AFB during August 1982. The 'R model was
lly to nearly a new airplane, with almost every main
pera- system - pneumatics, hydraulics, electrics -
,ome affected by the installation of the CFM56
back engines. George R Cockle, author's collection
1 SR-
I new
I with
~ated
Qsor
::alof
:ed in
rmis-
lece',
lfthe
ne of
ide a
r that
reno
0336
J337
J338
)339
)342
)343
)344
)345·
)346
Qs'.
asymmetric yaw is created so fast, however, that the EFAS can-
not respond quickly enough. Consequently, KC-135Rs typically
use reduced thrust take-offs at light to medium gross weights
which not only provides a significant safety factor but decreases
engine wear as well.
Engine maintenance and reliability are improved by the addi-
tion of the Turbofan Engine Monitoring System (TEMS), an elec-
tronic device which records a snapshot of actual engine
parameters during flight. TEMS also records any out-of-limits
parameters to help identify the appropriate post-flight corrective
maintenance. TEMS means better maintenance, fewer in-flight
shutdowns, and improved engine reliability.
The electrical system on the KC-135R is nearly identical to that
on the KC-135A with the exception new integrated drive genera-
tors (IDGs). These generators automatically come on line (and, if
required, trip external electrical power) without the need for man-
ual paralleling or balancing.
Strength of the landing gear has been improved significantly
to allow for operations at higher gross weights. The KC-135R has
5-rotor brakes with the new Mk.1II anti-skid system. Both pilots
can now steer the airplane using the foot pedals, while the tiller on
the pilot's side (previously the means used to steer) is still avail-
able for sharp turns or improved nose wheel steering authority.
Use of rudder pedal steering is particularly useful in crosswind
conditions.
Fundamentally the KC-135R is a new airplane when com-
pared with its J57-equipped predecessors. Nonetheless, its mis-
sion remains the same. Supporters of the KC-135R are quick to
point out that two KC-135Rs can do the same mission as three
KC-135As, a lesson borne out during 'Desert Storm'. One KC-
135R, for example, can offload more fuel after flying extreme dis-
tances than can aKC-1 0, since it burns less than the KC-1 0to get
to the offload point. For KC-135 pilots the KC-135R is the sports
car of the tanker community - light weight, plenty of excess
power, and few handling abnormalities. The KC-135R, however,
is not the end of potential development of the breed, and several
modifications could serve to improve the airplane and the entire
fleet.
Interest in the KC-135R has not been limited to the US Air
Force or France. Canada has once again inquired about receiv-
ing several KC-135Rs to replace the CC-137s it bought when
denied KC-135s nearly 30 years earlier. Most likely Canada will
use its A310 Airbuses (CAF designation CC-150 Polaris) as
tankers rather than purchase KC-135s, but the possibility, howev-
er small, remains.
Turkey is perhaps the greatest beneficiary of the glut of KC-
135As now in storage at AMARC. As part of apotentially substan-
tial Foreign Military Assistance (FMS) program that could include
other nations such as Singapore and South Korea, Turkey will
receive seven, rather than ten, KC-135As from AMARC converted
into KC-135Rs. This transfer has been the subject of much con-
troversy, and has been cancelled and restarted throughout its
lifetime.'" As of the end of 1995, the seven KC-135s to be trans-
ferred include 57-2592, 58-0110,60-0325,60-0326,62-3539,62-
3563, and 62-3567). Two US Air Force KC-135Rs (62-3512 and
62-3568) have been loaned to the Turk Hava Kuvvetleri, and will
be based at Murted AB."4
During early 1996, Singapore announced its intent to pur-
chase a total of four KC-135s for the republic's air force"' in a
deal valued at $280 million.
KC·135R (ARR)
As with the first KC-135E conversion, the first KC-135A to be con-
verted into a KC-135R was KC-135A (ARR) 61-0293. The refue-
lable KC-135R is also known by the popular but unofficial
'KC-135R(RT)' and 'RT-135R'. This book uses the name 'KC-
135R (ARR)'.
The refuelable KC-135R represents perhaps the ultimate evo-
lution of the KC-135 airframe and powerplant. The same argu-
ments that support the installation of an IFR system in the
KC-135A apply as well to the KC-135R fleet. The increased per-
formance, range, and fuel capacity of the KC-135R further justify
installing the ARR system throughout the fleet.
All of the KC-135R (ARR)s were originally assigned to the
305th AREFW at Grissom AFB. With the closure of Grissom AFB
in 1993, the KC-135R (ARR)s were transferred to the 19th ARW at
Robins AFB, Georgia. The airplanes were again transferred in
1994 to the 22nd ARWat McConnell AFB, Kansas.
58-0011 Delivered to the 305th AREFW as aKC-135R (ARR)
on 27th April 1989. Transferred to the 19th ARW during August
1993. Reassigned during 1994 to the 22nd ARW.
58-0018 Delivered to the 305th AREFW as a KC-135R (ARR)
on 17th February 1989. Transferred to the 19th ARW during
August 1993. Reassigned during 1994 to the 22nd ARW.
58-0124 Delivered to the 305th AREFW as a KC-135R (ARR)
on 12th May 1989. Transferred to the 19th ARW during August
1993. Reassigned during 1994 to the 22nd ARW.
58·0126 Delivered to the 305th AREFW as a KC-135R (ARR)
on 13th January 1989. Transferred to the 19th ARW during
August 1993. Reassigned during 1994 to the 22nd ARW.
60·0356 Delivered to the 305th AREFW as a KC-135R (ARR)
on 5th January 1989. Transferred to the 19th ARW during August
1993. Reassigned during 1994 to the 22nd ARW.
60-0357 Delivered to the 305th AREFW as aKC-135R (ARR)
on 5th July 1988. Transferred to the 19th ARW during August
1993. Reassigned during 1994 to the 22nd ARW.
60-0362 Delivered to the 305th AREFW as a KC-135R (ARR)
on 27th May 1988. Transferred to the 19th ARW during August
1993. Reassigned during 1994 to the 22nd ARW.
60·0293 Converted into a KC-135R (ARR) in August 1982
and used by Boeing and AFSC for initial acceptance testing. On
29th June 1984, it was returned to operational use and assigned
to the 384th AREFW at McConnell AFB, Kansas. In 1987 it was
transferred to the 19th AREFW at Robins AFB, Georgia, for use
as an air refueling proficiency trainer for the EC-135N and 'Yair-
borne command posts assigned to Central Command (CENT-
COM).
In 1988, 61-0293 moved to the 305th AREFW. Transferred to
the 19th ARW during August 1993. Reassigned during 1994 to
the 22nd ARW.
KC·135T
Beginning in 1993 all 54 of the remaining KC-1350s were re-
engined with F1 08s, and were redesignated as KC-135Ts.
71
 KC-135Q 58·0099 refuels SR-71A 64-17967
during a training mission over Utah. SR-71
refuelings often required multiple tankers, so
'Q Crews' had plenty of practice flying cell
formation. The link of KC-135Qs to the 'black' or
recce world has resulted in a number of recent
claims that KC·135Qs support as-yet Wei
undisclosed 'stealth' airplanes, although this C-1:
may be more fantasy than fact. Dave Brown equ
and
An airframe come full circle: New Hampshire plu!
ANG KC-135R 58-0092 at Pease ANGB on 25th ant
February 1995. After 40 years of service, tanl
KC-135s will continue in operation through the cha
year 2020. Despite a new camouflage color and eqL
new engines, the airframe is getting tired, If 0
supplies are no longer manufactured or even Joe
stockpiled, and more KC-135Rs are pressed
into duty as transports to replace fatigued
C-141s. To KC-135 crews, however, there is
little doubt that Boeing's 'interim solution' can
handle the strain. As one patch proudly boasts, Altl
'If it doesn't say Boeing, I'm not going'. ISf<
Tom Hildreth to
sel
r:
in£
St,
eXI
rei
wa
for
an
KC-135R (ARR) 61-0293 from the 384th AREFW pn
undergoes cold weather testing at Eielson AFB. sa
Severe cold adversely affected a number of
ci,
KC-135R systems, and until these
discrepancies were corrected KC-135Rs seldom its
deployed in winter to the Alaska Tanker Task Fr,
Force at Eielson AFB. This airplane eventually yc
joined the other KC-135R (ARR)s at Grissom
AFB until its closure, when they moved en
at
masse first to Robins AFB and then to cc
McConnell AFB. USAF, author's collection nc

72

Les Ravitailleurs
so
:k' or
:ent
Well on its way to being the 'ultimate', KC-135
is C·135FR 62-12736 'Charlie Hotel'. Camouflaged,
equipped with the ADELE radar warning suite,
and carrying two wingtip drogue refueling pods
plus the standard air refueling boom, this vari-
'e
5th antlacks for little as the state-of-the art in jet
tankers. Addition of a 'glass' cockpit, defensive
the chaff and flares, and improved cargo handling
and equipment all promise further improvement.
If only an IFR receptacle was forthcoming ••.
Joe Bruch collection
:an
IStS, Although countries such as Canada, Iran, and
Israel have requested KC-135 tankers, the sale
to France of a dozen C-135Fs in 1962 repre-
sents the only transfer of any variant ofthe Boe-
ing KC-135 to any nation outside of the United
States prior to the mid-1990s. It is difficult to
explain the rationale for this sale and why it
remains the exception. For the French, the sale
was tied to the nascent French nuclear strike
force, an issue of critical political, diplomatic,
and military importance, and of considerable
FW prestige to the Fifth Republic. For the US, the
~FB. sale was opposed by senior administration offi-
cials (including President Kennedy) because of
dom AS intimate association with an autonomous
;k French nuclear strike force, a capability be-
lIy
, yond American control that raised serious
objections among American policy planners
concerned with the heady issues of nuclear
nonproliferation, cohesion among the Euro-
Chapter Six
pean allies, and changes in US nuclear policy.'
On 13th February 1960, France exploded a
60 kiloton atomic bomb over .the Algerian Sa-
hara Desert. Operation 'Gerboise Bleue' (Blue
Gerbil) inducted France as the fourth member
of the world's most exclusive club - the wield-
ers of nuclear weapons. President Charles de
Gaulle formally announced on 6th December
1960, his intention to establish an autonomous
French nuclear strike force independent of US
authority.
The key to this independent nuclear force
was France's reliance upon its fledgling strate-
gic bomber force to deliver these nuclear wea-
pons to targets in the Soviet Union. In 1956
French Prime Minister Guy Mollet endorsed the
construction of a supersonic bomber designed
to cruise at low level and high subsonic speed,
climb to altitude for a Mach 1.7 dash over the
target, drop its atomic bomb, and then recover
with its fuel tanks nearly empty at the nearest
NATO air base!This interim bomber lacked the
range to strike targets other than those on the
westernmost fringe of the USSR, so French
designers planned a follow-on bomber three
times as large with a significantly greater radius
of action. The cost of this newly-proposed re-
placement proved prohibitive, leaving France
without a long range strategic bomber to carry
its as yet untested atomic bombs. France
resolved the range problem by slightly enlarg-
ing the interim bomber, now known as the Das-
sault Mirage IVA, and giving it aerial refueling
capability. Without refueling, the Mirage IV had
a range of 1,550 nautical miles (nm, 2,872km),
a distance extended to 2,975nm (5,512km)
with a single air refueling.
To refuel this high speed jet on its nuclear
strike mission required a tanker capable of
launching at a moment's notice, refueling at
high speeds and altitudes, and quickly offload-
ing a large quantity of jet fuel. Only the KC-135
could satisfy these requirements.' Each ravi-
tailleur (tanker) was intended to service four
Mirage IVs, requiring a fleet of nine KC-135s
plus one spare to support the projected 36-
bomber fleet, popularly known as the Force de
Frappe (Strike Force)'. In early 1960 France
began discussions with Boeing and the US
Department of State and DoD in an effort to buy
10 KC-135s. No agreement was forthcoming,
and further negotiations coincided with the
presidential election of John Kennedy.
With the new administration came a shift
from the existing US nuclear policy of 'massive
retaliation' to one of 'flexible response'.' To
Kennedy, Secretary of Defense McNamara, and
Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the French nuc-
lear force would both undermine flexible
response and increase the likelihood of prema-
ture use of nuclear weapons in any superpower
crisis, especially ifthose nuclear weapons were
in the hands of a nation - like France - that
refused any American say-so over their use. As
73
 part c
Defen:
knowll
Defen'
these
efforts
thepn
ican r
group
was iT
failed
dent <
emba
ofKC
govel
ofthc

the French nuclear bomber force depended
solely upon jet tankers for its credibility, these
tankers soon achieved a level of importance
equal to nuclear weapons themselves.
Despite the apparent American reluctance to
sell KC-135s, the French pressed forward with
negotiations after a year's hiatus. In January
1962 Armee de l'Air Chief of Staff General Paul
Stehlin announced that by 1965 France would
have its own 'first-generation' strategic strike
force composed of some 50 nuclear-equipped
Mirage IVBs, boosting speculation that the sale
of the necessary KC-135s would be approved. 6
General Maxwell Taylor, after a March 1962
meeting with de Gaulle, recommended that the
US embargo on France's nuclear weapons
program be lifted and that the US invite a
French military mission to Washington with a
'shopping list' including the previously unavail-
able KC-135s.'
Contradictions and Decisions
President Kennedy rejected the recommenda-
tions of his military and economic advisors,
however, and disapproved the sale of nuclear
weapons technology and support equipment
(ie KC-135s for the Force de Frappe) on the
grounds of standard State Department dogma
which held that such a sale would be contrary
to established US policy of not contributing to
the proliferation and development of nuclear
weapons capabilities and delivery systems
among the NATO countries. He announced in a
news conference held on 7th June 1962, that
assistance to the French nuclear program and
autonomous nuclear deterrent - the latter epit-
omized by the KC-135-wasa 'dead issue'.·
On the same day as President Kennedy pub-
licly rejected the sale, Deputy Secretary of De-
fense Roswell Gilpatric quietly approved the
sale of a dozen KC-135s to France." This dis-
crete volte face represented active assistance
to the development of a French independent
nuclear capability, something McNamara had
so strongly opposed.'o
Less than two weeks later, Secretary McNa-
mara maintained the public facade of opposing
any aid to the French nuclear force, including
the sale of the KC-135s. As part of his famous
16th June commencement address at the Uni-
versity of Michigan at Ann Arbor, McNamara
attacked the French nuclear program as 'not
likely to be suffi,cient to perform even the func-
tion of deterrence ... [and called it] dangerous,
expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking
in credibility'." A month later, however, he and
Rusk publicly approved the sale of KC-135s to
France in a deal worth $50 million, 'reflecting
improved relations between the two countries' .'2
Paradoxically, the US sold France the very
weapon system - jet tankers, support equip-
ment, and initial training - that would firmly
establish a French autonomous nuclear strike
capability at a time and in an American political
climate committed to inhibiting nuclear prolifer-
ation and what some Americans such as Henry
Kissinger perceived as Gaullist adventurism in
superpower politics.'3
The original explanation for this turnabout is
that the tanker sale helped offset American
gold losses to France, at the time estimated to
be some $250-275 million per annum.'4 Presi-
dent Kennedy was concerned - perhaps too
worried - over foreign accumulation of US gold
and may have viewed the tanker sale as one
way to reduce this outflow." There is little doubt
that the balance of payments issue was an
important consideration in approving the sale,
but it seems unlikely that the US would have
reversed a major strategic security policy on
nonproliferation and French nuclear autonomy
simply to save $50 million in gold, a skeptical
view shared by then Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs Paul H
Nitze. 16
Recently declassified documents suggest a
more compelling reason for the sale, one not
incompatible with the issue of gold losses to
France. According to the primary DoD memo-
randum recommending the transfer, the sale of
LesF
The I
can I
and i
ques
French ability to project strategic power, at settlE
least as far as Moscow, hinged upon the
its 10
availability of a jet-powered tanker capable of
the a
refueling the Dassault Mirage IVA. The only
reasonable choice was a variant of the KC-135, they
which the French tried to acquire as early as garn
1960. The sale became mired in the political mari
muck of two US administrations, with a dozen
Frer
C-135Fs finally sold to France on 7th June 1962.
regi~
C-135F 63-12739, visiting Wright-Patterson AFB
during 1981. Author's collection nUIT
repr
'Ch,
KC-135s to France was undertaken 'in order to as (
imprOve the strained relations between France pUT!
and the US and to possibly set [sic] the stage tary
for future negotiations for increased purchases plaT
from the US'."
It would be easy to conclude that the sale
took place amid considerable bureaucratic
confusion, and that it contradicted presidential
policy prohibiting nuclear transfers to France. It
also made President Kennedy and Secretary Fra
McNamara appear to be out of control of the witl
in"
Department of Defense by publicly opposing
mo
the tanker sale while at the same time their sub- it n
ordinates were expeditiously approving it in pri- Aut
vate. The embarrassing contradictions between
Kennedy's press conference remarks and Sec-
retary McNamara's Ann Arbor address oppos-
ing nuclear aid to France and the Department
of Defense's concerted efforts to sell the tan-
kers are good examples of the bureaucratic
confusion that exists in any government.'·
None of the documents associated with the
sale reflect any co-ordination with the Secretary
of Defense or the Oval Office. Kennedy's
National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy
confided that the sale epitomized 'the way the
Kennedy administration did business', and that
the sale likely happened 'short of White House
approval'." Bundy said that he had 'no clear
recollection of the sale of jet tankers to France',
adding 'I know it happened, but I do not at all
remember how or why'. 20
It may be tempting to assert that this lack of
co-ordination suggests a sinister effort on the

74
 part of one segment of the Department of
Defense to advance its policy views without the
knowledge or approval of the Secretary of
Defense and the president. Far from dishonest,
these failures most likely represent sincere
efforts of the Department of Defense to satisfy
the president's desire to improve Franco-Amer-
ican relations. In the course of its efforts, this
group failed to confirm that what it was doing
was indeed what the president wanted. It also
failed to co-ordinate its efforts with the presi-
dent and Secretary of Defense to prevent any
embarrassing public contradictions. The sale
of KC-135s to France is a good example of how
governments work despite the best intentions
ofthose who run them.
Les Ravitailleurs
The French tankers differed from their Ameri-
can counterparts both on the drawing board
and in actual operations. Originally France re-
quested KC-135s with turbofan engines, but
settled for the J57 turbojet version because of
its lower initial costs." France planned to use
If
the airplanes in a dual tanker-transport role, so
15, they were designated as C-135Fs, eventually
garnering the nickname 'Sous-Marine' (Sub-
marine) because of their lack of windows. 22 The
n
French C-135s were assigned pseudo-national
162.
FB registrations in addition to their military serial
numbers, with usually only the last two letters
represented on the airplane (ie F-UKCA as 'CA,
'Charlie Alpha'). These 'registrations' are used
rto as call-signs and identifiers for flight planning
1ce purposes and clearance requests for 'non-mili-
:tge tary' flights abroad, especially when the air-
ses planes are flown in a pure transport role.
:ale
3.tic
Itial
3. It
ary France was quick to re-engine its C-135F fleet
the with CFM56 engines, approving the modification
in January 1980. The first airplane to be
ing
modified was 63-12736. Redesignated C-135FR
ub- nmade its first flight on 3rd August 1985.
pri- Author's collection
len
ec-
os-
3nt
3.n-
Itic
1t.'8
:he
:try
y's
dy
he
lat
se
mr
e',
all
Perhaps the most important difference
between American and French tankers was
that the C-135Fs were configured only with the
BOA attached to the air refueling boom. Until
the French accepted delivery of their first Boe-
ing Boeing E-3F Sentry AWACS, France used
probe-and-drogue refueling exclusively. The
arrival of the E-3F (which can be refueled by
both boom or probe-and-drogue) complicated
this because with the BOA attached to the air
refueling boom, the C-135F could not supply
fuel fast enough to the E-3F. This prompted a
1990 proposal to install two Flight Refuelling
Mk.32B wingtip refueling pods on the French
tankers, allowing the boom to be used to refuel
the E-3F through the standard IFR receptacle."
Boeing began the first such conversion in May
1993, with the first modified airplane expected
to be completed by September 1993 and, fol-
lowing flight testing, delivered to the French in
February 1994.24 Modification of the remaining
ten airplanes will be completed by Air France.
Compatibility with the E-3F was not the only
problem solved by installing the wingtip refuel-
ing system. The pods also effectively double
the number of French tankers by allowing sim-
ultaneous refueling of two probe-equipped air-
craft. According to one French Defense
Ministry official:
'We found that with a crisis on our hands in
one part of the world, we didn't have enough
tanker refueling capacity to cover all our needs
... If we had to launch our Mirage 4 [sic 1fleet in
anger during the Chad crisis, we would have
had only the minimal support capability re-
quired by the nuclear force.
'PrOViding KC-135s with a three-point refuel-
ing system would be a significant improvement
and would allow us to operate the aircraft with
maximum efficiency.' 2.
France was also quick to re-engine its fleet,
no doubt happy to get rid of the troublesome
water injection system responsible for the loss
of one C-135F in 1972 (see Appendix C). In
January 1980 France signed an agreement
with BMAC to modify its C-135s with CFM-56-
2B-1 s [three French Commandement du Trans-
port Aerien Militaire (CoTAM) DC-8s were also
so modified to Series 70 standard]. The first
modified tanker (63-12736), redesignated
C-135FR, made its inaugural flight on 3rd
August 1985. On 14th August 1985, it complet-
ed the ten hour non-stop delivery flight from
Wichita to Istres-Le Tube. The airplane was
officially accepted by the French on 26th
August 1985. Two more (63-12735 and 63-
12739) were re-engined in 1985, four more (63-
8471,63-8470,63-8472, and 63-8474) in 1986,
two (63-8475 and 63-12740) were re-engined in
1987, and the remaining two completed in 1988.
In mid-1986 C-135FR 63-12736 was repaint-
ed in two shades of blue and grey (the same
scheme applied to French Dassault Mirage
F1s), becoming the first of any type of KC-135
to be camouflaged. 26
Organization
The delivery of the first ravitailleur to the Armee
de I'Air on 3rd February 1964, steadied French
progress toward a fully capable Forces Aeri-
ennes Strategiques (FAS), culminating in her
nuclear strike force, the Force de Frappe. The
C-135F assignment history and lineage is
somewhat complicated and difficult to follow.
The 90' Escadre de Ravitaillement en Vol (ERV)
was established on 1st August 1963, at Base
Aerienne (BA) 125, Istres - Le Tube (Bouches-
du-Rh6ne), France. The first C-135F arrived
there on 3rd February 1964, following initial
crew training at Castle AFB. In addition,
Detachment 1/90 'Landes' was established at
BA 118, Mont de Marsan, where, on 1st Octo-
ber 1964, the first French nuclear alert sortie
became operational. This Mirage IVA, from the
91' Escadre de Bombardment (EB), loaded
with an AN11 nuclear device and refueled en
route to its target by a 90' ERV C-135F. The last
C-135F was delivered on 10th October 1964. 27
On 30th May 1965, the 90' ERV was disband-
ed and its airplanes and crews redistributed,
primarily an organizational change rather than
a physical reshuffling. The FAS was divided
into three bombardment wings each with three
bomb squadrons and a single tanker squadron.
.--

of
1e

75
 On 1st June 1965, ERV 1/90 'Landes' at Mont
de Marsan was redesignated 4/91, part of the
91' EB. On the same day ERV 90 became 4/93
'Aunis' at Istres - Le Tube as part of 93' EB.
Finally, on 1st December 1965, ERV 4/94
'Sologne' was formed at BA 702, Avord (Cher)
as part of 94' EB. Each squadron was assigned
four C-135Fs.'8
As part of the Bastille Day parade on 14th
July 1965, a dozen Mirage IVA bombers made
their public debut, emphasizing France's nuc-
lear strike potential.'9 On 9th March 1966,
France announced its withdrawal from NATO,
saying that the conditions in 1966 were 'funda-
mentally different than those of 1949', the year
in which NATO was created with France a
founding member. 3o
Following the introduction of French S-3 sur-
face-to-surface intermediate range ballistic
missiles (IRBMs) on the Albion plateau, three
Mirage IV squadrons were dissolved and six
others regrouped into two wings - the 91' at
Mont de Marsan and the 94' at Avord. This
regrouping took place on 1st July 1976. The
tankers were reorganized into the 93' Escadre
de Ravitaillement en Vol at Istres - Le Tube, with
each Escadron de Ravitaillement en vol report-
ing to this wing. ERV 4/93 at Istres - Le Tube
was redesignated 1/93 'Aunis', ERV 4/94 at
Avord was redesignated 2/93 'Sologne', and
ERV 4/91 at Mont de Marsan was redesignated
3/93 'Landes'.
Operations
Like the American 'Chrome Dome' airborne
nuclear alert, initial Mirage IVA operations
included a dozen airplanes airborne at all
times, a dozen more at five-minute ground
alert, and a further dozen at 45-minute ground
alert. This proved excessively expensive and
demanding for the Armee de l'Air. In 1967 the
first full year of these sustained aerial alert oper-
ations, Mirage IVAs and C-135Fs flew a total of
52,000 hours, with some missions as long as
14 hours. 31 Not surprisingly, these draining
operations were halted and the Mirage IVAs
and their tankers maintained strictly on ground
alert.
C-135Fs and C-135FRs also support French
airplanes engaged in conventional combat
operations. Among these were Operation
'Lamantin' in 1977, refueling SEPECAT Jag-
uars against Polisario rebels in Mauritania,
Operation 'Manta' in 1983 involving Jaguars
and Dassault Mirage F1 C-200s in Chad against
Libyan-backed anti-government forces, and
Operation 'Epervier' in 1986 as part of Jaguar
and Mirage F1 C-200 and F1 CR missions
against Libyan forces in northern Chad. At least
one C-135FR has been based at N'Djamena,
Chad, throughouttheconflictthere. 32
Although France sent helicopters and trans-
ports to Saudi Arabia following the August 1990
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, it was not until the vio-
lation of sovereignty of the French embassy in
Kuwait City by Iraqi troops that French Presi-
dent Franc;:ois Mitterand authorized on 15th
76
September a large scale deployment of aircraft internal differences from the French model.
as part of Operation 'Daguet'. Among the In late 1989 a C-135FR participated in joint
forces deployed to the Gulf on 2nd October Anglo-French air refueling compatibility tests in
were at least two 93' ERVC-135FRs, although the UK, including the Panavia Tornado F.3,
more may have been involved in the transit of Phantom FGR.2, and Jaguar GR.1.'o As the
the Mirage F1 s, Mirage 2000s, and Jaguars to French and British refueling hardware and pro·
the GulP The C-135FRs were based at King cedures differ significantly (the French drogue
Khalid lAP near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and is solid metal whereas the British drogue is a
used the static call sign 'Bellay'.34 collapsible 'basket' and the British system does
Just as the French pioneered the use of cam- not require the receiver to maintain pressure on
ouflage on thei r C-135FRs, so too were they the hose connection to sustain fuel flow like the
first to install a defensive electronic counter- French - and American - system), these tests
measures (ECM) suite on their tankers. At least will enable pilots from either country to refuel
one of the C-135FRs deployed to Riyadh was from tankers of either country, especially since
equipped with Dassault Avionique ADELE both nations have acquired E-3 variants.
radar warning receivers. 35 Details of this system Despite the retirement of the Mirage IV fleet,
as installed on the C-135FR are not yet known, the demand for C-135FRs did not decrease,
but the receiver antennae are mounted facing Tactical operations and peacekeeping exercis·
aft above the rudder on the vertical stabilizer es around the globe actually increased French
and facing forward above the pilot's windows. tanker requirements. By 1995 the need for
BMAC began wing reskin modifications to additional KC-135s by the French was fairly
the C-135Fs during 1977 to extend their service compelling, and the Armee de l'Air sought and
life through the year 2005. 36 Although this received five ex-US Air Force KC-135s to be
would keep the existing tanker fleet operational delivered over the next year. All of these had
for an additional three decades, it would not been KC-135As stored in AMARC and will be
help that fleet keep pace with the increasing equipped with CFM56s, taking on the KC-135R
French demands for air refueling. While a MDS. It is not known if these new French
'majority' of C-135FRs participated in the de- tankers will be designated C-135FRs or receive
ployment to Chad, only the absolute minimum a new MDS. The first such aircraft transferred is
remained to support FAS Mirage IVs on nuclear 62-3525, which departed AMARC on 19th Sep·
alert, an operational shortcoming of serious tember 1995, for PDM at Tinker AFB prior to
potential. 37 The shortfall of tanker support and conversion. This was followed on 19th January
strategic transport during French combat oper- 1996, by KC-135A 62-3497. The remaining
ations in Chad prompted an increased French three airplanes slated for transfer include 62-
interest in augmenting their C-135FR fleet. 3525, 62-3574, and 63-8009. Each airplane
One suggested replacement tanker is the may find itself once again back at AMARC after
Airbus Industrie A300B4 (or its stablemate, the PDM prior to conversion, but all five are
A31 0), incorporating probe and drogue refuel- planned for delivery by the end of 1997. 41 The
ing equipment. Transall C.160s and Lockheed first of these French KC-135Rs was handed
C-130s have likewise been proposed as over during the first week of June 1997. Effe
tanker/transports, although military officials cap
sell
have a preference for jet-powered tankers to
ere'
escort French combat aircraft on their long-dis- effE
Table 9- French C-135F/FRs
tance deployments, a capability not available in car
the slower turboprop C-130 and C-160. 38 KC,
Serial No. Call-Sign Re-engined Dale / Other
Nonetheless, ten C.160 Transall Nouvelle ins'
63-8470 'F-UKCA' August 1988 eql
Generations (NG - new generation) have been
63-8471 'F-UKCB' February 1986 res
equipped with a Sargent-Fletcher hose drum Jim
63-8472 'F-UKCC' September 1986
refueling unit in an extended port landing gear 63-8473 'F-UKCD' Crashed on 1st July 1972 (see
fairing. These tanker-configured Transall NGs Appendix C)
are used for intra-African operations by Jag- 63-8474 'F-UKCE' October 1986
63·8475 'F-UKCF' January 1987
uars and Mirage F1 s, while C-135FRs remain 63·12735 'F-UKCG' September 1985.
dedicated to Mirage IVP strategic bombers and 63·12736 'F-UKCH' First C-135F re-engined into a In
overseas deployments by tactical aircraft C-135FR in August 1985. (M
(including ferry flights to and from Nellis AFB, 63-12737 'F-UKCI' Last C-135F to be re-engined into a we
C-135FR, Delivered to BMAC on
Nevada, for 'Red Flag'). 27th January 1988, it returned in 15
In another move designed to reduce the March 1988. Delivered to Boeing AT
French tanker shortfall, especially in light of wearing special 'C-135F' Mi
French military commitments ranging from commemorative markings. vic
63-13738 'F-UKCJ' January 1988
Cambodia to Somalia, the Armee de l'Air 63-13739 'F-UKCK' November 1985 nc
leased three US Air Force KC-135Rs (57-1439, 63-13740 'F-UKCL' November 1987 Fu
62-3516, and 63-8033).39The last of these (62- 62·3497 'F-UKCL' Photographed in USA April 1997, C-
3516) is believed to have been returned to the during pre-delivery trials, marked as rei
'497'.
USAF, via RAF Mildenhall, on 28th July 1997. 62-3525 'F-UKCN' Delivered to Istres - Le Tube tre:
The airplanes were painted in the French June 1997. thl
scheme and bear French markings, but were 62-3574 'F-UKCO' m,
not redesignated as C-135FRs because of their he:
II. Chapter Seven
1 joint
Ists in
) F.3,
.s the
j pro-
'ogue
9 is a
Transports
does
Ire on
:ethe
tests
'efuel
since

fleet,
~ase.

Jrcis-
ench
j for
fairly
land
o be
had
ill be
135R
~nch
:eive
edis
Sep-
Jr to
uary
ning
162-
lane
after
are
The
Ided
Efforts to improve the KC-135's cargo handling In his 30th January 1961, State of the Union emy and restore the status quo ante. Unfortu-
capability included the installation of a address, President Kennedy announced that nately MATS' piston and turboprop airplanes
self·contained loading device. It took several
modernization of America's strategic airlift cap- (such as the Douglas C-124 Globemaster and
crewmembers to assemble and operate, and
effectively reduced the interior height of the ability was among his administration's highest the C-133) could neither do this as fast nor
cargo compartment some 14in (35cm). priorities: carry the quantity required. A C-124, for exam-
KC·135As seldom utilized this device, and " have directed prompt attention to increase ple, could take as many as 95 flying hours over
Instead relied on ground-based loading our air-lift capacity. Obtaining additional air 13 days to fly from Travis AFB, California, to
equipment. Transport C-135s were equally
transport mobility - and obtaining it now - will Saigon, South Vietnam, hardly a fast response.'
restricted in cargo handling operations.
Jim Moseley collection better assure the ability of our conventional Time was not only significant in getting the
forces to respond, with discrimination and troops to the battle, but in the effects of travel on
speed, to any problem at any spot on the globe the troops themselves:
at any moment's notice. In particular it will en- 'Jet equipment can deliver rested men ready
able us to meet any deliberate effort to avoid or to fight while piston-powered aircraft, es-
In 1960 the Military Air Transport Service divert our forces by starting limited wars in pecially convertible cargo-transports, exhaust-
(MATS) had but three jet transports. These widely scattered parts of the globe.' 2 ed the men during long flights and refueling
:0 a were Boeing C-137As (Boeing 707 Series Under Kennedy, US defense policy empha- stops. The men who travelled in non-sound-
153s) assigned to Detachment No.1, 1254th sized NATO commitments and 'brush-fire' cri- proofed aircraft [like the C-124] were notice-
ATW, Andrews AFB, Maryland, the Special Air sis management around the world. This policy ably below par physically and psychologically
Mission (SAM) unit that provided transport ser- made it clear that it was neither feasible nor when they debarked."
vice for senior government officials, most economical to station large numbers of troops Low maintenance reliability of the piston and
notably the President of the United States.' and equipment at dozens of potential 'hot turboprop transports equally affected US plans
Further, MATS had no more than 50 Douglas spots' around the world. to deploy troops abroad. These transports
C-133 Cargomaster turboprop transports. The The answer lay in a massive quick-response required several refueling stops along the way,
las remainder of its fleet was piston-powered - capability. Transports would fly troops and their where a small problem might ground the air-
transports designed to standards in use during equipment from bases in the US to the crisis plane until it was fixed, stranding the troops in
the Second World War. MATS was the only location, ideally arriving in time and in such places such as Goose Bay, Labrador, or Wake
major command in the US Air Force that did not force as to dissuade an opponent from initiat- Island. Such maintenance problems might not
have any jet-powered primary aircraft. ing hostilities, or failing this, to defeat the en- be of sufficient nature to force the airplane to

77
land but could prevent it from taking off again
until corrected. A non-stop jet flight would allow
the troops and cargo to be delivered and nec-
essary maintenance accomplished while the
airplane was readied for its return flight to pick
up more troops or cargo. Because propeller-
equipped engines were of greater complexity
than jet engines, the potential effect of engine-
related maintenance delays on a major airlift
was disastrous. The need for a fleet of heavy jet
transports was clear.
Even before Kennedy took office, congres-
sional and DoD interest in a jet transport was
considerable. As early as 1958 efforts to im-
prove the US strategic airlift fleet included the
development and acquisition of a jet transport.
The Reed Report, delivered to Secretary of the
Air Force Dudley C Sharp on 4th April 1960,
stressed the need for a new cargo and troop
carrier:
'Modernization of MATS is essential through
procurement of an off-the-shelf turbine pow-
ered cargo aircraft and the immediate approval
of a development program to modernize the
remainder of the MATS fleet with a cargo air-
craft meeting the specific future operating
requirements ofthe military.' 5
An Air Force Program of Implementation en-
dorsed this recommendation.'
Solutions were proposed from both the avia-
tion industry and the military. Douglas offered a
freighter version of its DC-8, equipped with tur-
bofan engines, that could carry 30 tons of
cargo over4,000nautica[ miles (nm) [7,412km].'
Boeing proposed its Model 735, a KC-135 vari-
ant with JT3D turbofan engines, capable of car-
rying a payload of 1OO,OOOlb (45,360kg) with a
maximum gross take-off weight of 316,0001b
(143,337kg). Like the proposed DC-8 cargo
transport, the Model 735 had a 'swing tail' to
onload outsized cargo. s The appeal of a jet
transport was compelling, and MATS com-
mander Lieutenant General William H Tunner
'recommended the immediate purchase of 45
converted Boeing KC-135 tankers for 'fast reac-
tion' cargo service.' 9
Deep concerns within Congress and the Air
Force stalled any hasty purchases. House
Armed Services Subcommittee Chairman L
Mendel Rivers recommended that MATS 'be
permitted to purchase cargo versions of the
Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8 turbojet transport
as an interim aircraft, pending development of
the [proposed turbofan workhorse transport]'. 10
MATS was torn between the long-term need for
a new long range turbofan jet transport and the
short term desire to have any jet transport
capacity. Lieutenant General Mark E Bradley,
Jr, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Materiel,
said that it:
'has not been decided whether MATS should
have a new cargo aircraft or modernized, cargo
version of a design already in existence. We
may go into a fairly short range development
program that would actually get some hard-
ware for this money.' 11
Resistance was heavy to an off-the-shelf pur-
78
chase or the modernization of an eXisting An Interim Solution Althou
design that would undermine the development The C-135A (Boeing Model 717-157) was 0 into th
by the
a true cargo jet. Aerospace companies argued derivative of the Model 738-13J Military Cargo
exceSl
that 'the ideal cargo jet should be designed Airplane, a 'minimum change J57-P-59W pow cargo
from the wheels up for cargo services rather ered KC-135 modified to a cargo airplane can· and nl
than converted from a passenger design,' and figuration by the removal of the air refuelin~ augml
that the Air Force 'should be willing to accept a system, addition of strengthened floor, and fue' for tac
time penalty of at least one year to gain a more dumping provisions'.17 The C-135A had a maxi·
advanced freighter'.12 mum design take-off weight of 272,000[~
FAA chief E[wood R Quesada's prescient (123,379kg), and could carry a 90,620[~
comments were representative of arguments (41,105kg) payload 2,350nm (4,354km). Th~
against the interim purchase of KC-135s con- cargo area was approximately 81ft (24.6ml C-135
verted to transports: [ong, had a constant width of 10ft 9in (3.27m) had a
'Another proposal has received some atten- and a useful height of 6ft 11 in (2.12m), provid In r,
tion, which is to buy KC-135 tanker aircraft for ing a stowage space of greater than 6,000ft cated
MATS and remove the tanker equipment; (169.9m 3 ). Passenger capability was similar to reque
allegedly such a program purports to be eco- that of the KC-135A, with 80 personnel seated for Lc
nomical. It would be difficult to imagine a more in opposing rows of troop seats, with up to 160 ing, (
illogical thing to do. A series of lash-up modifi- troops if another double row was installed. subm
cations would follow, such as swing-the-tail to An F71230 overhead cargo loader was also been
correct loading problems. Then, later, the in- installed to 'facilitate cargo handling at ad· exam
stallation of turbofan engines would become a vance bases'." Beginning in 1956 this loader Air F(
critical need to reduce runway requirements was incorporated into the KC-135A (starting 1961,
and so on. All this would not only be time con- with 56-3607) as part of ECP 23 'Installation 01 dead
suming and a waste of money but, what is more Cargo Loading and Handling Provision'." The lifter (
important, the end product would be far from F71230 cargo loader included a framewor~ Altl
what is needed. Buying anything other than an installed in the cargo door to support two over· purct
uncompromised cargo aircraft runs counter to head rails. A carriage assembly attached to jet C·
the objective of equipping MATS with the prop- these rails could lift up to 6,0001b (2,721 kg) 0: ed in
er equipmentfor its wartime job. cargo to the airplane's deck level and then of thE
'If we compromise the military fleet now, it will move it inside the airplane. The F71231 travers· fan-p
have been compromised for the next decade at er included a set of overhead rails running were
least.' 13 lengthwise in the cargo compartment. An elec· of thl
Which is precisely what happened. trically-powered carriage mounted on the tra· FOfCi
In May 1960 Congress approved the pur- verser then moved cargo from the loader bad 44th
chase of 50 C-135 jet cargo transports for a into the cargo compartment. With the cargo Marc
total cost of $169 million, at a cost per airplane loader and traverser installed in the C-135A the Th
of $3.39 million. To save $1.4 million per air- cargo compartment's useful height decreased 19th
plane, the C-135s would not have the swing tail t05ft8in(1.72m). lifter'
modification nor would they have turbofans. The C-135A was also designed to take April
The unsuccessful DC-8 proposal, which incor- advantage of the soon-to-be delivered 463L AFB
porated turbofan engines and had the swing Cargo Handling System, and could carry eight That
tail, offered better performance than the C-135 108 x 88in (2.74 x 2.23m) pallets and one 54x its nl
but would not be available until approximately 88in (1.37 x 2.23m) pallet in the cargo compart· Lod
eleven months after the proposed C-135 trans- ment with a 20in (0.50m) aisle on each side. pro~
port squadron would be operational. Further, The 463L system was intended primarily for the luck
senior Air Force leaders worried that if the DC-8 Lockheed C-141 but was tested with success losir
was selected then the 'new uncompromised on C-135s and other MATS transports during tioni
strategic cargo aircraft would die right where it 1962. 20 Still, cargo-loading operations required engi
is'.14 Congress issued a Specific Operational high-lift cargo trucks or fork lifts (capable 01 o
Requirement (SOR) for the cargo C-135, with raising cargo to the 10ft [3.0m] high cargo into
'complete support from every branch of the deck), considerably reducing the effectiveness deli'
government concerned' and given 'top priori- of the self-contained loader-transverser sys· of I
ty'.15 Just as in Boeing's 'victory' over Lockheed tem. 21 stre
in the jet tanker competition, Boeing had De[ivery ceremonies for the new jet transport to a
'defeated' Douglas in the jet transport competi- were held at Boeing Field, where MATS com· ond
tion. mander Lieutenant General Joe Kelly hailed the mis
Interestingly, the C-135s destined to mod- C-135 as 'the first concrete step in a long range and
ernize MATS were purchased with SAC in airlift modernization program'. He called the
mind, according to Earl J Morgan, the chief new jet 'a significant milestone along the route AH
investigator for the House Military Operations to strategic mobility for all the dynamic fighting Altr
Subcommittee: 'These aircraft will be in MATS, forces of the United States'." The first C-135A lish
but they are being procured so[ely for the SAC Stratolifter delivered to an operational unit (60· anc
mission, SAC support mission, the deployment 0369) arrived on 12th August 1961, at the 18th bilit
of SAC and the post-strike recovery mission'." ATS, 1611th ATW, McGuire AFB, New Jersey. its
Despite this obligation to SAC, their contribu- MATS had also directed that three KC-135As ser
tion to MATS was inestimable. already on the assembly line be modified into sati
 Although C-135As like 61-0329, moved MATS
as a into the jet age, their effectiveness was limited
by their inability to carry oversized cargo, the
argo
excessive height above the ground of their
JOW-
cargo door, their lengthy runway requirements
con- and need for demineralized wa~er for
lling augmented take-off, and their unsuitability
Ifuel for tactical deployment. Author's collection
laxi-
OOlb
20lb
The
,6m) C-135A transports, The first of these (60-0356)
7m), had arrived at McGuire AFB on 9th June 1961.
lVid- In response to the May 1960 SOR for a dedi-
DOff cated heavy jet cargo transport, the Air Force
lr to requested proposals on 20th December 1961,
ated for Logistics Transport System SS476-L, Boe- degree necessary to substantiate the purchase the US to Pacific Ocean destinations such as
160 ing, Convair, Douglas, and Lockheed quickly and continued use of a large fleet of airplanes. Okinawa or the Republic of Korea. After the
submitted proposals as all four companies had For example, the 117 x 78in (2,97 x 1,98m) 1962 'Long Thrust' global transport exercise,
also been working on such a design, Lockheed, for cargo door in the fuselage side could admit one MATS official expressed concern over the
ad- example, began its project in 1957. 23 It took the most desired cargo but was over 10ft (3.0m) airplane's range:
lder Air Force only three months (until 13th March from the ground, requiring special loading '[The C-135] has its limits. It's not an ideal
"ling 1961, six weeks earlier than the projected equipment unavailable at many of the world- vehicle, It's an aircraft with a 6,000 mile
,n of deadline), to select the Lockheed C-141 Star- wide locations to which the C-135 might [9,655km] range and we're using it for a 6,000
The lifter design as the winner. deploy, The side-loading cargo door necessi- mile mission. We don't have the cushion we
vork Although Congress originally approved the tated an immediate 90' turn of the cargo in would like to have. It's a pretty raw, basic, aus-
'ver- purchase of 50 C-135 transports, only 15 turbo- order to advance it along the airplane's interior, tere aircraft.' 26
j to jet C-135As (plus the three KC-135As convert: a cargo-handler's nightmare. The 463L cargo Secretary McNamara was also keenly aware
J) of ed into C-135As) were delivered, The balance loading handler elevated the cargo but was of the C-135's limitations and wisely resisted
:hen of the order was filled during 1962 by 30 turbo- costly and not widely available. The ECP 23 efforts to improve them for a short-term gain in
'ers- fan-powered C-135Bs (Model 717-158s) which loading system was cumbersome to operate the face of long-term demands, He told the
ling were still viewed as interim airplanes, The first and, like the 463L, did not eliminate the awk- House Armed Services com mittee that:
,Iec- of these (61-2662) was handed over to the Air ward maneuvering required to onload oversize 'The C-135 has a relatively long take-off and
tra- Force on 27th February 1962, and arrived at the cargo, landing distance, it has no airdrop capability,
lack 44th ATS, 1501st ATW at Travis AFB on 1st The Air Force acknowledged that the C-135's and does not have truck-bed height loading.
lrgo March 1962, cargo 'load capacity was insufficient, particu- Moreover, its restricted cargo cross section lim-
,the The first C-141 was delivered for training on larly for outsized cargo'.26 Once filled to this its severely the size of the vehicles it can carry.
sed 19th October 1964, to Tinker AFB, and the Star- inadequate capacity, the C-135A suffered from These considerations made it appear unwise to
lifter's first operational mission was on 23rd the same long take-off roll common to all turbo- attempt further interim modernization with the
:ake April 1965, flown by the 1501 st ATW at Travis jet versions of the KC-135, The need for long C-135.'29
63L AFB, a unit which also operated C-135Bs?4 paved runways and for demineralized water to In the early 1960s the 'economics' of a
ight That same year the Air Force let a contract for increase take-off thrust severely limited its glo- weapons system often overrode its tactical and
54 x its next generation of heavy jet transports which baloperability. strategic value. The C-135A's ability to arrive
lart- Lockheed won with its C-5 Galaxy, beating out The C-135A also reqUired a sizeable piece of sooner and make more trips in a given time and
ide. proposals by Boeing and Douglas. Boeing's concrete on which to land when fUlly loaded. In its improved maintenance reliability over its pis-
'the luck in acquiring large orders of aircraft despite 1961, runways around the world usable by ton or turboprop counterparts were seen as
:ess losing a competition did not hold up, as addi- cargo-laden C-135As were typically found only sufficient justification for the airplane's acquisi-
ring tional purchases of transport C-135s with either at major civil airports and were seldom near tion despite its considerable deficiencies.
ired engine type were not forthcoming. military installations or perceived combat These few advantages were not, however, suffi-
3 of On 1st January 1966, MATS was reorganized zones. Consequently, troops would have to be cient for the Air Force to spend more money on
Irgo into the Military Airlift Command (MAC), As trucked from the airfield over considerable dis- the C-135 to improve or eliminate these short-
less deliveries of C-141 s increased and the number tances to reach their ultimate destination. As comings. Until the C-141's arrival, the C-135
3YS- of operational units grew in number and one airlift exercise showed, 'there was so much would have to do,
strength, C-135As and C-135Bs were relegated congestion in the [assembly] areas that Despite its fundamental shortcomings, the
Jort to other missions and commands, These sec- [troops] were delayed from proceeding imme- C-135 compiled a credible record of global
Jm- ondary missions included test-beds, special air diately to their deployment areas',27 Troops transport achievements ranging from cargo
the mission transports, aeromedical evacuation, flown directly to their destination by propeller- operations to medical evacuations. The first
nge and airborne command and controL25 powered airplanes often arrived at approxi- operational use of the new C-135A came in
the mately the same time as did those who were September 1961 as part of Operation 'Check
lute AHost of Limitations flown on C-135s and then trucked great dis- Mate', the deployment of US troops to and from
ling Although Boeing's 707 and 720 jetliners estab- tances from the airfield to the combat zone. Adana, Turkey,
35A lished an unbeatable reputation as transports, At heavy cargo weights the C-135A could In February 1962 C-135As flew 2,300 troops
60- and the speed, range, and maintenance relia- carry only 90,0001b (40,824kg) of fuel, limiting and 285 tons of cargo to the Arctic during
8th bility of the C-135 were significantly better than the airplane to five or six hours of flying time 'Great Bear', the annual Army/Air Force cold
;ey.· its piston and turboprop predecessors, pas- (with the necessary fuel reserves at landing). weather combat training exercise,3D Later that
JAs senger and cargo versions of the KC-135 never This provided sufficient unrefueled range from year, 14 C-135s carried 1,517 troops and 29
nto satisfied the Air Force's requirements to the the east coast of the US to Europe, but not from tons of cargo from Fort Riley, Kansas, to Rhein-

79
 Wril
board
the p<
tion a
recall:
' ••• 1

Main AB, West Germany, on 9th July, during
'Long Thrust IV', an exercise in support of the
US Strike Command."
MATS C-135s also have been used during
times of domestic disturbance. In early October
1962 C-135s took part in Project 'Rapid Road',
the airlift of 12,500 US troops to Columbus AFB,
Mississippi, to quell violence during the racial
integration of the University of Mississippi. 32
From 10-16th October 1962 four C-135s air-
lifted 16.6 tons of cargo and 1,232 Swedish
peacekeeping troops over 4,900 statute miles
from Stockholm, Sweden, to Leopoldville, the
Congo. Operation 'New Tape' was the first all-
jet airlift; each non-stop flight lasted ten hours. 33
On one return flight, a C-135B set a world rec-
ord for its non-stop flight from Leopoldville to
McGuire AFB (see Appendix F). C-135s re-
turned to the Congo during November 1962
with food and medical supplies for relief efforts
to aid refugees and victims of the civil war.
In October 1962 MATS C-135s provided
troop and cargo support for the US military
build-up in Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis.
During this airlift MATS lost its first C-135B (62-
4136), which crashed while landing at NAS
Leeward Point, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Beginning 2nd November 1962, C-135s
transported weapons to the Indian Army during
the 1962 invasion of India by the People's
Republic of China (PRC). This airlift over 12,000
miles (19,311km) was.completed over eight
days. Two weeks later, the same airplanes
were used to evacuate residents from Guam as
it prepared for a major typhoon.
Exactly one year after the Cuban Missile Cri-
sis, the US sent a strong message to its NATO
Allies and to the Soviet Union: American com-
mitment to Europe remained resolute and the
US had the means and will to support it. Opera-
tion 'Big Lift' deployed the US Army's 2nd Arm-
ored Division from Texas to Europe. During this
project, 23 C-135s each made two round-trip
flights of the 5,600+ mile (9,000km) trip be-
tween Texas airfields and Rhein Main AB. The
airlift was preceded by seven advance deploy-
mentflights. 34
Each of the C-135s typically carried 73 troops
plus their duffel bags, and the non-stop flights
averaged ten hours, 25 minutes. The airplanes
were refueled while unloading, limiting their
ground time to under three hours.
'Big Lift' demonstrated the reliability of jet
transports over their piston counterparts. None
of the C-135s were grounded for maintenance
while a considerable number of C-124s, C-130s,
and C-133s were delayed for engine and pro-
peller changes. Further, the C-135s flew non-
stop to Europe whereas the propeller-driven
airplanes required time-consuming fuel stops
to complete the flight.
Symbols of Power
Originally jet airliners were novelties in the air
transport world, designed, built, owned, and
operated by the great industrial nations of the
world. Leaders who arrived and departed in
these jets when attending international confer-
ences achieved a significant level of diplomatic
'one-upmanship' over their colleagues who arr-
ived by propeller-powered airplane or by train.
John Foster Dulles, the first American Secre-
tary of State under President Dwight 0 Eisen-
hower, emphasized the need to portray the US
as a nation of power and leadership through its
use of the jet transport. In 1952 Britain had inau-
gurated international jet airliner service. In 1956
the Soviet Union did the same, and a year later
orbited the world's first artificial satellite. Dulles
told Eisenhower that the prestige of the US suf-
fered every time he arrived at an international
conference aboard a propeller-driven airplane
while Russian diplomats were coming in with
Soviet turbojets. In the global tug-of-war for the
hearts and minds of other nations, Dulles ar-
gued, it was essential to establish in every way
possible that America was technologically
superior to the Soviet Union. 35
Just as the jet transport meant prestige, it
also meant speed. Diplomatic negotiations
were often protracted because of the distances
between the participants. The jet age shrunk
those distances, and a negotiator could work
out a proposal with one nation, fly immediately
to another nation to discuss it, and then return
to the first nation with the revised proposal all in
bunk!
plane
lighte
ed nc
to di!
heat,
hour~
Delhi
hatcr
emer
~'-------- ona!
Th
callel
American prestige and reputation around the from
world grew substantially after the introduction De
of VIP jet transports. After the initial acquisition
reflec
of three VC-137As, the bulk of US Special Airlift
Mission (SAM) aircraft was VC·135 derivatives.
ciall'y
VC·135A 60-0378 from the 55th SRW sits on the tanci
ramp at Davis Monthan AFB on 13th November 20th·
1978, resplendent in its 'high profile' color eled
scheme. Brian C 'Buck' Rogers of9,;
The
tram
for ~
the same day. US Secretary of State Henry A seVE
Kissinger exploited this capability to its fullest, SUPI
introducing 'Shuttle Diplomacy' into the lexicon cre"
mis~
of international relations. unCl
Until the VC-137A (the military designation 01 aerc
t~e 707) entered VIP service, the KC-135A was 60-0
the only jet capable of carrying important pas· Nov
sengers over long distances and at high
speeds. Despite these clear advantages over
existing piston-powered VIP transports such as
the Lockheed C-121 Constellation or Douglas
C-118 Liftmaster, the KC-135s were designed
for military operations with few frills appropriate
to the comfort of senior American diplomats,
Consequently, not all early VIP jet operations
were luxurious experiences.
On 17th October 1958, for example, Foster
Dulles flew to the Vatican in a KC-135A to
attend the funeral of Pope Pius XII. While sleep·
ing during the nine-hour overnight flight, Dulles's
bunk collapsed, dropping him to the floor and
badly wrenching his back. No one knew thai
Dulles had fallen, and he lay on the cold, hard
floor in great pain until the flight reached Rome,
On 19th October, Dulles and his delegation
flew to RAF Brize Norton, England, to meet with
British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, who
pitied Dulles and his wife, calling them a 'gal·
lant couple' for their discomfort from flying in
the military airplane. The KC-135A then flew to
Eielson AFB for refueling before continuing to
Taiwan, where Dulles would negotiate with
Nationalist Chinese leader Jiang Jieshi in an
effort to defuse the 1958 Quemoy-Matsu Crisis
with the PRC. 3•

80
 Writing about a flight a few years later on
board an unidentified KC-135 known among
the power brokers of the Kennedy administra-
tion as the 'McNamara Special', Paul H Nitze
recalls that it was:
'... unbelievably uncomfortahle, with portable
bunks and seats arranged in the windowless
plane. There was no inner shell in the dimly
lighted cabin area and the noise level prohibit-
ed normal conversation, much less the ability
to discuss complex issues. The extremes of
heat and cold added to our misery. Eighteen
hours after leaving Andrews we landed in New
Delhi [India]. We emerged from the open
hatch, blinking in the sunlight, like moles
emerging from their dark underground tunnels
onasunnyday.37
The return trip was no better, as Nitze re-
called arriving back at Andrews AFB 'suffering
from a good deal more than jet lag'.
n Despite lacking creature comforts, the C-135
on
reflected American power in other ways, espe-
lift
s. cially by establishing a number of speed, dis-
he tance, and payload records. For example, on
er 2Oth-21 st February 1963, a C-135B flew unrefu-
eled lrom Clark AB to McGuire AFB, a distance
019,868 miles (15,880km), setting an unofficial
The Air Force originally justified buying
transport C·135s to provide logistics support
for SAC's SlOP mission. Until the mid 1990s
{A several of these constituted SAC's Command
lSt, Support Aircraft (CSA) fleet. Flown by SAC
:on crews from Offutt AFB, MAC assigned their
missions. Visits to civilian airfields were not
uncommon, particularly those with access to
10f aerospace industry and research. C·135A
las 60·0378 departs Los Angeles lAP on 11th
as- November 1986. Aerofax collection
gh
\ler
as
las
ed
ate
ltS.
,ns
record for the longest non-stop flight ever
made by a transport aircraft. Hardly mere
grandstanding displays, these flights empha-
sized the decreased flying time needed to
cross oceans and continents. On 1st May 1962,
a C-135B carried 38 military medical evacuees
from Yokota AB, Japan, to Travis AFB in nine
hours, seven minutes, compared with the 42
hours required for the same trip (including refu-
eling and crew rest stops) in a piston-powered
airplane (see Appendix F).
VIP transport roles assigned to C-135s have
not been limited to operations on behalf of the
president and senior diplomatic officials. Air
Force commands such as Air Force Systems
Command (AFSC) and SAC typically have had
or use a C-135 or KC-135 for the commander
when traveling on official business. These VIP
C-135s and KC-135s have earned a measure of
fame as their radio call signs, including 'Trout
99' and 'Casey 01', are heard as the airplanes
operate around the world. VIP C-135s have
also acquired a degree of notoriety, as critics
have charged (in some cases rightly so) that
the costly modifications and operations are for
the personal use of the commanding general.
Still, the movement of senior military officials
was a legitimate and urgent priority. In an inter-
esting and previously unpublicized recommen-
dation made in 1962, MATS proposed the
establishment of a Command and Control
Squadron in 1964. This unit would receive
newly acquired C-135s, and a portion of the
existing MATS C-135 and SAC KC-135 fleets
would be diverted to the new squadron, provid-
ing:
' ... top level commanders a means of rapidly
reaching trouble areas while maintaining
constant airborne communication with higher
headquarters, en route task forces, and adja-
cent commands.' 38
This was a particularly attractive idea for the
senior commanders in the Pacific Command
who had to travel across the Pacific Ocean, par-
ticularly to Viet Nam. The aircraft would be
under the operational control of MATS but was
scheduled by the borrOWing organization (eg,
PACAFor CINCPAC).
The sq uadron would operate 8-12 airplanes
(another staff summary recommended 14),
preferably C-135Bs with turbofans. Each air-
plane would have a palletized staff suite which
could be removed so the airplane could be
used for purely cargo missions. A third HF radio
would be available as a spare. As far as is
known, this proposal died without implementa-
tion. Nonetheless, its intent was satisfied even-
tually through airborne command post units
assigned directly to major commands, airborne
deployment squadrons, and the use of com-
mand support aircraft.
Other C-135s have been used as command
support aircraft (CSA - known derogatorily as
'Chicken Shit Airlines'), airplanes which, am-
ong other duties, carried command evaluation
teams around the world to inspect operational
units. As early as 1956 SAC wanted to buy six
C-135s for such administrative use. 39 Until re-
cently, SAC operational readiness inspections
(ORis) were conducted without any advance
warning. The CSAs were painted white on top
of the fuselage, and the announcement of an
'unexpected white-top on final approach'
meant the arrival of the ORI, and the careers of
the wing's senior staff hung in the balance.
Although the CSA C-135s were assigned to
SAC, their missions were assigned and direct-
ed by MAC, and after 31st May 1992, by Air

ter
to
lp-
g'S
nd
lat
lrd
1e.
on
ith
ho
al-
in
to
to
ith
an.
;is

81
 Perha
Willial
wastil
earne
as a ,.
Genel
these
durin!
was~

Spacl

C·135
with t
C·13~
inven
were
Rent!
35 ye
Boein

TRAN

V/C·1
MATS
to ser.
delivel
MATS
asserr
The fir
the16
eriest
airplal
ANI<
low-ol
plane'
KC-1<
the4(
prese
three
AE
oiopi
Ashe
seriOi
exten
some
Mobility Command (AMC). With the drawdown war in Southeast Asia, the constant tanker 15th ABW at Hickam AFB. SAC CSAs were part UeAf
in the US military during the 1990s, the C-135 deployments and redeployments served un- of the 55th SRW, now the 55th Wg, at Offutt gatol
CSA role has been eliminated and the airplanes questionably as invaluable transport flights. . AFB. Space Command's C-135E is part of the 1611
retired, and the VIP airplanes reduced in num- Once Air Mobility Command acquired primary 552nd ACW, previously assigned to the 28th such
blast
ber. Efforts to replace the remaining VIP C-135s responsibility for the former SAC tanker fleet, AD, at Tinker AFB. Special Air Mission C-135s built
include the acquisition of Boeing 767s, a partic- KC-135s have added 'channel missions' - ded- were originally assigned to the 1st MAS, 89th C
ularly appealing choice. 40 icated cargo and passenger flights - to their list MAW, now the 1st ALS, 89th AW at Andrews lrom
AFB. By 1997 three C-135Bs were undergoing tram
Another proposed solution is the retirement of primary duties.
born
of all transport C-135s (except for 61-2669) for A pallet and roller system is being installed in conversion to RC-135s. In 1993 C-135B 62- ten r
replacement with VC-32As (Boeing 757s), KC-135Rs and KC-135Ts, enhancing their 4126 was assigned to the 21 st Air Force and rate
already slated to replace ageing VC-137s. An cargo loading capability and mission flexibili- based at McGuire AFB. utab
This
alternative under consideration for FY98 is the ty.41 In this sense, the KC-135 tanker has been Designations applied to transport C-135s
E
replacement of all transport C-135s (again, a more effective transport than either the dedi- include C-135A, 'B, 'C, 'E and 'K. Tankers dedi- thre,
except 61-2669) with five KC-135As from cated C'135A and C-135B. cated to VIP or transport roles retained their lam
AMARC. These will be re-engined with CFM56s, The number of units which have or continue 'KC-' designation. One converted test-bed plac
atM
have their boom removed, have an ARR recep- to operate transport C-135s is fairly small. The served as a transport with the designation
whi<
tacle installed, and have a standard configura- first was the 18th ATS, 1611 th ATW at McGuire NKC-135A. Beginning in 1967 the prefix 'V' was milil
tion. AFB, beginning on 9th June 1961. This was added to the designation of transports (

SAC KC-135 tankers also had a secondary
transport role. They frequently carried military
passengers and dependents on a 'space avail-
able' basis, as well as those traveling on official
business. During fighter deployments, support
elements of the fighter unit were carried by the
KC-135s which refueled the fighters en route to
their forward bases, although this capability
was somewhat limited by runway and parking
availability at the destination air base. Although
the primary mission of 'Young Tiger' was the
aerial refueling of combat aircraft used in the
joined on 8th January 1962, by the 40th ATS, assigned to the 89th MAW. On 1st December tran
vari
also at McGuire AFB. The 44th ATS, 1501st 1977, this was discontinued and they became
ers,
ATW at Travis AFB was the only west coast unit C-135Bs as part of President Jimmy Carter's I
to operate C-135s, beginning 1st March 1962. government 'low profile' program. tion
Operations within Europe were first undertaken C-135s transports were originally natural the
9ne
by the 7407th CSW at Rhein-Main AB, then the metal and carried MATS markings, which were
car
7111th SS (later the 7111th OS) at Rhein-Main replaced with MAC in 1966. Color schemes
AB, and finally by the 58th MAS (later the 58th now in use vary from grey with a white fuselage tiar
ALS) at Ramstein AB, FRG. Those in the Pacific top to white and highly polished silver to a dark- Air
Jur
were first conducted by airplanes assigned to er variation of the scheme applied to C-137Cs, COl
the 6486th ABW (later the 15th ABW), then by known as the 'Air Force One scheme', created
Det. 1, 89th MAW, and finally by the 65th ALS, by noted industrial designer Raymond Loewy.42 tiar

82
 Perhaps the only airplane to receive Senator
William Proxmire's 'Golden Fleece' Award for
wasting taxpayer's money, C-135A 60-0376
earned considerable notoriety in 1972 and 1973
as a 'flying penthouse' for AFLC Commander
General Jack Catton. During 1976 it acquired
these Bicentennial markings. It was re-engined
during 1982, becoming a C-135E, and in 1984
was assigned for use by the Commander, US
Space Command. Joe Bruch collection
C·135 transport capability improved materially
with the 1962 introduction of the turbofan
C·135B. By 1965 the C-141 began entering the
inventory in large numbers, and the C-135Bs
were relegated to other duties. Of the six at
Renton in early 1962, four became WC-135Bs;
35 years later five remain in service.
Boeing P-29074, Joe Bruch collection
TRANSPORTS-AIRCRAFT DETAILED
V/C·135Aand 'E
MATS initially ordered ten C-135A Stratolifters in February 1961
10 serve as interim jet transports pending the development and
delivery of what would become the C-141 Starlifter. In addition,
MATS directed the conversion of three KC-135As already on the
assembly line (60-0356, 60-0357, and 60-0362) into C-135As,
The first of these three - referred to as 'falsies' - was delivered to
the1611thATW at McGuire AFB on 9th June 1961. C-135A deliv-
enes to McGuire AFB began on 12th August 1961, although two
airplanes (60-0376 and 60-0377) were assigned to the 1501 st
AlW at Travis AFB in support ofth eLos Alamos Laboratory. Afol-
~w-()n order for five more C-135As brought the total to 15 air-
planes, plus the three' falsies', which were counted as part of
Ke-135A production figures, These three were delivered without
the 40in (1.0m) extension to the vertical stabilizer, amodijication
present in all the other MATS C-135As, All the C-135As and the
three 'falsies' were powered by J57-P/F-43 turbojets.
As wrth any new weapon system, the C-135A's first few years
of operation were fraught with numerous but common problems.
Ashortage of qualified loadmasters and navigators, for example,
senously affected the ability to fly alarge number of C-135As over
e~ended periods. Similarly, ashortage of J57 engines grounded
some." MATS utilized the SAC KC-135A training program at Cas-
art lie AFB for pilot qualification. After the initial cadre of MATS navi-
utt gators was trained at Castle AFB, this task was assumed by the
he 16111h ATW at McGuire AFB. New facilities unique to jet airplanes
3th such as ajet engine test cell (which was eventually disapproved),
blast deflectors, and enlargements to existing hangars had to be
5s buillto accommodate the new airplanes."
lth C-135As flew their first major operational transport missions
NS Irom 15-25th September 1961 ,as part of Operation 'Check Mate',
ng transporting troops and equipment of the US Army's 101st Air-
borne Infantry Division to and from Adana, Turkey. During these
>2- len missions, the C-135As achieved a dismal controllable delay
nd rateof8.1%, nearly double that for the C-118, a fault easily attrib-
utable to problems associated with any new weapon system.
5s This rate dropped to approximately 5% for the rest of 1961."
Beginning in 1962 Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) converted the
ji- three 'falsies' into KC-135A-1I 'Office Boy' reconnaissance plat-
3ir forms. During January and February 1965, ten C-135As were
3d p~ced in flyable storage at Hunter AFB, Georgia, to make room
)n atMcGuireAFB forthe 16 C-135Bs used in Operation 'Best Ball',
which determined 'the optimum wartime flying hour utilization of
3.S milrtary aircraft'," After the test they returned to McGuire AFB.
ts Of the eighteen C-135As, only one remains in service as a
er uansport as aC-135E. The remainder have been converted into a
variety of configurations including tankers, test-beds, and train-
1e
ers, or have been scrapped.
"s 60-0356 One of three KC-135As converted on the produc-
tion line into a C-135A. First flew 19th May 1961. Delivered to
at the Air Force on 2nd June 1961, and arrived at McGuire AFB on
-e 9nd June. Departed McGuire AFB on 31st October 1961, for
conversion into a KC-135A-11.
lS 60·0357 One of three KC-135As converted on the produc-
Ie tion line into aC-135A. First flew 24th May 1961. Delivered to the
{- ~r Force on 6th June 1961, and arrived at McGuire AFB on 9th
June 1961. Departed McGuire AFB on 6th October 1961, for
3,
conversion into a KC-135A-11.
d 60-0362 One of three KC-135As converted on the produc-
42
tion line into a C-135A. First flew on 14th June 1961, Delivered
to McGuire AFB on 5th July 1961, Departed McGuire AFB on 6th
September 1961, for conversion into a KC-135A-11.
60-0369 First flew on 23rd June 1961. Delivered on 6th
October 1961. Transferred to AFSC in 1964 for conversion into
an NC-135A. Removed from flying operations on 9th June 1976,
for use as a GNC-135A ground maintenance trainer. Scrapped
in 1992 (see Appendix D).
60-0370 First flew on 20th July 1961. Delivered on 12th
August 1961. Transferred to AFSC in 1964 for conversion into an
NC-135A. Written off on 6 September 1978 (see Appendix D),
60-0371 First flew on 9th August 1961. Delivered on 23rd
August 1961, Transferred to AFSC in 1964 for conversion into an
NC-135A. Written off on 12th August 1994 (see Appendix D).
60-0372 First flew on 24th August 1961. Delivered on 31st
August 1961. Douglas converted it into the first EC-135N Apollo
Range Instrumented Aircraft (ARIA) in 1966.
60-0373 First flew on 5th September 1961. Delivered 15th
September 1961. Crashed on 25th June 1965 (see Appendix C).
60-0374 First flew on 15th September 1961. Delivered to the
Air Force on 25th September 1961. Converted into an EC-135N
ARIA in 1966.
60-0375 First flew on 22nd September 1961. Delivered to
MATS on 28th September 1961. Converted to an EC-135N ARIA
in 1966.
60-0376 First flew on 11th October 1961. Delivered on 30th
October 1961. Reassigned in September 1963 to the 1501 st
ATW at Travis AFB for support of the Los Alamos Laboratory,
Assigned in June 1965 to AFSC and transferred to Los Alamos
for use as a dedicated test-bed, possibly involving 'nuclear
readiness testing'.
From September 1972 through May 1973, 60-0376 was con-
verted into a staff transport under 'Pacer Journey', an episode
that earned the airplane the unwanted attention of Senator
William Proxmire. The senator claimed that the airplane was
being converted into a 'flying playboy penthouse at the taxpay-
ers' expense' for the 'personal use of logistics commander
[AFLC] Gen Jack Catton'." The airplane required considerable
labor and expense to demodijy and then cover the nearly 100
residual small windows acquired as a test-bed. A congressional
team went to Tinker AFB to investigate Proxmire's claims, What
followed was classic Keystone Kops. One flight-line worker
recalled:
'I can assure you that we heard that the plane was indeed for
Gen Catton's use, as well as other VIP transport.
'We were told to "get rid of" and "hide" everything connect-
ed with that plane, ie, blue carpet (by the roll!), Sears range and
built-in ovens (2), already upholstered blue and white seats,
etc_, etc. We carted off several trailer loads of goodies.
'When the congressional team came to "investigate," there
was very little to see!!! That's why that very team gave us
advance notice that they were going to show up - they didn't
want to report that it was all true! We did bring it all back and
install it!" Despite Proxmire's protests and the investigation, the
luxury modification was nonetheless completed with the ratio-
nalization that the airplane would be used as a command sup-
port aircraft to 'haul AFLC repair crews around the world'.
During 1975 the airplane was loaned to the 15th ABW at
Hickam AFB and to the 89th MAW at Andrews AFB for use as a
VIP transport, It is uncertain but likely that the airplane was
redesignated as a VC-135A during this period. In January 1977
it was reassigned to the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB as a CSA and
- in keeping with the Carter 'low profile' for VIP operations - was
most certainly redesignated a C-135A. Through 1979, 60-0376
was regularly transferred between the 552nd AWACW at Tinker
AFB, the 15th ABW at Hickam AFB, and the 55th SRW at Offutt
AFB. In December 1979 this' rotation' stopped and 60-0376 was
assigned to the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB,
The airplane was converted into a C-135E from 27th March
1982, through 17th April 1982, It was loaned to the 58th MAS at
Ramstein AB from June to October 1983 while C-135B 62-4125
underwent programmed depot maintenance (PDM). From
Ramstein AB, 60-0376 was transferred on 26th October 1983, to
the 8th TOCS, 552nd AWACW at Tinker AFB.
From February through May 1984 it received another interior
upgrade, converting the airplane to support the Commander,
US Air Force Space Command. In March 1986 the 8th TOCS,
which still operated 60-0376, was reassigned to the 28th AD,
and on 29th May 1992, was again reassigned to the 552nd
ACW, still at Tinker AFB." There was effort to retire 60-0376 dur-
ing October 1993, but this did not happen. On 1st July 1994, the
8th ADCS was redesignated the 8th ACCS and 60-0376 was
transferred accordingly. With the 15th May 1996 inactivation of
the 8th ACCS, 60-0376 was reassigned directly to the 552nd
ACW.
60-0377 First flew on 12th October 1961, Delivered on 1st
November 1961. Assigned to the 1501st ATW at Travis AFB in
1963 for support of the Los Alamos Laboratory. Transferred to
AFSC for use as a test-bed. On 15th December 1995, it was
retired to the Edwards AFB Museum (see Appendix D).
60-0378 First flew on 17th October 1961. Delivered on 3rd
November 1961. Assigned to AFSC at Wright-Patterson AFB on
17th January 1968, Modified under Project 97309(635) into a
weightlessness trainer effective 24th July 1968. Demodified from
this configuration by 22nd May 1973, and assigned to the Air
Force Communications Service (AFCS), both as a VIP transport
and as a communications check platlorm. Later erroneously
reported as an NKC-135A during this time. 50 Reassigned to the
89th MAW by 30th June 1975, and in December 1975 received
a VIP interior, becoming a VC-135A. Reassigned to the 55th
SRWat Offutt AFB on 31st August 1977 as a C-135A CSA. At
one time there were efforts to re-engine the airplane with TF33-
PW-102s, converting it into aC-135E, but budget limitations pre-
vented this. On 23rd JUly 1993, it was written off as abattle dam-
age repair (BDR) trainer at Tinker AFB (see Appendix D).
61-0326 First flew on 3rd November 1961. Delivered on 17th
November 1961. Converted into an EC-135N ARIA in 1967,
61-0327 First flew on 13th November 1961, Delivered on
29th November 1961. Converted into an EC-135N ARIA in 1967.
61-0328 First flew on 14th November 1961. Delivered on 6th
December 1961, Converted into an EC-135N ARIA in 1967.
Destroyed on 6th May 1981 (see Appendix C).
61-0329 First flew on 1st December 1961. Delivered on 12th
December 1961. Converted into an EC-135N ARIA in 1967.
Written off as a BDR aircraft in June 1996 (see Appendix D).
61-0330 First flew on 14th December 1961. Final C-135A
delivered to the Air Force on 3rd January 1962, and arrived at
McGuire AFB the following day. Converted to an EC-135N ARIA
in 1967.
V/C-135B
In addition to the 15 C-135As ordered while awaiting the delivery
of the new cargo transport, MATS ordered 30 C-135Bs. The first
C-135B flew on 15th February 1962, and differed considerably
from the C-135A. The most obvious change was the use of TF33-
P-5 turbofans instead of the J57 turbojets on the C-135A. The
40% increase in thrust (over 5,0001b - 22.4kN) per engine)
improved the C-135B's take-off performance enabling it to use
shorter runways or, when using longer runways, carry more
troops or cargo. The TF33-P-5 has thrust reversers, improving the
airplane's short field landing capability. The C-135B's horizontal
stabilizers were increased in span to that of later 707 stabilizers to
improve pitch control, affected by the increase in thrust available.
Capacity was 89,0001b (40,370kg) of cargo, 126 fully-
equipped combat troops, or 44 litters and 54 seats in the mede-
vac role. Range in the latter two configurations was over 4,500nm
(8,338km). Additional cargo compartment soundproofing was
added as were improved galley and latrine facilities. Asecond air
conditioning pack was installed to regulate the cargo compart-
ment temperature, but this proved to be less than adequate, Air-
liner windows were originally proposed for the C-135B but were
not adopted as a cost savings measure." Afuel dump tube was
substituted for the air refueling boom. The C-135B transports
were not equipped with an IFR system for in-flight refueling.
These improvements were not without aprice. Each C-135B cost
$3,320,000 as compared with $2,620,000 per C-135A. Apropos-
al to retrofit C-135As with TF33-P-5s was rejected because of the
cost coupled with ashortage of engines."
In a rainy ceremony held at Travis AFB on 1st March 1962,
WESTAF Commander Major General Glen RBirchard delivered
the first C-135B to the Air Force. Accompanying Birchard were
Boeing Vice President John 0 Yeasting (who a decade earlier
participated in the momentous decision to build the 'Dash 80'),
and Lieutenant Colonel William L Brinson, commander of the
44th ATS, the first C-135B squadron. Mrs Glenn MAnderson, wife
of California's Lieutenant Governor, christened C-135B 61-2662
The Golden State in honor of the airplane's new home state of
California."
The airplanes were assigned to the 18th and 41 st ATS, 1611th
ATW at McGuire AFB, and the 44th ATS, 1501st ATW at Travis
AFB. They were routinely transferred between the two bases, as
photographs show most of the airplanes in the markings of either
wing.
The C-135B demonstrated an im mediate and notable im-
provement in performance and operations over the C-135A. By
June 1962, Birchard described the reliability of the C-135B 'phe-
nomenal'. Of 78 scheduled flights during June, there were only
six maintenance delays, reflecting a93% reliability."
Still, there were afew issues to be resolved before the C-135
83

• §3111111
fleet was considered fully operational. Some communication and
navigation equipment was in extremely short supply, as were tur-
bofan engines and components, MATS restricted to 72 the num-
ber of troops or passengers in its C-135s, only 90% of its
capacity, due to the shortage of emergency exits in the airplane.
Bureaucratic wrangling over who would modify the airplanes -
Boeing or OCAMA - delayed the installation of additional doors
and emergency egress slides. A shortage of galleys adversely
affected C-135 operations, with each airplane initially equipped
with apartial galley, hardly suitable to feed 70 passengers and a
crew of 11. Finally, SAC and MATS quibbled over aircrew train-
ing. SAC training at Castle AFB emphasized air refueling opera-
tions, and MATS requested an abbreviated course which did not
include this unnecessary training for MATS transport pilots and
navigators. At first SAC balked but eventually relented. MATS
crews learned to fly the KC-135 at Castle AFB, then transitioned
to the C-135, especially the B-model, at their home bases."
Following the 1965 delivery of the first C-141 s, C-135Bs were
either transferred to other transport units or converted for other
missions such as Telemetry Range Instrumented Aircraft (TRIA)
C-135Bs or WC-135B weather reconnaissance airplanes. On 5
April 1966, four C-135Bs, beginning with 62-4125, were trans-
ferred to the 89th MAW at Andrews AFB as SAM aircraft. Wnhin
the next two months, three more C-135Bs arrived (61-2663, 62-
4129, and 62-4130). In 1967 these were given VIP airliner interiors
and designated VC-135Bs." The 89th MAW's inventory of C-
135Bs changed little for the next two decades, with the notable
exception of 61-2663 which was transferred to AFSC, while two
other VC-135Bs (62-4126, -4127) were added.
On 1st December 1977, as part of the Carter 'Low Profile' pro-
gram for VIP operations, the five VC-135Bs (62-4125, 62-4126,
62-4127,62-4129, and 62-4130) were repainted from the famous
and popular 'Air Force One scheme' to abland overall white and
gold motif, The airplanes were also redesignated C-135Bs, de-
emphasizing their VIP role." Following the 1981 inauguration of
Ronald Reagan, the airplanes were again painted in the blue and
silver scheme, although they remain designated C-135Bs.
In February 1987 62-4129 departed the 89th MAW for conver-
sion into the TC-135W, and the four remaining C-135Bs were
given wide-body interiors gleaned from former airline 707s. This
effort emphasized the differences between the 707 and KC-135,
as the 707 interiors required considerable modification to fit
inside the C-135Bs.
By October 1992 the remaining C-135Bs were transferred to
the 55th Wg at Offutt AFB for use as CSAs, supplementing the C-
135A and NKC-135A currently in use there. Other C-135Bs were
transferred to or remained assigned to Detachment 1, 89th AW
(later the 65thALS, 15th ABW) at Hickam AFB.lt has been decid-
ed that three of these C-135Bs (62-4125, 62-4127 and 62-4130)
will be converted into RC-135Ws from 1997 onwards.
61-0331 First flew on 20th December 1961. Delivered to the
Air Force on 31 st January 1962, for initial flight test and certifi-
cation. Assigned to the 1611th ATW at McGuire AFB on 9th
October 1962. Transferred during July 1963 to the 1501st ATW
at Travis AFB, returning to the 1611th ATW at McGuire AFB in
April 1965, Converted in 1967 into a TRIA C-135B. Crashed on
13th June 1971 (see Appendix C).
61-0332 First flew on 2nd February 1962. Delivered to the
Air Force the same day for flight testing and certification.
Delivered to the 1501st ATW at Travis AFB on 27th April 1962.
Crashed on 11 th May 1964 (see Appendix C).
61-2662 First flew on 15th February 1962, Delivered to the
84
returni~
SRW(tl
CSA. U
conver:
62..1
Force I
1966, fl
62·1
June'
Novem
62·\
1611th
1967 ir
62-
airplan
into ar
62·
1962..
startec
62-
Force
Apper
Air Force on 28th February, and on the following day became Beginning in 1966, six C·135Bs were assigned 62·
the first C-135B handed over to MATS. Transferred to AFSC on to the 1st MAS, 89th MAW at Andrews AFB for ATW
11th December 1967, for use as a test-bed. Since converted into SAM duties. They received VIP interiors and Septe
the third RC-135S. carried several exterior color schemes, includ· Crash
61-2663 First flew on 26th February 1962. Delivered on 24th ing this relatively innocuous white-over-silver 62,
March 1962, Transferred on 12th May 1966, to the 1st MAS, 89th arrangement. Redesignated a VC-135B in 1967, Augw
MAW at Andrews AFB as the fourth SAM C-135B." Transferred 62·4129 was the second SAM C-135B. As Octot
to AFSC on 22nd December 1967, for test-bed duties. Since with its sister ships, it has since been 62
converted into the first RC-135S. converted for other missions, in this case 1611t
61-2664 First flew on 9th March 1962. Delivered to the Air reconnaissance training as the TC-135W. last C
Force on 28th March 1962. Transferred to AFSC by March 1968 R Besecker courtesy Arnold Swanberg 14th I
and converted into a TRIA C-135B. Later converted into the sec-
ond RC-135S. Crashed on 15th March 1981 (see Appendix C). C·13
61-2665 First flown 16th March 1962. Delivered to the ThreE
1501st ATW at Travis AFB on 29th March 1962. Converted in follo~
November 1965 into'a WC-135B. To AMARC on 11th September the first SAM C-135. 61 In 1967 it was configured with a VIP int~ sanci
1996 as AAC01 07 (see Appendix D). rior and redesignated a VC-135B. Redesignated a C-135B 00 1974
61·2666 First flew on 27th March 1962. Delivered to MATS 27th March 1977, and transferred to Det 2, 435th TAW (Iatertli€ TinkE
on 30th March 1962. This C-135B set several world-class cargo 58th MAS) at Ramstein AB, providing VIP and high priority pas- tions
lift and speed records in April 1962 (see Appendix F). Converted senger transport throughout Europe and western Asia. By the IF
in August 1965 into aWC-135B. Since converted to aWG-135W. Sep1ember 1991 it was reassigned to the 55th Wg at OffuttAfB A
61-2667 First flew on 3rd April 1962. Delivered on 20th April as a CSA. It was reassigned to the 65th ALS, 15th ABW aI 61-21
1962, to the 1501stATW atTravisAFB. Converted to aWC-135B Hickam AFB. Under conversion to an RC-135W during 1996-97. ing,
during 1965. Converted into the TC-135B. 62-4126 First flew on 18th May 1962. Delivered on 29th Maj (CIN
61·2668 First flew on 4th April 1962. Delivered 20th April 1962. Assigned in 1967 to the 1st MAS, 89th MAW at Andrews 65th
1962. Converted into aWC-135B in 1965. Demodified to C-135B AFB. Configured with a VIP interior and redesignated VC-135B. usel
in 1971 and stored at MASDC from 20th July 1972, through 1st Redesignated C-135B on 1st December 1977, under the Carter of hi
November 1972, with the MASDC identification number Administration's 'low-profile' effort. Transferred in September Trol
CA002. 59 In 1973 it received a staff interior and returned to ser- 1991 to the 55th Wg at Offutt AFB as a CSA. Since transferred 6
vice as a C-135B. Modified into a C-135C from 1974 through to the 21 st AF at McGuire AFB for an unidentified transport mis· on 1
early 1975, Withdrawn from use in 1996 at Tinker AFB (see sion, possibly with the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA) or for C-1:
Appendix D). discreet VIP operations, with crews from the 141st AREFS, serv
61-2669 First flew on 11th April 1962. Accepted by the Air 108th AREFW, New Jersey ANG. and
Force on 25th April 1962, Converted into a WC-135B in 1965. 62-4127 First flew on 25th May 1962. Delivered on 31st Maj sigr
Placed in storage at MASDC from 20th July 1972, through 8th 1962. Configured with a VIP interior, redesignated a VC-135B, 199
November 1972, and given the identification number CA003'o and transferred to the 89th MAW at Andrews AFB by 16th use
Departed MASDC for demodification from a WC-135B. January 1968. Redesignated a C-135B on 1st December 1977. t
Redesignated a C-135B on 10th March 1973. From 7th January Transferred in September 1991 to the 55th Wg at Offutt AFB as NOI
1974, through 8th February 1975, it underwent further conver- a CSA. It has since been reassigned to the 65th ALS, 15th ABW
sion into a C-135C, and replaced the existing KC-135A at Hickam AFB. Slated for conversion to an RC-135W beginning
'Speckled Trout'. in 1997-98.
61-2670 First flew on 18th April 1962. The Air Force received 62-4128 First flew on 25th May 1962. Assigned to MATS on
this C-135B on 26th April 1962. Converted into a WC-135B dur- 1st June 1962. Converted into a TRIA C-135B during 1967,
ing 1965. Since converted into the third OC-135B. Since been converted into the only RC-135X, and most recentlf
61·2671 First flew on 25th April 1962. Assigned to the it has been converted into an addnional RC-135S.
1501st ATW atTravis AFB from 28th April 1962, until 1965 when 62·4129 First flew on 4th June 1962. Delivered on 9th June
it was converted into a WC-135B. Demodified in 1972 back into 1962. Became the second SAM C-135 assigned to the 1st MAS,
C-135B status, and in 1974 was·further converted into aC-135C. 89th MAW at Andrews AFB on 6 April 1966." Received a VIP
Placed on static display 30th October 1'991 (see Appendix D). interior in 1967 and was redesignated a VC-135B. Redesignated
61·2672 First flew on 27th April 1962, Arrived at the 1501 st a C-135B in JUly 1977. Assigned in 1978 to the 55th SRW at
ATW at Travis AFB on 30 April 1962. Converted during 1965 into Offutt AFB as a CSA. Returned to the 89th MAW in the early
a WC-135B. Since converted into the second OC-135B. 1980s. Following the purchase of two ex-airline Boeing 707s for
61-2673 First flew on 7th May 1962. Assigned to the 1501 st the 89th MAW, 62-4129 returned to SAC in February 1987 for
ATW atTravis AFB on 16th May 1962. Converted to a WC-135B conversion into the TC-135W.
during 1965. Stored in AMARC as CA090 on 28th September 62-4130 First flew on 6th June 1962. Assigned to MATS on
1993 (see Appendix D). 15th June 1962. This was the third SAM C-135 assigned to the
61-2674 First flew on 11th May 1962, Delivered on 18th May 1st MAS, 89th MAW at Andrews AFB on 22 April 1966."
1962. Converted into a WC-135B in 1965. Since converted into Received a VIP interior in 1967 and redesignated a VC-135B,
the first OC-135B. Redesignated a C-135B in July 1977 and assigned to the 55th
62-4125 First flew on 30th April 1962. Assigned to the SRW at Offutt AFB as a CSA until April 1979, when it returned to
1611 th ATW at McGuire AFB on 28th May 1962. Reassigned on the 89th MAW. Loaned to the 552nd AW&CW at Tinker AFB duro
5th April 1966, to the 1st MAS, 89th MAW at Andrews AFB, as ing September 1985 for command support duties, thereafter
 returning to the 89th MAW. Transferred by July 1991 to the 55th
SRW (the 55th Wg after 1st September 1991) at Offutt AFB as a
CSA. Loaned to 65th ALS, 15th ABW, in October 1991. Under
conversion to an RC-135W during 1996-97.
62·4131 First flew on 9th June 1962. Delivered to the Air
Force on 22nd June 1962. Handed over to LTV on 15th June
1966, for conversion into an RC-135M.
62·4132 First flew on 12th June 1962. Delivered on 27th
June 1962. LTV began converting it to RC-135M on 14th
November 1966.
62·4133 First flew on 14th June 1962. Assigned to the
16111h ATW at McGuire AFB on 29th June 1962. Converted in
1967 into aC-135B TRIA. It has since become the TC-135S.
62-4134 First flew on 19th June 1962. MATS received this
airplane on 29th June 1962. LTV began converting this airplane
inlo an RC-135M on 11th September 1967.
62-4135 First flew on 21st June 1962. Delivered on 3rd July
1962. This was the first C-135B converted into an RC-135M; LTV
slarted the conversion during 1966.
62-4136 First flew on 3rd July 1962. Delivered to the Air
Force on 16th July 1962. Crashed on 23rd October 1962 (see
Appendix C).
~d
62·4137 First flew on 18th July 1962. Assigned to the 1611th
~r
ATW at McGuire AFB from 27th July 1962, through 30th
Seplember 1963, when LTV converted it into the sole RC-135E.
Crashed on 5th June 1969 (see Appendix C).
62-4138 First flew on 1st August 1962. Delivered on 15th
August 1962. LTV began converting it to an RC-135M on 27th
Oclober 1967.
62-4139 First flew on 7th August 1962. Assigned to the
16111h ATW at McGuire AFB on 29th August 1962. It was the
lasl C-135B converted into an RC-135M, work commencing on
141h December 1967.
C·135C
Three former WC-135Bs were converted into C-135Bs transports
following their decommission from use as weather reconnais-
inte- sance platforms. Two were temporarily stored at MASDC. From
Bon 1974 to 1975, the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OCALC) at
fthe Tinker AFB converted the three airplanes into C-135Cs. Modifica-
pas- lions include the addition of a staff interior. The airplanes retain
. By Ihe IFR system installed as WC-135Bs. 64
AFB All three airplanes served as VIP transports. Two (61-2668 and
Nat 61-2671) were assigned to Det 1, 89th MAW at Hickam AFB serv-
3-97. ing, among others, the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Air Forces
May (CINCPACAF). On 10th March 1992, this unit was replaced by the
rews 65IhALS, 15th ABW. The other C-135C (61-2669) is assigned for
35B. use by the Air Force Chief of Staff (but is also available to avariety the stuff of a classic flier's tale: In 1957 LeMay discovered that
arter 01 high-ranking military officials). It is also used as the 'Speckled Air Force Headquarters had no jet transports for VIP use:
nber Trout' avionics test-bed. Only'669 remains in service.
'rred 61·2668 Following this WC-135B's removal from MASDC . Wright-Patterson [AFB] were holding 13 K-135s [sic] for test
mis- on 1st November 1972, E-Systems reconfigured it for use as a purposes. It seemed to LeMay they could conduct their tests on
f for C·135B VIP transport. Equipped with a 'staff interior' it resumed
:FS, service in 1973. During 1974 OCALC converted it into aC-135C,
and it assigned to the 15th ABW at Hickam AFB. It was reas-
May signed 10 Det 1, 89th MAW at Hickam AFB, which on 10th March
35B, 1992, was replaced by the 65th ALS, 15th ABW. Withdrawn from
16th use in 1996 at Tinker AFB (see Appendix D).
977. 61·2669 This WC-135B was removed from MASDC on 8th
3 as November 1972, and converted into a C-135B by E-Systems.
IBW
ling
) on
367.
,ntly
une
lAS,
VIP
lIed
/ at
arly
;for
for
Delivered on 10th March 1973, to the 7111th SS (later the
7111th OS), 322nd TAW at Rhein-Main AB. Beginning on 4th
January 1974, OCALC converted into a C-135C. Delivered on
8th February 1975, to Det 1, 1st ACCS, 1st CW at Andrews AFB.
It replaced the former 'Speckled Trout' KC-135A 55-3126 which
was then retired to MASDC. Following the 1st November 1975,
departure of the 1st ACCS from Andrews AFB, 61-2669 came
under the operational control of Det 1, 4950th TW, also located
at Andrews AFB. From June 1980 through October 1981, 61-
2669 is reported to have been stationed at Offutt AFB. During
October 1985, set two world speed records on flights betWeen
Japan and the PRC (see Appendix F). The airplane was
assigned to HQ, Air Force, and located at Andrews AFB until all
AFSC heavy test-bed assets, including the 'Speckled Trout',
were reassigned to Edwards AFB during 1994.
61-2671 Demodified from a WC-135B into a C-135B VIP
transport in 1973. Converted in 1974 to a C-135C and assigned
to the 15th ABW at Hickam AFB, later to Det 1, 89th MAW at
Hickam AFB. Withdrawn from use during PDM on 30th October
1991, and relegated to service as a gate guard at Tinker AFB
(see Appendix D).
C·135K
Former 'Head Dancer' EC-135K 59-1518 was redesignated as a
C-135K in late 1996 and reassigned to the 65th ALS, 15th ABW
at Hickam AFB.
KC·135A/D/E
KC-135 tankers have and continue to serve as dedicated trans-
ports, mostly in aVIP role for major commands, particularly SAC.
All retain the air refueling boom and are capable of offloading
fuel. The interiors are often quite nicely appointed and may be
highly modified, possibly to include a communications suite or
other command and control elements. The aviation press has
occasionally referred to some of these airplanes as 'VKC-135s',
although this MDS is completely unofficiaL"'
Several EC-135s have also served as VIP transports, and like-
wise have been designated unofficially as 'VKC-135As' by the
aviation press. These EC-135s remained fully functional as air-
borne command posts and were not dedicated VIP transports,
although they were often used as such. Among these have been:
EC-135P 58-0007 for CINCPAC and CINCPACAF; EC-135A 61-
0282 for the Commander-in-Chief, Europe (CINCEURj, aswell as
EC-135Ks 55-3118 and 59-1518, and 62-3536 for CINCTAC and
later the Commander, Air Combat Command (COMACC) .
55-3126 This was the first KC-135 of any MDS to serve as a
VI Ptransport. How this airplane was chosen for this mission is
'He soon found that the research-and-development boys at
12 planes as effectively as they could on 13, so he told them to
send one. They said they couldn't. They said they needed all
they had. He soon had his K-135 [sic] in Washington."'
In 1938 LeMay led a flight of Boeing B-17s to Argentina,
using, among other things, a National Geographic map for nav-
igation. On 11-13th November 1957, LeMay established tWo
world records while flying 55-3126 on a similar mission betWeen
the United States and Argentina (see Appendix F).
The airplane was reportedly converted by 1959 into a 'Night
Watch' airborne command post for use by the National
Command Authorities. When three EC-135Cs were converted
into 'Night Watch III' platforms, 55-3126 was converted into the
'Speckled Trout' avionics test-bed. It continued to serve as aVIP
transport, primarily for the Air Force Chief of Staff and the AFSC
Commander. In 1975 C-135C 61-2669 became the new
'Speckled Trout' and 55-3126 was retired to MASDC on 31st
July 1975. It was written off on 5th January 1978 (see Appendix D).
57·2589 Configured for use by SAC's Commander-in-Chief
(CINCSAC), this airplane (call signs 'Casey 01' and 'Casey 35'),
is assigned to the 55th SRW (55th Wg after 31st August 1991)
at Offutt AFB. In 1983 Boeing Military Airplane Company
(BMAC) converted it to a KC-135E, returning it to the Air Force
on 11th October 1983. With the demise of SAC on 1st June
1992, the airplane serves its new owner, the CINC of Strategic
Command, at Offutt AFB. President Ford flew aboard this air-
plane, as did country singer Tennessee Ernie Ford.
61-0300 Dedicated to the support of the 15th Air Force com-
mander, this airplane was assigned to the 22nd AREFW (previ-
ously the 22nd BW until 1982), March AFB, California.
61·0310 Used from the late 1960s through October 1973 by
CINCPACAF. Assigned to the 6486th ABW (later the 15th ABW)
at Hickam AFB. In 1973 it was returned to a purely tanker role.
61-0316 Following its demodification in 1975 from the air-
borne command post for the Commander-in-Chief, Strike
Command, this airplane was assigned to the 71 st AREFS, 2nd
BW, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. By 1979 it was in use by the 8th
Air Force commander, replacing KC-135A 63-7992. KC-135A
61-0316 burned on the ramp at Cairo lAP, Arab Republic of
Egypt, on 19th March 1985 (see Appendix C).
61·0317 This airplane was unofficially referred to as a 'VKC-
135A' and was used as a Commander-in-Chief, Pacific (CINC-
PAC) transport based at Hickam AFB. Specific dates of use are
not known.
63·7992 Used by the 8th Air Force commander from
1971-79, when it was replaced by 61-0316. Transferred to the
909th AREFS, 376th SWat Kadena AB, and may have been
used there to support VIP and passenger transport in the Pacific
region. Currently a tanker.
63·8020 The early years of the 'Creek Falcon' program have
not been well documented. By April 1968, 63-8020 was
assigned to the 7101st ABW at Rhein-Main AB. From 1969
through 1972, it was assigned to the 7402nd CSW, still at Rhein-
Main AB. It was reassigned on 1st February 1972, to the 7111th
OS, 322nd TAW at Rhein-Main AB.The airplane operated
through 1973, providing intra-European passenger service for
US military and allied-nation personneL" In 1977 this mission
was undertaken by C-135B 62-4125 at the 58th MAS at
Ramstein AB. What airplane was used betWeen 1973 and 1977,
if any, has not been identified. KC-135A 63-8020 has since
returned to tanker duties as a KC-135R.
NKC·135A
55·3119 On 13th September 1983, this AFSC test-bed was
transferred to SAC for use as a CSA, retaining the NKC-135A
designation, while assigned to the 55th SRW (later 55th Wg) at
OffuttAFB. The airplane was scheduled to receive TF33-PW-1 02s
by 28th February 1988, and be redesignated an NKC-135E,
although this did not take place. The airplane was stored in
AMARC on 6th July 1993, as CA067 (see Appendix D).
RC·135A
From 1971 through 1979, the four RC-135A (63-8058, 63-8059,
63-8060, 63-8061) served as CSA jets with the 55th SRW at Offutt
AFB. The photomapping gear was removed. Beginning 19th July
1978,63-8058 was loaned to the Maine ANG. During 1979 all the
RC-135As were converted into KC-135D tankers, which were
assigned to tanker units.

on Two C-135Cs remained in service as of 1996-

the the 'Speckled Trout' (61-2669) and this VIP/staff
6'3 transport (61-2668). Although the 'Speckled
5B. Trout' has an additional test-bed role, the
5th C·135Cs provide support for senior military
I to - staff personnel. C-135C 61-2668, assigned to
lur- Hickam AFB, is often seen throughout the
~er Pacific Rim. Joe Bruch collection

85
 Aft,
nai
Op
sUI
ad.
fus
air
Aer

38061 As
UIE
fin
da
rol
tal
le~
rei
ve
te,
dr
bE
The 'Creek Falcon' KC-135A 63-8020 provided After a long and illustrious career as a test-bed, After the removal of their photo-mapping gear
intra-theater support for US forces in Europe. NKC-135A 55-3119 served as a CSA transport.
K<
during 1971, all four RC-135As served as CSAs
It also carried pe.rsonnel to and from the CSA cre,.ys at Offutt AFB operated a wide wi.th the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB until 1979. They e>
CONUS, as well as other overseas bases. It is variety of C-135 variants ranging from RC-135As have since been converted into 'buck' tanker
seen here on 29th April 1968, visiting to C-135As and C-135Bs to EC-135Ls (briefly) configuration as KC-135Ds. On the hammerhead te
Elmendorf AFB. Norman E Taylor courtesy Brian to the NKC-135A. Photographed here at Offutt at Norton AFB on 30th November 1976,
C 'Buck' Rogers AFB on 13th June 1993, less than three weeks RC-135A 63-8061. Author's collection
tn
before its retirement to AMARC. Note the Sf
'Fightin' 55th' tail band In red. Joe Bruch ul

86

i
After participating in the Electronic Recon-
naissance System program and perhaps
Operation 'Speed Light' NKC-135A 55-3132
supported the 'Reece Strike' program. In
addition to the large fairing on the starboard
fuselage, the airplane had a huge dorsal ram
air intake to cool the internal equipment.
Aerofax collection
As Neil Armstrong stepped from the lunar mod-
ule onto the Sea of Tranquility and became the
first man to stand on the Moon, few people that
day in 1969 stopped to think of the important
role of KC-135 variants in making that momen-
tous event possible. Be they astronaut weight-
lessness trainers or as telemetry and radio
relay platforms, test-bed KC-135s and C-135s
versions were very much an integral part of the
team that fulfilled President John Kennedy's
dream of putting an American on the moon
before the end of the 1960s. The origins of the
KC-135's use as a test-bed are similarly
y extraterrestrial.
On 4th October 1957, the world sat and lis-
tened with rapt attention to the sound of elec-
tronic beeps broadcast from a 1841b (83.4kg)
sphere whirring around the Earth every 96 min-
utes. This was Sputnik, the world's first man-
Chapter Eight
Test-beds
7RCE
made satellite, and it portended both great and
ominous things.
For the Soviet Union, the nation that had won
the opening round in the space race by build-
ing and launching Sputnik, ironically meaning
'fellow traveler', scientific socialism had once
again triumphed over decadent bourgeois cap-
italism of the West. It also meant that American
military superiority in manned strategic wea-
pons was effectively negated by the Soviet
monopoly on the nascent field of intercontinen-
tal ballistic missiles.
For the US, the nation that was unable to co-
ordinate its fledgling civilian and military missile
and rocket programs let alone successfully
launch anything, Sputnik sounded a tocsin that
pealed throughout every level of American gov-
ernment and society. Aside from the immedi-
ately apparent implications of a Soviet military
challenge to American strategic superiority,
Sputnik struck at the very core of what many
Americans believed made America great - their
educational system.
In a flurry of well-intentioned but often iII-con-
ceived activity ranging from federal budget in-
creases for education to the establishment of
physics and slide-rule clubs at hundreds of
high schools, Americans rushed to re-establish
their traditional educational advantage over
homo sovieticus. Just as Americans had wor-
ried about a 'Bomber Gap' with the Soviets,
now they worried about a 'Knowledge Gap'.'
This worry translated, in part, into an expan-
sive increase in scientific testing and research,
especially in the physical or 'hard' sciences
such as atmospheric, electromagnetic, and
gravitational studies. Examining the effects of
the Aurora Borealis upon radio wave propaga-
tion, for example, was best undertaken in the
northern polar regions, ideally at high altitudes
and over long durations. This meant a growing
demand for an aerial platform capable of sus-
tained flight at high altitude while carrying a
substantial number of scientists and their
equipment.
In addition to 'pure' and 'applied' scientific
research, this was also an era of increased
research into the development, use, and ef-
fects of high-technology weapons, particularly
atomic and hydrogen bombs, as well as ballis-
tic missiles (and defenses against them). Just
as an aerial platform could well serve the needs
of the 'civilian' research community, so too
could it satisfy the demands of the 'military'
research community. Indeed, the two were
often one in the same.
87
Perfect Choice
As it was with the need for an airborne com-
mand post, a strategic reconnaissance plat-
form, and a new jet transport, the KC-135 was
the logical choice as a test-bed platform due to
its size, capacity, speed, endurance, high alti-
tude capability, and suitability for extensive
modification. With a dozen early production
KC-135s seNing in a temporary test and evalu-
ation role at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, the
nexus of Air Force research, their jump from
basic flight test airplanes to research platforms
was simple and immediate.
The KC-135s' size and capacity, range,
endurance, and performance envelope make
them well suited for a variety of evaluations and
test operations. They can carry more and larger
equipment than smaller aircraft can, as well as
seat a larger crew complement to operate the
equipment or act as mission obseNers. Their
large fuel capacity enables them to fly long dis-
tances and remain on station for extended
durations, and the installation of an IFR system
gives them a range and duration limited primar-
ily by crew endurance. Test-bed KC-135s can
fly long distances quickly, loiter at slow speeds
for maximum orbit duration at medium to high
altitudes, and then recover at high speed to
allow for immediate analysis of newly collected
data.
The KC-135 is also easily adaptable as a test-
bed because of its structural design character-
istics. High fuselage ground clearance enables
the placement of downward-looking antennae
and fairings beneath the fuselage. The engine-
driven electrical generators provide consider-
able power to operate the electronic suite or
test system on board the airplane. If needed,
the generators can be enhanced or replaced
with more capable units.
Although other cargo airplanes have been
used as test-beds, they suffer from restrictions
not applicable to KC-135s. C-130s, for exam-
ple, suffer from slow speed, a low operational
88
ceiling, and propeller vibrations and harmon- in 1963 as the Deputy for Flight Test, and Han:
ics. Their low fuselage ground clearance fur- included five directorates, including Flight Tes! the E
ther degrades their potential for external, Operations (to which test-bed KC-135 opera· the·
downward-looking modifications. C-141 Star- tions were assigned), Test Data, Aircraft Main· tion.
lifters enjoy the benefits of jet transports, but tenance, Test and Integration Analysis, and A<
the placement of flight control cables and their Supply SeNices. During 1968 the Deputy for TS,
high wing root make upper fuselage modifica- Flight Test became the Directorate of Flighl and
tions (such as those for the Airborne Laser Lab, Test. After nearly 25 years, the all-weather flighl (US,
radiation optics programs like RAMP and tests at Wright-Patterson AFB were transferred to th
TRAP, and satellite communications systems) in June 1970 to the AFFTC at Edwards AFB. ants
impractical. In addition, the C-141's 'T'-tail The following year - 1971 - the Directorate 01 'Ha~
obstructs upward aft sensor operation and Flight test became a wing. Initially the 4950th SI
range of vision. Like the C-130 Hercules, the Test Wing (Technical), it quickly became jusl sign
Starlifters suffers from low ground clearance. the 4950th Test Wing (TW). Just as 'Wright-Paf fro IT
To be sure, both the C-130 and C-141 have came to be known as the home of the test-bed attt
been modified as test-beds, but nowhere near KC-135s, so too did the 4950th TW become the NC-
as prolifically as the KC-135. most widely known test-bed KC-135 opera· al I
From their arrival in 1957 at Wright-Patterson tional unit. wea
AFB for operational test and evaluation, until As US forces withdrew from the war in South· Nuc
their transfer in 1994 to Edwards AFB as part of east Asia, the Air Force underwent another elec
the sweeping reorganization of the Air Force, major realignment as overall force numbers and
test-bed KC-135s have long been synonymous decreased dramatically. First known as Projecl as 1
with 'Wright-Pat'.' These airplanes were as- 'Realign', the consolidation of AFSC heavy air· the!
signed to the Flight and All-Weather Test Divi- craft assets is best known by its final name Pat!
sion at WADC at Wright-Patterson AFB. In 1959 'Have Car'. On 24th April 1975, 'Have Car ALL
the WADC was redesignated the Wright Air Implementation Program 75 - 6 directed that all Ian<
Development Division (WADD) and the Flight heavy cargo-designated test aircraft be as· oftl
and All-Weather Test Division reassigned to signed to the 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson y
WADD. In a major reorganization during 1961, AFB or to Detachment 1 of the 4950th TW locat· For
ARDC was redesignated Air Force Systems ed at Andrews AFB (for the 'Speckled Trout' air· 19~
Command (AFSC) and WADD changed to plane). Additional heavy cargo-designated tesl KG
Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD). At the aircraft were consolidated at the Air Force Spe· AFt
same time, flight test operations were trans- cial Weapons Center (AFSWC) at Kirtland AFB, Cal
ferred to the newly established Deputy for Test New Mexico, or at AFFTC at Edwards AFB. Air
and Support, which combined flight operations These relocations eliminated needless duplica· the
with maintenance and modification. This meant tion oftraining, maintenance, and support. 65'
that a single organization could propose, The 4950th TW acquired ten EC-135s from Oc
install, flight test, and re-evaluate modifica- the 6549th Test Squadron (TS), 6550th ABW, an1
tions, dramatically accelerating the research Air Force Eastern Test Range (AFETR) at Pat· Wr
process.' .rick AFB, Florida. These were used in support cal
Additional organizational changes, some of America's burgeoning space program, as no'
minor and some substantial, followed during well as its ballistic missile tests. The airplanes Ed
the 1960s and early 1970s. In the first of these, often deployed to the Air Force Western Tesl on
the Deputy for Test and Support was renamed Range (AFWTR) at Vandenberg AFB, Califor· 45:
nia, for missile shots originating there. 45
Two NKC-135As from the Rome Air Develop· FIi!
ment Center (RADC) at Griffiss AFB, New York, 19
were also transferred to the 4950th TW as part te!
of 'Have Car'. These had been involved in elec, so
tronic warfare testing, and continued these da
missions after moving to Wright-Patterson AFB, air
RADC still uses the burned-out shell of KC-135Q sic
60-0338 for electromagnetic tests.
In addition to the RADC aircraft, NKC-135As Oi
and JKC-135As from the Air Force Geophysics Tt
Laboratory (AFGL) - previously the Air Force bE
Cambridge Research Laboratory (AFCRL) - at sil
dE
er
The KC-135 is well suited for the many to
extensive modifications used throughout its w
test-bed career. Most of conversions were pI
undertaken by the Air Force at Wright-Patterson
al
AFB, although a few, including the ARIA and
TRIA nose modification (here on C-135B te
62-4133) were completed by Douglas Aircraft
and other outside agencies. Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
nd Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, moved from borne command post system or collateral plat- Table 10 - Some Common Test-bed Programs
~st the 6520th ABG (previously the 3245th ABW) to forms such as 'Silk Purse' or 'Blue Eagle'.
ra- the 4950th TW under 'Have Car' reorganiza- Some of the airplanes described in this chapter AACS 'Meteor Burst'
in- tion. (such as the EC-135 ARIAs) are not truly test- NKC-135A 55-3135 NKC-135A 55-3124*
nd C-135A 60-0376* C-135N 60-0375
Additional test-beds, including two 6512th beds but are operational mission airplanes.
for TS, 6510th TW, AFFTC NKC-135As from the They are considered here because of their ADC 'Blink Jammer' 'Milstar'
Iht and the US Air Force Test Pilot School association and co-location with the test-bed NKC-135A 55-3124 NC-135A 60-0371
C-135N 60-0375 C-135N/E 60-0372*
Iht (USAFTPS) at Edwards AFB were transferred KC-135As.
NKC-135A 55-3122
ed to the 4950th TW. Several test-bed KC-135 vari- Test-bed KC-135s have typically been given AFSATCOM
B. NKC-135A 55-3129 ORSEP
ants remained assigned to the 6512th after a 'J' or 'N' prefix to their existing MDS. The 'J'
C-135N/E 60-0372* NKC-135A 55-3135
of 'Have Car'. indicates temporary test and usually reflects C-135B 61-2662 C-135A 60-0376
Ith Seven test-bed KC-135 variants were reas- minor modifications to the airframe; this desig- C-135B 61-2663
RAMP
Jst signed to the 4950th TW at 'Wright-Pat' AFB nation is seldom used anymore. By 1969 all
Airborne Laser Lab/ J/NKC-135A 55-3127
at' from the 4949th TW (previously the 4900th TG) JKC-135s had been redesignated NKC-135s. HEl/ABL
ed at the AFSWC at Kirtland AFB. The KC-135As, The 'N' prefix is assigned to those aircraft given 'Reece Strike'
NKC-135A 55-3123*
NKC-135A 55-3132
he NC-135As, and NKC-135As were part of sever- a permanent test role, as the test modifications NC-135A 60-0371
NKC-135A 56-3596*
'a- al major projects associated with nuclear to the airframe are so significant or extensive EC-135C 63-8050
NKC-135B 63-8050 'Skyscraper'
weapons research (including the National that it is not economically feasible (read 'cost
JKC-135A 55-3124*
th- Nuclear Test Readiness Program - NNTRP), effective') to reconfigure the aircraft to its origi- ALDTS JKC-135A 55-3127
ler electronic warfare testing (such as 'Big Crow'), nal or standard configuration. NKC-135A 55-3123*
!rs and unconventional weapons research (such Because individual airplanes have not NKC-135A 56-3596 'Speckled Trout'
lct as the Airborne Laser Lab - ALL). Not all of always maintained a permanent association KC-135A 55-3126*
AMSA
lir- C-135C 61-2669
these airplanes physically relocated to Wright- with one specific long-term program, there has C-135A 60-0376
ne Patterson AFB such as the 'Big Crow' or the often been a great deal of confGsion over what C-135A 60-0377 TRAP
3.r' ALL NKC-135As, and remained instead at Kirt- airplane participated in what program, espe- NKC-135A 55-3128 JKC-135A 55-3127
JKC-135A 55-3134
all land AFB but under the administrative control cially as one airplane can be (and often is) ARIAt
JKC-135A 59-1491
lS- ofthe 4950th TW. actively involved with two or more projects EC-135N 60-0372
Yet another reorganization within the Air EC-135N/E 60-0374 TRIA:!:
)n simultaneously. Examples of these multi-air-
EC-135N 60-0375 C-135B 60-0331
3.t- Force, this time spread throughout the early plane programs can be found in Table 10. In EC-135N/E 61-0326 C-135B 61-2664
lir- 1990s, meant further changes to the test-bed addition, a number of test-bed KC-135s have EC-135N 61-0327 C-135B 62-4128
lSt KC-135 community. During 1992 AFSC and had a static (ie a call-sign allocated to that air- EC-135N 61-0328 C-135B 62-4133
le- AFLC combined to become Air Force Materiel plane) radio call-sign. For samples of these as EC-135N/E 61-0329
Zero-G
B, Command (AFMC), reminiscent of the earlier they were during the 1980s see Table 11. EC-135N/E 61-0330
JKC-135A 55-3129
EC-135B 62-4128
B. Air Materiel Command. Similarly, ASD became It is easy to recognize the role of test-beds in EC-135B 62-4133
KC-135A 59-1481*
:a- the Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC). The the development and testing of new reconnais- C-135A 60-0378
'Big Crow' KC-135A 62-3536
6512th TS, 6510th TW was inactivated on 1st sance equipment. NKC-135As tested the
NKC-135A/E 55-3132* KC-135A 63-7998
,m October 1992, and the test-bed KC-135 vari- 'Recce Strike' sideways-looking airborne radar
N, ants from Edwards AFB, and some from both system under consideration tor use on RC- CRRES
NKC-135A 55-3127*
3.t- Wright-Patterson AFB and Andrews AFB, were 135Cs and a JKC-135A pioneered the optical NKC-135A 55-3131
)rt consolidated into the 445th Test Squadron - tracking system that became the heart of the
FAA
3.S now abbreviated as TESTS - 412th TW' at RC-135S program. In addition, 'Wright-Pat'
KC-135A 59-1481
es Edwards AFB. This squadron was inactivated hosted the initial tests of the RC-135A pho- KC-135A 59-1518
:st on 30th September 1993, and replaced by the tomapping program.
FEWSG/Navy
>r- 452nd TESTS, still part of the 412th TW. The It is less easy to recognize the actual opera-
NKC-135A 553134
452nd TESTS was redesignated the 452nd tional reconnaissance potential of a variety of NKC-135A 563596
* A complete project
p- Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) on 1st March some 'test-bed' missions. By their very nature, description applicable to all
'Have LACE' of the airplanes that partici-
'k, 1994. By mid-1994, all heavy cargo-designated the test-beds are configured to gather informa- NC-135A 60-0371 pated in this program can be
irt test-bed aircraft had departed Wright-Patter- tion. Just as these airplanes are capable of ana- C-135E 60-0372* found in the section on this
c- son AFB for Edwards AFB and been consoli- lyzing American rocket launches and nuclear airplane.
Icing/Water Spray
3e dated into the 452nd FLTS. Without its weapons tests, so too might they analyze simi- KC-135A 55-3121 t A complete description of
B. airplanes, the 4950th TW lost its primary mis- lar operations conducted by foreign nations. NKC-135A 55-3125 the ARIA program can be
;0 sion, and it was inactivated on 30th June 1994. 4 Indeed, two test-beds were lost after participat- NKC-135A 55-3128* found in the EC-135N/E
ing in separate but similar efforts. Little is section.
IFF
\S Diversity of Designations known of specific programs such as 'Aurora' NKC-135A 55-3127 * A complete description of
;s The designations applied to the variety of test- and MERLA, believed to be intelligence-gather- C-135A/N/E 60-0375 the TRIA program can be
:e bed KC-135s are often a source of some confu- ing projects in which test-bed KC-135s partici- C-135B 62-4128 found in the C-135B section.
at sion. Some test-beds retained their original pated, as well as 'Hula Hoop' and 'Dice Game',
delivery Mission-Design-Series (MDS) desig- two annual programs associated with the Table 11 - Test-bed Static Call-signs
nations, whereas others have received an 'Burning Light' task force dedicated to intelli-
55-3119 Agar 16 55-3120 Agar 17 55-3122 Agar 03
entirely new MDS from which a few aviation his- gence gathering and foreign nuclear tests, or 55-3123 Agar 33 55-3124 Agar 08 55-3125 Agar 15
torians have improperly inferred an electronic the exact relationship between test-beds and 55-3127 Agar 31 55-3128 Agar 34 55-3131 Agar 18
warfare or command post mission.' The 'EC-' operational reconnaissance airplanes as in 55-3132 Agar 30 55-3134 Nucar XX 55-3135 Agar 20
prefix assigned to some modified C-135As, 'Bs, 'Speed Light', another nuclear test program 56-3596 Nucar XX 60-0326 Agar 21 60-0327 Agar 22
n 60-0328 Agar 23 60-0329 Agar 24 60-0330 Agar 25
and 'Es reflects the 'electronic' operations and (see Chapter Ten).
60-0371 Agar 35 60-0372 Agar 26 60-0374 Agar 27
test nature of their mission. The airplanes are 60-0375 Agar 28 60-0377 Agar 09 61-2669 Trout 99
not nor have they been members of the Post 62-4128 Agar 06 62-4133 Agar 07
rs Attack Command and Control (PACCS) air-

89

TEST·BEDS - AIRCRAFT DETAILED
C·135A/E/N
Five airplanes have been modified into C-135A, 'E, and 'N test
platforms. Three were converted directly from MATS C-135A
transports, while two were first converted from MATS C-135As
into EC-135N Apollo Range Instrumented Aircraft (ARIAs) and
then into test-bed C-135As, C-135Es, and C-135Ns.' These test-
bed C-135s have been involved in the development of both opti-
cal and electronic equipment. One C-135A served as a joint Air
Force/NASA weightlessness trainer. One C-135A was converted
into aVIP transport, two of the airplanes continue today with test
duties, and two have been retired.
60·0372 This EC-135N ARIA was converted during 1979 into
a C-135N. This airplane's ARIA Prime Mission Electronic
Equipment (PMEE) was installed in 1980 into C-135B 62-4128
during its conversion into an ARIA EC-135B. In 1981,60-0372
replaced C-135B 61-2662 as the primary Air Force Satellite
Communications (AFSATCOM) test-bed following the conver-
sion of 61-2662 into an RC-135S. The AFSATCOM equipment
previously carried in 61-2662 was installed in 60-0372 in 1982.
The bulbous ARIA nose was removed from 60-0372 and the
SATCOM antenna fairing from 61-2662 was added atop 60-
0372's forward fuselage. During April and May 1982, Boeing
installed TF33-PW-102 engines on 60-0372 and it was redesig-
nated a C-135E.
The ASC-30 SATCOM test-bed incorporated modular anten-
nae, modems, and other related equipment allowing easy and
rapid installation and replacement of developmental systems
following tests and modification. Flight tests were often in con-
junction with SAC tankers, bombers, and airborne command
posts, as well as with ground relay stations around the world,
with 60-0372 transmitting and receiving messages via orbifing
satellites. These tests studied polar and equatorial effects on
satellite communications, and involved deployments to the
North Pole, around the equator, Ascension Island, Peru,
Greenland, Hawaii, and Australia.'
Among the other programs evaluated alongside SATCOM
were the Boeing E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control
System (AWACS), the Boeing E-4B Advanced Airborne
Command Post (AABNCP), and MILSTAR, a 'reliable, jam-resis-
tant, survivable extra high frequency (EHF) satellite communi-
cations' system. 'MILSTAR's many functions include the trans-
mission of emergency action messages (EAMs) from SAC and
later STRATCOM authorities to aircraft under its operational
control worldwide, the relay of warnings of SLBM launches, the
90
would
secone
junctiol
effects
Recent
two sp
60·1
1501st
3120,
Enerm
scienti
the m
Califor
facilitiE
Alth
bly ha
of pen
dows
3135 \
partici
least,
reveal
ness t
ThE
Patter
Airbor
plane:
a ree
togral
reassl
track
in 19i
Fol
ipater
uatin!
Aircr~
B-P
testin
relay of messages between the elements of Air Force's Satellite After the 1981 crash of 'Cobra Ball II', C-135B Patte
Control Facilifies, and the relay of reconnaissance satellite 61-2662 turned over the primary AFSATCOM In
imagery.' test duties to C-135A 60-0372. Illustrated shortly Kirtla
In addition to its SATCOM duties, 60-0372 is the primary aer- after its conversion, the airplane was May
ial platform (supported by NC-135A 60-0371) in the 'Have LACE' configured with J57 engines; it was re-engined 'Pacl
(Laser Airborne Communications Equipment) program, which in early 1982 and redesignated as a C-135E. 6(
should not be confused with the earlier LASERCOM project In addition to its SATCOM role, 60-0372 also atW
involving C-135A 60-0377. 'Have LACE' provides for ajam-resis- participated in 'Have LACE' and ICNIA.
tant airborne communication system capable of near instanta- USAF, courtesy Mike Franczek
neous transmission of large quantities of information with little
chance of detection by hostile forces. A $1.5 million contract
was signed in 1986 calling for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics C-l
to begin a 42-month test program in 1989.' Potential applica- enil
tions for this system include advanced airborne command posts 'Ha
and reconnaissance platforms, as well as satellites. as much as 1,100'F without any ensuing explosions or fire." bet
The 4950th TW modified 60-0372 for 'Have LACE' by Along with two North American Sabreliners, NT-39A 59-2870 60-
installing 'a large optical window in the cargo door, an optical and T-39B 59-2874, 60-0375 was associated during 1986 and No'
radome atop the fuselage, and a microprocessor for the collec- 1987 with 'Have Dark', a classified program. Subsequent pro· Not
tion of data and analysis in flight'. The laser communications jects for 60-0375 included Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) mis· tip
system includes a 'transmitter, a receiver, acquisition and track- sions (those requiring completion in an extremely short period wir
ing components and a video camera [designed to] track the and with great urgency), and in conjunction with a C-18A begin· the
laser beam and serve as the electronic eyes for project engi- ning in 1990, the Airborne Imagery Transmission (ABIT) prlf
neers and scientists'." gram, a 'modular, wideband, multiple sensor, jam-resistant, air·
Subsequent roles for 60-0372 included the Integrated to-air data link for transmission of reconnaissance imagery or
Communication Navigation Identification Avionics (ICNIA) pro- digital data'. IS
gram. Flown in conjunction with Boeing C-18B 81-0898, this tris- The introduction to the West of Iraqi 'Scud' surface-to-surface
ervice program was intended to reduce the size, weight, and tactical ballistic missiles during the 1991 Gulf War rekindled seri-
cost of communications, navigation, and identification systems ous interest in high technology assets to locate and destroy ba~
in the 2MHz to 2,000 MHz range, especially in a jamming-inten- listic missiles. One such system which saw actual testing was
sive environment." the ALL installed in NKC-135A 55-3123. Although the ALL tes~
60·0375 This EC-135N ARIA was demodified in 1979 and were successful, actual military operations were not considered
designated a C-135N, but retained the ARIA nose. In 1980,60- feasible at the time. Technology derived from the Strateg~
0375's ARIA PMEE was installed in C-135B 62-4133 during its Defense Initiative (SOl) has since made an airborne laser an
conversion into an EC-135B ARIA. From December 1979 until attainable weapon system. This latest generation airborne las8i
April 1980, 60-0375 participated in the 'Meteor Burst' program (known as ABL) is still in the definition phase, but collection 01
(in conjunction with NKC-135A 55-3124), and in the following optical data is underway in C-135E 60-0375, now known as the
months was involved (again with NKC-135A 55-3124) in the 'Argus 2' airplane ('Argus l' was NC-135A 60-0371, also
ADC 'Blink Jammer' program." From 1980 until 1983, 60-0375 involved in SOl tests)." Initial 'Argus 2' test flights, beginning in
supported the Mark XII Identification - Friend or Foe (IFF) test- July 1992, were conducted at night in conjunction with a con·
ing." Boeing converted the airplane from 17th April through 8th tractor Learjet."
May 1982, into a C-135E. Additional testing' though the mid-1990s proved viable the
Other projects assigned to 60-0375 included the evaluation of laser-based, airborne anti-missile concept. Based upon a fleet
non-flammable hydraulic fluid for aircraft brakes. In this test, of seven aircraft such as Boeing 747s, a pair of these ABL air·
non-flammable chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) was used in lieu craft would orbit continuously some 56 miles (90km) from the
of normal brake hydraulic fluid. Following aseries of high-speed nearest threat at altitudes between 40-50,000ft (12,192·
maximum effort braking tests, CTFE withstood temperatures of 15,240m). Using passive infrared sensors, the laser platforms
 would detect, identify, target, and destroy missiles within 30
seconds." Flight tests of the 'Argus 2', most recently in con-
junction with a Grumman Gulfstream II, have evaluated the the
effects of the atmosphere on laser propagation and precision."
Recent modifications to 60-0375 in support of 'Argus 2' include
two special optical windows installed in the cargo door"
60·0376 In September 1963 this C-135A was assigned to the
1501st ATW, Travis AFB. In conjunction with NKC-135A 55-
3120, it supported nuclear testing on behalf of the Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC), by providing 'commuter' service for
scientists and researchers traveling between Travis AFB (near
the many nuclear research facilities located in Northern
Calnomia) and Kirtland AFB, located near the nuclear research
lacilnies at Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Although 60-0376 bore MATS markings, the airplane proba-
bly had test responsibilities other than the mere transportation
01 personnel. Operating from Kirtland AFB, it had 100 small win-
dows mounted along both sides of the fuselage. NKC-135A 55-
3135 was in a configuration similar to that of 60-0376, and both
participated in a program known only as ORSEP (through at
least June 1965). The exact nature of these tests has not been
revealed, but nis likely they were associated with 'nuclear readi-
ness testing'."
The airplane was reassigned in 1965 to ASD at Wright-
Patterson AFB along with NKC-135A 55-3135 as part of the
Airborne Astrographic Camera System (AACS). The two air-
planes would fly parallel tracks along each side of the course of
areentry vehicle (RV) under study, triangulating and pho-
tographing the RV's actual position. In June 1969, 60-0376 was
reassigned to the AFETR and continued to use the AACS to
track missiles and ballistic vehicles. The AACS program ended
in 1970.
Following the termination of AACS, 60-0376 may have partic-
ipated in tests during 1970-1971 (with NKC-135A 55-3128) eval-
uating a proposed radar for the Advanced Manned StrategiC
Aircraft (AMSA), a project that eventually spawned the Rockwell
B·1" No confirmation is available of 60-0376's role in AMSA
testing; it certainly did not conduct these tests from Wright-
Patterson AFB.
In June and July 1972, 60-0376 was used by the AFSWC at
tly ~rtland AFB in a transport role. From September 1972 through
May 1973, it was converted into a C-135A staff transport under
'Pacer Journey' (see Chapter Seven).
60·0377 This C-135A was first noted in atest role with AFSC
at Wright·Patterson AFB in August 1970. It was overall natural
C·135A 60·0377 has long been associated with
enigmatic technological programs ranging from
'Have LACE' to the Advanced Avionics Systems,
beller known as the B-2 avionics test-bed.
370 60-0377 at Wright-Patterson AFB on 20th
Ind November 1970 in the 'IWATCH' configuration.
'ro- Note the additional sensors or fairings on the
lis- lip of the nose, above the wing, ahead of the
iod wing root, on the vertical stabilizer, and along
lin- the spine. J Morris, courtesy Terry Panapolis
·ro-
air-
or
Ice
3ri-
lal-
ras
sts
'ed
~ic
an
,er
of
he
so
in
In-
he
let
lir-
he
'2-
ns
metal finish with a flat black fuselage spine and vertical stabiliz-
er (excluding the rudder). Few details of this ORC project,
known only as 'IWATCH', are available. The black paint reduced
surface glare and suggests an optical or infrared-sensitive mis·
sion. Following this enigmatic program, 60-0377 participated in
a variety of electronic countermeasures (ECM) evaluations, and
later took part in AMSA research and development. The forward
and aft body fuel tanks were removed to allow an increase in
electronic and test equipment weight.
From October 1979 through December 1980, 60-0377 partic-
ipated in Airborne Laser Communications (LASERCOM) tests.
Airframe modifications included the installation of a 30in
(76.2cm) optically-ground window in the cargo door." Using a
neodymium-yttrium-aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser, this pro-
gram evaluated the secure transmission of large quantities of
information in extremely short 'bursts'.
Ground tests in September 1978 at the White Sands Missile
Range validated the concept. Airborne performance was con-
sidered the most critical phase of the test as airframe vibration
and effects of turbulence would jostle the laser beam, which had
an extremely small 'signature' and was sensitive to misdirection.
Flight tests involved orbits at altitudes of 33- 37,0000 (10,058-
11,277m) over ground test stations. Transmission rates of up to
20,000 bits per second were conducted with a loss rate of one
bit per million." The program's success paved the way for future
laser communications development, including the 'Have LACE'
program.
In 1982 this C-135A was outfitted with a modified Boeing 707
passenger kit, providing AFSC personnel with a modicum of
pleasant, comfortable transport en route to testing locations.
From August 1982 until March 1983, following the partial
removal of this passenger interior, 60-0377 participated in the
Single Axis Jammer program.
In 1984 the airplane received a 'hog nose' like those on the
RC-135s and acquired two flat-plate fairings above and below
the forward fuselage. The upper 40 x 40in (12.19 x 12.19m)
openings housed the competing Hughes and Aerojet General
infrared systems being tested as part of the Advanced Avionics
System (AAS), a program later revealed to be part of the
Northrop B-2A Spirit development. In 1989 Air Force Chief of
Staff General Larry D Welch announced that beginning in
November 1986 the airplane - known as the avionics ftight test
bed (AFTB) - based at Edwards AFB, 'conducted flight testing
of the [B-2A] radar and navigation subsystems'." The Hughes
radar began operating in 60-0377 in January 1987, and 'all
active in-flight radar testing has been on the C-135', totalling
some 1,600 hours over 305 flights." The AFTB contributed 'sig-
nificantly' to 'rapid progress avionics devSlopment' for the B-2.
Changes to software or technical modification to equipment
could be tested on the AFTB and validated without having to be
tested in the B-2, minimizing costs." Further testing of B-2 soft-
ware included Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) munitions
delivery systems." By mid-1995, the 'hog nose' was removed
and 60-0377 had been identified for retirement to AMARC.
Instead, 60-0377 was placed on static display at the Edwards
AFB Museum on 15th December 1995 (see Appendix D).
60·0378 This C-135A was assigned to AFSC at Wright-
Patterson AFB on 17th January 1968, performing unidentified
test duties. it was converted by 24th July 1969, into a zero-g
astronaut training platform with the name Weightless Wonder 11/.
Four KC-135s (55-3129, 59-1481,62-3536,63-7998) also served
as weightlessness trainers at Wright·Patterson AFB or at
Ellington AFB, Texas.
The Weightless Wonder 11/ ended its zero-g duties on 22nd
May 1973. Through 30th June 1975, 60-0378 participated in the
Traffic Control and Landing System (TRACALS) evaluation, and
was assigned to AFCS. Afterward it was handed over to the 89th
MAW at Andrews AFB and received a VIP interior by December
1975. On 31 st August 1977, it was assigned to SAC as a CSA
with the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB. Its testing days were not yet
over, as it may have been the test-bed for the Mystic Star
Console Evaluation, a communications system designed for
presidentialNlP use." With the demise of the CSA role, C·135A
60-0378 was relegated to battle damage repair (BDR) duties at
Tinker AFB on 23rd July 1994 Its test duties were not complete-
ly ended as in 1996 it was the 'guinea pig' for the Large Aircraft
Robotic Paint Stripper (LARPS) at Tinker AFB (see Appendix D).
C·135B
Six C-135Bs have served as testbeds while retaining the C-135B
designation. The first four were delivered in 1967 and 1968 to
AFSC lor use as Apollo support aircraft" AFSC acquired two
more C-135Bs for use in satellite communications tests.
Douglas Aircraft Company's Modification Division in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, converted four C-135Bs (61-0331, 61-2664, 62-4128,
and 62-4133) into Apollo support airplanes, designated Teleme-
try Range Instrumented Aircraft (TRiA). Although similar in
appearance to the EC-135N ARIAs, the TRIAs differed significant-
ly in capability and mission. All of the TRIAs had the ARIA's large
nose but could not carry the Northrop Airborne Lightweight Opti-
cal Tracking System (ALOTS) pod. In addition, the TRIAs' mis-
sion equipment collected information in frequency ranges
different from those of the ARIAs. The TRIAs were equipped with
TF33-P-5 turbofans whereas the ARIAs used the J57-P/F-59W
turbojets. Despite the designation change associated with the
ARIAs (from C-135As to EC-135Ns), the four TRIAs remained
designated C-135Bs.
After their acceptance from MAC but prior to their conversion
the airplanes were temporarily assig ned to the 4950th TW at
Wright-Patterson AFB. After conversion each airplane was then
assigned to the AFETR. In the middle of 1971 all four TRIAs were
reassigned to the 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB. One of
these crashed in 1971 after demodification and two were used for
additional electronics testing until they were further converted
into EC-135B ARIAs in 1980 (and were eventually modified into
reconnaissance or related airplanes). The fourth TRIA was con-
verted in 1969 directly into areconnaissance platform.
The fifth and sixth C-135B testbeds (61-2662 and 61-2663)
were acquired by the Air Force Avionics Laboratory (AFAL) for
development of the AFSATCOM system. These two airplanes did
not have the large nose and -like the TRIAs -lacked any air refu-
eling capability. C-135B 61-2662 was fully converted to the
AFSATCOM configuration. Following the crash of the 'Rivet Ball'
RC-135S in 1969, 61-2663 was not converted fully to the AFSAT-
COM configuration but was instead transferred to SAC for modifi-
cation into a replacement RC-135S. After the 1981 loss of 'Cobra
BaliII', 61-2662 was converted into an RC-135S and the role of
AFSATCOM test-bed transferred to C-135E 60-0372.
 Troul
re-as
1st (

..
temt
41211
assif
T
is ae
aviOi
12662 I
the;
Cocl
.,
-- flighl
facili

! U. S:AIR FORCE'
"'."
coc~
millil
intef
the'l

.......
F
• '>L ~.-.. [::: com
---_ -- tinUi
engi
wen
tran
lites
repc
Alth
of s:
sive
milil
sigr
ope
pori
avie
the:
but
ofe

EC
Fol
ren
49E
wei
the
oth

61·0331 This C-135B operated as a TRIA from 1967 until its
1971 transfer from the AFETR to the 4950th TW. lTV modified
61-0331 prior to its arrival at Wright-Patterson AFB by removing
the TRIA nose and installing a large radome atop the fuselage
for anew series of tests designed to detect and analyze nuclear
explosions and their related electromagnetic pulses (EMP). The
airplane deployed routinely to the 'Burning Light' Task Force
located at Hickam AFB, Hawaii, to monitor French atmospheric
nuclear tests conducted at their Centre d'Experimentation du
Pacifique (CEP), including Polynesian blast sites at Fangataufa
and Mururoa Atolls." The airplane disappeared on 13th June
1971, while returning to Hawaii ailer one such test (see
Appendix C).
61·2662 This C-135B was delivered to the 4950th TW on
11th December 1967, for use in the AFSATCOM program.
Testing began with the Hughes TacSat-1 and Lincoln
laboratory lES-6 satellites. During the initial phase of tests, 61-
2662 lacked the dorsal radome that would become the trade-
mark of the AFSATCOM program. The radome was later
installed for testing of the RCA AN/ASC-14 super-high frequen-
cy (SHF) X-band satellite terminal, which used a 33in (83.8cm)
diameter antenna located beneath the radome.
By 1977, 61-2662 began testing Lincoln Laboratory lES-8/9
satellites using an AN/ASC-22 extra-high frequency (EHF) air-
borne terminal, a system destined for the E-4A. The system was
coupled to the airplane's inertial navigation system for precise
alignment, and the AN/ASC-22's narrow band width and its fre-
quency-hopping capability made it extremely jam- and inter-
ception-resistant. In the summer of 1981, 61 :2662 underwent
conversion into an RC-135S and its AFSATCOM equipment was
installed in C-135E 60-0372.
61·2663 Intended as a companion for AFSATCOM test-bed
61-2662, MAC delivered 61-2663 to the 4950th TW on 22nd
cal
the
flyi
en,
ree
w~
December 1967. The airplane was never fully converted into an For nearly 15 years, C-135B 61-2662 served as hif
AFSATCOM platform, and on 29th April 1969, was delivered to a primary test-bed for a variety of satellite wit
lTV for conversion into the first 'Cobra Ball' RC-135S. communications programs. Sister ship 61-2663 We
61·2664 This C-135B operated as a TRIA from March 1968 was partially configured for this role, but was We
through early 1970 when it was delivered to lTV for conversion never fully modified prior to its conversion into de
into the second 'Cobra Ball' RC-135S. It crashed on 15th March an RC-135S. According to some sources, mi
t981 (see Appendix C). 61·2662 reportedly broke the sound barrier over da
62·4128 This TRIA operated as part of the AFETR from 1967 the Atlantic Ocean in a 455 KIAS dive from high tio
until its transfer in 1971 to the 4950th TW. Following the end of altitude. Author's collection er
the TRIA program in 1973, 62-4128 participated in several other its
projects, retaining the large nose II acquired as a TRIA. Among In addition to the eight EC-135N ARIAs, three lal
these tests were the 1976 Radiation Intelligence (RINT) program C-135Bs served as TRIAs. Among other duties, ve
and the Mark XII IFF program. TRIA C-135B 62-4128 carried optical test mark· ce
In 1980, 62-4128 was converted into an EC-135B ARIA, ings in support of the ALOTS program. During tr,
receiving lis PMEE from EC-135N 60-0372. It was converted into 1980 it received a full ARIA suite from EC·135N
the RC-135X. 60-0372. Paul Minert collection tn
62·4133 This TRIA operated as part of the AFETR from 1967 Ci
until its transfer in 1971 to the 4950th TW. Following the end of ig
the TRIA program in 1973, 62-4133 was active in several other to
projects, retaining its TRIA nose. Thereafter it began modifica- for conversion into a C-135C. It was delivered to Detachment 1,
tion for the Standard Electronic Module Radar (SEMR) program, 1st ACCS at Andrews AFB, on 8th February 1975, replacing KG·
although II is not known II the airplane actually participated in 135A 55-3126 as the 'Speckled Trout'. 32 Many of the unique parts
this evaluation. from 55-3126 were removed and installed in 61-2669, including 'I
In 1980 the airplane was converted into an EC-135B ARIA, the glare shield, the entire navigator's station, both control c
gaining lis PMEE from EC-135N 60-0375. It has since been con- columns, instrument panels, numerous 'black boxes', and the d
verted into the TC-135S. Mk.11l anti-skid system. The 'Speckled Trout' retains the IFR sys· tl
tern from lis WC-135B days, and has TF33-P-5 turbofans. Y
C·135C When the 1st ACCS moved to Offutt AFB on 1st November 5
A single C-135C, now stationed at Edwards AFB, is used as an 1975, the new 'Speckled Trout' stayed at Andrews AFB, assigned n
avionics test-bed, but retains asecondary role as aVIP transport to Detachment 1, 4950th TW. During March 1985 ,it was assigned ~
for the Air Force Chief of Staff, Vice Chief of Staff, and the AFSC directly to AFSC as a detachment at Andrews AFB. As more t
Commander, a duty it once fulfilled when stationed at Andrews. sophisticated and fuel efficient VIP transports such as Gulfstream f
61·2669 On 7th January 1974, this C-135B arrived at OCAlC C-20s entered service during the early 1990s, they lost 'Speckled ci

92
 Trout' asizeable portion of its transport role. Consequently, it was
re-assigned to the 445th TESTS, 412th TW at Edwards AFB on
1st October 1992. That squadron was inactivated on 30th Sep-
tember 1993, and the airplane was assigned to the 452nd TESTS,
4121h TW, still at Edwards AFB. The 'Speckled Trout' is currently
assigned to the 412th FLTS, 412thTW.
The 'Speckled Trout's' primary development and testing role
is advanced cockpit avionics. In conjunction with BMAC and
a~onics manufacturers such as Honeywell, Litton, and Collins,
the airplane is part of the 'Transport Advanced Avionics and
Cockpit Enhancement' program designed to integrate updated
flight·deck avionics and digital flight management systems to
facitnate testing new subsystems such as the KC-135 'glass
oockpit'.~ During 1988, these modifications - totalling some $42
million - incorporated aBoeing 757/767 glass cockp~ and afully
~tegrated flight management system, all future components of
the 'Pacer Crag' KC-135 cockpit upgrade program."
From 23rd November through 2nd December 1989, 61-2669
oompleted aseries of around-the-world flights 'as satellites con-
tinuously tracked it and maintained digital communications with
engineers on the ground'."The airplane's position and velocity
were taken from the airplane's inertial navigation system and
cransmitted every 15 seconds via the Geostar and Inmarsat satel-
lites, This marked the first time that an aircraft used a satellite to
report its position and velocity automatically to ground stations.
Although previous experiments have demonstrated the feasibility
of satellite communications with aircraft, none has relied exclu-
s~elyon digital systems as did this one. In addition to the obvious
military applications, this satellite reporting system could 'offer
significant enhancements in airspace capacity and reductions in
operating costs, particularly for intercontinental [civil] air trans-
port',- By early 1994, the 'Speckled Trou;t satellite pos~ioning
aoonics system had improved dramatically, offering not only
these advantages to commercial aircraft on international rOules,
but to military commanders who need to know the exact location'
oleach airplane in aglobal fleet."
EC·135B
following the 1973 termination of the TRIA program, the two
remaining airplanes were assigned varied test duties with the
4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB, From 1979 to 1980 they
were converted into EC-135B ARIAs following the installation of
the PMEE from two EC-135N ARIAs which were demodified for
other uses as test-beds.
The EC-135Bs offered several advantages over their EC-135N
counterparts. Because they had TF33-P-5 turbofans instead of
the J57·P/F-59W turbojets, the EC-135Bs saved over $350 per
flying hour in fuel alone. The turbofans increased both range and
endurance, and eliminated the need for demineralized water
required for take-off. Not all take-offs required water injection, but
when it was needed (as when operating from short runways at
high temperatures and pressure altitudes, or when fully loaded
with fuel), the limited worldwide availability of pure demineralized
water often degraded the ARIAs mission capability. Without the
water, the ARIAs would have to take-off with less fuel than
desired, reducing their ability to loiter on station, meaning they
might not be available to collect or retransmit essential voice or
,r data communications (this problem also beset RC-135A opera-
tions in South America). The TF33-P-5 engines' thrust reversers
enabled the airplane to operate from shorter runways, increasing
ITsflexibility to deploy worldwide. The EC-135Bs retained the
~ge nose acquired while TRIAs, thus eliminating the added con-
version expense required to modify abasic airplane into the ARIA
configuration. Both EC-135Bs were eventually demodified and
cransferred to SAC for reconnaissance duties.
62·4128 In 1979 the PMEE from EC-135N 60-0372 was
transferred to this C-135B, converting it to an ARIA. The modifi-
cation was completed in 1980 and the airplane officially redes-
ignated an EC-135B, On 29th July 1983, 62-4128 was delivered
to E·Systems for conversion into the RC-135X. The PMEE from
1,
Is
g 'Speckled Trout' C·135C 61·2669 serves as the
)1 cockpit avionics test·bed, evaluating new
e displays and navigational systems. In addition
5- to the flight controls installed on the control
yokes (gleaned from 'Speckled Trout' KC·135A
lr 55·3126), the cockpit includes additional
d navaids on the coaming and in place of the fuel
d panel ahead and aft of the throttle quadrant.
e Additional modifications planned for the KC·135
n fleet include a full 'glass' cockpit with color
d displays. Author's collection
62-4128 was then installed on Boeing C-18A 81-0891, making it
the first EC-18B ARIA.
62·4133 In 1979 the PMEE from EC-135N 60-0375 was
installed in 62-4133, converting it into an ARIA. In 1980 the mod-
ificalion was completed and the airplane redesignated as an
EC-135B. In 1985 this airplane was demodified and delivered to
SAC for conversion into the TC-135S. The PMEE from 62-4133
was then installed on C-18A 81-0896 as it was converted into an
EC-18B ARIA.
EC·135C
In the wake of the 'Cold War', the Air Force declared the former
EC-135C airborne command posts surplus to the strategic com-
mand and control mission, and made them available to other
commands for other missions. One of these EC-135Cs was mod-
ified for use as test-beds. The command and control suites were
removed and new mission equipment installed..
63·8050 This EC-135C serves as the second airborne laser
laboratory airplane, and operates as part of the High Energy
Laser (HEL) and Airborne Laser (ABL) programs. The primary
purpose of these efforts is the development of weapons and tac-
tics against theater ballistic missiles (TBMs), such as the infa-
mous 'Scud' TBM, The airplane was originally assigned to the
4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB, but was transferred to the
412th TW at Edwards AFB during 1993. In October 1996 it was
redesignated an NKC-135B.
EC·135N/E
The EC-135N Apollo Range Instrumented Aircraft (ARIA - and
later Advanced Range Instrumented Aircraft) and EC-135E ARIA
can trace their origins to a 1960 Boeing proposal to modify four
KC-135s with tracking and data recording equipment. The track-
ing antennae were to be located in a long fairing on top of the
fuselage. These airplanes would deploy around the world and fly
precise telemetry acquisition profiles to provide optimum moni-
toring of US civil and military space vehicles, especially over the
vast expanses of ocean where no surface-based facilities were
available, In addition, the ARIA could provide similar data on
Soviet space activities, although this was not considered aprima-
ry mission role, None of these tracking airplanes were built or
converted from existing airframes."
In 1964 the Air Force estimated that 12 specially-configured
EC-135s would provide the global tracking coverage necessary
for the Apollo lunar missions. NASA, however, thought that 35
Lockheed C-121 Constellations and C-130 Hercules could pro-
vide the same coverage. Because each proposed ARIA airplane
had a projected modification cost of $1.5 million, the selection
became academic, The delivery of C-141's to MATS in 1965
meant that its surplus C-135As were available for immediate con-
version into ARIAs, further simplifying the decision. NASA accept-
ed the Air Force's recommendation to use the converted C-135s,
and on 27th November 1964, the Air Force agreed to transfer
eight C-135As to NASA for conversion into ARIAs. On 10th
December 1964, NASA paid $600,00010 AFSC's Electronic Sys-
tems Division (ESD) for the definition phase of the C-135 Apollo
program, Although only eight of the 12 had been identified for
transfer, NASA was confident that the four add~ional airplanes
would be forthcoming and the agency would 'continue planning
on the basis of 12 C-135 aircraft for Apollo support'."
The actual conversion cost was significantly higher than pre-
dicted - approximately $4 million per airplane. Douglas was cho-
sen as the primary airframe contractor with Bendix selected as
lhe chief electronics contractor," Beginning in 1966 as part of the
'Pacer Liner' program, Douglas's Modification Division in Tulsa
modified the first of eight C-135As into EC-135Ns, with the ARIA's
first flight on 19th September 1966," In 1967 four C-135Bs were
delivered to Douglas for conversion, These became TRIAs and
remained designated as C-135Bs. The ARIAs were originally
assigned to the AFETR at Patrick AFB, but were all reassigned in
July 1975 to the 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB under the
'Have Car' program.
The ARIA's primary Apollo support roles were vehicle tracking
and two-way voice relay between the astronauts and the mission
director at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas.
Secondary missions included data recording and retransmis-
sion, and assistance in locating the Apollo command module
after splashdown.
The airplanes normally deployed over the Atlantic Ocean and
the Gulf of Mexico for mission launches and over the Pacific
Ocean for re-entry and splashdown. Two airplanes could provide
coverage over some 5,000 square miles (12,949km')of ocean,
eliminating the need for the numerous and expensive surface
vessels - known as Apollo Range Instrumented Ships (ARIS) -
previously used to perform the same mission. Not only were the
ARIS's more costly to operate than the ARIAs, they were extreme-
ly slow and required careful prepositioning to ensure maximum
effectiveness. Any short-notice mission changes left NASA with-
out coverage in the new area of interest. Beginning in 1968, the
USNS Watertown was the first of the five Apollo support ships
released from service." All eight ARIAs were first used together
during the Apollo 6 mission in 1968, Three EC-135Ns operated
from Kindley AB, Bermuda, covering the Atlantic Ocean, while
two EC-135Ns flew from Hickam AFB covering the Pacific Ocean,
and the remaining three airplanes operated from Patrick AFB to
coverthe Gulfof Mexico,
Atypical ARIA mission began with two to three days of equip-
ment calibration at Patrick AFB. The airplanes would then deploy
approximately one week prior to the Apollo launch, allowing the
ARIAs and their crews to be fully mission capable and rested five
days prior to launch. Airframe maintenance discrepancies were
corrected and crews adjusted their 'biological clocks' to their
new location. These staging bases included Ascension Island,
Pago Pago, Capetown, South Africa, and Buenos Aires, Argenti-
na. The ARIAs were airborne and on station at least two to three
hours prior to the Apollo's lift-off, flying precisely-timed tracks to
facilitate signal acquisition by the ARIA's on·board receivers,
93
 Pr
widet
14 tra
minul
receh
frequ
consl
Tt
pulse
corre
were
prim,
checl
radio
an ex
n
watt ,
280,(
tions
telelT
satell
anter
inaf,
F(
ALOl

, . ,~ ~ , -",,' ~"'" ,~ ",-., . ~~ "'"

61-m
notb
AI
renal
-.. "" '" ",.::u:"", .: #ii!iffi :; '", ~ 0 ~ ~ _, • ,. '" ,

cate(
man'
agen
ciesl
miss
flighl
tial L
battll
kee~
0101

Aftl
B·1
reli
de,
cru
turl
Cn
CM
61-
Rer

Average flights lasted nearly ten hours and were occasionally
longer, limited only by available fuel on board (EC-135 ARIAs
were not equipped for air refueling, Boeing EC-18B ARIAs were
equipped with IFR receptacles during 1995, beginning with 81-
0891). Following their missions, the ARIAs returned to Patrick
AFB where the recorded data were processed and analyzed.
ARIA crewmembers included two pilots, a navigator, a flight
engineer, the airborne mission controller, and a mission team of
no fewer than eight technicians, with the actual number depen-
dent upon mission duration and complexity. Total crew number
was often as high as 23 persons.
ARIA PMEE is made up of three major sUbsystems - the voice
and telemetry subsystem, the timing subsystem, and the HF
communications subsystem - all contained in a 30,0001b
(13,608kg) modular package. Specific PMEE capabilities include:
'a Realtime retransmission of high speed digital spacecraft data
... via 000 communications satellites and existing ground
stations ... allow[ing] the instantaneous analysis of critical
events as they occur on-board the spacecraft.
'b Realtime retransmission of analog or low-speed digital data
... via HF radio, also allowing continuous monitoring of
selected spacecraft parameters.
'c On-board readout of selected spacecraft parameters for voice
report ... via HF radio.
'd Post-mission transfer of one ortwo tracks of recorded data to
aground station, within line of sight of the aircraft, via VHF and
UHF transmitters. The ground station may then send the data
... through existing channels, allowing ... access toARIA data Preparing for its maiden flight from Tulsa AP
several days in advance of the actual delivery [ofthe recorded on 19th September 1966, EC-135N 60-0372, the
data]. first ARIA conversion. The successful
'e Post-mission reception and recording of an instrumented three-hour mission demonstrated the reliability
ship's data, thereby speeding up ... delivery of its data.' 43 of the airplane's handling characteristics with
The voice and telemetry subsystem incorporates an antenna the huge radome installed on the nose. NASA
group, a radio frequency (RF) group, and a record group. Heart and the Air Force quibbled over the number
of the antenna group is the 'world's largest airborne steerable and cost of C-135s to be converted under the
antenna', a 7ft (2.13m) diameter two-axis steerable antenna 'Pacer Liner' program, and the program suf-
weighing approximately 700lb (317kg).44 Located in the ARIA's fered from notable cost overruns.
10ft (3.0m) diameter nose, the antenna is used for telemetry and Douglas, Robert D Archer collection
voice collection and transmission in the P-band (225-260 MHz)
and S-band (2200-2300 MHz). The antenna can be steered either EC-135N ARIAs offered NASA and the Air Force
manually or automatically if the signal strength is adequate to a worldwide radio and telemetry relay and
maintai ntracking lock. Once the signal is acquired, it is then rout- collection capability in support of US and
ed to the telemetry receivers in the RF Group for processing. Western space programs. For many ARIA
The RF group includes UHF and VHF receivers for spacecraft crewmembers, this meant a chance to see the
telemetry and tracking data, transmitters and receivers neces- world, occasionally in style at such garden
sary for spacecraft communications during manned space flight spots as the Caribbean or the South Pacific.
missions, and test and calibration equipment. In addition, special It could also mean Ascension Island or Africa,
equipment could be installed that allowed the airplane to receive with little to do while awaiting missile launch
and process Space Ground Link Subsystem (SGLS) signals, 'a or recovery. EC-135N 60-0375 passes through
standardized telemetry format used frequently in USAF missile McClellan AFB on 12th March 1974.
operations'." Once processed, the data were then sent to the Peter B Lewis, courtesy of Rene J Francillon
communications subsystem for retransmission. The data were
also sent to the voice and telemetry subsystem record group for
data storage, monitoring, and playback.

94
 Primary components of the record group included two M-28
wideband magnetic tape recorders, each capable of recording
14tracks of data on 9,200ft (2,804m) reels. Each reel provided 15
minutes of recording time, and all timing codes, telemetry data,
receiver signal strengths, voice communications, and other low
Irequency signals were multiplexed prior to recording in order to
conserve tape.
The timing subsystem generated time codes and precision
pulse repetition rates which were recorded with the data for time
correlations in interpreting spacecraft events when the tapes
Wefe processed. This subsystem utilized arubidium clock as the
pnmary signal source, capable of ± 5 milliseconds when cross-
checked against National Bureau of Standards broadcasts on HF
radio, or better than one microsecond when crosschecked with
an external synchronization source.
The HF communications subsystem included three 1,000-
watt single-sideband transmitters and receivers, operable over
280,000 discrete frequencies in simplex or full duplex configura-
tions. If a satellite terminal was installed on the EC-135N, the
t~emetry received by the ARIA could be then be retransmitted via
sateliRe to awaiting ground station. The ARIAs had a wingtip HF
antenna on each wing and atrailing wire antenna rrwA) mounted
inafairing beneath the fuselage.
Four of the ARIAs were configured to carry the Northrop
ALOTS pod (see NKC-135A 55-3123). These included 61-0326,
61-0327, and 61-0329; the fourth ALOTS·capable airplane has
not been conclusively identified.
After termination of the Apollo program, the airplanes were
renamed Advanced Range Instrumented Aircraft and were dedi-
cated to a variety of space and atmospheric test operations,
many of which continue today. Missions now include those for
agencies such as NASA, DoD, and the defense and space agen-
cies of several foreign countries. Specific missions include cruise
missile development and operational test and evaluation (OT&E)
Ilights, flights in support of the Space Shuttle and the Shuttle Iner-'
lial Upper Stage (IUS), tests of the US Army's Pershing I and II
battlefield missile, the Poseidon and Trident SLBMs, the Peace-
keeper (the MX) and Small ICBM (the 'Midgetman'), and avariety
oIDoD space satellite operations.
After President Jimmy Carter canceled the
B·1A program, US strategic nuclear deterrence
relied in great measure upon the successful
development and production of the air-launched
cruise missile. The ARIAs, eventually with
turbofan engines, participated in this effort as
Cruise Missile Mission Control Aircraft, or
CMMCAs. Second EC-135E CMMCA was
61·0326, at Edwards AFB on 13th August 1986.
Rene J Francillon
L -;;......~--_..._ - , - . . - - - - - - - . . . . . " .
During 1979 the ARIAs became an integral part of cruise mis-
sile test operations. EC-135E 60-0374 was converted during
1984 into the first Cruise Missile Mission Control Aircraft
(CMMCA). EC-135E 61-0326 was similarly modified during 1986.
Two EC-18Ds (81-0893 and 81-0895) have also been converted
into CMMCAs."
A single CMMCA eliminates the need for seven support air-
craft and numerous ground stations normally required for each
cruise missile test, thus saving over $250,000 per mission. The
CMMCAs have a Hughes APG-63 radar installed (the same as in
the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle) to track the cruise missile
and look for other airplanes (eliminating the need for AWACS or
ground radar tracking station). Should an emergency arise, the
CMMCA can take control of and fly the cruise missile, or destroy it
if required."
Two of the ARIAs were demodified in 1980for use in other test
programs, one crashed in 1981, and one was transferred in July
1985 to Central Command (CENTCOM) for use as an airborne
command post. The PMEE from the three demodified EC-135Ns
was installed in two C-135Bs (converting them to EC-135B
ARIAs, which were later demodified) and in aC-18Aconverting it
to an EC-18B. Beginning in 1982 the remaining EC-135Ns were
converted into EC-135Es with TF33-PW-l 02 turbofans.
Early plans called for eight ARIAs, including four EC-135Es
(60-0374, 61-0326, 61-0329, and 61-0330), and beginning in
1985, four EC-18Bs (81-0891, 81-0892, 81-0894, and 81-0896).
Only seven PMEE suites are available, meaning that as one air-
plane undergoes programmed depot maintenance (PDM) or
other scheduled grounding, its PMEE suite will be installed on
another ARIA. During the late 1980s EC-135E ARIAs 61-0329 and
61-0330 were identified for conversion to 'EC-135s for SAC'
Details of this conversion are not known, and as the airplanes are
still ARIAs, the modification was surely canceled.
60·0372 Believed to be the first C-135A converted into an
EC-135N ARIA. Demodified in 1979 into aC-135N, and its PMEE
installed in C-135B 62-4128, converting it to an EC-135B ARIA.
60·0374 This EC-135N was modified into an EC-135E from
20th March through 10th April 1982. In addition to ARIA mis-
sions, it has supported cruise missile and the AGM-129A
Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) testing. It was converted into a
CMMCA 'Phase Zero' (basic configuration) aircraft in 1984.
60·0375 The first EC-135N handed over to the Air Force,
delivered on 23rd August 1967. Demodified in 1979 to a C-135N
and used for other test operations, but retained the large nose.
Its PMEE was donated to C-135B 62-4133, converting it to an
EC-135B ARIA.
61-0326 One of four ALOTS-capable ARIAs. Converted in
1982 into an EC-135E.ln addition to its ARIA role, this airplane
supports cruise missile testing. It was converted into a CMMCA
'Phase Zero' aircraft in mid-1986. This airplane has also partici-
pated in AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile
(AMRAAM) test operations.
61·0327 Configured for ALOTS. Fully demodified to C-135N
(the large nose was removed and installed on an unidentified
EC-18B) and transferred to CENTCOM in July 1985 for use as
an EC-135N airborne command post."
61·0328 This was the final EC-135N ARIA. It was delivered to
the Air Force on 27th December 1967. It crashed on 6th May
1981, during a spouse-orientation flight (see Appendix C).
61·0329 This ALOTS-configured EC-135N was converted
into an EC-135E in 1982. In addition to its ARIA role, it support-
ed cruise missile testing. tt was written off in June 1996 and sent
to Tinker AFB, OK, as a BDR aircraft (see Appendix D).
61·0330 Converted into an EC-135E in 1982. Scheduled for
demodification in late 1987 from an ARIA. This plan was aban-
doned, however, and the airplane remains in use as an ARIA.
KC·135A
Although a number of KC-135As were directly involved in initial
KC-135 flight test operations, at least eleven have been assigned
directly to specific test programs. Two KC-135As were delivered
directly to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for use in
certifying jet flight routes and verifying navigation aid reception at
high altitude. Three more were used as zero gravity platforms for
astronaut training and equipment testing, and one was tested to
destruction as part of an evaluation of the KC-135 fleet's long-
evity. Only one KC-135A remains in use in 1997 as a test-bed,
with the remainder converted to other missions or removed from
the inventory through testing or accident.
In addition to those KC-135As dedicated to the test-bed role,
standard KC-135 tankers have been assigned from time to time
to aspecific test mission. For example, KC-135A 58-0027 served
temporarily as an icing and water spray platform, perhaps
because the regular water spray tanker (NKC-135A 55-3128) was
undergoing PDM.
As part of Operation 'Starfish', a1962 atmospheric US nuclear
test, KC-135A 60-0341 served as an 'airborne transmitting plat-
form for LF [low frequency] propagation tests and as an airborne
receiving platform for HF and UHF tests...' .. Boeing installed a
special 'high power' LF transmitter and trailing wire antenna
(TWA) in 60-0341, and provided technicians to operate them dur-
ing the nuclear detonation.'" From 1993 four surplus KC-135As
(56-3616, 56-3617, 56-3632, and 56-3656) were delivered to
NATC Patuxent River, Maryland, for destructive testing. The pur-
pose of these tests is to evaluate methods of improving civilian
airliner survivability from on-board explosions, especially those
from terrorist bombs located in the baggage compartments (see
Appendix D)."
55·3118 It is not surprising to find that the first KC-135A to fly
served in some form of test capacity. The Air Force accepted the
City of Renton on 24th January 1957, and flew it to Edwards AFB
for KC-135A Phase II operational acceptance testing. It returned
to Boeing the following year for use as a company test-bed and
training aircraft.
In July 1960, 55-3118 was assigned to OCAMA at Tinker AFB,
and in November 1960 was reassigned to FTD at Wright-
Patterson AFB. Its test roles at both of these locations have not
been adequately documented. The airplane was transferred to
TAC on 21st January 1961, for modification under the 'Oxeye
Daisy' program into an EC-135K. It was withdrawn from use on
15th October 1996, for display at McConnell AFB, KS (see
Appendix D).
95

55·3124 Released from Air Force Phase IV flight testing on
12th February 1958, this KC-135A was loaned from 6th March
through May 1958 to the NACA High Speed Flight Station at the
Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC). This KC-135A replaced
KC-135A 55-3125, damaged in a mid-air collision with a
Lockheed NT-33A. While at DFRC 55-3124 flew 14 test flights as
part of heavy jet approach and landing research and high-alli-
tude high-speed cruise research. These tests, requested by the
NACA Subcommittee on Flight Safety on behalf of the Civil
Aeronautics Administration (CM), helped define and establish
safe jet airliner operating procedures to be used with the immi-
nent delivery of the 707 and the DC-B. 52
55·3125 NACA test pilot Stan Buchart first flew 55-3125 on
30th August 1957, on a handling and evaluation flight while it
was participating in Phase VI developmental testing. Buchart
again flew the airplane in September 1957, en route to Seattle.
Following completion of Phase VI testing on 8th November
1957, 55-3125 was loaned to NACA for research flight tests of
heavy jet transports and high speed flight research. During its
first NACA research flight on 12th November 1957, 55-3125 col-
lided in mid-air with Lockheed NT-33A 53-5540A. The NT-33A
was lost, killing its USAFTPS pilot Daniel J Veronica. Buchart
was able to land the KC-135 safely on Rogers Dry Lake. As a
result of damage incurred, 55-3125 was withdrawn from NACA
flight testing and replaced by KC-135A 55-3124. 53
55·3126 This KC-135A participated (along with KC-135A 55-
3125) in KC-135A Phase VI Functional Development Testing,
and was assigned to FTD at Wright-Patterson AFB. It was then
transferred to Headquarters Air Force at Andrews AFB for use as
a VIP transport and may have been converted into the first
'Night Watch' airborne command post.
In the mid 1960s, the airplane was assigned to the Air Force's
Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, where it
earned the nickname 'Speckled Trout' in honor of Faye Trout,
the civilian program monitor at the laboratory 'who had a lot of
freckles'." The 'Speckled Trout' KC-135A served as aflying test-
bed for advanced technology automatic landing systems and
terminal area navigation projects. It also evaluated other high-
technology equipment in a variety of operational environments.
One unique advantage derived from the 'Speckled Trout' was
the ability of avionics developers and manufacturers to test new
equipment in an operational venue, much as they did onboard
scheduled airliners following the Second World War. Most of the
test equipment was provided without charge by the individual
manufacturers, with much of the technology evaluated ending
up in newer generation aircraft. The 'Speckled Trout' had a sec-
ondary mission to transport high-ranking USAF personnel such
as the Chief of Staff and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One program evaluated on 55-3126 was a fully automated
landing system in which the airplane could be landed without
the pilot removing his hands from the control column, even to
adjust the throttles. Ayoke-mounted button controlled the actu-
al throttle setting. During a missed approach, following actua-
96
l
tion of the desired yoke-mounted button, the throttles would During the late 1950s and early 1960s, KC·135A ThE
move to full power for go-around and the airplane would climb 55-3136 served in a variety of test-bed roles, witl
to and level off at the preselected altitude." ranging from strictly 'civilian' science projects Ion
In addition to allowing the pilot more precise control of the air- as part of the International Geophysical Year, to (59
plane, it allowed him to use both hands to fly the aircraft in diffi- classified 'military' research during US USE
cult conditions suqh as extreme crosswind landings. The auto- atmospheric nuclear tests. Note the unusual
matic landing system enhanced the airplane's ability to land in antennae along the fuselage spine, as well as
strong crosswinds without touching down in a crab. The Boeing the residue from the numerous optical windows
design crosswind limit for the KC-135 is 40 knots (74km/h), but installed for these special tests, in this 1965
SAC placed a 25 knot (46.3km) limit on crosswind operations. photograph. Joe Bruch collection
The automatic system was safely demonstrated in 37 knot 5
(68.5km/h) direct crosswinds, In a 30 knot (55,5km/h) direct 'Pal
crosswind, the system was able to land the airplane routinely It WI
within 9ft (2.74m) of the runway centerline." The system also altib
provided a limited ability to react to wind shear. ward fuselage section moved to BMAC as part of a cockpi FN
This new rotate and go-around system was also used for fully mock-up in support of fleet programs, Both wingtips were used anti
automated 'hands off' take-offs. The pilot preselected the in the KC-135 winglet program on NKC-135A 55-3129, theverlf T
desired rotation speed and, upon reaching this speed, the cal stabilizer is reportedly in use as a training mock-up b crel
autopilot would automatically introduce the required pitch and French Armee de l'Air maintenance personnel, and BMAC used for
climbout profile, Considering the critical nature of this phase of the starboard wing as a mock-up for CFM-56 re-engining. insl
flight, this system could prevent premature and/or excessive 55-3136 During the 1957-1958 International Geophysical edl~
rotation, asituation from which the airplane might not be able to Year (IGy), this airplane was configured with 25 small windows a '(
climb or accelerate and which has resulted in several major on the forward starboard fuselage, nearly a dozen more els~ OU(
accidents. 57 where along the fuselage, and two large a.ntennae along the top pia
Other projects tested on the 'Speckled Trout' include of the fuselage. The airplane participated in experiments to 'NC
autothrottles, an advanced autopilot, experimental inertial and determine the effects of the Aurora Borealis on radio communi- 19;
doppler navigational systems, 'glass' cockpit displays, and new cations, The airplane was loaned to the AFCRL but retained the !
radars. Despite their successes few of these projects have markings of the 93rd BW at Castle AFB.'" . fun
found their way into use either in the KC-135 fleet or other mili- The airplane was involved with the 'Blue Straw' and 'Seel ing
tary airplanes. Although regularly adopted for civil use, the huge Straw' nuclear weapons test programs (as was possibly KC inv
expense necessary to retrofit large military fleets has prohibited 135A 55-3144)." During the 1962 'Starfish' nuclear tests, 55- ani
procurement of these new systems except in small numbers for 3136 (callsign 'Kibosh 02') supported Los Alamos Scientific vid
select aircraft, Laboratory 'electromagnetic and photographic measuremen~ ret
On 31st July 1975, 55-3126 flew for the last time, landing at data collection'." It was required to be 'above all clouds in ordei res
MASDC with atotal of 9,057,0 flying hours, It was assigned the to observe [the nuclear weapon re-entry] vehicle at time of det· ai~
storage number CAOO4, and stripped of parts for use in its onation'." ap
replacement, C-135C 61-2669, and was officially written off on This airplane was later assigned to the 34th AREFS, 8101h 341
5th January 1978 (see Appendix D). SAD at Offutt AFB on 18th April 1965, and transferred to OCAIM fer
It was given a temporary reprieve when considered for one on 1st July 1965, Following modification work, the airplane ms 14
final project. The Department of Energy (DoE) evaluated the air- assigned to Wright-Patterson AFB on 23rd September 1965,QI Es
plane on 4th May 1979, for use as an expendable remotely-pilot- 12th May 1966, it returned to SAC and was assigned to the 93n! wt
ed test platform. In order to test the integrity of radioactive mate- BW at Castle AFB. Relegated to AMARC on 28th Apri 11993 (see an
rial shipping casks carried by air, the airplane would be outfitted Appendix D). an
wtth remote controls, loaded with several casks containing sim- 55-3144 Little is known of this airplane and its test role
ulated spent nuclear fuels, and then crashed into a mountain- Although originally assigned to the 93rd BW at Castle AFB, 55- lui
side, Unfortunately, the airplane could not be configured for the 3144 was reassigned to ASD at Wright-Patlerson AFB. The air· tio
flight (following its cannibalization for 61-2669) so the plan was plane was frequently loaned to the AFCRL at Hanscom AFS as
dropped and the airplane further dismantled." This nuclear a research platform supporting nuclear weapons tests. The air· fin
waste test was later suggested as part of the 1981 NASNFM plane has also been associated with a program known as 'Blue is
controlled impact demonstration (CID) test crash using a Straw' (as was KC-135A 55-3136), although details of 55-3144'5 ar
Boeing 720, although this add-on proposal did not come to duties have not been made available. It crashed on 8th Augu~ m
fruition." 1962, after returning from Hickam AFB following a portion of the
The old 'Speckled Trout' was instead scrapped, and its for- 'Dominic' series of nuclear tests (see Appendix C)," vii
 The 'Pacer Clerk' program provided the FAA
with a high speed, high altitude jet transport for
long distance route verification. KC-135A N98
to (59-1518) visiting Paris, 1963. Note the hyphen
used in the civil registration. Author's collection
vs
59-1481 Served as a test platform for the FAA as part of the
'Pacer Clerk' program along with sister ship KC-135A 59-1518.
It was based at Hickam AFB in 1966to certify Pacijic Ocean high
altitude jet routes and to check navigational aids. While with the
<pit FAA, 59-1481 was registered N98. It had a LORAN 'towel rack'
,ed antennae on the lower fuselage ahead of the main gear wells.
!rti- The airplane earned a 'nasty' reputation for maintenance dis-
for crepancies, but the FAA was loathe to remove it from operation
,ed for POM or other lengthy inspections. Finally, an Air Force
inspector grounded the airplane for safety violations. It report-
ical edly sat at Hickam AFB for a year or more before being granted
lWS a'one-time only' flight to Tinker AFB for a complete and thor-
se- ough overhaul. No date is known for termination of this air-
top plane's duties with the FAA. SAC records list the airplane as
to 'NOA' - a non-operational aircraft from June 1972 through
mi- 1973."
the AFSC declared in April 1972 that it would no longer continue
funding and operational support of NASA's zero-g C-135 train-
3ek ing program at Wright-Patterson AFB. The first three airplanes
<C- involved in these duties (NKC-135A 55-3129, C-135A 60-0378,
55- and KC-135A 62-3536) had passed or were nearing their indi-
Iific vidual limits of 14,000 weightless parabolas and had since been
nts returned or scheduled to return to SAC, AFSC, and TAC,
der respectively. Throughout their tenure as zero-g trainers, these
let- airplanes flew more than 49,000 parabolic arcs, each including
approximately 30 seconds of weightlessness for a total of some
oth 346 hours of zero-g over 7,600 flights." AFSC urged the trans-
MA fer of the program to NASA by 1974 and identified KC-135A 59-
las 1481 as a replacement weightlessness trainer for NASA.
On Estimated cost for converting this airplane was $1.3 million,
3rd which included reskinning of the lower wing, major inspections,
)ee and 'zero-timing' the airframe and engines, but did not include
an additional $50,000 for the necessary zero-g modifications."
lie. Although NASA wanted the airplane and was willing to accept
55- full responsibility for the zero-g program, it had major reserva-
l.ir- tions about accepting the AFSC proposal.
as 'Funds for reconditioning the airframe will be very difficult to
l.ir- find. There is no NASA requirement for a zero-time airframe... It
lue is recommended that the Air Force be requested to search for
4's anofher C-135 model that requires less reconditioning, using
Jst more relaxed total accumulated flying hours criteria.' "
:he In view of 59-1481 's maintenance record while it was in ser-
vice with the FAA, NASA's concern was not surprising.
Unable to find a substitute, NASA finally acquiesced and
accepted 59-1481 given Boeing's assurance that the airplane
could safely attain the 14,000 zero-g parabolas (approximately
four to five years of operations) deemed necessary to justify the
expense of its update and modification." It completed PDM at
OCAMA in March 1973. Following the lower wing reskin modifi-
cation and the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) by
BMAC, 59-1481 was delivered in August 1973 as N930NA to
NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) at Ellington AFB, Texas,
with a total of 12,453 flight hours.
The airplane was extensively modified to allow for this testing,
as, for example, an unmodified KC-135 would lose all electrical
power under zero-g conditions due to the 'tripping off' of the
engine-driven electrical generators. To prevent this an 'ali-atti-
tude' constant speed drive (CSD) oil tank was added to each
engine-driven electrical generator. Both 110V AC and 28V DC
power systems were hooked up in the'cargo compartment
which was completely padded and fitted with flood lights. The
air refueling boom was removed and the airplane's hydraulic
system pumps were modified to prevent cavitation during low-g
maneuvers. Cockpit changes included the addition of vertical
accelerometer readouts on the pilot's instrument panel, and the
pilot's control yoke was replaced with an Convair F-102 Delta
Dagger control stick for more precise pitch control during zero-
g maneuvering. 70
The weightless maneuver is afairly simple one. From an entry
altitude of 25,0000 (7,620m), the airplane enters a shallow dive
to allow its airspeed to build to approximately 350 KIAS. It then
begins a 2g-c1imb to a 45' angle, at which time the pilot pulls
the throttles to idle and unloads the airplane, topping out at
approximately 37,OOOfl (11,277m), allowing for over 20-30 sec-
onds of weightlessness across the top of the arc. Recovery is at
25,OOOft, and the airplane is ready for another parabola. This
'track' requires an area nine miles long and two miles high (14.4
and 3.2km). A typical 2.5-hour mission includes approximately
42 arcs, although one crew is reported to have flown 134
parabolas in a single sortie!" For a summary of KC-135 weight-
less operations, see Table 12.
While under weightless conditions, astronauts perform a vari-
ety of tasks ranging from donning space suits to emergency
egress through spacecraft hatches. The lunar rover was tested
aboard the weightlessness trainer, as were scooters and other
extravehicular activity (EVA) equipment. Just as the airplane can
simulate totally weightless conditions, the pilot can vary the tra-
jectory of the parabolic arc to simulate other gravity conditions,
duplicating the gravities of the moon, Mars, and spacecraft
under avariety of flight conditions. In addition to weightlessness
training, N930NA supports low-g projects such as combustion
in microgravity, flame-shape evolution, and the development of
a zero-g shower, all projects crucial to the design of any future
US space station. 72 Perhaps one of the most unusual weightless
missions undertaken by N930NA was the filming of the movie
Apollo 13. An Apollo command module interior was installed in
the 'Vomit Comet', and the appropriate scenes were filmed in
actual weightlessness. The film studio paid for the flights."
Budget cuts in 1977 and 1978 threatened continued zero-g
operations. A lack of high-priority program commitments for the
airplane prompted NASA's Associate Administrator for
Operations to write 'I will take the necessary disposal action, as
I cannot justify maintaining an institutional capability for unfore-
seeable programmatic requirements'.74 A meeting was held in
October 1977 to determine the fate of the zero-g trainer, at
which time sufficient justification and funding were ensured to
continue NASA's use of N930NA.
Until the early 1980s N930NA was used almost exclusively for
other-than-one-g indoctrination and training and for space flight
hardware testing. By 1987 the airplane had been granted an
indefinite safe operational lije provided all routine inspections
were complied with, and had accumulated some 16,000 flight
hours and 30,000 weightless parabolas, far more than originally
anticipated by NASA. The airplane's mission had also gradually
changed, and by 1987 only 200 hours (out of the 300-plus year-
ly average) were dedicated to weightlessness training.
Since the beginning of Space Shuttle operations in 1981,
N930NA flew 100-150 hours annually in Shuttle support pro-
grams. These included heavy aircraft training (HAT) to familiar-
ize shuttle pilots with the peculiarities of heavy aircraft handling,
similar to those of the Shuttle itself. The airplane also served as
a 'pathfinder' for the Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA),
supporting both its ground and flight operations. In this role,
N930NA flew some 20-30 minutes ahead of the 747 SCA, carry-
ing necessary ground crew and support equipment for use ij
and when the SCA should divert due to bad en route or desti-
nation weather (as it often does)." Finally, N930NA flight
checked the Shuttle Tracking Data Net (STDN).
Despite the vote of confidence on an indefinite life extension
for N930NA, NASA sought to replace N930NA with a 'younger'
airframe. The retirement of a number of KC-135As to AMARC in
the early 1990s made this an economical decision. KC-135A 63-
7998 was withdrawn from AMARC on 30th June 1994, and
began conversion into the fifth and most recent Weightless
Wonder. By October 1995, N930NA was withdrawn from zero-g
testing and demodified, and is likely destined for AMARC.
Table 11 - NASA Zero-g Flight Summary Courtesy Don Logan
Serial Total Total
MDS Number Dale Hours Parabolas
KC-135A 55-3129 Jan 60-Jun 68 2,012 12,347
KC-135A 62-3536 Jan 67-May 70 1,069 9,846
C-135A 60-0378 Jul 69-May 73 1,120 11,795
KC-135A 59-1481 Aug 73-Dec 95 5,296 57,667
97

NI\S/\ -
930
59·1518 This KC-135A was initially delivered to the FAA at
Oklahoma City on 20th October 1960, under the 'Pacer Clerk'
program as aflight-check aircraft. It was registered N96 and dur-
ing a portion of its tenure with the FAA bore the nickname 01'
Smoky, ostensibly due to the smoke produced by its water-
injection engines. The airplane had at least three electronics
consoles for route data collection and verification, and conduct-
ed flight operations much like its sister ship KC-135A 59-1481.
The airplane was returned to the Air Force in 1975 and stored at
Tinker AFB until 1979. In March 1979 the Air Force directed that
the airplane be converted into an EC-135K to replace EC-135K
62-3536 lost during 1977.
62·3535 As early as 1968 the Air Force and Boeing recog-
nized that the projected service life requirements for some KC-
135s exceeded the design lifetime. This estimate was based on
early fatigue testing and expected structural failure of key air-
frame components:
'The presence of 7178 aluminum alloy in the primary wing
structure of the -135 airplanes (with its low fracture toughness
and relatively high operating stress levels) makes it imperative
that service life estimates be continuously updated using the lat-
est data on airplane usage, load history and fleet fatigue experi-
ence, plus verification by additional testing as necessary. Based
on the foregoing considerations ... OCAMA [will embark] upon
a "Fatigue Ufe Extension Program". This program [will consist]
of both analysis and testing with a major part being the cyclic
testing of a complete -135 airframe.' "
The technical proposal for the cyclic test was submitted on
13th March 1969, and program authorization was officially
received on 17th February 1970. KC-135A 62-3535 was select-
ed as the cyclic test article, arriving at BMAC on 6th April 1970,
with 2,975 flight hours. The test was conducted in the old B-47
Experimental Flight Hangar at the Boeing-operated facility (Air
Force Plant 13) at Wichita.
The cyclic test applied loads to the airplane that would simu-
late actual flight conditions experienced by fleet tankers. Each
spectrum of 40 load cycles represented one 5.1-hour flight, with
the first portion of each test simulating the heavyweight condi-
tion of the tanker prior to air refueling and the second half of
each test representative of the low gross weight cruise and land-
ing portion of flight. The test article was 'free floating' with no
rigid ties to the floor, instead being suspended at points on each
wing and along the fuselage. Actual test procedures'and equip-
ment were identical to those used in 1957 and 1962 in similar
tests on a KC-135 and 707, respectively, allowing a direct com-
parison and validation of test data.
Results confirmed the anticipated design limits olthe KC-135,
particularly those associated with the wing structure, consid-
ered to be the most critical. The brittle nature of the aluminum
alloy used in the lower wing skin made it especially vulnerable
to cracking, which not only affected the strength of the wing but
allowed fuel leaks from the 'wet' wing fuel tank arrangement. As
a result, Boeing and the Air Force began what would become
the lower wing reskin program and ASIP, extending the service
life of the KC-135 fleet well into the next century (see also
Appendix C).
62·3536 This KC-135A was converted into a zero-g trainer at
OCAMA and delivered in March 1968 to AFSC at Wright-
Patterson AFB. Following the completion in May 1970 of some
14,000 weightless parabolas, it was converted into an EC-135K.
It crashed on 14th September 1977 (see Appendix C).
63·7998 This KC-135A was withdrawn from AMARC on 30th
98
June 1995, as the replacement for NASA's weightless trainer. It
entered service as N931NA during the summer of 1995 after
undergoing the extensive modifications necessary for the O-g
mission. These included removal of the APU, the upper deck
fuel tank, the air refueling boom and associated plumbing, and
extensive electrical modifications. n Unlike N930NA, the new air-
plane has a standard control yoke at both the pilot's and copi-
lot's positions, rather than a fighter control stick.
The future of NASA's authority over the weightlessness pro-
gram in general and N931 NA in particular is somewhat in doubt.
As a cost-cutting measure, one congressman has proposed
legislation that would privatize the operations of the KC-135. 18
G/NC·135A
As part of the US verification of and compliance with the 5th
August 1963, Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Test in the
Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water (commonly
referred to as the 'Nuclear Test Ban Treaty'), the USAF and the
AEC established a fleet of three 'quick-response' airborne diag-
nostic airplanes. These were developed under the 'Rivet Digger'
program as part of 'Big Safari'." They were maintained 'on con-
stant alert'. ready to deploy worldwide to analyze any real or
potential atmospheric nuclear blast as part olthe NNTRP.'"
Three MATS C-135As were transferred to AFSC in 1964 for
conversion by General Dynamics into NC-135As, with an opera-
tional readiness date of June 1964. Each airplane was dedicated
to one of the AEC's three main laboratories: the Lawrence liver-
more National Lab (LLNL), the Sandia National Lab (SNL), and
the Los Alamos National Lab (LANL). The airplanes were part of
Joint Task Force 8 (JTF-8) and normally quartered at 'Sandia
Base' at Kirtland AFB. Specific tasks included the measurement
of any atomic fireball, optical and spectral data collection, and
radiation analysis.
Further modifications to the three airplanes were undertaken
during 1965 at acost of some $2.2 million, and were scheduled to
be completed in time for participation in Operation 'Round-up'
during late 1965. These modifications addressed existing inade-
quacies in the NC-135As such as an unreliable electrical system,
inadequate environmental control and cooling, weaknesses in
the positional display system, addition of special telemetry equip-
ment, and the redesign and modification of the space probe reel
(which deployed atrailing package) after two probes were lost in
flight."
Other significant modifications were under consideration as
well. Short runways, the NC-135's heavy operational weight, and
the need for pure water for injected take-offs hampered the diag-
nostic airplanes' operational flexibility. The Fan Jet Subcommit-
tee of AEC's Aircraft Use Committee recommended against
replacing the NC-135's turbojets with turbofans despite the obvi-
ous benefits, arguing 'that fan-jet engines did not significantly
improve the performance of the aircraft insofar as safety or radius
of action were concerned in relation to the high cost of conver-
sion'." The installation of a drag chute to decrease landing
ground roll was considered in lieu olthrust reversers." Finally, in·
flight refueling was discussed. Although aware of the Air Force's
'excellent safety record during recent years in refueling aircraft in
flight', the AEC was not convinced that air refueling was aviable
choice because of what it perceived to be 'potential hazards to
the radomes and degradation of safety during the refueling oper-
ation'." Photographs of NC-135A 60-0369 reveal an IFR recepta-
cle installed, so this modification must have been adopted,
although when remains unconfirmed.
plar
ultr,
a pi
'atel'
pon
mal
sch
pial
the
miG
SNI
l
inje
frm
pla~
Ala
ure
fail!
18
sue
Popularly known as 'Vomit Comets', Air Force tOI
and NASA KC·135 zero gravity trainers have rea
long offered the first taste of weightlessness to rea
American astronauts. In addition, these AF.
'Weightless Wonders' provide scientists and AF
engineers with a chance to test their aftl
experiments and designs under weightless or
microgravity conditions, ensuring that they will 6J
work 'as advertised' in space. NASA's KC·135As thi!
are home·based at Ellington ANGB, where 10
NASA930 (59-1481) was photographed in pn
A~gust 1981. Don Spering, author's collection fw
pi,
ne
The NC-135As were evaluated in an operational venue from
15th November through 17th December 1965, as part of Opera· Ail
tion 'Round-up' in the Pacific test area. During the first event in n<
this series, nicknamed 'Cutlass', the NC-135As gathered sample ea
data to determine the best orbit patterns from which to gather ec
optimum EMP signatures. 'Cutlass' was judged to be highly suc· lal
cessful." tf<
The second event in the series, nicknamed 'Sombrero', hE
sought to determine the ability of the NC-135As to collect optical io
and EMP data at the sporting altitude of only 500ft (152m) some tic
12 miles (19.3km) from the intended detonation point at Kingman
Reef. The test was successfully completed on 2nd December. All
of the NC-135As were within 2,000ft (609m) of their planned
range, and collected data within the prescribed stringent tracking
limits."
Weather delayed the third event in the series, known as 'Cata·
pult', which was superseded by the final event, 'Broadsword'. te
This test was far more complicated than the previous two, and the 3
first attempt on 9th December failed due to an equipment mal· IT
function. 'Broadsword' was finally completed on 11th December. U
One NC-135A flew perpendicular to the others to collect teleme V
try data from acompanion device dropped from the B-52 9.9 sec·
onds prior to the primary test device. Overall NC-135A systems [
performance was mixed: telemetry data were successfully \)
recorded on all three NC-135As, fireball yield measurements
were disappointing as cameras in only one olthe three NC-t35As
functioned properly, and the bhangmeter tests failed com-
pletely."
'Catapult' eventually took place on 16th December, further
validating planned NC-135A orbits and collection procedures.
Overall, Operation Round-up' identified weaknesses in the abili~
of the NC-135As to provide accurate detonation diagnostic capa·
bility. Corrective measures were undertaken and the NC-135As
operated successfully in future nuclear tests.
NC-135As 60-0369 and 60-0370 each lacked starboard mark·
ings (such as stenciling and national insignia, although the white
fuselage top remained) and flew clockwise around the atom~
blast site. This absence of markings prevented flash burns to the
airplane's skin due to possible ignition of these markings as a
result of the thermal flash from the detonation. NC-135A 60-0371
was devoid of markings on the port side and flew counterclock·
wise around the blast site.
All three had numerous windows throughout the fuselage and
a four by four array of 16 large optically-ground windows in the
forward fuselage on the appropriate side in the vicinity of the
cargo door. Each airplane also had a large dorsal fairing above
the forward fuselage which housed a variety of electromagnetic
sensors. Size and length of this fairing varied throughout the air·
 planes' lifetimes. Sensor spectra on the aircraft included infrared,
ultra·violet, and optical. Three 'rails' ran circumferentially around
aportion of the forward fuselage on the starboard side immedi·
atelyaft of the cockpit. It is not known if these rails were on the
port side of 60·0371. Their function is unknown, although they
may have been antennae.
Although best remembered for their unique 'one·sided' paint
schemes and nuclear readiness missions, the 'Rivet Digger' air·
planes also supported considerable scientific research efforts in
the form of solar eclipse studies, comet photography, and cos·
mic ray studies."
One such program was 'Pica Poste', ajoint NASA, LANL, and
SNL project in 1972 which examined 'high-altitude ionospheric
injections and rocketborne experiments'. Rockets were launched
hom Barking Sands, Hawaii, and Poker Flats, Alaska, with the air·
planes deployed to Christchurch, New Zealand, Eielson AFB,
Alaska, American Samoa, and Hawaii. Despite three mission fail·
ures due to rocket malfunctions (and a fourth due to an engine
tailure on 60·0370), the program collected sufficient data over
184 flying hours and 42 sorties to term the program an overall
success."
All three airplanes were reassigned in 1969 from the AFSWC
to ASO, but remained based at Kirtland AFB. In 1973 they were
reassigned to the 4900th TG at Kirtland AFB, and in 1975 were
reassigned to the 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB as part of
AFSC's 'Have Car' consolidation, but still operated from Kirtland
AFB. Today one NC-135A is stored at AMARC, one was scrapped
after serving as a ground trainer, and one scrapped at AMARC.
60·0369 Along with its AEC nuclear readiness test duties,
6O.Q369 supported several other test programs. In early 1972
,s this NC·135A participated in a stability control test, sporting a
IO·15ft (3.0-4.5m) aerodynamic boom (with disc-shaped cap)
protruding perpendicularly from the center of the right forward
fuselage immediately aft of the co-pilot's NO.3 window. The air-
plane retained the dorsal fairing and absence of markings, but
no other information about this test is known.
m From 3-15th December 1972, 60-0369 participated in 'Fall
a- Airglow', a highly technical 'investigation of the features of
in northern and southern intertropical areas, relatively intense
,Ie east·west airglow bands north and south of the geomagnetic
er equator [and to] learn more about the tropical [ionospheric] F-
c- ~yer variations in composition by monitoring the NJO, concen-
rration ratio to determine diurnal, longitudinal, and northern
)', hemisphere variations.' ., The airplane was also fitted with an
:al ~nosonde to map electron densities in the F-region for correla-
1e tion with the airglow features.
In On 9th June 1976, 60-0369 (minus its dorsal fairing) was rel-
~II egated to the Chanute Technical Training Center (CnC) at
Jd Chanute AFB, Illinois, and redesignated a GNC-135A ground
19 m~ntenance trainer. It was cut in half after October 1991 and
scrapped (see Appendix D).
a- 60·0370 On 10th July 1972, 60-0370 was used to observe a
J'. total solar eclipse for a period of 224 seconds at an altitude of
1e 39,400ft (12,009m) northwest of Hudson Bay, Canada. This
11- marked the first use of an NC-135A in solar research, and the
~r . unique sensors onboard the airplane enabled collection of pre-
e- ~ously unattainable data.
c- The airplane conducted further research in 1973 for the AEC,
1S 000, and Department of Transportation (DoT) in the combined
lIy Vela/ClAP project, which studied:
ts '". visual auroral substorms by correlating data obtained by
\s aC-135 flying just under the tropopause with data taken from a
n- 'Vela' satellite in the magnetotail [while] ClAP (Climatic Impact
Assessment Program) aimed at establishing a baseline of the
er earth's natural atmospheric composition from the North Pole to
s. the Equator, information considered useful in the 8-1 program.'"
ty Additional flights from 8-17th April 1973 validated the air-
a- ~ane's sensors against a known atmospheric pollution source,
\s k:elandic volcanic eruptions.
FOllowing its use as a nuclear weapons test-bed, 60-0370
k- was relegated to MASDC on 30th June 1976, and given the
te storage number CA005. It was officially written off on 6th
ic September 1978. By 1988 the vertical stabilizer, engine pods,
Ie and other extremities had been removed, the airplane was sit-
a
'1
k- The pilot's instrument panel in zero-g trainer
KC-135A 62-3536. In addition to the old ADI,
Id HSI, and other pre FD-109instruments, the twin
Ie accelerometers above the ADI are noteworthy.
Ie These were the primary instruments used in
'e establishing and maintaining the parabolic arc
ic necessary to achieve the desired gravity
r- condition. Jim Moseley collection
ting on jacks, and in an otherwise extremely poor state (see
Appendix D).
60-0371 Along with its nuclear readiness test responsibili-
ties, this airplane supported 1he Gimballed Electrostatic Aircraft
[Navigation] System (GEANS) for AFAL from 1971 through
1973. This program, undertaken in conjunction with a
McDonnell Douglas NRF-4C Phantom, examined pure inertial
and doppler inertial navigation systems and evaluated their
potential for use in military cargo and fighter aircraft." In 1973,
60-0371 flew test missions for the Integrated NAV/SAT Inertial
(INI) Navigation System consisting 'of a time-shared navigation
satellite receiver integrated with an inertial platform'."
As part of another solar eclipse flight known as SEX VI, 60-
0371 was able to track a total eclipse on 30th June 1973, over
North Africa for a remarkably long 12 minutes. The acronym
SEX is said to derive from Solar EXpedition, but has also been
said to derive from Solar Eclipse eXpedition.
From 1977, when it was demodified as a nuclear weapons
test-bed, until 1984, 60-0371 served as an airborne data record-
ing and transmission platform and as a diagnostics airplane for
the ALL NKC-135A 55-3123 located at Kirtland AFB.94 By this
time the dorsal fairing was removed and a variety of theodolite
markings and test patterns were painted on the starboard for-
ward fuselage. When not supporting the ALL, 60-0371 'chased'
solar eclipses (as it did in March 1979), photographed comets,
and studied cosmic rays. The ALL was placed in flyable storage
in 1984 and 60-0371 was relocated to Wright-Patterson AFB for
use as a flight proficiency trainer and other test support.
From 1985 until 1986, along with C-135E 60-0372, it support-
ed project 'Have LACE', an extension of the earlier LASERCOM
program." Concurrent with the 'Have LACE' tests, 60-0371 par-
ticipated in the Atmospheric Effects program, which measured
the thermal wake behind a large aircraft and the scintillation of a
laser beam through that wake. Other projects previously
assigned to 60-0371 have included the Hi Power Technology
Risk Reduction test, which evaluated electronic components for
the Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory (AFWAL), and the
Very High Power Jamming Program.
In 1986 General Dynamics modified the airplane to support
research for the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
(SOlO). This research provided, in part, 'high resolution optical
documentation of reentry vehicles, rocket plumes and specrtic
SOl test events at ranges of 100-500km [62-310 miles) ...pro-
viding significant information to SOlO's data base on re-entry
vehicles and missile plume signatures for sensor system devel-
opment'"
NC-135A 60-0371 operates in conjunction with a Gates
Learjet HALO (High Altitude Learjet Observatory) operated by
Aeromet, Inc, contracted to the Army Strategic Defense
Command (ASDC), The NC-135A was assigned to and operat-
ed by crews from the 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB but
was based at Kirtland AFB.
In 1987 ESI enhanced the sensor equipment in 60-0371 for
Project 'Argus'. Onboard equipment included 'five visible-band
cameras, one infrared spectrometer and two imaging infrared
cameras'. Other sensors on modular pallets which could be
installed as required were 'low-power laser designators, star
trackers and infrared imaging radiometers' and the US Navy
'Cast Glance' photodocumentation system."
The ability of the 'Argus l' platform to be on-station, on-time
with no deviation in desired track or bank angle was critical to
the effective use of this equipment. A sophisticated computer
program combined the preplanned target data with existing
conditions in the orbit and along the data track to provide accu-
rate timing and positioning information to the flight crew. Data
flights were typically from '36,000 to 41 ,000ft [1 O.972-12,496mI
- where the NC-135's performance and maneuvering margins
[were] severely limited'." It bears comparing the NC-135A
'Argus' with the RC-135X 'Cobra Eye', both of which may have
had similar mission goals.
Additional 'Argus' missions included several to the UK (such
as 'Royal Shield') and IR data on British aircraft. During 1990 the
'Argus' supported both NASA and SOl programs. In 1991 the
airplane supported Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) missions to
verify arms limitation and reduction treaties. In one test, the
'Argus' pointed its sensors at actual and simulated Soviet equip-
ment to determine if US 'national technical means' could verify
treaty compliance by visual and infrared means. The 'Argus'
flew its last operational mission in September 1991 in support of
one such DNA mission"
The airplane was retired to Kirtland AFB on 12th August 1994,
although its activities between September 1991 and its retire-
ment have not been confirmed. According to some sources, the
airplane was used as a proficiency trainer for flight crews at the
4950th TW. Other sources suggest that the airplane was used
as atrainer for firefighters and rescue personnel at Kirtland AFB.
Yet other sources say it was placed on static display in the small
Rescue Museum at Kirtland AFB. Regardless, 60-0371 is now
on display at Kirtland AFB (see Appendix D).
G/J/NKC·135A/E
Sixteen KC-135s were dedicated to full-time test roles. At least ten
of these were designated JKC-135As; by 1969 all had been
redesignated as NKC-135As. These airplanes have been part of a
wide spectrum of missions ranging from highly-publicized
weightlessness training flights for astronauts to highly classified
'dark' or 'black' programs. Among the many test programs asso-
ciated with the J/NKC-135A/Es are ECM and related fields, the
Airborne Laser Laboratory, airframe icing research, satellite com-
munications, ionospheric research, missile vulnerability, ad-
vanced air refueling equipment and techniques, and new
reconnaissance systems. Two NKC-135As have been modified
into electronic warfare evaluation aircraft maintained and operat-
ed under contract/or the US Navy.
99

55·3119 Prior to delivery to the Air Force, Boeing used 55-
3119 for static air load survey tests as part of the KC-135
weapon system test and development program. On 1st July
1958, it was delivered to AMC at Wright-Patterson AFB and des-
ignated a JKC-135A It was reassigned to the RADC at Griffiss
AFB prior to mid-1959, where it was affiliated wilh ECM testing.
The airplane was redesignated a NKC-135A on 14th May 1962.'00
For an unknown project, a forward-pointing cone-shaped
cylinder was attached beneath the forward fuselage and asmall
square fairing was installed beneath the fuselage aft of the main
gear well. The airplane had no air refueling boom.
As of 9th December 1969, the airplane was involved with
Project FD-109/RGA, serving as the test-bed for the FD-109
flight director system. Program modifications were undertaken
at Wright-Patterson AFB and testing completed at the RADC.
The airplane was transferred back to Wright-Patterson AFB on
29th August 1975, as part of 'Have Car', where it participated in
Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) and E-3
AWACS development.''' The airplane had its air refueling boom
removed by this time.
On 15th September 1983, 55-3119 was transferred to SAC as
a CSA, retaining the designation NKC-135A It was stored at
AMARC on 6th July 1993, as CA067 (see Appendix D).
55·3120 Beginning in 1960,55-3120 has taken part in stud-
ies that measure the infrared signature of airborne targets and
their background as part of research conducted by AFCRL
(AFGL after 1st January 1974) at Hanscom AFB. The sensor
equipment was capable of high-quality spectral resolution that
allowed target discrimination techniques, ultimately permitting
precise identification of airborne targets or distinguishing ballis-
tic missile warheads from decoys. Because of its infrared
research capabilities, the airplane was known as the 'IR proper-
ties' aircraft. Non-military projects conducted by 55-3120 includ-
ed IR aurora and airglow phenomena research.
The airplane was also modified for and participated in nuclear
readiness programs during the summer of 1962 as part of the
'Fish Bowl' nuclear tests (in 1964 this mission shifted to the
three NC-135As).IO'ln this role the airplane received dozens of
small windows throughout the fuselage for sensors that
observed the atmospheric effects of high altitude nuclear explo-
sions. The windows earned it the nicknames of 'piccolo tube'
and 'the flying piccolo'. Antenna fairings were also added to the
nose and vertical stabilizer. It retained the air refueling boom
and differed little (other than the many small windows) from its
tanker colleagues.
This airplane also conducted ionospheric scatter tests for
VHF teletype transmissions, utilizing a small three-element
antenna array on each wingtip and two transmitter fairings on
each side of the vertical stabilizer and on the nose of the aircraft.
The program was fairly successful, with adequate transmissions
out to 1,500 miles (2,413km)."rl
Beginning in 1963, 55-3120 underwent modification for par-
ticipation in airborne gravity research. The airplane was trans-
ferred to Edwards AFB in 1964 for flight testing, and operational
flights resumed thereafter at Hanscom AFS, Inside the fuselage
were LaCoste-Romberg and Askania-Graf stabilized gravity
100
meters capable of detecting vertical deviations in gravity as
small as one part per million. These were originally designed for
shipboard use and were modified for aerial employment. Two
notable projects involving this equipment were a precise study
of the Earth's shape and the gravitational effects on ballistic mis-
siles.'''' In the former study, 55-3120 flew over as much of the
Free World as possible recording gravitational variations arid
extrapolating figures for inaccessible areas such as Communist
Bloc airspace. From these data the true shape of the Earth was
determined. In the latter experiment, the airplane flew mission
routes and profiles simulating ballistic missiles, Both programs
identified and studied the significant effect of gravity on ICBM
guidance systems.
By May 1967, 55-3120 had been reconfigured as a flying
infrared laboratory.''' In March 1970 asolar eclipse, asolar flare,
and polar cap absorption all occurred within a few days of each
other, and the AFCRL used the IR properties airplane to mea-
sure and record the effects of these phenomena on the atmos-
phere and on communications.'''' Other projects included radio-
metric and spectral measurements of the plume of the Apollo 14
booster during launch on 31 st January 1971, a process repeat-
ed for the 26th July 1971, launch of Apollo 15. 107
By 16 July 1973, the 3245th Materials Squadron at Hanscom
Field is reported to have installed the equipment used in Project
'Hula Hoop' in this airplane, a SAC 'Burning Light' mission (see
Chapter Ten), Later the same year 55-3120 acquired an IFR sys-
tem and the air refueling boom was removed. The airplane was
occasionally loaned to the AFFTC at Edwards AFB for heavy
receiver air refueling practice.
'Have Car' directed on 24th April 1975, that the AFGL's geo-
physics section move to Kirtland AFB, and 55-3120 moved
along with it.'''' The following year 55-3120 was transferred from
Kirtland AFB to the 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB, where
it continued in its role as the IR properties test-bed. By the late
1980s 55-3120 was known as the Flying Infrared Signatures and
Technology Aircraft (FISTA).
FISTA projects included 'Hi Camp' and 'Teal Ruby'. 'Hi Camp'
compared the IR signatures of avariety of aircraft and weapons
acquired from 55-3120 at medium altitude with those acquired
from a Lockheed U-2 flying at high altitude. 'Teal Ruby' was
intended to locate and identify low-flying targets, such as cruise
missiles and bombers, from space by detecting their IR signa-
ture. Additional programs included 'Have Shaver', designed to
detect relocatable targets, and a 1993 program designed to
reduce the IR signature of the Lockheed F-117A'09
By the end of 1993 the airplane was declared 'excess' and
retired to AMARC as CA095 on 15th December 1993 (see
Appendix D).
55·3121 This airplane was the first KC-135 given directly to
the Air Force rather than subjected to testing by Boeing, which
delivered iI with acomplete test instrumentation suite measuring
342 flight and system parameters. The airplane arrived at WADC
at Wright-Patterson AFB on 30th April 1957, and began adverse
weather, arctic, and desert testing for the KC-135.
Following these tests 55-3121 remained at Wright-Patterson
where it continued to serve as a test-bed for both the KC-135
01
th
F(
di
dl
S
gl
pi
W
pi
'P
ni
c(
S(
S1
er
te
in
01
c<
in
fli
TI
tr
in
During 1995 NASA retired its venerable 11
'Weightless Wonder' KC·135A 59-1481 T
(NASA930), and replaced it with former AMARC d
KC-135A 63-7998 (N931NA). Its duties and func· a
tions remain the same, the chief benefit of the
change being increased airframe longevity P
over the older airplane. David B Lavery b
T
It
C
5
weapon system and for other projects. In the late 1950s and
early 1960s, 55-3121 was used as an icing test-bed, ostensibly
as a jury-rigged replacement for the KB-29P Superlortress icing
test-bed (44-83951). Two of the aft fuel cells from 55-3121 were
filled with water that was dispensed through the air refueling
boom, producing droplets of crude size and unknown shape.
Test results emphasized the need for adedicated icing test·bed
capable of more precise control over water parameters, a mis·
sion that fell to NKC·135A 55-3128. Additionally, these water
tests were highly detrimental to the service life of the airplane's
fuel valves and fuel sensors.
During 1962, 55·3121 participated in the 'Speed Lighf
nuclear weapons reconnaissance program, described in
Chapter Ten, Although it was officially atest aircraft, duties such
as 'Speed Light' occasionally pushed it into the realm of an
operational reconnaissance platform, crewed by SAC person·
nel. Despite this apparent conversion of mission, 55·3121
served from 1st July through 31st December 1964, as part ofa
project sponsored by the Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright·
Patterson AFB entitled 'Pilot Control Factors' (PIFAX), of which
little is known. It is also reported to have participated in LORAN
testing because of the many blade antennae along its spine.
More likely, these were part of the recce suite installed as part 01
'Speed Light', and the LORAN testing may have served as a
cover story for the airplane's more clandestine operations.
In March 1965, 55·3121 was redesignated aJKC-135Altwas
further modified into a reconnaissance platform (retaining the
many blade antennae) and redesignated as a KC-135A In July
1966 it was reassigned to the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB.lt crashed
on 25th February 1985 (see Appendix C).
55·3122 This airplane participated in KC·135A Phase IV per·
formance testing at Edwards AFB from 1st June 1957, through
17th February 1958. In 1958 it was dedicated to full-time test
duties and redesignated a JKC-135A By 1969 it had been
redesignated an NKC·135A For many years 55-3122 was used
as an ECM QRC test-bed. The fuselage fuel cells were removed
to accommodate additional ECM equipment and test gear, the
air refueling boom was removed, and an ECM receiver was
mounted atop the nose radome.
A Westinghouse QRC-125 and a Hughes QRC-126 IR warn·
ing receiver were installed during 1961 in the tail cone of 55-
3122. These were intended to detect a missile launch flash
under operational conditions. The airplane was flown over the
Eglin AFB, Florida, ranges and more than 100 miss~s were
fired at it from fighters located just beyond the missiles' ranges,
 One crewmember involved in these tests no doubt justly claims
that 55·3122 'is probably the most shot-at aircraft in the Air
Force!' 110 Neither system worked well and development was
discontinued.
From 1st January through 30th June 1964, the airplane con-
ducted aerial tests for an infrared search-while-tracking (IRST)
system. Until 31st December 1964, 55-3122 was part of a pro-
gram identified only as 'Countdown Countermeasures'. The air-
plane was noted during 1967 with a square area above the left
wing root that appeared to be highly polished and of unknown
purpose.
Recent programs involving 55-3122 have included
'Polarization ECM' from October 1979 to May 1980, and begin-
ning in October 1984 the Atmospheric Properties Study (APS)
conducted at Edwards AFB. This may have been the predeces-
sor to a later program known as the Contrail Suppression
System (CSS), in which chemicals were injected into an
engine's exhaust to dissipate or prevent altogether an airplane's
lell·tale contrails. This program may have reached maturity dur-
ing tests involving a B-2 FI18-GE-l 00 engine mounted in place
01 the No. J57 engine on 55-3122, along with an additional pod
containing the suppressant.
In support of the MILSTAR program, 55-3122 served as the
initial test-bed for the MILSTAR radome modification. These
flights took place between November 1989 and March 1990.
The radome showed few aerodynamic problems, and was later
transferred to C-135E 60-0372.'" The airplane continued its
involvement with advanced engine testing through the early
t990s, carrying the F404-GE-100 engine used in the Advanced
Technology Fighter (ATF). By 1993, however, 55-3122 was
declared excess and retired to AMARC as CA094 on 19th
October 1993 (see Appendix D).
55·3123 Following initial flight testing by Boeing, this air-
plane was delivered to the Air Force for use as a dedicated test-
bed. It was accepted in 1958 and designated a JKC-135A.
Throughout its test career it had no air refueling boom. Other
than only brief associations with short-term programs (such as
QRC·220A testing from 1st January through 30th June 1964),
55-3123 has participated in only two major projects in its lifetime
j - the Northrop ALOTS program and the Defense Advanced
y Research Projects Agency (DARPA)/General Dynamics ALL.
~ Following its retirement in 1988, it was flown to the Air Force
e Museum at Wright Field, Ohio.
In August 1962 the APCS recommended development of a
'specially equipped RC-135 with an improved optical system for
better photographic and television recording of nuclear tests
and missile launching and re-entry... [The] proposal call[ed] for
~r
s dynamic laser. Funds were also awarded to General Dynamics
t' The three 'Rivet Digger' NC-135As (including
n 60·0371, seen here in 1966) contributed to Air
h Force support for the 1964 Nuclear Test Ban
n Treaty. By using these platforms to monitor
I- foreign atmospheric blasts to gauge their
I sophistication, US scientists did not need to
a conduct their own tests above ground for
t- comparison purposes. Author's collection
h
~
)f
a
s
e
y
d
r-
1
,t
n
d
d
s
1-
,-
h
e
e
the development of an improved optical stabilization system
and 200 to I,OOOin [5 to 25.3m) focal length lenses... [and the]
RC-135 would... operate at altitudes up to 45,00Oft [13,716ml,
above most haze and cloud cover'. '" Although this particular
program was not undertaken, it was the basis for the ALOTS
program.
Beginning in 1964,55-3123 served as the primary test plat-
form for the ALOTS program (along with NKC-135A 56-3596).
This system provided high quality optical tracking of rocket and
missile launches, and is best known for its use on EC-135N
ARIAs. '" ALOTS consisted of four main components - a control
system and its computers, a timing section, a manual tracking
station, and a removable, externally-mounted teardrop-shaped
pod attached to the airplane's cargo door. The pod contained a
2%in (70mm) high resolution camera with a 200in (508cm) focal
length. Camera resolution was better than two seconds of an
arc, and it could spot and track a 7in (17.7cm) target at 10 miles
(10km) and a 12ft (3.6m) target at 200 miles (321km). At high
altitude the camera filmed both stars and planets. The entire
pod weighed in excess of 3,OOOIb (1,360kg).
An operator at the manual tracking station (inside a small
clear dome atop the fuselage) visually acquired the object using
a gunsight from a B-50. Once it was spotted, computers would
automatically track and direct cameras to film the target. The
camera image was both recorded on film and displayed on two
monitoring screens inside the airplane. A timing section printed
the exact time (with microsecond accuracy) on each frame of
film.
Flight tests began in 1965 at AFWTR, AFETR, and the Army
White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The ALOTS platform
orbited 40 miles (64km) from the launch site. Prior to launch
time, the airplane flew in the opposite direction from the target's
planned track until immediately before to its launch, at which
time the airplane turned around and then paralleled the target's
track; the entire flight pattern looked like a giant fishhook.
During 1965, 55-3123 and the ALOTS gear successfully located,
tracked, and photographed the booster separation of an Air
Force Titan 3C missile.'" The first operational use of ALOTS was
for the launch of Gemini 8on 16th March 1966. Once the ALOTS
development and testing was completed, additional pods were
then installed on selected EC-135N ARIAs.
Initial concept demonstration of airborne laser weapon capa-
bility came in 1973 when a gas-dynamic laser destroyed a
drone over the Sandia Optical Range at Kirtland AFB.'" That
same year, the Air Force and DARPA's 'Agency 0' awarded a
$2.4 million contract to United Aircraft Corporation's Pratt &
Whitney Aircraft Division's Florida Research and Development
Center for the design and development of an airborne gas-
to convert NKC-135A 55-3123 into the ALL, a modification com-
pleted in 1977.'"
DARPA's high energy laser (HEL) program was intended to
provide 'a new weapon that could revolutionise tactical and
strategic attack, as well as defence against airborne targets,
both in the atmosphere and in space'.'" The laser's intense
beam would damage the target's guidance system or ignite its
fuel or warhead and cause its destruction. The Secretary of the
Air Force described the ALL as a 'proof of concept' test-bed
rather than a focal point in the development of any specific air-
borne laser weapon. '" Non-military research conducted by the
ALL included laser propagation and air-to-air laser effects exper-
iments.
Among the many modifications General Dynamics made to
55-3123 was the addition of a large dorsal 'turret' and posterior
fairing (of several different configurations) above the cargo
door. These covered the laser itself and the pointing and track-
ing telescope. To accommodate the increased electrical
demands of the laser and its associated equipment, engine-dri-
ven generators from a B-52 were installed on each of 55-3123's
engines, resulting in a noticeable bulge on each engine pod.
The fuselage interior was divided into three sections. The for-
ward section contained the cockpit and flight crew area. The
center section, isolated by securable bulkheads and inaccessi-
ble during flight, contained the laser and appropriate support
equipment such as toxic asphyxiants and highly-explosive cryo-
genically-stored laser fuel. The aft section housed the techni-
cians and operators, mission instrumentation and recording
equipment, and the laser's controls." 9 Mission support for the
ALL was provided by NC-135A 60-0371, which served as an air-
borne data recording and transmission platform and as a diag-
nostic aircraft.
Key to the success of the airborne laser weapons program
was the development of a system capable of identifying and
tracking any target given extremely critical and demanding tol-
erances. The designator must focus the laser's thin beam of
high energy on a rapidly moving target hundreds of miles away
in an environment littered by weather, debris, and deceptive
atmospheric garbage. This task is particularly complicated
because both the laser and its target are moving, and the laser
is subject to turbulence that destabilizes its references, diffuses
the intensity of the laser beam at the target, and degrades its
accuracy.
The ALL program achieved 100% mission readiness and met
with some success in a variety of technical and operational
tests. The laser was first fired while airborne on 2nd May 1981,
engaging a towed target. On 28th May 1981, the laser attempt-
ed to engage an AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile above the
China Lake test range; results of this test were not divulged.'"
Although critics claimed that in initial tests the airborne laser
failed to destroy (ie 'blow up') its targets with the laser beam, it
eventually did disable the guidance system of an AIM-9
launched from a Naval Weapons Center LTV A-7E Corsair 11.'"
As the 'learning curve' improved, so too did the laser's capa-
bility.'22 On 26th July 1983, the ALL successfully 'engaged and
defeated five AIM-9 Sidewinders aimed at the ALL', and on 26th
September 1983, the laser actually destroyed a low-altitude sub-
sonic BQM-34A drone simulating an anti-ship cruise missile
attack profile off the California coast.'" The 'laser burned
through the drone's skin and in the process destroyed critical
components, causing a flight-control failure'.'"
Flight testing was completed on 14th May 1984, and the air-
plane placed in flyable storage at Kirtland AFB. Although the
NKC-135A ALL achieved its intended goal of demonstrating the
feasibility of an airborne laser weapon platform. The ALL pro-
gram also highlighted the considerable requirements needed to
bring an operational system to fruition. Most notable among
101
 pa
Te
NJ
re~

Lo
dn

wt
rei
~,
bu
w~
ex
no
31
fOI
sa
an

W
us
55
tal
co
19
sir
'el
a

these was the constant 'growth' of the laser and its associated
equipment. By the time the ALL was placed in storage, it could
no longer contain the laser and its systems. Studies were begun
to evaluate replacing the ALL with a wide-bodied aircraft capa-
ble of handling existing and projected configurations. A Boeing
767 was briefly considered for further airborne laser testing but
the idea was dropped due to budget limitations. The contribu-
tions of the ALL are present to a considerable degree in many
SDI programs. Although these do not direCtly eliminate or
replace the ALL, they certainly represent a quantum improve-
ment in its potential. Indeed, subsequent interest in airborne
lasers to defeat tactical ballistic missiles has produced the ABL
program involving C-135E 60-0375 and EC-135C 63-8050.
On 4th May 1988, NKC-135A 55-3123 was flown to Wright
Field, and on 20th May 1988, presented to the Air Force
Museum, the first KC-135 of any kind on permanent display (see
Appendix D).
55·3124 As with several of her sister ships, 55-3124 began
her test-bed career as part of KC-135 weapon system accep-
tance testing. From 15th June 1957, through 11th February
1958, this airplane conducted Phase IV Stability flight tests. It
was then loaned to NACA from 6th March through May 1958 as
a replacement for NACA's borrowed KC-135A (55-3125), dam-
aged in a mid-air collision with a USAFTPS NT-33A on 12th
November 1957.'"
The airplane has since been associated with a variety of tests
involving ECM, airborne optical tracking, and communications.
Following its loan to NACA, 55-3124 was designated JKC-135A
Beginning in the Spring of 1962, 55-3124 was dedicated to
Project 'Skyscraper' _This modification by Bendix's Systems
Division for the AFCRL's Optical Physics Laboratory and ARPA
(Advanced Research Projects Agency - later DARPA) involved
the installation of optical and microwave instrumentation
designed to detect and record ultraviolet, visible, and infrared
radiation associated" with the reentry performance and physics
of missile and rocket payloads (this preceded the RAMP and
TRAP programs, described below). The 'fingerprint' radiation
signature of a re-entry vehicle is the result of the body's interac-
tion with the atmosphere, and the amount of radiation varies
with the composition and coniiguration of the re-entry vehicle
and its angle of entry and attack. To accommodate this test, the
airplane's cargo door was cut in half vertically and a gimballed
tracking 'eye' was installed behind an opening approximately 2ft
by 4ft (0.6 x.1.2m)
In 1969, 55-3124 had been redesignated an NKC-135A and
was used by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIl)
Lincoln Laboratory at Hanscom AFB as part of ESD's Project
'Press', a program that studied ballistic vehicle reentry charac-
teristics in the Kwajalein Islands area. The airplane frequently
deployed to Hickam AFB and was named Liki Tiki. Further mod-
ifications to the airplane for this program included the installa-
tion of nine large-diameter optically-ground windows along the
starboard side of the fuselage.'"
In 1974, 55-3124 was transferred to the 4950th TW at Wright-
Patterson AFB where it participa1ed in a variety of short-1erm
projects. In November 1977 it flight-tested the advanced aerial
longer (56ft 7in -17,2m) than the existing KC-135 boom, allow- co
ing a 25% increase in the vertical separation between tanker and
receiver. A larger fuel line and more efficient nozzle allowed an S
increase in fuel transfer rate. The test program lasted just over in
six months and involved nearly 1,400 test hook-ups in 47 fligh~ fo
totaling 184 flying hours. The MRB has since been removed, de
Additional programs which 55-3124 has been associated with th
(along with C-135N 60-0375) include 'Meteor Burst' from (s
December 1979 until April 1980, and ADC 'Blink Jammer' from re
July through October 1980, 'Meteor Burst' may have been apre· NI
cursor of current research involving the transmission of voice of
and data by bouncing radio signals off of meteor trails in the
ionosphere.'27 Already demonstrated as a reliable system by the oi
US Department of Agriculture, 'Meteor Burst' represents the PI
ability to provide a quick-recovery capable post nuclear attack la
environment communication system.'" Whereas normal HF te
communications could be disrupted for up to 24 hours following th
an atmospheric nuclear explosion, meteor-burst communica- S
tions could be recovered within 1» to 10 hours. The 'Meteor
Burst' slgnalrs also highly resistant to lamming and Interception
'Since [atmospheric] ionization would increase in anuclear war,
and thus enhance MBC [meteor burst communications], MBC
plays a prominent role in [potential] ... post-attack communica- A
tions'.'"
From 1981 through September 1985, 55-3124 participated in N
Project 'Cross Trak', an AFWAL ECM test program at Eglin AFB. 1
In addition to the nine large windows (residue from Project o
'Press'), the airplane had small fairings along each side of the \\

and was assigned to RADC at Griffiss AFB, where it supported
a variety of tests for ESD.
refueling boom (MRB) for the ATCA competition, eventually
won by the KC-10A, This fly-by-wire MRB was 10ft (3.0m)
nose and above the radome. Beginning in 1986 the airplane rJ
was involved with Advanced Systems Evaluation, and in 1987 7
had slender wingtip pods.
In early 1991 the airplane was declared 'surplus' and, on 7th
March 1991, flown to Sheppard AFB, Texas. It has since been
redesignated a GNKC-135A and is used as a ground instruc-
tional trainer (see Appendix D).

A regular visitor to Hickam AFB during the

'Burning Light' Task Force days was NC-135A
60-0369. Ultra-high speed cameras and spectro·
graphic sensors were installed behind the
numerous optical quality windows. Note the air
refueling receptacle installed above the cockpit;
60-0369 is believed to have been the only
NC-135A so modified. Aerofax collection

Among the many unusual configurations noted

on the NC-135As was the boom and cap on
60-0369 - the purpose of which has not been
revealed. It may be associated with detecting
and measuring EMP or other forms of radiation.
Aerofax collection

102
 55·3125 In conjunction with KC-135A 55-3126, this airplane
participated in KC-135A Phase VI Functional Development
Testing through 8th November 1957. It was then loaned to
NACA for heavy jet research as a JKC-135A. On its first NACA
research flight, 55-3125 collided in mid-air with a USAFTPS
lockheed NT-33A. As aresult of the damage, 55-3125 was with-
drawn from NACA testing and replaced by KC-135A 55-3124.'"
The airplane was next assigned to the RADC at Griffiss AFB,
where it is believed to have supported a variety of electronic-
related projects. The forward and aft body fuel tanks were
removed to make room for additional electronic test equip-
ment. As part of the 'Pave Onyx' program, the airplane had a
bulge on the starboard side of the fuselage. A cylindrical fairing
with aseries of small antennae was attached to the end of the
extendible portion of the boom [a similar attachment has been
noted on reconnaissance KC-135R (and later KC-135T) 55-
3121, suggesting that 55-3125 may have been the test platform
lor !hat project, or conducted similar flights in a 'non-reconnais-
sance' environment]. By 1969, 55-3125 had been redesignated
I an NKC·135A.
In 1975 the airplane was transferred to the 4950th TW at
Wright-Patterson AFB. During 1977 55-3125 was reportedly
used as an 'icing dispenser' (in the same fashion as NKC-135A
55·3128, described below) although without special water
tanks. This use is disputed and remains the subject of some
controversy. At least one photograph of 55-3125 taken during
1977 shows an attachment at the end of the air refueling boom
similar to a water spray device. In keeping with the airplane's
'electronic' background, this could well have been a special
antenna rather than water spray equipment.
In 1983 the airplane was converted into the EC-135Y airborne
oommand post for CENTCOM.
55·3127 This airplane was the first KC-135A delivered to
SAC on 28th June 1957. BMAC modified 55-3127 during 1959
inloaJKC-135A by adding a 'doghouse', alarge fairing atop the
fOlWard fuselage and two 30in (76.2cm) optically-ground win-
dows (later increased to eleven windows) along the port side of
the fuselage. The port wing and upper surfaces attached to it
(such as the engines and pylons) were painted flat black to
reduce glare. The airplane was then assigned on 24th
November 1959, to the AFCRL, where it joined 55-3124 as part
of Project 'Skyscraper'.
Following 'Skyscraper', 55-3127 began flight tests on behalf
of MIT's Lincoln Laboratory as part of the Radiation Monitoring
Program (RAMP), which observed radiation emitted during the
launch phase of missiles and rockets. Operational goal of these
lests was a fleet of airplanes patrolling outside the periphery of
the Soviet Union. When the airplanes detected an ICBM or
SLBM launch, a laser-equipped platform would shoot down the
Although two of the three 'Rivet Digger' aircraft
were stored or scrapped during the 1970s,
NC-135A 60-0371 continued in service until
1994. Beginning in 1986 it operated in support
of several SOl programs, including 'Argus 1',
which occasionally brought the airplane to RAF
Mildenhall, where it was photographed on
7th February 1989. Robert J Archer
missile during its vulnerable boost phase. RAMP showed that
such an operation was only marginally successful against
ICBMs, but reasonably successful against SLBMs.'"
Mission equipment included a precision tracker and an opti-
cal radiation spectrometer. The optical system was maintained
in a pressurized compartment on top of the fuselage above the
leading edge of the wing root. Flush-mounted doors opened in
flight to uncover a 20in x 30in (50cm x 76.2cm) flat mirror that
reflected incident radiation onto an optical telescope.
Temperature and air density of this cavity were carefully regu-
lated by forcing hot bleed air into the cavity, ensuring precise
alignment of the optical system. In this configuration the air-
plane had the short vertical stabilizer, acquired another dorsal
radome aft of the doghouse, and retained the air refueling
boom.
By 1965 the short vertical stabilizer had been replaced and
the airplane dedicated (along with NKC-135A 55-3134) to the
Terminal Radiation Program (TRAP), which examined radiation
patterns during a ballistic vehicle's terminal phase of flight. From
1st January through 30th June 1965, 55-3127 was assigned to
the Flight Test division at Wright-Patterson AFB and partici-
pated in TRAP VII on behalf of the Naval Ordnance Laboratory,
Raytheon, and the General Electric Company. It was then reas-
signed to Patrick AFB as part of National Ranges support along
with the EC-135N ARIAs. By 1969 the airplane was redesignat-
ed an NKC-135A. In 1977 the doghouse was removed and the
airplane assumed generic test duties.
Beginning in 1980 as part of the Air Force's efforts to improve
the KC-135's air refueling capability, 55-3127 participated in a
number of tests under the Improved Aerial Refueling Systems
(lARS) program.'" Specific lARS subprograms included the MA-
4 air refueling boom coupling, the tail-mounted floodlight (TMF),
high flow-rate pumps, various boom station modifications, air
refueling basket modilications, and a fuselage-mounted drogue
refueling system."3
in Project 'Hose Reel' - conducted from 1982 through 1983 -
the Air Force sought to provide the KC-135 with the ability to air
refuel both boom-equipped and probe-equipped aircraft in a
single sortie. This modification was designed to avoid degrad-
ing tanker performance, avoid taking up space in the cargo
compartment (as the stored basket did), and avoid removing
any fuselage fuel cells. The right keel bay forward of the right
main landing gear well was selected as the best site for the
installation of a Sargent-Fletcher hose reel with 110ft (33.5m) of
standard 4in (10cm) diameter air refueling hose. installation and
initial testing was done by the 4950th TW, with further testing
undertaken by the 6520th TG at Edwards AFB.
The results of the program were highly controversial.
Although the tests themselves were successful, the modification
was not undertaken. Reasons given for the rejection of 'Hose
Reel' ranged from the degradation of airframe structural integri-
ty in the fuselage to excessive instability of the hose and basket.
Although the structural concerns associated with 'Hose Reel'
were genuine they were not insurmountable, representing basic
engineering problems rather than major design problems.
Further, the hose and basket flutter were deficiencies inherent in
any probe-and-drogue system rather than unique to the hose
reel modification.
The most probable causes for the rejection of the 'Hose Reel'
modification were financial and political. Air Force probe-and-
drogue refueling is used almost exclusively in collateral opera-
tions which support US Navy, Marine, and Allied nation oper-
ations, a role seen by the Air Force as the nearly exclusive
domain of the KC-10. Because the 'Hose Reel' system could be
installed on over 600 KC-135s, it had a greater potential impact
on Air Force tanker capability than could the total purchase of
only 60 KC-10s. Consequently, 'Hose Reel' could have been
seen as a threat to the requirement for and hence the continued
funding of the KC-10 program (in its heyday at the time), and the
proposed modification was therefore canceled because of
unidentified 'technical problems'.
In 1979 the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory developed
equipment that 'display[ed] critical information within the boom
operator's field of vision, enabling the crewmember to see the
data and receiver aircraft simultaneously... the first time a head-
up display has been designed for an aircrew member other than
a pilot'.'" Flight tests were conducted on board a KC-135A
assigned to the 307th AREFG at Travis AFB. Program results are
not known, and the modification was not adopted.
As more and more military aircraft were painted in low-visibil-
ity schemes, it became increasingly difficult for KC-135 boom
operators to assess accurately the depth and perspective of the
air refueling envelope. Airplanes such as the General Dynamics
F-16 were highly vulnerable to having a TACAN antenna -
mounted near the air refueling receptacle - knocked off by the
air refueling boom during night and bad weather operations.
During 1983 the 4950th TW successfully developed the tail-
mounted floodlight (TMF) for the KC-135.'35 Flight tests were
conducted on 55-3127, with the floodlight - nicknamed 'the
streetlight' - mounted at the top trailing edge of the vertical sta-
bilizer. The boom operator controls the intensity of the floodlight
to avoid blinding the receiver pilot during the closure to contact,
after which the intensity may be increased to illuminate the refu-
eling envelope while the receiver is in the contact position. This
modification has since been retrofitted to the entire KC-135 fleet
and other MDS's with the air refueling boom installed (exam-
ples, EC-135C, EC-135G, EC-135P, etc), and has been incorpo-
rated on Boeing KE-3s for Saudi Arabia, although on these air-
planes the TMF is mounted just above the rudder rather than at
the top of the vertical stabilizer.
Add~ional KC-135 lARS modilications include the installation
of high flow-rate fuel pumps that increase offload rates by 25%,
thereby decreasing the refueling time required for such 'heavy'
aircraft as the B-52, C-5, KC-10, and McDonnell Douglas C-17
Globemaster III. A new boom nozzle and independent discon-
nect system have been tested, enhancing the boom operator's
ability to recognize and correct dangerous boom loads gener-
ated by the receiver while in contact. A new boom control stick
with vernier control has also been tested.
Among other air refueling improvements under consideration
is an increase in the number of air refueling points on the
Stratotanker. The single boom on aKC-135 cannot provide ade-
quate simultaneous refueling for numerous receiver aircraft.
One proposed modification is the addition of wingtip refueling
pods to KC-135s, much like those on some 707 tankers or retro-
fitted to the KC-1 0.'" Current wing strengthening and reskin pro-
grams make this technologically feasible, and the refueling
boom can still service US Air Force aircraft while US Navy and
NATO aircraft utilize the wingtip pods. In 1988, in conjunction
with the French Air Force, ASD was contracted to modify and
test a 305th AREFW KC-135R with the wingtip pods, a proposal
not undertaken. FRL offered an unsolicited proposal to mount
103
Mk.32 air refueling pods on the aft fuselage of KC-135s, but this
too fell on deaf ears.
Operations 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm' emphasized
the KC-135's lim~ed boom-te-receiver ratio, prompting a $453
million contract to equip 150 KC-135s with wingtip drogue refu-
eling pods. The first such conversion was scheduled for 1994,
but this has been delayed due to budget issues (see Chapter
Five). French C-135FRs began receiving the wingtip pod modi-
fication during 1993. Additionally, some F-15s and F-16s may
receive retractable refueling probes to take advantage of this
new tanker capability as well as allow these fighters to refuel
from other NATO tankers.'"
In early 1986, 55-3127 acquired an RC-135 'hog nose' and
began supporting tests associated with the Mk,XV IFF system, a
program identified for 55-3127 in 1985 and scheduled to end in
the early 1990s. This is 1he fourth airplane associated with IFF
testing (previous test-beds include C-135B 62-4128 and C-135E
60-0375). Mk.XV IFF is intended to replace the current Mk.XIIIFF
and provide a secure and reliable jam-resistant IFF for US and
NATO countries. The equipment has applications to air-to-air,
suriace-to-air, and suriace-to-suriace uses, and will be compat-
ible with air traffic control (both civil and military) equipment cur-
rent
y in use and of future design. NKC-135A 55-3127 served as
the airborne interrogator test-bed while ASD's T-39s flew as
transponder test-beds.'"
The last project supported by 55-3127 (along with NKC-135A
55-3131) was the Combined Release and Radiation Effects
Satellite (CRRES) during 1990 and 1991. The satellite ejected
canisters filled with barium, strontium, or lithium into the earth's
ionosphere. Once ionized, these would produce an aurora that
could be analyzed and data compared with similar natural phe-
nomena. CRRES was discontinued on 3rd December 1991.'"
The airplane - named Thunder Chicken - was declared excess
and relegated to AMARC on 31 st August 1992, with the storage
number CA040 (see Appendix D).
55·3128 Beginning in 1958, JKC-135A 55-3128 conducted
airborne ECM tests at Wright-Patterson AFB. External modifica-
tions included removing the air refueling boom and reshaping
the boom pod, adding several small radomes along the fuse-
104
lage spine, and attaching a small pod protruding from the right NKC-135A 55-3119, visiting McClellan AFB in W
forward fuselage. Most of the fuselage fuel cells were removed 1966, was one of several ECM test-beds. It was t~
to make room for the installation of ECM test equipment. configured the same as NKC-135A 55-3125,
This airplane is the only KC-135 of any variant to be config- likely as part of the 'Pave Onyx' program. s
ured with armament (the lasers on the ALL and ABL are Peter B Lewis, courtesy Rene Francillon s
research devices). In this unique role, 55-3128 had a pod carry- c
ing unguided rockets mounted beneath each wingtip. The rock- A rainy open house at Hanscom AFB in May o
ets were fired during flight, exploded, and their effects recorded 1962 finds JKC-135A 55-3120 nearly alone on tE
as baseline references for on-board systems calibration and the ramp. The airplane was configured with the VI
studies. many windows and small fairings in support of
In early 1964, 55-3128 became the second KC-135 converted the forthcoming 'Fish Bowl' US atmospheric d
into a water spray/aerial icing test platform. These water spray nuclear tests. It was later relieved of this duty C
tests were conducted at AFFTC at Edwards AFB and provided by the three 'Rivet Digger' NC-135As. e
'all-weather development and certification flight testing of mili- Tom Hildreth It
tary and civilian aircraft under simulated rain and icing condi- n
tions'."" The presence of ice (particularly on the wing) alters a fl
structure's aerodynamic shape and degrades its lifting potential. b
Control suriaces covered with ice become sluggish or even stores icing tests for a variety of aircraft including the GeneraJ It
immobile, and the sheer weight of the ice adversely affects the Dynamics F-111, the AGM-109 cruise missile, and civilian air· A
airplane's periormance. Icing tests evaluate the effectiveness of craft such as the Boeing 757.
anti-ice or de-ice systems and how the ice, once shed from an Beginning in October 1971, the airplane participated in AMSA ff
aircraft's structure (such as its nose radome or wing leading research in addition to its icing mission. Other AMSA test air· a
edge), affects the test aircraft's engines if ingested. planes included C-135As 60-0376 and 60-0377, NC-141A 61· (:
Although icing is more likely to occur at low altitude, the mar- 2777, and C-141A 61-2779. At this time 55-3128 acquired an a
gin for error during low altitude test flights is virtually non-exis- enlarged nose radome to cover the Raytheon AN/APQ-140 Km·
tent. With the tests conducted at higher altitudes there is a band radar under consideration for use on the AMSA.'"
greater safety margin and icing conditions can be better con- In 1983, 55-3128'5 water spray system was upgraded, c
trolled. The icing test-bed KC-135 is ideally suited for tests in the improving its ability to simulate a natural cloud versus asimple e
200-300 knot range, and low speed icing tests are left to a mod- water spray. At altitudes above 15,000ft (4,572m) and relative s
ified C-130 or BoeingNertol CH-47C Chinook. humidities above 70%, natural cloud droplets are of the order 01 s
Structural modllications to 55-3128 included the installation of 20 microns in diameter. With this modification, the tanker
a water spray system designed to spray the 4,000 gallons droplets approach 30 microns in size, a considerable improve- fl
(15,141 litres) of water carried in the fuselage fuel tanks through ment over the grossly larger sizes previously attainable. The it
a spray ring or bar attached to the end of the extended air refu- actual droplets (and hence cloud size) are controlled by mixing c
eling boom. The subject aircraft flies in the path of this spray, water with high-pressure air from the NKC-135's engines or the t
evaluating whatever icing conditions were encountered. Precise APU bleed-air system. This mixture is then sprayed through a ~
boom control allows the spray and ice to affect a specific loca- variety of nozzles arranged in the desired pattern. Colored dye (
tion on the subject aircraft without affecting other locations. The may be added to enhance observation of the icing phenome· F
water spray NKC-135 has participated in airirame and external non. Outside air temperatures above freezing supercool the E
water droplets which then solidify the instant they collide with
the subject aircraft.
Measurement of the droplets is by a sophisticated laser mea-
suring system - an axially scattering spectrometer - that mea-
sures the forward diffraction of light from the water droplet. A
computer then calculates droplet size and water content based
on the test aircraft's true airspeed, pressure altitude, outside air
temperature, and the light diffraction pattern created by the
water droplets.
The icing test-bed NKC-135 was scheduled for retirement
during 1994 as a means to reduce operational costs. The 31st
October 1994, crash of an Aerospatiale ATR 72 airliner due to
excessive icing breathed a reprieve for 55-3128. Supported by
the FAA - in opposition to Air Force desires - the icing test-bed
remained in service. Air Force opposition derived from a lack of
lunding for the mission (to support civilian aircraft) at a time of
budget austerity and slashes of military programs.'" Eventually,
the Air Force won, and 55-3128 was retired to AMARC as
MCA0106 on 20th May 1996 (see Appendix D).
Asecond NKC-135A (55-3125) is said to have been modified
lor ashort time as an icing spray aircraft with similar capabilities,
although this has not been substantiated. Other KC-135As
(such as 58-0027) have also been used as water spray tankers,
although not on a regular basis.'43
NKC-135A 55-3128 was also used by the USAFTPS where it
is noted for its heavy controls and 'cantankerous' Dutch roll
characteristics. The airplane provides a stable platform for
engine-out studies, structural strain research, and performance,
stability, and control research of heavy aircraft as part of TPS
student training.'44
55·3129 This airplane was transferred on 28th January 1960,
Irom the 93rd BW at Castle AFB to Wright-Patterson AFB where
itwas redesignated a JKC-135A. It became the first in the series
01 three AFSC 'Weightless Wonder' astronaut zero-gravity flight
trainers (also known as 'Vomit Comets'). The other two AFSC
KC-135 weightlessness trainers were 60-0378 and 62-3536.
Only 55-3129, 60-0378, and 62-3536 were assigned to Wright-
Patterson AFB. NASA's KC-135A zero-g trainers (59-1481 and
63-7998) have been assigned directly to NASA's Ellington AFB.
In 1968 KC-135A 62-3536 replaced 55-3129 as a zero-g trainer.
After the airplane's demodification in 1968 it was redesignat-
ed an NKC-135A, and from 1969 through·1977 was involved in
much more 'solid' testing as an airborne avionics lab, accumu-
lating over 1,000 hours of flight testing. A large dorsal radome
was added to house an antenna used in AFSATCOM develop-
ment, a program later undertaken by C-135Bs 61-2662 and 61-
2663, and C-135E 60-0372.'45
As a wing produces lift it generates induced drag, especially
at the wingtip in the form of a vortex. This reduces the wing's
efficiency and increases drag with a consequent penalty in fuel
consumption and aircraft performance. A small winglet installed
on each wingtip reduces turbulent airflow separation and drag,
thereby saving fuel. The winglet concept was developed in
NASA's Langley Research Center (LaRC) wind tunnels by Dr
Richard T Whitcomb.''' Although winglets slightly reduce the
hazardous wingtip vortices, they are not intended primarily as a
safety feature. Winglets may extend upward or downward (or
both). Ground clearance of some low-wing jet transports
restricts the span of downward winglets while interference with
the upper wing let's separation airflow restricts the chord of a
lower winglet. These considerations actively influenced the
winglet test program on the KC-135:
'Thus, from a practical standpoint for low-wing aircraft, the
lower winglet must be relatively small. As a result, for the jet
transports being discussed herein [KC-135 and C-141], the con-
tributions of the lower wing let to the reduction of drag were
relatively small' .147 Given these assumptions, the KC-135 winglet
test program only considered upper winglets.
Based on research conducted by NASNLaRC wind tunnel
teams, a memorandum of understanding was issued in 1976 for
a joint NASA/USAF development program.'4B On 10th June
1977, Boeing received a $3 million contract to design, install,
and test wing lets for the KC-135. Tests at Langley on a half-span
KC-135 model provided a theoretical baseline for the eventual
flight tests and the program entered full scale wind tunnel test-
ing prior to flight verification. Wind tunnel testing indicated an
8% total drag reduction at cruise flight conditions. Non-optimum
conditions were evaluated and shown to have a 6% total drag
KC-135A 55-3121 served in a variety of
programs, ranging from Arctic and desert flight
to water spraying duties to cockpit
configuration studies. It was also reportedly
among the 'Speed Light' nuclear detection
aircraft. Joe Bruch collection
JKC-135A 55-3122 conducted the KC-135 Phase
IV performance testing at Edwards AFB, and
remained there as a test-bed for other
programs. Most notable among these was its
role as a QRC - Quick Reaction Capability -
ECM platform, enabling short-notice evaluation
of high-priority equipment. In this photo,
55-3122 refuels the 'Sun Run' RF-101C Voodoo
56-0165. Author's collection
reduction. 14' These figures translated to a 37 million gallon per
year fuel savings for the KC-135 fleet worldwide. Given the high
priority of fuel conservation Oust three years earlier the 1973
Arab oil embargo dramatically increased the cost of jet fuel and
reduced both military and civil flying), the Air Force undertook
full scale operational flight testing. NASA joined as a partner to
validate wind tunnel data with operational results.
The winglets were designed from February to June 1978.
NKC-135A 55-3129 was transferred from the Air Force to NASA
in December 1978 and delivered to NASA's DFRC at Edwards
AFB in February 1979. 150 While on loan to NASA, the airplane
may have been given the NASA registration N837NA, although
this has not been confirmed. The winglets (modified from the
wingtips of KC-135A 55-3126) were delivered in May 1979 and
installed in July 1979. Each light alloy winglet weighed approx-
imately 150lb (68kg) and measured 2ft (0.6m) wide at the top,
6ft (1.8m) wide at the base, and 9ft (2.7m) high. The angle of
incidence could be changed to allow for a variety of settings.
105
 Because 55-3129 had not yet received the lower wing reskin,
it was restricted to normal flight operations and excluded those
at the extremes of the flight envelope, Large wing splices were
added as a safety measure pending this reskin, A lengthy
research boom was added to the nose to support a pitot-static
probe, an angle of attack vane, and a side slip indicator, Avari-
ety of instrumentation and a PDP-11 computer were also
installed in the aircraft_ This computer conducted real-time
analysis of the airplane's performance and environment, which
were displayed on a CRT in the cockpit for optimum testing,
The first flight with the winglets in place occurred on 24th July
1979, and testing ended on 8th January 1981, A total of 55
flights was made, 39 with the wing lets installed, After flight tests,
the wing lets were removed and stored at Davis-Monthan AFB,
Test results based on nearly 173 hours of flight test showed tha1
the winglets provided a 6,5% fuel savings over the baseline fig-
ures, saving close to 45 million gallons of fuel annually, Further
advantages included improved take-off performance and
offload capability,'5\
The winglet program was not adopted for the KC-135 as the
Air Force selected a competing fuel-savings program - the Fuel
Savings Advisory/Cockpit Avionics System (FSA/CAS) comput-
er. The FSA/CAS offered a 2% fuel savings only if the airplane
was flown on a strict flight profile optimized for airliner-like cruise
performance, hardly the environment experienced on a typical
KC-135 tanker sortie, The FSA/CAS does have the advantage of
the MIL STD-1553 data bus which allows for future cockpit
avionics modernization and expansion, a program hostage to
increasing budget cuts, Still, one is hard pressed to ignore the
low cost and high value of winglets, which are now standard
equipment for fuel conservation on airplanes such as the
Boeing 747-400, the Gulfstream C-20, and the C-17,
In 1981, 55-3129 was demodified and returned to the 4950th
TW for routine test duties, From 27th May through 18th June
1982, 55-3129 was converted into an NKC-135E. From 3rd
January through 7th April 1983, it was assigned to the 6th SW a1
Eielson AFB as a flight-deck trainer during the absence of that
unit's RC-135T for PDM,'" In June 1984, 55-3129 was convert-
ed into an EC-135P for the US Commander-in-Chief Atlantic
(USCINCLANT) to replace EC-135P 58-0007 which was severe-
ly damaged by a ground fire at Langley AFB, Virginia, and later
written off, Decreasing global tensions eliminated the need for a
large fleet of airborne command posts, and 55-3129 was retired
to AMARC on 31st January 1992 as CA008 (see Appendix D),
55·3131 Originally delivered as a KC-135A tanker, this air-
plane was redesignated a JKC-135A when it was reassigned on
25th March 1960, to the AFCRL for ionospheric research, In
1962, along with three other research JKC-135s, 55-3131 took
part in Operation 'Fish Bowl', a program that examined the high
altitude effects of atmospheric nuclear blasts, particularly upon
ICBMs, early warning radars, and C' systems, The first of these
tests, 'Starfish Prime', occurred on 8th July 1962, when a 1.4-
megaton nuclear weapon was detonated at an altitude of 248
miles (399km) and a distance of 19 miles (30,5km) from the
• I
106
Johnston Islands some 750 miles (1,206 miles) southwest of
Hawaii. JKC-135A 55-3131 measured 'atmospheric and ionos-
pheric effects' while the other three JKC-135s measured 'ther-
mal and optical emissions', '" This test also marked the first time
that a Michelson interferometer was operated successfully on
an aircraft (on which JKC-135 is not known). Follow-up tests
occurred between 2nd October and 1st November 1962, with
submegaton warheads detonated at high altitudes. The 2nd
October 1962, test ('Dominic 1- Androscoggin') was the 'first US
nuclear test in which all the diagnostic instrumentation was con-
tained within airborne [Lockheed] RC-121, C-130, KC-135, and
the AFSWC RB-52B drop aircralt', 151
In 1963, 55-3131 acquired five blade antennae located cir-
cumferentially around the forward dorsal fuselage for use in HF
radio wave propagation studies, A large loop antenna aft of
these on the fuselage spine was for very low frequency ('VLF)
research. Inside the airplane were a five-channel photometer, a
spectrograph, an infrared spectrograph, a neutron counter, and
a gamma-ray spectrometer, all used in studying electromagnet-
ic phenomena in the 0, E, and Fregions of the atmosphere. The
airplane also studied the 80,000 ampere electro-jet current run-
ning from east to west in the ionosphere.'" Sometime during
1964, 55-3131 became involved with the Aerospace Radio
Propagation (ASRP) tests. This program evaluated the effect of
natural ionized environments on communications, surveillance,
and navigation systems which require the propagation of radio
waves.
By the end of 1965, Lockheed Aircraft Services had modified
the airplane for 'upper atmospheric research'. It acquired two
transparent domes on the dorsal fuselage. These domes
housed 'a gyro-stabilized, 35mm, all-sky camera' and a pho-
tometer head 'to measure artificial and natural airglow',"'Other
new equipment included a gamma-ray monitor. Test missions
involved study of 'aurora, ionospheric drift and irregularities,
and [investigation oij electron dumping in the middle and North
Atlantic'.'"
The airplane also studied ionospheric physics and was
known as the Airborne Ionospheric Observatory (Ala). It partic-
ipated in a program at Fort Churchill, Canada, from July through
November 1969, studying 'polar cap absorption (PCA) events
[which] caus[ed] communications blackouts'. The highlight of
this program was the 2nd November 1969, airborne observation
of a giant solar proton burst. Results from this program were
instrumental in the formation of existing models for D-region
behavior."'ln May 1971 sensors on board 55-3131 (in conjunc-
tion with a Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellite)
provided the 'first simultaneous measurements of incoming par-
ticle fluxes... made by the ISIS-II satellite'.'" From 26-29 January
1974, 55-3131 participated in a co-ordinated experiment with
the Thule, Greenland, ground station confirming 'that geomag-
netic effects are not uniform over the polar cap region'.'''' Under
'Have Car', 55-3131 moved to Kirtland AFB during 1975.''' In
1976 it was reassigned to the 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson
AFB,'"
------- ----~~ - -- --
Other projects assigned to 55-3131 included AWACS com-
patibility testing from December 1979 until February 1981,
'Merla' from June until September 1982, and START froo
October through December 1984 (details of these last two pr~
jects are not known). Additional programs involving 55-3131
include testing of over-the-horizon backscatter (OTH-B) rad~
equipment, a project involving satellite phase scintillation mea-
surements, and along with NKC-135A 55-3127, CRRES. The air·
plane was declared surplus and retired to AMARC on 19th
October 1992, and given the storage number CA053 (see
Appendix D),
55·3132 This KC-135A was delivered to Wright-Patterson n
AFB on 15th March 1960, as a JKC-135A but was redesignated Rl
an NKC-135A. Beginning in 1962, LTV modified the airplane to AI
test several 'cheek' configurations, aerodynamic cross-sections,
and fuselage locations as part of the 'Electronic Recon·
'bl
e~
naissance System' program, a precursor to the many differefJ at
RC-135 platforms. Testing was completed in January 1962 and sll
the airplane was displayed at Bunker Hill AFB, Indiana, and ~ N(
Andrews AFB for evaluation by SAC and Pentagon officials,
respectively. In early 1963 a SAC crew flew test missions in Tt
Europe, implying that the airplane was evaluating more than iu~ ar
external configurations, and likely had an operable reconnais- pI
sance system installed.''' Results of this project are not known, NI
At some point in the early 1960s, this airplane was reportedl1 a
part of the 'Speed Light' program, Reconnaissance KC-135A ar
55-3121 was part of 'Speed Light' prior to 1963, so 55-3132 may 'H
have been involved with follow-on testing to this program (see th
Chapter Ten). This airplane was modified in late 1963 to suppOIl S
the 'Recce Strike' program (along with NKC-135A 56-3596), with
the new equipment mounted on the forward starboard fuselage,
The airplane continued service as a test-bed at Wright·
Patterson AFB and in late 1964 participated in the 'Thrustmeta
System' tests and in early 1965 was part of the 'Hi ResolutiOli
Radar' program.'~ Details of these projects are not known.
In 1973, 55-3132 was sent to Kirtland AFB and modified for
the Army Office of Missile Electronic Warfare (OMEW) of the
Army Materiel and Laboratory Command. Nicknamed 'Big
Crowl, the airplane is stationed at Kirtland AFB, There have also
been several NT-39A 'Little Crows' (59-2870, 59-2873, 60-3474,
and 60-3476.) 'Big Crow' serves as an airborne laboratory prob·
ing weaknesses to hostile electronic interference with or eaves-
dropping upon US Air Force, Navy, Army, and Allied nations
electronic systems. Its mission equipment can duplicate the
NKC-135A 55-3124 in 1977, carrying the AARB
developed for use on the ATCA, which became
. the KC-10. It was later used for communications
and ECM tests, indicating the diversity of
assignments given to KC-135 test-beds.
Kirk Minert collection, courtesy Paul Minert
53124 1 ,

The 'Pave Onyx' NKC-135A 55-3125 from the
Rome Air Development Center at Elmendorf
AFB, 28th September 1968. Note the extended
'boom' modified to support electronic test
equipment and the ventral fairing under the
, after fuselage. The overall configuration is
similar to that of JKC-135A 55-3122.
Norman E Taylor, courtesy Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
The need to refuel both probe-equipped aircraft
and IFR-equipped aircraft on the same sortie
prompted the 1982 'Hose Reel' program, when
NKC-135A 55-3127 demonstrated the viability of
adrogue-equipped KC-135. Despite its success
and potential to equip over 600 KC-135As,
'Hose Reel' died a budgetary death as a direct
threat to the acquisition of 60 new KC-10s for
SAC. William J Norton collection
electronic signature of a variety of modern aircraft, simulating
electronic threats for jamming practice and electronic signature
calibration."; It can carry ECM pods on pylons inboard of the
inner engines and on the wingtips, has chaff dispensers, and a
significant decoy capability. Each flight's events are recorded
for extensive ground analysis. It is arguably the most capable
ECM test aircraft in existence and its value is reflected in the
increasing use of similar airborne ECM platforms used in both
routine training and operational test and evaluation.'" Indeed,
talks were under way during 1992 to consider loaning the 'Big
Crow' to the UK.'"
The airplane flies some 250 hours per year for both military
and commercial customers, including, for example, the ECM
support branch of the Army's Vulnerability Assessment
Laboratory as part of tests associated with the Patriot missile,
the I-HAWK surface-to-air missile, and the Aquila remotely-pilot-
ed vehicle. Other service's programs involving the 'Big Crow'
include BMEWS, OTH-B radar, and JTIDS.". The airplane has a
flight-deck crew of six, including two pilots, a navigator, and a
flight engineer, with a mission crew of five maintenance techni-
cians and five electronic warfare crewmembers.
The 'Big Crow' has been noted in a variety of configurations,
underscoring its flexibility to represent a wide variety of elec-
tronic systems. Large removable dorsal and ventral canoe-
shaped radomes were added to the forward fuselage. A large
nose radome replaced the standard nose. The airplane has also
been seen with a long cylindrical tail extension, likely a platform
for some energy radiation test. As most of its fuselage fuel tanks
were removed to allow the installation of additional ECM equip-
ment, the 'Big Crow' initially suffered from an extremely short
radius of action. In 1986 the airplane acquired an IFR system,
considerably enhancing the airplane's range and mission capa-
bility. The airplane received TF33-PW-102 engines from 4th
October 1990, through 31 January 1991, and was redesignated
an NKC-135E.
55·3134 Uke her sister ship 55-3127, this airplane began its
test-bed duties as a JKC-135A on 26th September 1958, and
was involved in a variety of test programs. In the early 1960s
Martin-Baltimore modified the airplane as part of TRAP, a corol-
lary program to the earlier RAMP undertaken by 55-3127. Both
airplanes participated in TRAP, although 55-3134 differed signif-
icantly from 55-3127 in having a larger doghouse fairing atop
the fuselage and the large fuselage windows were installed
approximately 7in (17.7cm) higher to accommodate the greater
elevation angles required for the internal research equipment.
In addition to the basic TRAP mission, 55-3134 also studied
the radiation pattern of ballistic vehicles while at their apogee as
part of the Midcourse Acquisition and Tracking System (TRAP-
MATS), although to a significantly lesser degree of success than
observations made during launch and re-entry. These missions
were euphemistically referred to as 'celestial navigation studies'.
At one point the airplane was named Big Daddy. It participated
in the 1962 'Starfish' atmospheric nuclear test (call-sign
'Grantham 01 'j, and was responsible for the optical tracking of
the nuclear re-entry vehicle.'69
The TRAP mission met with mixed success. From 1st January
through 30th June 1963, there were six successful collections
out of 13 events. Nine sounding rockets were followed during
107
missions from Holloman AFB, New Mexico, and of these two
were successfully tracked, two provided marginal data, and five
provided no data, all ascribed to the loss of an ion generator on
the re-entry vehicle. Two events at the Pacific Missile Range at
Kwajalein were successful, as were two fired from the Atlantic
Missile Range and covered from Robertsfield, Liberia, while a
third shot was cancelled.'ro The number of successful collec-
tions increased, with data recorded on 14 events, although no
total number of missions is available for comparison. 111
The airplane continued to support TRAP I through at least late
1965. Subsequently, E-Systems updated 55-3134 under a com-
bined Air Force/Army contract. The company installed 'two
open-port rotating drum assemblies and the necessary sup-
porting structure in [the) existing fuselage canopy. The drums
[were) capable of being rotated to a closed position, sealed,
and environmentally conditioned while the aircraft [was) on the
ground or in transit to or from its operational location and alti-
tude. This modification also included the installation of gimbals,
sensors, racks, displays, and a cryogenic cooling system'.'"
Further details about the equipment and its mission have not
been made available. Specific test duties thereafter are not
known.
On 15th May 1978, the airplane was transferred to the US
Navy as NKC-135A BuNo 553134 as part of the Combined Fleet
Electronic Warfare Service Group (ComFltEW-ServGru) at NAS
Norfolk, Virginia, and then as part of the Fleet Electronic Warfare
Support Group (FEWSG), and became known as 'Navy King
Crow I'.'" Originally based at Tulsa lAP, the airplane was oper-
ated and maintained by McDonnell Douglas contract crews
(how ironic!) until late 1989, when the contract was acquired by
Chrysler Technologies Airborne Systems (CTAS) at Waco/TSTI
AP in Waco, Texas. In conjunction with NKC-135A 56-3596 and
Douglas EC-24A 163050, the airplane deployed around the
world to conduct training and evaluation of the US Navy's fleet
capability to identify, defend, and intercept simulated hostile
electronic threats.'''
Like the 'Big Crow', the FEWSG platforms can simulate a
wide variety of hostile and friendly electronic signatures against
which realistic training can be undertaken. The value of this pro-
gram is reflected in the acquisition of the EC-24A, the growth in
contractor-operated electronic warfare 'Smart Crow' trainers,
and the plan to develop a Multi-Service Electronic Warfare
Support Group (MSEWG) for NATO using 'three Boeing
707--dass jamming aircraft'.'"
The FEWSG NKC-135As have been seen in a variety of elder-
nal configurations, demonstrating their adaptability to specific
requirements. They lack an air refueling capability, either as a
tanker or as a receiver, and the forward body and upper deck
NKC-135A 56-3596 modified for the 'Reece
Strike' program. Note the differences between
this variation and the configuration on
NKC-135A 55-3132, which carries a large dorsal
ram air Intake. 'Reece Strike' Step II continued
on NKC-135A 56-3596 through 1966, when the
AN/APS-73 radar was removed and the airplane
was transferred to the ALOTS program.
Paul Minert
108
fuel tanks have been removed to make room for the additional
electronic equipment. The residual windows on 55-3134 have
been covered. Other modifications include the replacement of
the weather radar with a sea search unit. The airplanes have an
enlarged nose radome, a number of antennae along the fuse-
lage, and an underwing pylon for electronic warfare pods [such
as the 'Tree Shark' and 'Tree Horn' transmitters or the AN/ALQ-
167M) on each side of the inboard engines. The engine-driven
electrical system has been modified by the addition of larger
electrical generators necessary to satisfy the large power de-
mands of the electrical equipment. These result in bulges along
the engine pod.
The airplane was scheduled to receive TF33-PW-1 02 engines
in 1990 and be redesignated an NKC-135E. However, funding
for this modification was reportedly diverted to the Trident SLBM
program. In the early 1990s, FEWSG was redesignated the Fleet
Tactical Readiness Group (FTRG). By the mid-1990s budget
cuts, the retirement of NKC-135A 563596, and a lack of support
for the 'King Crow's' J57 engines spelled the end for 553134. It
was retired to AMARC on 20th February 1996 as AN6G0002
(see Appendix D).
55·3135 Accepted into the test-bed program as aJKC-135A,
this airplane was configured with 50-plus small windows along
each side of the fuselage, It participated along with C-135A 60-
0376 in the ORSEP program, likely associated with 'nuclear
readiness testing', These many windows earned these two air-
planes the nickname 'piccolo tube', While based at Kirtland
AFB, 55-5135 participated in a program known as 'Sleigh Ride',
beginning 9th March 1964, an atmospheric nuclear weapons
test program. On 28th December 1964, the airplane was
assigned to Wright-Patterson AFB, where it remained through at
least late 1965.'''
Like 60-0376, 55-3135 was assigned to the AACS program in
the late 1960s, and was redesignated an NKC-135A and reas-
signed to the AFETR. AACS ended in 1970, and 55-3135 was
reassigned to the AFFTC at Edwards AFB for use as an 'instru-
mented tanker'. It provides highly accurate data on such topics
as fuel flow rates and disconnect pressures for initial air refuel-
ing tests with new or modified airplanes or systems, In addition,
55-3135 supports AFFTC and USAFTPS missions.
The airplane was modified in March 1982 into an NKC-135E
with the addition of TF33-PW-102 turbofans and its duties
remain unchanged.
56·3596 This airplane was first assigned to Wright-Patterson
AFB on 7th December 1962. Beginning in mid-1963, this NKC-
135A participated in the Reconnaissance Strike Program, also
known as 'Recce Strike', and was assigned to Wright-Patterson
AFB for the program's duration. The airplane was modified by
the addition of alarge and deep radome on the left forward fuse-
lage, This structure was flight checked on 15th July 1963, with
no unusual flight characteristics noted. The radome covered an
AN/APS-73 side-looking radar and its associated sensory equip-
ment such as infrared and ELiNT gear and a T-11 camera, its
correlator and film developing equipment. 177 By 1964 the pro-
gram had been renamed 'Recce Strike Step II' and testing con-
tinued through at least the end of 1965, including the modifica-
tion of NKC-135A 55-3132 to a similar configuration. By mid-
1966,56-3596 had surrendered its radome, acquired an ALOTS
pod, and was reassigned to the AFSWC at Kirtland AFB,
During 1975 the airplane was modified for use by the US
Navy's FEWSG, and given the BuNo 563596 and became
known as 'Navy King Crow 11'. It was joined by NKC-135A 55-
3134 and Douglas EC-24A 163050, In 1989 CTAS took overlt!
FEWSG airplanes from Waco/TSTI AP under a Navy contract,
The airplane was scheduled to receive TF33-PW-1 02 engin~
in 1990 and be redesignated an NKC-135E. However, fundirl
for this is said to have been diverted to the Trident SLBM ~
gram. A shortage of funds in 1994 prevented 563596 If
receiving scheduled PDM, and it sat unused at CTAS for ne3i\
nine months before being retired to AMARC on 26th June tOOl
It is currently stored there as AN6G0001 (see Appendix D)."
59·1491 During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the SoW!
Union began ICBM development in earnest. So little data Wert
available on the early state of the Sovie1 program that the US
and its Western Allies adopted several programs dedicatoo
specifically to bridging this intelligence gap. Among the leSSll·
known missions that supported ballistic missile intelligera
ga1hering around the USSR was the Boeing EB-47E(TI).'"
The EB-47E(TI) was quite an effective platform for its day,
although it suffered from a lack of optical intelligence (OPTINl)
capability other than rarely-used hand-held cameras. Con-
sequently, a variety of optical platforms were developed am
tested in an effort to alleviate this shortcoming. The most 511:·
cessful of these was the 'Nancy Rae' JKC-135A.
KC-135A 59-1491 was delivered to Wright-Patterson AFB 00
1st October 1960, The air refueling boom was removed and a
fuel dump tube installed, and ten optically ground windows
were installed along the starboard side of the fuselage, Aclem
observer's dome was located halfway along the fuselage spine,
Inside the airplane were 'sophisticated optical trackers aM
recorders to observe and record the reentry of ballistic vehide
bodies, The airplane reportedly participated in the TRAP pr~
gram during this period,
Beginning in late 1961, 'Nancy Rae' conducted operations
from Shemya AFB under the aegis of AFSC, thus becoming the
first KC-135 of any variant to perform areconnaissance mission
6n 7th February 1962, it was redesignated a JKC-135A, with
operations from Shemya AFB continuing through early 1963,
The airplane was transferred to SAC on 1st March 1963, am
began conversion by General Dynamics into the 'Wanda Belle'
RC-135S (later known as the 'Rivet Ball' RC-135S).lt crashed 00
13th January 1969 (see Appendix C).
NKC·135B
In October 1996 EC-135C 63-8050 configured in support of the
HEL and ABL programs, was redesignated as an NKC-135BiI
keeping with its new test-bed duties. It is assigned to the 412nd
TW at Edwards AFB.
Possibly the only KC-135 variant to carry alr·to-
ground weapons, JKC-135A 55-3128's actual
mission with these weapons remains undis·
closed. It may be that the wing-tip-mounted
rockets were launched and detonated in the air
as a means of calibrating sensors onboard the
airplane. Another possibility is that the rpckets
were used to produce electromagnetic effects
by releasing chemicals such as barium or stron·
tium, much like the later CRRES program
involving NKC-135As 55-3127 and 55-3131.
PM-6834, Seattle Museum of Flight collection
Icing is one of a pilot's worst nightmares, and
under even moderate icing conditions airplanes
have been known to crash due to the added
weight of the ice or the drastic changes it can
make to the airplanes aerodynamic surfaces.
From 1964 until 1995, NKC-135A 55·3128 served
as the primary aerial watei' spray plaUorm.
Using computer technology the airplane could
simulate a wide variety of icing conditions, and
it participated in icing flight tests of military air·
craft, civil airliners and even cruise missiles.
Joe Bruch collection
After its role as the first 'Weightless Wonder'.
NKC·135A 55-3129 became the first AFSATCOM
test-bed. The linge dorsal fairing contained a
33in (83cm) satellite dish. By 1977 the SATCOM
test duties had been assigned to C-135B
61·2662, primarily because of its better range
and endurance. 55-3129 was assigned to other
programs. Arnold Swanberg collection
5
 --. -
. 0-53131

. -...----
I

53132

-
U. S. AIR fORCt:."""",,,~~
-

110
 Opposite page from top to bottom:
NKC·135A 55-3131 epitomized the dual nature
of KC-135 test-bed missions. During 1965, when
this photo was taken, it was involved with a
civilian research project on the aurora and
ionosphere. It also participated in strictly
military studies such as 'Merla', about which
little is known. Aerofax collection
NKC·135A 55-3132 configured for the Electronic
Reconnaissance Systems program. This
conversion, undertaken by LTV, bears a striking
resemblance to that on the recon-configured
KC·135A·lls, also modified by LTV. By late 1963,
55·3132 was further modified into the 'Recce
, Strike' configuration. Paul Minert collection
The 'Big Crow' airborne electronic warfare
laboratory can reportedly simulate any extant
electronic signature or threat. Although the
Army paid for the initial conversion and funding
of NKC-135A 55-3132 into 'Big Crow', the
airplane also supports other US military
services, as well as those of other nations.
Mike Franczek
This page from the top:
In conjunction with NKC-135A 55-3127, NKC-
135A 55-3134 supported the TRAP program.
Notable external differences between the two
airplanes include somewhat smaller optical win-
dows mounted higher in the fuselage on
55·3134, as well as differences between the two
'doghouses'. Depicted at Patrick AFB, long after
LTV's 1965 modification of the dorsal doghouse
fairing and internal test equipment.
Joe Bruch collection
By 1978 the Navy acquired NKC-135A
55·3134 as the second 'King Crow' platform
(although it was named 'King Crow I'), it was
given the non-standard BuNo number 553134.
Primarily used as an airborne electronic threat
simulator, 553134 - photographed during a fleet
exercise in 1981 - was supplemented by
NKC-135A 563596 (since retired to AMARC)
and Douglas EC-24A 163050, all operated under
contract to the US Navy by Chrysler from Waco,
Texas. Jon Von Gohren, courtesy Dana Potts
111
 Wh
the
the
ha
ave
Port-side 'Tree Horn' EW transmitter installed on NKC-135A 553134. Starboard-side 'Tree Shark' EW transmitter installed on NKC-135A
Bill Strandberg 553134. Bill Strandberg ticu
an<
The early years of JKC-135A 55-3135's test-bed operations are not well Neither fish nor fowl, 59-1491 was an AFSC test-bed that flew operational the
documented, but it is known to have participated in nuclear weapons reconnaissance missions for SAC during the early 1960s, first as a
sm
testing as part of ORSEP and 'Sleigh Ride'. Its more recent history KC-135A then as a JKC-135A. Known as 'Nancy Rae', it is depicted at the
consists primarily of instrumented tanker duties at Edwards AFB. It was LTV facility prior to installation of the characteristic hog nose. SAC ac<
re-engined in 1982 and redesignated an NKC-135E. Boeing P-38187, gained the airplane during 1963, and General Dynamics then converted it Alii
courtesy Robert D Archer into the 'Wanda Belle' RC-135S. E-Systems P-4705-20, Joe Bruch collection An
fee

Inl
ini
in,
o
TE
w.
cr
th
CI
nl
tE
AI

112

Airborne Command Posts
Whether through the perceived weakness of
the United States or the assumed strength of
the Soviet Union, the years of Dwight D Eisen-
hower's presidency saw an increasing anxiety
over a Soviet surprise attack upon the US, par-
ticularly against American nuclear strike forces
and major cities. First the 'bomber gap' and
then the 'missile gap' (neither of which existed
save in Pentagon and congressional polemics)
accentuated this paranoia.' The US and its
Allies had just won a world war that began (for
Americans) with a surprise attack. Widespread
, fear of communism and the lack of any sub-
j Interior view of an EC-135C 'Looking Glass'. The
initial configuration in KC-135As and KC-135Bs
incorporated a small table capable of seating
only four persons, including the senior officer.
Telecommunications equipment at that time
was limited to a few additional radios and
cryptographic devices. In its heyday, seen here,
the 'Glass' carried a battle staff and support
crew of nearly a dozen men and women and
numerous UHF, VHF, HF, VLF, and SHF radios,
j teletypes, and, most importantly, an oven.
Author's collection
Chapter Nine
stantive knowledge of Soviet military capabili-
ties re-inforced this deep-seated suspicion of a
Soviet sneak attack, and the belief that commu-
nists lay in waiting in every pumpkin patch
fanned this paranoia to a level of near hysteria.
Among senior US military officials in the Tru-
man administration, immediate post-war con-
cerns were few about a direct Soviet military
attack upon the continental US. Indeed, the
Joint Chiefs felt that the Soviet military was little
threat to the continental US, and that the likeli-
hood of such an attack was extremely remote:
Further, the Soviet Union lacked the means to
strike the US. The Soviets had reverse engi-
neered the Tupolev Tu-4 (NATO code-name
'Bull') from the remains of US B-29s that had
crashed in Russia during the war, but Tu-4s
were not available in numbers large enough to
be threatening, nor did the Soviets possess
atomic weapons with which to arm them.
By August 1949, when the Soviets detonated
their first atomic bomb, the situation had chan-
ged enough to prompt US defense planners to
build a network of advanced warning radar
bases. 3 The 'Pinetree' series of radar bases was
completed by 1952, and the Distant Early War-
ning (DEW) line was finished the following year.
Radars at these bases would warn of an
impending Soviet bomber attack and give the
US adequate time to prepare defensive fighter
reactions and, if need be, ready and launch its
own bombers toward their Soviet targets.
The 1954 introduction of the Myasishchev
Mya-4 Molot (Hammer), code-named 'Bison'
by NATO, opened the bomber gap. That same
year, the Soviet Tupolev design bureau intro-
duced the Tu-95 turboprop heavy bomber
(NATO 'Bear'). In a classic case of maskirovka,
or deception Soviet style, a handful of 'Bisons'
flew repeatedly in front of Western observers at
a Soviet militaryairshow, deluding them into
believing that the Soviets had dozens of these
bombers in operation and countless more in
production. The Soviets widened the bomber
gap by falsely boasting that there were over
400 Mya-4s in service.
By 1955 American worries over potential
Soviet strategic capabilities had turned into
outright fears of an imminent attack. In a report
entitled Meeting the Threat of Surprise Attack
(also known as the 'Killian Report') issued in
February 1955 by the Technical Capabilities
113
Panel of the Science Advisory Panel, a blue-rib-
bon panel of US defense analysts expressed
deep concern over the Soviet military threat to
the continental USA. US Air Force planners
estimated that by 1959 the USSR would have a
thousand bombers available, all equipped with
atomic weapons.'
Grossly mistaken, US analysts learned by
1956 (through Lockheed U-2 flights) that the
Soviet Union lacked the capability to build that
many bombers, let alone operate them. For
example, when Mya-4 production ended in
1962, no more than 180 had been built, hardly
the 'thousands' claimed by both the Soviet and
the USAF. Consequently, US intelligence ana-
lysts were notably less pessimistic in their
newer assessments of Soviet bomber produc-
tion than before. Further, the mass acquisition
by the US Air Force during the late 1950s of
Boeing B-47s and B-52s, and Convair B-58
Hustler bombers, plus the development of
plans for a supersonic intercontinental bomber,
effectively narrowed and then eliminated the
bomber gap, if it existed at all.
At the same time the US began full-scale
development of its ballistic missile capability.
So too, did the Soviets" Just as American igno-
rance of Soviet bomber production spawned a
bomber gap, the decided lack of any know-
ledge about Soviet ICBM development created
a 'missile gap'. As before, pundits argued the
worst case, saying that Soviet missile produc-
tion outmatched the meager American pro-
gram. As before, they were wrong. U-2 flights
and other intelligence sources clearly showed
that there was no missile gap.
Implications of a Soviet Threat
The perceived growth of Soviet ballistic missile
potential, however, preyed directly upon the
fear among the American people of a Soviet
surprise attack on the US. In the past, Russian
bombers could be detected many hours away
from American soil and US defenses could
114
react accordingly. Civil defense measures mined. Without the deterrent effect of counter·
could be instituted and Americans could head attack, so the logic went, there was no com· vi\
for their recently purchased backyard fallout pelling reason for the Soviets not to attack the . inl
shelters. Soviet ICBMs, on the other hand, US. The need for a survivable SAC command se
could not be detected en route, had a flight time post was therefore critical to US security. si<
on the order of half an hour, and were reported- During the 1950s the US nuclear strike policy cc
ly capable of carrying the latest Soviet nuclear had been popularized as one of 'massive retalf lal
warheads estimated to be of considerable ex- ation'. In the event of nuclear war, all US nuc· ar
plosive megatonnage. lear assets (and SAC's bombers in particular) cc
During the late 1950s, SAC began placing a would be launched against targets in the USSR el
third of its combat airplanes on 15-minute and the People's Republic of China (PRC). The de
ground alert to reduce their vulnerability to this US national command structure (and SAC's m
threat. Warning stations were built to keep an command posts, in partiCUlar) were thus orient· ly
unsleeping electronic eye open for any im- ed toward launching a retaliatory strike rather p<
pending ballistic missile attack, ensuring that than controlling the force once executed.
SAC's bombers and tankers could take-off The 1960s and 1970s saw the shift in US p<
before the inbound warheads could rain down nuclear policy from, among other things, oneol dE
upon them. The primary detection system, the massive retaliation to 'flexible response'. With ct
Ballistic Missile Early Warning System this change in policy came a corresponding re
(BMEWS), was built from 1958 through 1960. change in command philosophy, placing a ul
Satellites - still in an infant stage - such as the greater emphasis on civilian control of the dl
unfielded infrared-detecting Missile Defense nuclear strike force both before and after its TI
Alarm System (MIDAS) were also intended to launch. Flexible response required that US bl
warn of Soviet ICBMs.· civilian (ie political) leaders have the ability to si
Whereas ground alert and early warning may direct a limited nuclear response against spe· ai
have constituted an improved degree of surviv- cific targets rather than the spastic nuclear cat· w
ability for SAC's combat assets, they did not astrophe ('wargasm' in the words of Herman
provide a commensurate increase in the surviV- Kahn) previously envisaged. This meant that o
ability of SAC's command and control facilities, the nuclear strike forces (or a portion thereoij ir
especially its ·primary command post buried 'had to be survivable independent of any strate- s!
deep beneath SAC Headquarters - Building gic or tactical warning in order to enable the (!
500 - at Offutt AFB. Consequently, alternate political leadership to maintain control 01 c
command posts were located at SAC num- events'.' te
bered air force (NAF) bases at March AFB, Cali- F
fornia, BarksdaleAFB, Louisiana, and Westover A
AFB. As Soviet missile accuracy and destruc- The 1965 PACCS reorganization eliminated o
SAC's EB-47L Stratojets, making the PACCS
tive yield improved, the survivability of these force an all EC·135 fleet. EC-135As initially a
SAC command posts decreased accordingly. If acquired the EB-47Ls' radio relay duties as v,
destroyed in a Soviet sneak attack, these com- EC-135Cs gained primary responsibility for the a
mand and control elements could not launch a 'Looking Glass' mission. Long before 10th f'
retaliatory US strike. Without the ability to . March 1989, when 4th ACCS EC·135A 61-0278 E
was at Ellsworth AFB, the EC-135As had given
launch SAC's forces after a surprise attack, US up primary responsibility for the radio relay i1
retaliatory capability (and hence the fundamen- mission and were used instead as ALCCs.
tal axiom of deterrence) was critically under- Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
 Flexible response also required that the sur-
viving National Command Authorities (NCA -
including the president, vice president, and
secretary of defense) be able to make deci-
sions during a nuclear war,. decisions that
could be relayed to the strike force once it was
launched. This implied the need to establish
and maintain secure and survivable communi-
cations links between the NCA and individual
elements of the nuclear strike force, including a
dedicated National Emergency Airborne Com-
mand Post (NEACP) for use by the NCA. Final-
ly, flexible response meant a greater role for
I political leaders in pre-war planning.·
The need for a survivable SAC command
post as a key component of adequate US
deterrence and security meshed well with the
• change in US nuclear policy from massive
retaliation to flexible response and its focus
upon control of America's nuclear strike force
during the trans- and early post-SlOP periods.
The only likely survivable candidate was an air-
borne platform, and plans had been under con-
I sideration by SAC since late 1958 to test an
airborne command post variant of the KC-135,
I with a desired operational capability by 1960.
SAC achieved its goal of a third of its forces
, on 15-minute ground alert in May 1960, reduc'
ing their vulnerability to surprise attack.' That
same month, on 26th May, the first KC-135A
(58-0022) began modification to an airborne
command post configuration, and operational
tests started two months later at Offutt AFB.
, Five modified KC-135As assigned to the 34th
AREFS were placed on ground alert and peri-
I odically tested to determine their ability to take
off within 15 minutes. lO Once airborne, they
would serve as an alternate command post,
assuming primary control overthe SAC combat
force if (or, more appropriately, when) an
enemy attack destroyed the underground facil-
ityat Offutt AFB and the other NAF command
posts." On board each flight was a senior SAC
• officer (initially a colonel and eventually a gen-
eral) - known as the Airborne Emergency
Action Officer (AEAO) - who would take over
command of the SlOP forces in the event com-
munications were lost with the NCA and SAC
headquarters.
After six months the test was deemed a suc-
cess, hailed by CINCSAC General Thomas S
Power as 'conclusive proof' of the effectiveness
of an airborne command post, and a decision
was made to expand the program. 12 OCALC
converted additional KC-135As into airborne
command posts for use as back-ups to the pri-
mary airborne command post.
Continuous Airborne Operations
John Kennedy was elected to the presidency in
1960, in part, because of his tough rhetoric on
American strategic vulnerability to the Soviets.
Now in the White House,he had to make good
on his pledge to protect existing US forces and
I build new ones. 13 Two months after taking
office, Kennedy called for an increase in SAC
• ground alert forces to 50% of available forces, a
posture attained in July 1961. 14 In addition, one
of SAC's new airborne command posts would
be airborne at all times, and, on 3rd February
1961, the KC-135 airborne command post be-
gan continuous airborne operations, with addi-
tional back-up airplanes on 15-rninute ground
alert. A KC-135 airborne command post sortie-
dubbed the 'Looking Glass' - was airborne
safely and continuously from 3rd February
1961, to 24th July 1990. Twice, however, an
operational 'Looking Glass' has landed for
humanitarian reasons. In 1963 and in 1972 'the
Glass' landed briefly to drop off a critically ill
crewmember, launching again in less than 20
minutes."
Details are few about the origins, develop-
ment, and operations of US, especially SAC,
airborne command posts. Even after the end of
the 'Cold War', the subsequent reduction in
tension between the US and the former Soviet
Union, and the storage of nearly all of the air-
borne command post fleet in AMARC or as
'gate guards', the story of these airplanes and
their missions in the event of a national emer-
gency remains shrouded in secrecy. Nonethe-
less, it is possible to trace in broad strokes the
growth of the airborne command post fleet
from one of just five modified KC-135A tankers
to an extensive organization encompassing not
only airplanes but satellites, mobile ground
units, and other 'high tech' equipment. '6
During 1962 SAC's Post Attack Command
and Control System (PACCS) underwent the
first of several major re-organizations, expand-
ing to include three KC-135A auxiliary airborne
command post (AUXCP) units and four support
squadrons. Beginning in April 1962 AUXCPs
were assigned to tanker squadrons based at
NAF headquarters of the 2nd AF at Barksdale
AFB (913th AREFS, 2nd BW), the 8th AF at
Westover AFB (99th AREFS, 499th AREFW),
and the 15th AF at March AFB (22nd AREFS,
22nd BW). The AUXCPs were configured the
same as the primary airborne command post
and could replace it if and when needed. SAC
organized four support squadrons at Mountain
Horne AFB, Idaho, Lincoln AFB, Nebraska,
Lockbourne AFB, Ohio, and Plattsburgh AFB,
New York, on 20th July 1962, all equipped with
Boeing EB-47L radio relay platforms. ' ?
The NCA's NEACP also became operational
during 1962. The first such airplane (possibly
61-0274) was delivered to the 1000th ACCS,
1001 st ABW at Andrews AFB on 19th February
1962, and assumed an alert posture on sched-
ule on 1st March 1962. Three additional 'Phase
II' NEACPs were delivered to the 1OOOth ACCS
(KC-135As 61-0282, 61-0285, and 61-0291)
during 1962, and the first NEACP (61-0274)
may then have been turned over to SAC. These
three Phase II NEACPs would themselves be
relegated to SAC missions when replaced by
five EC-135As and new KC-135Bs configured
forthe NEACP role. 18
By this time the airborne command post fleet
had increased in number to 16 KC-135s plus
the radio relay EB-47Ls. As well as operational
KC-135A tankers reconfigured by OCALC at
Tinker, Boeing converted several KC-135As
into airborne command posts or relay aircraft
before delivery to the Air Force. In addition, a
new airborne command post MDS appeared-
the EC-135A. The first of these (62-3579) was
delivered on 2nd September 1964, to Andrews
AFB for the 1OOOth ACCS and use by the NCA. "
To reflect more properly the 'electronic' mis-
sion of the airborne command posts and to dis-
tinguish them from tankers, on 1st January
1965, all dedicated airplanes not already identi-
fied as such were redesignated with an 'EC'
prefiX: th us KC-135As became EC-135As and
KC-135Bs became EC-135Cs.20
Boeing began deliveries during 1964 of 17
KC-135B 'second-generation' airborne com-
mand posts, and the existing KC-135A airborne
command posts were thereafter (but not imme-
diately) relegated to other PACCS missions.
These new KC-135Bs highlighted weaknesses
in the KC-135A and EC-135A airborne com-
mand post fleeF ' The existing airplanes were
not well protected against EMP, a phenome-
non expected to be pervasive during any
nuclear exchange. Given the early technologi-
cal development of their communications
suites, the KC-135As and EC-135As 'probably
could not have established direct contact with
either alert missile submarines or higher
authorities based in the continental United
States'.22
The early airborne command post fleet was
also vulnerable to the technological limits of the
US early warning system. Even the ground alert
NEACP EC-135A at Andrews AFB, the NCA
platform with 'best chance of escaping attack
unscathed' was susceptible to a surprise strike.
Only the airborne 'Looking Glass' could survive
such an attack, particularly one launched from
a Soviet submarine off the Virginia coasF'
No amount of internal improvements would
alter the airplanes' vulnerability to surprise
attack. Projected improvements to the existing
on-board equipment meant that future airborne
command posts would have to be of the size
and capacity of the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, an
option that was briefly considered during the
1960s. US planners hoped that in lieu of sub-
stantive improvements in early warning and
EMP resistance throughout the airborne com-
mand post fleet, a shear increase in numbers,
in addition to the airborne 'Looking Glass',
would mean that some PACCS elements would
survive the initial attack, become airborne, and
execute their missions.
PACCS underwent another major re-organi-
zation on 25th March 1965. The EB-47L units at
Lockbourne AFB and Mountain Home AFB
were inactivated (EB-47L units at Lincoln AFB
and Plattsburgh AFB had already been inacti-
vated) and their radio-relay missions absorbed
by EC-135As assigned to the 32nd AREFS,
301 st AREFW at Lockbourne AFB and the 28th
AREFS, 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB, South Dako-
ta, respectively. PACCS was now exclusively
EC-135A and EC-135C equipped. 24
115

That same year theater commanders who
controlled nuclear weapons acquired airborne
command posts to improve the post-strike con-
trollability of their nuclear forces. Initially at least
one of these theater airborne command posts
was on airborne alert, but this was later chan-
ged to ground alert pending the declaration of
'a sufficiently high alert ... or some other stimu-
lus' that required their launch. 25 Unlike the
'Looking Glass', the alert battle staff on these
platforms was commanded by a colonel (or
Navy captain). With sufficient warning, a flag
officer was added to the battle staff.
A considerable shuffling of assets and new
conversions were undertaken to accommo-
date this wider control of nuclear forces. Eleven
EC-135As were added to SAC's roster. Three
EC-135Cs were converted into EC-135Js to
replace the NCA's EC-135As as 'Night Watch'
III NEACPs. The US Commander-in-Chief, Eur-
ope (USCINCEUR) received KC-135As modi-
fied into EC-135H 'Silk Purse' command posts
(assigned to the 7120th ACCS, 7513th TG) at
RAF Mildenhall, England. The US Commander-
in-Chief, Pacific (USCINCPAC) received the
five former 'Night Watch' EC-135As, converted
by E-Systems into 'Blue Eagle' EC-135As
(assigned to the 6486th ACCS, 6486th ABW) at
Hickam AFB. All of these platforms could com-
municate with their respective headquarters,
the NCA, and all components of US nuclear
forces.
SAC Nomenclature
By 1965 SAC KC-135 airborne command post
variants had increased to include EC-135As,
EC-135Cs, EC-135Gs, and EC-135Ls. Just as
other commands operated their airborne com-
mand post fleets under rubrics such as 'Blue
Eagle' or 'Night Watch', SAC's assets were
identified by the mission name 'Cover All'. The
primary SAC airborne command post was
widely known by its mission name of 'Looking
Glass' (because it 'mirrored' SAC's under-
ground command post function). The name
'Looking Glass' applied to whatever airplane
was operating as the primary airborne com-
mand post and was not assigned to a specific
airplane type, such as an EC-135C. Especially
during the 1960s, EC-135As and 'Gs could and
116
did operate as the 'Looking Glass' when a 'C
was not available, although with some degra-
dation in operational capacity. During its last
two decades of operation, however, the name
'Looking Glass' has become synonymous with
EC-135Cs.
The value of EC-135 airborne command
posts as survivable platforms capable of direct-
ing retaliatory strikes against the Soviet Union
was powerfully demonstrated on 17th April
1967, when an airborne battle staff successfully
launched a Boeing Minuteman II ICBM from
Vandenberg A~B after receiving 'the necessary
launch signal from a KC-135 [sic) aircraft'.'·
SAC's airborne command posts could not only
replace destroyed ground command posts to
control US forces, but could, if necessary,
replace destroyed Minuteman (but not Titan)
missile launch control centers and launch their
assigned ICBMs, an option available in 'Look-
ing Glass' KC-135Bs (but not publicly revealed)
since early 1965."
Other command posts such as 'Silk Purse' or
'Blue Eagle' lacked the equipment and codes
necessary to launch SAC's ICBMs." Only SAC
airborne launch platforms - 'Looking Glass'
and AUXCP EC-135Cs - and the newly mod-
ified Airborne Launch Control Center (ALCC)
EC-135As and EC-135Gs, had an airborne
launch control system (ALCS) installed. The
ALCS, which achieved its initial operational
capability on 31 st May 1967, was operated by a
SAC missile combat crew flying aboard the air-
plane and incorporated the same safeguards
against accidental launch as in ground control
centers:
'Two different launch keys must be turned in
unison from separate launch consoles in order
to execute launch. This may be done only after
orders from the president are received and
classified coded orders are verified by the
launch crew'.29
Since that first airborne launch, EC-135s of
SAC have repeatedly demonstrated this capa-
bility under missions known as 'Glory Trips'.
Top crews flying EC-135C 'Looking Glass' and
EC-135A and EC-135G ALCCs have launched
operational Minuteman ICBMs (minus their
nuclear warhead) that were moved from an
alert silo to one at Vandenberg AFB. After each
- n
b
C
c
C
n
Ii
(
a
E
(
n
(
Ii
Beginning in 1965 theater commanders gained
EC-135 airborne command posts to support (
strategic nuclear forces under their control.
t
USCINCEUR received EC·135Hs, including
61-0286, at RAF Mildenhall on 11th June 1989,
to replace the eXisting 'Silk Purse' Douglas
C·54s then in use. Robert J Archer
ICBM launch, the airplane landed at Vanden-
berg AFB and the crew received a familiariza-
tion briefing on missile research, development,
and operations - a real 'dog and pony show'
according to the crewmembers.
SAC's increasing commitments to support
the war in Southeast Asia affected not only the
bomber and tanker force, but the PACCS force
as well. Two EC-135L radio relay aircraft were
sentto U-Tapao RTNABfrom May to December
1967 to support the fledgling 'Combat lightn-
ing' program.
. On 1stApril1970, SAC underwent a majorre-
organization that completely altered the
PACCS structure but not its mission: the 'Look-
ing Glass' continued 24-hour airborne alert and
the AUXCPs, ALCCs, and radio relay airplanes
remained on 15-minute ground alert. 30 Air refu-
eling and strategic reconnaissance squadrons
that had operated PACCS aircraft were relieved
of this responsibility and the airplanes and
crews assigned to newly formed Airborne
Command and Control Squadrons (ACCS),
The 38th SRS, 55th SRW at Offutt AFB, the
305th AREFS, 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB,
and the 28th AREFS, 28th BWat Ellsworth AFB,
transferred their EC-135s and crews to the 2nd
ACCS, 55th SRW at Offutt AFB, the 3rd ACCS,
305th AREFW at Grissom AFB, and the 4th
ACCS, 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB, respectively.
The 2nd ACCS was responsible for EC-135C
'Looking Glass' primary airborne command
posts and EC-135C MIDAUXCPs (known by its
static radio call sign of 'Achieve'). The latter sat
ground alert at Offutt AFB and, once launched,
provided an airborne back-up for the 'Looking
Glass'. The MIDAUXCP also provided a surviv-
able battle suite for the CINCSAC, provided
there was sufficient warning time for him to
arrive at the aircraft prior to its alert launch.
 The 3rd ACCS supported EC-135C EAST-
AUXCPs (call-sign 'Grayson') and EC-135L
radio relay platforms. In addition to its role as a
back-up to the 'Looking Glass', the EASTAUX-
CP provided a secondary source of secure
communications with the NCA to the east of
Offutt AFB and the 'Looking Glass'. The radio
relay platforms maintained the 'connectivity
link' between Offutt AFB and the 'Looking
Glass' over the plains and the NCA ground and
aerial assets such as 'Night Watch'. Both the
EASTAUXCP and the radio relays sat alert at
Grissom AFB and at Lockbourne AFB (later
renamed Rickenbacker ANGB).
The 4th ACCS operated the WESTAUXCP
(call sign 'Stepmother') and the ALCCs. The
WESTAUXCP - typically an EC-135C, but occa-
sionally an EC-135G with attendant mission
degrade - provided a secure radio link be-
tween the 'Looking Glass' and the two or three
airborne ALCCs, which orbited above the Min-
uteman 'missile fields' in the Dakotas, Wy-
oming, Nebraska, Colorado, and Montana.
• One ALCC sat alert alongside the WESTAUX-
CP at Ellsworth, and two ALCCs sat alert at
, MinotAFB.
Each unit could also replace the others -
• including the 'Looking Glass', although not all'
had an ALCC capability - in the event of some
contingency such as maintenance problems or
bad weather. Indeed, the 4th ACCS regularly
flew the 'Looking Glass' mission on Thursdays,
usually from Offutt AFB but occasionally from
Ellsworth AFB.
Changes to the other airborne command
, post units and aircraft began a few years after
the 1970 PACCS re-organization. Beginning in
1974, Boeing E-4A AABNCPs replaced the
On 24th July 1990, the last continuously
airborne 'Looking Glass' mission landed at
, Offutt AFB. CINCSAC General John T 'Jack'
Chain was the AEAO on board EC-135C 63·8046,
, (here in April 1993), which flew the mission.
From 1990 until 1992 'Looking Glass' missions
were scheduled on a random basis, and no
longer was one airborne 24 hours a day. By
1997 most of the EC·135s were retired or
scrapped, and the EC·135C's mission relegated
to Boeing E-6B Mercuries. Joe Bruch
'Night Watch' III EC-135J NEACPs assigned to
the 1st ACCS, 1st CW at Andrews AFB.31 The
EC-135Js were then reassigned to the 9th
ACCS, 15th ABW at Hickam AFB, and reconfig-
ured with the 'Blue Eagle' battle staff suites
taken from the EC-135Ps previously assigned
to the 9th ACCS, which were themselves trans-
ferred to the 6th ACCS, 4500th ABW at Langley
AFB. Along with an EC-135H (later converted
into an EC-135P), the EC-135Ps then formed
the US Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic (USCINC-
LANT) new 'Scope Light' airborne command
post system. Finally, the 3rd ACCS was inacti-
vated on 31 st December 1975. Its radio relay
functions were assumed by the 70th AREFS,
305th AREFW at Grissom AFB, and its AUXCP
duties by the 2nd ACCS at Offutt AFB."
These changes were far more than a simple
administrative re-organization. The EC-135s,
arguably only a 'second generation' system, in-
creasingly had come under sharp criticism for
their vulnerability to EMP as well as their opera-
tional shortcomings such as limited crew
space, relatively short endurance without the
need for air refueling (usually by an EC-135
dedicated as a tanker sortie, further degrading
the total PACCS force), limited data storage
facilities, and outdated communications suite
technology. The US had 'clearly staked its abili-
ty to control retaliation on an airborne system,
and the EC-135 was pitifully outmoded'.33 In
justifying the acquisition of an advanced air-
borne command post (the Boeing 747-based
E-4A) , Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird
argued during 1973 that the E-4 was:
' ... an urgent program if we are to retain a
credible and realistic deterrent in the future ...
Our current airborne command system is sev-
erely deficient in survivability and capacity and
cannot fulfill our essential needs in the event of
nuclear attack on our country. It lacks the sur-
vivable secure communications needed for
control and execution of the [SlOP) forces ... 34
Although this critical rhetoric was intended
more for the purpose of securing E-4 funding
than for denigrating the EC-135 fleet, it was
nonetheless revealing about the state of the air-
borne command post system and the urgent
need for a complete upgrade, a process not ini-
tiated until the late 1980s and early 1990s with
the 'Pacer Link' program.
Operations and Capabilities
For the next 15 years, SAC's airborne com-
mand post fleet remained constant in numbers,
mission, and organization. Centered around an
EC-135C 'Looking Glass' operated by the 2nd
ACCS, the PACCS fleet included two AUXCPs
(one from the 2nd ACCS - the EASTAUXCP -
and one from the 4th ACCS - the WESTAUX-
CP) on 15-minute ground alert. The 4th ACCS
proVided ALCCs No.1, 2, and 3, and the 70th
AREFS supported Radio Relays No.1 and 2. 35
The ALCCs and the WESTAUXCP were on
satellite alert at Minot AFB, and Radio Relay
NO.2 was on alert at Rickenbacker ANGB, Ohio
(formerly Lockbourne AFB).
In the event of a national emergency, the
'Looking Glass' and the two AUXCPs would
orbit over the central USA, the three ALCCs
would orbit above the Minuteman missile fields
in the north central and northwest US, and the
two radio relay platforms would orbit over the
midwest, establishing and maintaining com-
munications links with the 'Night Watch' E-4B
NEACP carrying the NCA, airborne over the
east coast.'6
Should communications be lost with the NCA
or the SAC underground post, the 'Looking
Glass' battle staff would, after satisfying a strict
set of guidelines regarding taking over from
civilian command of US SlOP forces, 'assess
battle damage, communications, radioactive
fallout, and the location and strength of surviv-
ing forces'. The 'Looking Glass' battle staff
would also 'plan and co-ordinate strategic
strikes against enemy targets and direct return-
ing aircraft to bases with safe runways and
plenty of fuel'. If need be, 'the battle staff could
launch the entire force of Minuteman and
Peacekeeper missiles'.37
The battle staff composition has evolved
considerably over the lifetime of the 'Looking
Glass' program. An early crew complement, in
addition to the flight crew of aircraft comman-
der (who was in charge of the airplane and
safety-of-flight issues), copilot, navigator, and
boom operator, included a communications
officer, two radio operators, a data operator,
and a radio technician. Although a SAC general
could be part of the battle staff, it was more
often a SAC colonel during the program's for-
mative years.
117

The composition of the battle staff during the
heyday of 'Looking Glass' operations was far
more robust. A SAC general, occasionally inc-
luding the CINCSAC and Vice CINCSAC, acted
as the AEAO and commanded the overall mis-
sion and battle staff. He was assisted by an
operations controller and a communications
officer. Plans and intelligence officers, commu-
nications technicians, weather experts, a logis-
tics officer and non-commissioned officer
(NCO), a force status NCO (who briefed force
and weapons status), and a passenger special-
ist (a 'stew') made up the remainder of the bat-
tle staff, typically numbering ten or eleven. The
communications staff on board the 'Looking
Glass' was fairly substantial, comprising a com-
munications officer, five radio and data opera-
tors and two maintenance technicians.'"
Just as with the SAC underground command
posts, the 'Looking Glass' battle staff was sub-
ject to stringent guidelines regarding the exe-
cution of the SlOP and the launching of the US
ICBM fleet. Once the 'Looking Glass' assumed
command of US SlOP forces, the 'Glass' could
launch ICBMs only after it was determined that
the ground-based missile launch centers could
no longer initiate the launch and that a valid
launch message (an Emergency Action Mes-
sage or EAM) from the NCA or its authorized
representatives had been issued. The AEAO,
the communications officer, the operations offi-
cer, and the aircraft commander all had to vali-
date the launch order. The aircraft commander
then activated a switch on his left side panel
enabling the ALCS equipment. The operations
officer and the communications officers, sepa-
rated by 'many feet', then had to turn their
launch keys within two seconds of one another
to launch the ICBMs. 39
As such, SAC provided a redundant and fair-
ly reliable post attack command and control
system, enabling it to launch its bomber, tan-
ker, and reconnaissance forces, control them
118
once airborne, recall them if necessary, or, in
the event of a general war, execute their mis-
sions (ie, give them the 'go code') and launch
the Minuteman force. The airborne comman'd
posts had achieved the dual goal of strength-
ening deterrellce by duplicating SAC's com-
mand and control structure and giving military
and political leaders more options in control-
ling and executing the SlOP force.
On 3rd February 1976, the 'Looking Glass'
flew its 15th anniversary mission, having com-
piled 16,078 sorties in 149,600 flying hours.
Upon reaching its 25th anniversary in 1986, the
'Looking Glass' had accrued a total of 240,900
hours of accident-free flying time:'" Happily for
most but with a nostalgic sadness for others,
there would be no 35th anniversary in 1996.
The final continuous airborne alert 'Looking
Glass' mission landed at 2:28 PM CDT on 24th
July 1990, with CINCSAC General John T
Chain, Jr, as the AEAO in EC-135C 63-8046.
Rationale given for the cancellation of the con-
tinuous airborne alert was the effect of sweep-
ing budget cuts (saving approximately $23
million per year in maintenance and operating
costs) and not as a consequence of reduced
superpower tensions. 'Improved US intelli-
gence capabilities and the resulting increased
warning times also were factors in the deci-
sion .. .''' Significantly altered 'Looking Glass'
sorties continued until the disestablishment of
SAC on 1st June 1992. Instead of three sorties
each day to provide continuous airborne alert,
the 'Looking Glass' flew once a day with a clas-
sified take-off time and mission duration. Its
mission remained the same - how it conducted
the mission was notably different. 42
In a process that was as rapid as it was
sweeping, nearly all of the EC-135 airborne
command posts were retired and placed in
storage, on display, or scrapped. On 17th Dec-
ember 1992, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
directed the Secretaries of the Navy and Air
A
EI
A
el
S
o
m
w
H
c1
CI
o
C
te
81
tj
n
E
n
~
P
11
II
Ii
1
~
Two 906th AREFS, 5th BW EC-135As (61-0262
and 61-0297) refuel one another sometime
during 1969. Tanker squadrons routinely
supported the PACCS mission by operating a
number of EC-135 variants. Although EC-135As
such as these once fulfilled the 'Looking Glass'
role, after 1965 they were relegated to other
PACCS missions including radio relay and
ALCC platforms. Joe Bruch collection
Force, as well as the Chairman ofthe JCS, to:
'(1) terminate modifications of the remaining
EC-135 ABNCP fleet;
'(2) inactivate all but five of the remaining
EC-135 ABNCP fleet effective immediately;
[and to]
'(3) plan to operate five EC-135 ABNCPs
through FY 1997 to support the CINC-
STRAT ABNCP mission ... ' 43
All uninstalled MILSTAR satellite communi-
cations terminals, scheduled for installation on
the EC-135Cs as part of the 'Pacer Link' pro-
gram, would be transferred to the Navy for
eventual installation on Navy Boeing E-6A Mer-
cury TACAMOs, which would be redesignated
as E-6Bs and take over the EC-135 airborne
command post mission on behalf of the
STRATCOM commander. 44 Under ACC, only a
single squadron (the 2nd ACCS, which was
inactivated and replaced by the 7th ACCS on
19th July 1994) of EC-135s remains in service
at Offutt AFB to support STRATCOM as of
1995.
Until 1966 ACC operated two EC-135K 'Head
Dancer' tactical deployment and control air-
planes (including 55-3118, the first KC-135A
built). These airplanes supported fighter
deployments tei and from the US and overseas
bases. CENTCOM operates an EC-135N and
an EC-135Y airborne command post in support
of rapid deployment operations around the
world.
 AIRBORNE COMMAND POSTS -AIRCRAFT DETAILED
EC·135A
, Aformer KC-135A airborne cornmand post (62-3579) was deliv-
ered to the 1000th ACCS, 1001 st ABW at Andrews AFB on 2nd
September 1964, having been redesignated as the first EC-135A.
, On 1st January 1965, all of the remaining KC-135Aairborne com-
mand posts were redesignated as EC-135As.45 Five EC-135As
were transferred during 1965 to 6486th ACCS, 6486th ABW at
Hickam AFB for use by USCINCPAC as 'Blue Eagle' airborne
command posts.
Following the 1965 PACCS reorganization, SAC EC-135As
continued operations as the 'Looking Glass' primary airborne
I command post, a role they shared with SAC's new EC-135Cs.
Over the next two years EC-135A 'Looking Glass' duties were
taken over by EC-135Cs and the EC-135As acquired other mis-
, sions, although they could act as the 'Looking Glass' if required,
but with some degradation in mission capability.
Among the other duties undertaken by EC-135As was the
radio relay mission, replacing the EB-47L radio relay platforms.
EC-135As from the 28th AREFS, 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB
replaced the EB-47Ls from the 4363rd PACCS Squadron at
Mountain Home AFB, and EC-135As from the 32nd AREFS, 301 st
AREFW at Lockbourne AFB replaced the EB-47Ls from the co-
located 4364th PACCS Squadron. With this change the PACCS
force became an all EC-135 system. The radio relay mission was
i later expanded to include EC-135Ls and EC-135Gs. Beginning in
1967 the seven remaining EC-135As were modified under Pro-
gram NO.1858 to become ALCCs.
The EC-135As had an IFR system installed and HF aerials on
each wingtip, retained the air refueling boom and complete tanker
capability, although with areduced maximum fuel load due to the
battle staff suite and communications equipment installed in the
cargo compartment and the additional crewmembers.
58·0007 Assigned to the 913th AREFS, 2nd BW a:t
Barksdale AFB when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January
1965. Transferred on 27th August 1965, to the 6486th ACCS at
Hickam AFB as a 'Blue Eagle' airborne command post.
Redesignated an EC-135P on 31st March 1967. Destroyed on
3rd January 1980 (see Appendix C).
58·0011 Assigned to the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB
when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965.
Reassigned on 3rd March 1965, to the 34th AREFS, 818th
Strategic Aerospace Division (SAD) at Offutt AFB. On 14th July
, 1966, it was transferred to the 6486th ACCS at Hickam AFB as
a'Blue Eagle' airborne command post. It was redesignated as
an EC-135P on 31 st March 1967.
58·0018 Assigned to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB
when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965. On 20th
, April 1965, it was transferred to the 6486th ACCS at Hickam AFB
as a'Blue Eagle' airborne command post. Redesignated an as
EC-135P on 31st March 1967.
58·0019 Assigned to the 99th AREFS, 499th AREFW at
Westover AFB when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January
1965. Modified on 25th May 1965, into the 'Blue Eagle' configu-
ration and delivered to the 6486th ACCS at Hickam AFB on 23rd
August 1965. Redesignated an EC-135P on 31st March 1967.
, Siored AMARC 12th February 1992, as CA009 (see Appendix D).
58·0022 Assigned to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB
when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965. Modified
on 2nd June 1965, and delivered on 27th August 1965, to the
6486th ACCS at Hickam AFB as a 'Blue Eagle' airborne com-
mand post. Redesignated an EC-135P on 31st March 1967.
Stored in AMARC on 5th March 1992, as CA011 (Appendix D).
61·0262 Assigned to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB
I when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965. Assigned
on 23rd November 1965, to the 7120th ACCS, 7513th Tactical
Group (TG) at RAF Mildenhall. On 23rd January 1967, it was
assigned to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB, and received the
ALCC modification by 26th July 1967. Transferred on 31 st July
I 1968, to the 906th AREFS, 5th BW at Minot AFB, where it
remained until 13th January 1969, when it returned to the 28th
, AREFS. On 1st March 1970, it was transferred to the 4th ACCS
at Ellsworth AFB. Placed on static display at Ellsworth AFB on
30th March 1992 (see Appendix D).
61·0278 Assigned to the 22nd AREFS, 22nd BW at March
AFB when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965.
Transferred on 28th November 1965, to the 32nd AREFS at
Lockbourne AFB, where it remained until 29th June 1966, when
reassigned to the 305th AREFS, 305th BW at Bunker Hill AFB.45
i II moved to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB on 14th July 1967,
and to the 906th AREFS, 450th BW at Minot AFB on 28th Jan-
uary 1968. Returned to the 305th AREFS at Grissom AFB on
, 15th July 1968, and reassigned to the 906th AREFS (now part of
the 5th BW) at Minot AFB on 14th May 1969. On 31st December
1969, it moved to the 28th AREFS. Transferred on 1st March
1970, to the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. Stored in AMARC on
18th September 1992, as CA048 (see Appendix D).
61·0282 Boeing converted this KC-135A into a NEACP dur-
ing 1962. Delivered by 11th June 1962, to the 1000th ACCS at
Andrews AFB. Redesignated an EC-135A on 16th November
1964. Transferred in November 1965 to the 7120th ACCS,
7513th TG at RAF Mildenhall. Converted into an EC-135H dur-
ing 1967. It became a ground maintenance trainer at Sheppard
AFB, and redesignated a GEC-135H on 15th November 1991
(see Appendix D).
61·0285 Converted this KC-135A into a NEACP during
1962. It was delivered by 12th March 1962, to the 1000th ACCS
at Andrews AFB. On 16th November 1964, it was redesignated
an EC-135A. Transferred on 5th October 1966, to the 7120th
ACCS, 7513 TG at RAF Mildenhall, after conversion by E-
Systems into an EC-135H. Stored in AMARC on 9th March 1992,
as CA012 (see Appendix D).
61·0287 Assigned to the 32nd AREFS at Lockbourne AFB
when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965. Assigned
to the 305th AREFS at Bunker Hill AFB on 29th June 1966.
Transferred on 4th October 1967, to the 28th AREFS at
Ellsworth AFB where it remained until 8th December 1967, when
it moved to the 906th AREFS, 450th BW at Minot AFB.
Reassigned to the 28th AREFS on 31 st December 1969.
Transferred on 1st March 1970, to the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth
AFB. Placed on static display at Offutt AFB on 10th February
1992 (see Appendix D).
61·0289 Assigned to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB
when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965. Assigned
on 22nd January 1965, to the 32nd AREFS at Lockbourne AFB
where it remained until 30th June 1966, when it moved to the
305th AREFS at Bunker Hill AFB. Transferred to the 906th
AREFS, 450th BW at Minot AFB on 16th January 1968. Again
transferred on 31st December 1969, this time to the 28th
AREFS. On 1st March 1970, it was transferred to the 4th ACCS
at Ellsworth AFB. Stored in AMARC on 8th June 1992, as CA022
(see Appendix D).
61·0293 Assigned to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB
when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965. Sometime
during early 1965 it was loaned or transferred to the 32nd
AREFS, 301 st AREFW at Lockbourne AFB. It was transferred on
9th November 1965, to the 7120th ACCS at RAF Mildenhall until
reassigned on 23rd February 1968, to the 305th AREFS at
Grissom AFB. Transferred on 31 st May 1968, to the 28th
AREFS. Reassigned on 1st March 1970, to the 4th ACCS at
Ellsworth AFB. Demodified into a KC-135A (ARR).
61·0297 Assigned to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB
when redesignated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965. On 6th
June 1967, it was transferred to the 305th AREFS at Bunker Hill
AFB and by 18th September 1967, received the ALCC modifi-
cation. Transferred on 15th November 1967, to the 28th AREFS
at Ellsworth AFB, and then on 15th February 1968, to the 906th
AREFS, 5th BW at Minot AFB. Returned on 23rd December
1969, to the 28th AREFS. On 1st March 1970, it was transferred
to the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. Stored in AMARC on 2nd
June 1992, as CA021 (see Appendix D).
62·3579 Transferred on 2nd September 1964, from the 34th
AREFS at Offutt AFB to the 1000th ACCS, 1001st ABW at
Andrews AFB. It was the first airplane to be designated as an
EC-135A, effective the date of its transfer. Then assigned to the
28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB on 21st December 1964. By 14th
February 1966, it had been modified as an EC-135G. Stored in
AMARC on 16th June 1992, as CA023 (see Appendix D).
EC·135C
On 1st January 1965, the 17 KC-135Bs already delivered or on
order were redesignated EC-135Cs.47 Beginning in 1965, three
EC-135Cs were converted into EC-135J 'Night Watch' III
NEACPs for the NCA. A fourth EC-135C was converted into an
EC-135J from May 1979 through February 1980.
The EC-135Cs replaced KC-135As as the 'Looking Glass',
SAC's primary airborne command post. The EC-135Cs were
originally based with air refueling and strategic reconnaissance
squadrons throughout the US. For example, from 16th August
1966, through 31st March 1970, the EC-135 mission at Offutt
AFB was conducted by crews assigned to the 38th SRS. Since
then the EC-135Cs were assigned to the 2nd ACCS, 55th SRW
at Offutt AFB, or the 4th ACCS, 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB, reg-
ularly changing locations as required. After the inactivation of
the 4th ACCS on 30th September 1992, the 2nd ACCS operat-
ed the remaining EC-135Cs. It was inactivated and replaced by
the 7th ACCS on 19th July 1994.
During the height of 'Looking Glass' operations, the 2nd
ACCS or the 4th ACCS flew the three eight-hour missions each
day. An on-station airplane did not leave its orbit until the
replacement EC-135C was airborne and had taken over the nec-
essary command and communications links. If a replacement
was unable to launch due to bad weather or mechanical trouble,
the on-station airplane remained airborne, refueled in flight by a
tanker conceivably launched from anywhere in the US. Even if
the 'Looking Glass' should lose an engine while airborne it
would still remain on station until replaced. 48
The EC-135Cs are equipped with TF33-P-9 turbofans, an IFR
system, and a variety of antenna configurations that evolved
throughout the lifetime of the airplanes. Beginning in 1990, four
EC-135Cs (62-3581, 62-3585, 63-8046, and 63-8054) were con-
figured with a large hump above the forward fuselage to cover
the MILSTAR satellite antenna as part of the 'Pacer Link' com-
munications suite upgrade. With the anticipated demise of the
EC-135C fleet, the MILSTAR equipment already installed on
such EC-135Cs is being removed and placed on E-6s.
62·3581 Assigned to the 22nd AREFS, 22nd BW at March
AFB on 1st January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C.
Reassigned on 5th May 1965, to the 34th AREFS, 810th SAD at
Offutt AFB, where it remained until transferred to the 913th
AREFS, 2nd BW at Barksdale AFB on 15th March 1966.
Returned to Offutt AFB on 13th January 1967, where it was
assigned to the 38th SRS. It has since alternated assignments
between the 2nd ACCS and the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. In
1989 it was assigned to the 2nd ACCS. By early 1990 it had
acquired the MILSTAR system. On 19th July 1994, it was reas-
signed to the 7th ACCS when the 2nd ACCS was inactivated.
62·3582 Assigned to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C. Reassigned on
14th July 1965, to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB, and to the 38th
SRS at Offutt AFB on 9th April 1967. Transferred to the 913th
AREFS at Barksdale AFB on 29th January 1968. From 16th June
1970, through 6th July 1970, it served briefly with the 3rd ACCS,
305th AREFW at Grissom AFB before returning to the 2nd ACCS
at Offutt AFB. It has since alternated assignments between there
and the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. In 1989 it was assigned to
the 4th ACCS. By 1992 it was reassigned to the 2nd ACCS. On
19th July 1994, it was reassigned to the 7th ACCS when the 2nd
ACCS was inactivated.
62·3583 Assigned to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C. On 5th October
1965, it was reassigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB.
Reassigned on 29th April 1967, to the 38th SRS at Offutt AFB.
Transferred to the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB on 10th JUly
1968. On 30th March 1970, it was reassigned to the newly-
formed 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. It has since alternated
assignments between there and the 2nd ACCS at Offutt AFB. In
1989 it was assigned to the 2nd ACCS. Stored in AMARC on
26th May 1992, as CA019 (see Appendix D).
62·3584 Assigned to the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB on
1st January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C. Reassigned
on 17th June 1966, to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB, and trans-
ferred to the 38th SRS at Offutt AFB on 16th August 1966. On
20th January 1967, it was reassigned to the 3245th ABG at
Hanscom AFB, becoming the first EC-135 to carry an onboard
computer system (known as ADA - Airborne Data Automation)
for fully automated force management activities. Returned to the
38th SRS at Offutt AFB on 14th July 1967. Assigned in late 1978
to the 9th ACCS, 15th ABW at Hickam AFB for use as a trainer
by 'Blue Eagle' EC-135J crews. From May 1979 through
February 1980 E-Systems converted 62-3584 into an EC-135J.
It crashed at Pope AFB, North Carolina, on 29th May 1992 (see
Appendix C).
62·3585 Assigned to the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB on
1st January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C. Transferred
on 7th March 1966, to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB and reas-
signed on 16th August 1966, to the 38th SRS also at Offutt AFB.
On 30th October 1969, it was transferred to the 913th AREFS at
Barksdale AFB where it remained (except during a brief - 10th
February 1970, through 6th March 1970 - temporary duty
assignment with the 99th AREFS, 99th BW at Westover AFB)
until 30th March 1970. Following a short assignment until 2nd
June 1970 with the 3rd ACCS at Grissom AFB, it arrived at the
4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. It has since alternated assignments
between there and the 2nd ACCS at Offutt AFB. In 1989 it was
assigned to the 2nd ACCS. Equipped with the MILSTAR modifi-
cation.
63·8046 Assigned to the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB on
1st January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C. Reassigned
on 11 th October 1966, to the 38th SRS at Offutt AFB. During
1970 it was also briefly assigned to the 22nd AREFS at March
119
AFB, and the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB, Transferred to the 4th
ACCS on 7th December 1970, and loaned to the 3rd ACCS at
Grissom AFB in December 1971, Returned to Ellsworth AFB,
alternating assignments between there and the 2nd ACCS at
Offutt AFB, where it was most recently assigned in 1989, On
19th July 1994, it was reassigned to the 7th ACCS when the 2nd
ACCS was inactivated, This airplane flew the final continuous
airborne alert 'Looking Glass' mission on 24th July 1990, Soon
thereafter it was configured with the MILSTAR modification,
63·8047 Assigned to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB on
1st January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C, On 8th
August 1966, it was reassigned to the 38th SRS at Offutt AFB.
Temporarily assigned to the 3rd ACCS at Grissom AFB on 2nd
November 1971, It has since returned to the 2nd ACCS at Offutt
AFB, alternating between there and the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth
AFB, In 1989 it was assigned to the 4th ACCS, and transferred
to the 2nd ACCS by September 1992, On 12th October 1993, it
was relegated to AMARC as CA093 (see Appendix D),
63·8048 Assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C, Reassigned on
1st January 1966, to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB.
Beginning on 27th February 1967, il alternated assignments
between Offutt AFB, Westover AFB, and March AFB (as well as
a brief stint with the 3rd ACCS at Grissom AFB) through 8th
October 1970, when it was reassigned to the 2nd ACCS at Offutt
AFB. It has since alternated assignments between there and the
4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB,
Following the 3rd January 1980, loss of 6th ACCS EC-135P
58-0007, this EC-135C was loaned from the 4th ACCS to the 6th
ACCS as a replacement. In June 1984, following the conversion
of NKC-135E 55-3129 into an EC-135P, 63-8048 was returned to
the 4th ACCS, Assigned to the 2nd ACCS in 1989, On 19th July
1994, it was reassigned to the 7th ACCS when the 2nd ACCS
was inactivated,
63·8049 Assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C, On 1st January
1966, it was reassigned to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB.
Transferred repeatedly between the 99th AREFS, the 38th SRS,
the 22nd AREFS, and the 3rd ACCS until it returned to the 2nd
ACCS on 8th October 1970, It has since alternated assignments
between there and the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. In 1989 it
was assigned to the 2nd ACCS, Placed on static display at the
SAC Museum on 29th January 1992 (see Appendix D),
63·8050 Assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C, On 16th July
1965, it was reassigned to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB.
Transferred on 25th April 1970, to the 2nd ACCS at Offutt AFB.
It has since alternated assignments between there and the 4th
ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. In 1989 it was assigned to the 2nd
ACCS, By 1993 this airplane had been deconfigured as an air-
borne command post and assigned to test-bed duties associat-
ed with a resurgent airborne laser program (see Chapter Eight).
In 1996 it was redesignated an NKC-135B.
63·8051 Assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C, Transferred on
20th May 1965, to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB. On 18th
January 1966, it returned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB.
Moved again on 14th October 1966, this time to the 913th
AREFS at Barksdale AFB. It returned to Offutt AFB on 30th June
120
1968, to the 38th SRS. Transferred on 16th June 1969, to the
99th AREFS at Westover AFB. Returned to Offutt AFB on 20th
February 1970, this time to the 2nd ACCS. It has since alternat-
ed assignments between there and the 4th ACCS, where it was
assigned in 1989. Stored in AMARC on 10th July 1992, as
CA027 (see Appendix D),
63·8052 Assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C. On 10th May
1969, it was reassigned to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB.
Transferred exactly a year later to the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth
AFB. Moved to the 3rd ACCS at Grissom AFB on 2nd July 1970.
It has since returned to the 2nd ACCS at Offutt AFB, and alter-
nated assignments' between there and the 4th ACCS at
Ellsworth AFB. In 1989 it was assigned to the 2nd ACCS. On
19th July 1994, it was reassigned to the 7th ACCS when the 2nd
ACCS was inactivated.
63·8053 Assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C. Transferred on
11 th October 1965, to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB. Returned
to the 38th SRS at Offutt AFB on 2nd January 1969. Handed
over to the 2nd ACCS at Offutt AFB on 1st April 1970. It has
since alternated assignments between there and the 4th ACCS
at Ellsworth AFB. In 1989 it was assigned to the 2nd ACCS, On
19th July 1994, it was reassigned to the 7th ACCS when the 2nd
ACCS was inactivated, Crashed at Pope AFB on 2nd September
1997 (see Appendix B).
63·8054 Assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 1st
January 1965, when redesignated an EC-135C, Interestingly, it
had been delivered only two days before, making it the airplane
with the shortest operational time under any MDS (KC-135B).
Transferred on 28th February 1966, to the 22nd AREFS at March
AFB. Returned to the 38th SRS at Offutt AFB on 14th August
1969, and handed over to the 2nd ACCS at Offutt AFB on 1st
April 1970. It has since alternated assignments between there
and the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. In 1989 it was assigned to
the 2nd ACCS. Equipped with the MILSTAR modification. On
19th July 1994, it was reassigned to the 7th ACCS when the 2nd
ACCS was inactivated.
63·8055 This EC-135C was delivered to the Air Force on 6th
January 1965, and arrived at the 1000th ACCS at Andrews AFB
on 20th January 1965, for use by the NCA. By 21 st September
1966, E-Systems had modified the airplane into the 'Night
Watch' III configuration and was redesignated an EC-135J.
Stored in AMARC on 4th October 1993, as CA092 (see
Appendix D).
63·8056 Delivered to the Air Force on 25th February 1965,
arriving at the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB on 2nd March 1965.
Transferred on 3rd June 1965, to the 913th AREFS at Barksdale
AFB. On 6th October 1965, it was reassigned to the 34th AREFS
at Offutt AFB. Arrived at the E-Systems conversion facility at
Greenville, Texas, on 3rd January 1966, for modification into the
'Night Watch' III configuration. Delivered to the 1000th ACCS at
Andrews AFB on 20th June 1966. It was not redesignated an
EC-135J until 31st May 1967, Stored in AMARC on 23rd March
1992, as CA013 (see Appendix D).
63·8057 This EC-135C was handed over to the Air Force on
25th February 1965, and delivered to the 22nd AREFS at March
AFB on 4th March 1965, Transferred to the 34th AREFS at Offutt
AFB on 19th October 1965. Converted by E-Systems during
As EC-135Cs became available, EC-135As were
assigned to other major commands. On the
ramp at RAF Mildenhall just a few months after
its 1966 transfer from the 301st AREFW at
Lockbourne AFB (note unit emblem), 'Silk
Purse' EC·135A 61-0293, assigned to the 7120th
ACCS, 7513th TG. Author's collection
1966 and delivered to the 1000th ACCS at Andrews AFB as a
'Night Watch' III EC-135C NEACP, Redesignated an EC-135Jon
31st May 1967, Stored i,n AMARC on 31st March 1992, as
CA014, and later transferred to the Pima Air Museum (see
Appendix D),
EC·135G
On 1st January 1965, three KC-135A airborne command posts
and one EC-135A were redesignated EC-135Gs." These were
distinguished from their EC-I 35A counterparts by having auto
mated on-board systems in place of the manual systems on the
EC-135As. Although redesignated EC-135Gs in 1965, it was not
,until 1967 that all four had been fully converted for use as baCK'
up airborne command posts, The following year, all four were
modified into ALCCs under Program No,1129, a mission also
supported by EC-135As.5O Additionally, the EC-135Gs had a
radio relay mission capability which ensured a secure, surviv·
able continuous radio link between the NCA and SAC's com·
mand structure, a role also undertaken by EC-135As and 'Ls,
The EC-135Gs retained the air refueling boom and tanker
capability, and had an IFR system installed, Numerous UHf
antennae were attached along the fuselage spine, both top and
bottom, An HF antenna was attached above each wingtip and
two wire HF aerials run from the vertical stabilizer to the forward
fuselage. A battle staff suite was installed in the cargo compart·
ment, although Ihis was removed on aircraft configured for
radio-relay. The aircraft carried a radio relay crew of two radio
operators and a radio maintenance technician.
62·3570 On 14th February 1966, TEMCO completed moof
fication of this EC-135G. The following day it was assigned to
the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB. On 1st March 1970, the
PACCS mission at Ellsworth AFB was acquired by the 4th Aces
and the airplane and crews transferred accordingly. Reassigned
on 14th August 1987, to the 70th AREFS, 305th AREFW al
Grissom AFB. Stored in AMARC on 23rd June 1992, as CA024
(see Appendix D).
62·3579 Assigned on 15th February 1966, to the 28th
AREFS at Ellsworth AFB. Received the ALCC modification by
15th August 1967, Transferred on 1st March 1970, to the 4th
ACCS. Stored in AMARC on 16th June 1992, as CA023 (see
Appendix D), .
63·7994 On 29th March 1966, this airborne command posl
was delivered to TEMCO for conversion into an EC-135G, which
was completed on 3rd May 1966, and the airplane redesignated
and returned to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB, Transferred
on 27th August 1970, to the 3rd ACCS at Grissom AFB, On 31st
 Back-up 'Looking Glass' duties usually fell to
, EC-135Cs assigned to Numbered Air Force
(NAF) units such as the Eighth Air Force at
Westover AFB, which was operating 63-8049 on
, 8th May 1965, when this photograph was taken.
At the time 63-8049 was officially assigned to
the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB. The airplanes
were frequently loaned among the NAF bases
as jets underwent PDM or system upgrades,
temporarily removing them from service.
Tom Hildreth
December 1975, the 3rd ACCS was deactivated and its air-
planes and mission acquired by the 70th AREFS, also at
Grissom AFB. Transferred on 21 st May 1987, to the 4th ACCS at
Ellsworth AFB. Stored in AMARC on 11 st September 1992, as
CA045 (see Appendix D).
63·8001 Delivered on 3rd May 1966, to TEMCO for conver-
sion to EC-135G, which was completed on 6th June 1966, when
the airplane was redesignated and returned to the 28th AREFS
at Ellsworth AFB. On 1st March 1970, it was transferred to the
4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB. Stored in AMARC on 18th May
I 1992, as CAOt7 (see Appendix D).
EC·135H
, Beginning in late 1964 LTV modified the first of four KC-135A
tankers and airborne command posts into EC-135Hs to 'incor-
porate the "Silk Purse" Airborne Command Post for use as part
of the [Worldwide] Airborne Command and Control Network',
replacing the existing Douglas C-118 platforms." Afifth airplane,
KC-135A 61-0274, was modified into EC-135Hs in 1968 under
Program NO.1856.
The EC-135Hs provided USCINCEUR with asurvivable back-
up command, control, and communications facility for the direc-
tion of strategic assets and coordination with NCA directives. At
least one 'Silk Purse' EC-135H was on continuous airborne alert
until December 1969, when the operation was changed to afull-
lime ground alert. In addition to ground alert at RAF Mildenhall,
the 'Silk Purse' sat ground alert at Lajes AB, PortugaL"
Beginning in September 1974, one EC-135H (61-0274) was
assigned to the 6th ACCS, 1st TFW at Langley AFB as a 'Scope
Light' airborne command post fOT USCINCLANT. It became an
EC-135P in 1988.
EC-135H modifications included the addition of an IFR sys-
tem (the air refueling boom was retained), wingtip HF antennae,
and atrailing wire antenna (rWA) forward of the starboard main
gear well. The airplanes also had the 'saddleback' VLF antenna
on the dorsal fuselage and accompanying side lobe fairings on
cither fuselage side aft of the wing trailing edge. All five air-
planes had their J57s replaced with TF33-PW-1 02s during 1982
, with no change in MDS.
Interior modifications included 'provisions for 16 battle staff
personnel, 13 command staff personnel, two radio operators,
, two switchboard operators, and one secure communications/
teletype operator'." Crew makeup later changed to nine
USCINCEUR and four Supreme Allied Commander - Europe
(SACEUR) battle staff personnel. Electronic systems changes
included the 'expansion of the AN/ARC-89 Radio System, mod-
ification of the multiplex system, [and] installation of a recording
system' and improvement to the HF, VHF, and UHF communi-
cations equipment."
The EC-135Hs were first assigned to the 7120th ACCS,
7513th TG following its move in 1965 from Chateauroux AB,
France, to RAF Mildenhall. 55 During April 1966 the 7120th SG
replaced the 7513th TG as the 7120th ACCS' parent unit. The
7120th ACCS was reassigned on 1st July 1966, to the 513th
TAW, still at RAF Mildenhall. On tst January 1970, the 7120th
ACCS was inactivated and replaced by the 10th ACCS, again
part of the 513th TAW, which was redesignated the 513th ACCW
on 18th June 1987.
As part of US budget cuts and the reduction in airborne com-
mand post assets, the 10th ACCS was inactivated on 31st
December 1991. The EC-135Hs were relegated to AMARC for
storage or scrapping, or to Sheppard AFB, Texas, as ground
instructional trainers and redesignated as GEC-135Hs."
61-0274 This KC-135A airborne command post was con-
verted into an EC-135H from 6th September 1967, through
February 1968, when it was delivered to the 7120th ACCS. It
was transferred in September 1974 to the 6th ACCS. From 17th
February through 13th March 1982, it became the first EC-135H
equipped with TF33-PW-102s. Redesignated an EC-135P on
23rd May 1988, following the 'Pacer Link' modification. Stored in
AMARC on 27th February 1992, as CA010 (see Appendix D).
61·0282 This EC-135A was converted into an EC-135Hin
1967 while assigned to the 7120th ACCS." Equipped from 8th-
29th May 1982, with TF33-PW-102s. In 1988 it was nicknamed
Burma Butch. It became a ground maintenance trainer and
redesignated a GEC-135H on 15th November 1991 (see
Appendix D).
61-0285 LTV Electrosystems converted this EC-135A
NEACP into an EG-135H, redesignating and delivering it on 5th
October 1966, to the 7120th ACCS. From 13th March through
3rd April 1982, if received TF33-PW-102s. Nicknamed Silver
Dollar by 1989. Stored in AMARC on 9th March 1992, as CA012
(see Appendix D).
61·0286 From 20th March through 19th September 1967,
E-Systems modified this KC-135A into the 'Silk Purse' configu-
ration, but its MDS was not changed. It was preserved at Martin-
Marietta, in Baltimore, Maryland, until 23rd February 1968. On
2nd March 1968, its MDS was changed to EC-135H and it was
assigned on 7th March 1968, to the 7120th ACCS. Equipped
from 10th April through 1st May 1982, with TF33-PW-102s.
Nicknamed Dark Angel in 1988. Stored at Sheppard AFB as a
ground maintenance trainer and redesignated a GEC-135H on
22nd January 1992 (see Appendix D).
61·0291 From 15th August through 10th October 1966, LTV
Electrosystems converted this KC-135A airborne command
post into one of the three original 'Silk Purse' EC-135Hs, after
which it was assigned to the 7120th ACCS. From 15th May
through 6th June 1982, it was equipped with TF33-PW-102s. It
was flown to Langley AFB on 28th May 1991, where parts of its
battle staff suite were removed for use on other airborne com-
mand posts. On 30th May 1991, it was delivered to AMARC and
given the storage code CA007. The engines, horizontal stabiliz-
ers, and other relevant parts were scheduled for use in convert-
ing a KC-135A into a KC-135E (see Appendix D).
EC·135J
E-Systems modified the first NEACP EC-135C into an EC-135J
beginning in 1965 under Class V modification NO.1705 for the
'Night Watch' III program." Two additional EC-135Cs were con-
verted and redesignated as EC-135Js on 31st May 1967. Afinal
EC-135C was converted into an EC-135J from May 1979
through January 1980. The EC-135J conversion included the
'installation of two command compartments containing 15 oper-
ating stations and considerable expansion of the [EC-135C's]
communication capability'. The battle staff included 14 senior
personnel plus two radio operators, and a teletype operator. A
special suite and battle staff area was installed for the 'National
Authority Position', a euphemism for the President of the US."
As a means to provide the NCA, primarily the president, with
a survivable command post for use in the event of a national
emergency or outright nuclear war, the JCS started the 'Night
Watch' program. Beginning in mid 1962, Boeing delivered three
KC-135As (61-0282, 61-0285, and 61-0291) under contract
AF34(601)-12086 to the 1000th ACCS, 1001st ABW at Andrews
AFB, where they joined KC-135A 61-0274 loaned from SAC for
use in flight crew and battle staff familiarization. On 1st July
1962, the first of these airplanes went on 24-hour alert, and on
25th July 'Night Watch' Phase II was declared operational" By
the end of 1962 these airplanes had been on satellite alert and
conducted routine training at Griffiss AFB, New York, and
Blytheville AFB, Arkansas, and demonstrated on overseas capa-
bility by deploying to Rabat lAP, Morocco, and Torrejon AB,
Spain."
'Night Watch' mission aircraft operated with static (ie specif-
ic to the aircraft, not the crew or the day's mission) call signs.
The flight crews used the radio call sign 'Skytop', with 'Skytop
01' assigned to the primary 'Night Watch' aircraft, 'Skytop 02'
assigned to the back-Up aircraft, and 'Skytop 03' assigned to
the secondary aircraft. These static call signs were not applied
to specific serial numbers,but to whichever airplane was
assigned to a specific mission." The NEACP battle staff and
other 'backenders' used the static call sign 'Silver Dollar'. As
with the front-end call signs, these were enumerated by mission.
Improvements to the battle staff equipment and other modi-
fications enabled the KC-135As to be replaced by more capable
EC-135Js beginning in 1965. The first three 'Night Watch' con-
figured EC-135Js were assigned to the 1000th ACCS, 1001st
ABW at Andrews AFB as NEACPs. On 1st July 1969, the 1000th
ACCS was redesignated the 1st ACCS and the 1001 st ABW
redesignated the 1st CW, and the airplanes and crews reas-
signed accordingly.
As the size of the American government grew, so too did the
need fqr a bigger platform to support the increasing size of the
NCA staff. During early May 1969, President Richard Nixon flew
aboard a 'Night Watch' EC-135J. Although he commented
favorably about the experience afterward, the flight highlighted
the EC-135J's cramped quarters and limited capabilities." If Pan
Am could carry more passengers in its new Boeing 747s, then
why couldn't it be used to carry the president and his staff in
time of national emergency? A new NEACP was born.
Originally, the E-4A AABNCP was intended to replace first
the 'Night Watch' EC-135Js, and eventually the 'Looking Glass'
EC-135Cs on a plane-for-plane basis. Funding for the 'Night
Watch' E-4 program was slashed during the Carter administra-
121

tion, and no money was made available to replace any of the
EC-135Cs. The EC-135 fleet would have to 'make do' with re-
organization and reconfiguring.
Beginning in 1974 E-Systems removed the mission suite and
trailing wire antenna equipment from one of the three EC-135Js
for installation in the first E-4A.64The barren EC-135J was then
reconfigured and delivered to the 9th ACCS, 15th ABW at
Hickam AFB to replace the 'Blue Eagle' EC-135Ps used by
USCINCPAC." The mission suites from the two remaining 'Night
Watch' EC-135Js were installed in two more E-4As by 1975, and
the EC-135Js also reconfigured as 'Blue Eagles' and delivered
to the 9th ACCS.ln mid-1977, EC-135C (62-3584) was assigned
to the 9th ACCS to supplement the three EC-135Js, and was
itself converted into an EC-135J by February 1980.
As with the other airborne command posts, at least one 'Blue
Eagle' airplane was on 24-hour ground alert. An EC-135J 'Blue
Eagle' crew inadvertently demonstrated its quick response
capability in June 1980, when a failed chip in a minicomputer
issued an erroneous message that the US was under attack.
The 'Blue Eagle' airborne command post launched as required,
then, after the error was identified and the situation confirmed as
'all clear', it recovered safely."
When the 9th ACCS was inactivated on 31 st March 1992, two
of its EC-135Js were stored in AMARC and two were transferred
to the 2nd ACCS, 55th Wg at Offutt AFB. One of these (62-3584)
crashed shortly thereafter and the other (63-8055) was eventu-
ally stored in AMARC.
The EC-135Js had TF33-P-9s, retained the air refueling
boom, had an IFR capability, and had wingtip HF fence anten-
nae, plus the characteristic VLF saddleback antenna on the
fuselage spine.
122
Starboard side of EC-135C 62-3581 showing
some of the 'Pacer Link' modifications. Radome
houses the MILSTAR antenna and cooling vents
accommodate the additional electronics
installed in the lower fuselage. With the end of
the EC-135C looking glass mission, this
equipment is being installed in E-6B TACAMOs,
Photo by Joe Bruch
EC·135K
Three KC-135As, including the first KC-135A built, have been
mod ified into EC-135K airborne command posts for TAC and
later ACC. Their primary mission was originally to provide CINC·
TAC and later COMACC:
'...with an airborne communications capability for exercising
command and control of [TAC and later ACC], United Statesfljr
Forces Readiness Command, and Air Force Atlantic Command
employment and redeployment operations'.67
Despite their obligations to the first two missions (and the
subsequent reorganization of those commands), the EC-135Ks
are known almost universally in their role as 'Head Dancer', the
airborne command post used in fighter deployments to and
from Europe and Asia. 'Head Dancer' allowed for a high degree
of on-scene control during these overwater movements. The
EC-135K's on-board mission control team (composed of amis·
sion commander, his staff, and nine communications special·
ists) provided the escorted fighters with constant en route and
destination weather updates and directed necessary diversions,
as well as co-ordinated and provided guidance and assistance
should one of the fighters develop an in-flight emergency.
The EC-135Ks also support numerous special air missions,
including the transport of high-ranking government officials and
Air Force personnel. For example, along with Learjet C-21A 84·
1014, EC-135K 55-3118 served COMACC as a VIP transport
with the static call sign of 'Ace 01'. During 1996 both EC-135Ks
were relieved of their duties. One was retired and the other rei·
egated to VIP duties and redesignated as a C-135K.
As part of the 'Oxeye Daisy' program, 55-3118 was trans·
ferred on 21st January 1961, from ARDC at Wright-Patterson
AFB to TAC and converted into the first EC-135K. Modifications
by OCAMA as part of the 'Pacer Daisy' program included the
installation of a wide variety of radio and teletype communica·
tions equipment and deletion of the air refueling boom. None 01
the EC-135Ks were equipped with an IFR system. Nine bunks
were installed, as was soundproofing and carpeting, a full gal·
,ley, additional seats, and tables.
By 1963 the Air Force identified a need for eight additional
'Head Dancer' aircraft, and sought to purchase five of these.
Despite this command-level emphasis, funds for additional air·
62·3584 Assigned as an EC-135C to the 9th ACCS at craft were severely limited. A second EC-135K was converted
Hickam AFB on 28th July 1977, for use as a trainer. Transferred from former KC-135A zero-g trainer 62-3536, but not until May
to E-Systems for conversion into a 'Blue Eagle' in May 1979. 1970. This airplane crashed on 14th September 1977, and was
Returned to the 9th ACCS as an EC-135J in February 1980. replaced by former FAA KC-135A 59-1518.
Transferred to the 2nd ACCS in early 1992. It crashed on 29th The unit lineage of the EC-135Ks has been circuitous and not
May 1992 (see Appendix C). completely confirmed by official histories. The first EC-135K was
63·8055 Assigned to the 1000lh ACCS at Andrews AFB as assigned in 1961 to the 19th AF at Seymour Johnson AF8,
a 'Night Watch' III NEACP when redesignated an EC-135J on North Carolina. In October 1963, 55-3118 was assigned to the
21st September 1966. Reassigned on 1st July 1969, to the 1st 4th TFW, and in 1964 was assigned to Detachment 2, 4500th
ACCS, still at Andrews AFB. During 1974 it was demodified from SS, both located at Seymour Johnson AFB. The airplane was
its 'Night Watch' mission, reconfigured for the 'Blue Eagle' role, reassigned in April 1969 to the 4500th ABW, and later to
and transferred to the 9th ACCS. Transferred to the 2nd ACCS Detachment 1, 8th ACCS, 19th AF, still at Seymour Johnson
in early 1992. Stored at AMARC on 4th October 1993, as CA092 AFB. In 1970 it was reassigned again to Detachment 2, 4500th
(see Appendix D) SS at Seymour Johnson AFB.
63·8056 This EC-135C was delivered on 3rd January 1966, In 1972, 55-3118 was reassigned to the 8th ACCS. The 8th
to LTV-Electrosystems for conversion into a 'Night Watch' III ACCS was redesignated the 8th TOCS on 30th April 1974, more
NEACP. Delivered to the 1000th ACCS at Andrews AFB on 20th accurately reflecting the unit's deployment mission instead 01
June 1966, and redesignated an EC-135J on 31st May 1967. the airborne command post role associated with TAC's scope
Reassigned on 1st July 1969, to the 1st ACCS at Andrews AFB. light airborne command post for USCINCLANT.ln January 1978
In 1974 it was demodified from its 'Night Watch' role, modified the 8th TOCS became a 'geographically separate' unit of the
for the 'Blue Eagle' mission, and reassigned to the 9th ACCS. It 552nd AWACW based at Tinker AFB. The 8th TOCS moved to
was stored in AMARC on 23rd March 1992, as CA013 (see Tinker AFB on 26th June 1978, and in March 1986 was assigned
Appendix Dj. directly to the 28th AD, also at Tinker AFB." The 8th TOCS was
63·8057 E-Systems converted this EC-135C into a 'Night redesignated the 8th ADCS on 1st November 1992, and with the
Watch' NEACP in 1966, after which it was assigned to the inactivation of the Air Force's Air Divisions, the 8th ADCS was
1000th ACCS at Andrews AFB. Redesignated an EC-135J on assigned on 29th May 1992, to the 552nd ACW, still at Tinker
31st May 1967. Reassigned to the 1st ACCS at Andrews AFB on AFB. The 8th ADCS was redesignated as the 8th ACCS on 1st
1st July 1969. In 1974 it was demodified from its 'Night Watch' July 1994. It was inactivated on 15th May 1996.
role, converted to a 'Blue Eagle' and in 1975 reassigned to the EC-135K operational highlights include service during the
9th ACCS. Stored in AMARC on 31 st March 1992, as CA014, October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the 1965 crisis in the
and later transferred to the Pima Air Museum (see Appendix D). Dominican Republic, and in response to Sudan's request lor
 assistance in 1984 during Libya's invasion of Chad. Major
deployments include support for fighter movements to the
Republic of Korea in 1968 in response to the North Korean
seizure of the USS Pueblo, F-4Es flown to Israel during the 1973
October War, the first 'Bright Star' exercise of the Rapid
Deployment Joint Task Force to Egypt in 1980, and, of course,
in support of 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm', as well as rede-
ployments to the United States in the wake of US base closures
in Europe."
55·3118 This test-bed KC-135A was transferred to TAC on
21st January 1961, for conversion into the first EC-135K. Among
its many notable achievements include its May 1971 around-
the-world diplomatic mission for US Secretary of State Henry A
Kissinger. Operation 'Polo' was a particularly sensitive mission
because Kissinger planned to fly secretly and incommunicado
from Islamabad, Pakistan, into the People's Republic of China to
establish the ground work for the opening of diplomatic rela-
tions between the US and the PRC. Kissinger actually made his
historic flight into the PRC onboard a Pakistani Airways Boeing
707 while 55-3118 remained on the ground in Islamabad. Still,
the EC-135K provided secure communications to handle the
sensitive dispatches associated with the mission, and its pres-
ence aroused less attention than would have one of the VC-135s
orVC-137s routinely used to transport Kissinger."
From 6th February to 6th March 1982, 55-3118 received
TF33-PW-102s but remained designated an EC-135K. As the
• first KC-135A built, 55-3118 serves as the flagship for the entire
fleet. Special ceremonies held at Tinker AFB on 2nd September
1986, celebrated the 30th anniversary of its first flight on 31 st
August 1956. 71 The airplane was retired on 15th October 1996,
and placed on display at McConnell AFB (see Appendix D).
59·1518 OCALC converted this former FAA KC-135A into
the third EC-135K from March through November 1979, when it
was assigned to the 8th TDCS. The airplane received additional
modifications from October 1981 to February 1982, revisions
necessary to complete its full conversion into an EC-135K."
From 3rd-24th April 1982, 59-1518 received TF33-PW-102s but
retained its EC-135K designation. In 1996 it was redesignated a
C-135K and assigned to VIP duties at Hickam AFB.
62·3536 This KC-135A (previously a zero-g weightlessness
trainer) was converted into the second EC-135K after May 1970.
Soon after take-off during an exercise from Kirtland AFB on 14th
, September 1977, 62-3536 struck high terrain and was destroyed
(see Appendix C).
Pristine aluminum and white EC·135C 62·3584
awaits the crowd at an unidentified open house
display. By 1980, 62·3584 had been converted
, into a 'Blue Eagle' EC135J. It crashed at Pope
AFB on 29th May 1992, fortunately without loss
of life. Joe Bruch collection
EC·135L
Eight KC-135As were converted beginning in 1965 into EC-135L
airborne radio relay platforms under project modification
Nos.1674 and 1900, replacing 36 EB-47L radio relay airplanes."
The EC-135Ls (as well as similarly equipped EC-135As and 'Gs)
provided a secure radio link between CINCSAC and the NCA as
part of the PACCS structure." In the event of a national emer-
gency or execution of the SlOP, two EC-135Ls could establish
and maintain links between the National Military Command
Center, the National Emergency Airborne Command Post, the
SAC Airborne Command Post, and the Airborne Launch and
Control Center aircraft."
The EC-135L modification was undertaken by Lockheed
Aerospace Corporation at New York's Idlewild/John F Kennedy
airport. The first two airplanes were converted in 1965, two more
in 1966, and the remainder by 1967. Originally, four EC-135Ls
were assigned to the 305th AREFS, 305th BW at Grissom AFB,
two were assigned to the 32nd AREFS, 301 st AREFW at
Lockbourne AFB, and two were assigned to the 906th AREFS,
450th BW at Minot AFB. By 1989 the remaining five airplanes
(three had been demodified into KC-135A tankers) were reas-
signed to the 70th AREFS, 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB and
the 4th ACCS, 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB.
The EC-135L had numerous radio antennae along both the
dorsal and ventral fuselage. The airplanes retained the air refu-
eling boom, and as part of their normal training operations rou-
tinely offloaded fuel. They also had an IFR system. This modifi-
cation was not incorporated in all eight airplanes as part of the
initial conversion, and is believed to have been installed in the
remaining five EC-135Ls after three of the eight airplanes were
demodified in 1970. The EC-135L carried a normal flight crew of
aircraft commander, co-pilot, navigator, and boom operator, as
well as a 'back-end' crew of two radio operators and a radio
maintenance technician.
In 1966 Air Force Headquarters recommended using two
EC-135Ls as radio relay platforms in Southeast Asia for the
Airborne Surveillance and Control System (AS&CS). SAC was
reluctant to yield any of their PACCS inventory for this mission
and suggested modifying KC-135As instead. This alternate plan
was approved, and the KC-135A 'Combat Lightning' was tested
and in service in Southeast Asia by September 1966.
Modification of all of the necessary 'Combat Lightning' platforms
was delayed, so two EC-135Ls were forced to deploy in mid-
May 1967 to U-Tapao RTNAB for use as interim 'Combat
Lightning' aircraft." They remained in Southeast Asia until the
end of 1967 while the four existing KC-135A 'Combat Lightning'
airplanes underwent a wing fatigue refit."
During 1970 three EC-135Ls were deinodified to KC-135As.
At least two of these were again redesignated EC-135Ls on 6th
.January 1971, but redesignated KC-135As on 14th September
19711 Thereafter, these two KC-135As remained associated with
the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB, although in what capacity is not
-~ . . ~
clear. No official explanation has been provided to account for
this unusual sequence of events.
At least two EC-135Ls (61-0269 and 61-0283) are known to
have participated in Operation 'Desert Storm' in a role similar to
that of 'Combat Lightning'. Given the large distances involved in
intratheater UHF communications, the EC-135Ls served as
radio relay aircraft, overcoming the line-of-sight limits to UHF
radio traffic between strike packages, support aircraft, and
ground command elements." The airplanes were assigned to
the 1703rd AREFW(P) at King Khalid lAP, Saudi Arabia."
All remaining EC-135Ls have since been stored at AMARC or
placed on static display.
61·0261 Following conversion by Lockheed, this KC-135A
airborne command post was redesignated an EC-135L on 25th
September 1967. It was assigned to the 305th AREFS, the 3rd
ACCS, and finally the 70th AREFS, all at Grissom AFB. By 1989
it had been reassigned to the 4th ACCS at Ellsworth AFB.
Stored in AMARC on 29th May 1992, as CA020 (see Appendix
D). As of April 1995, it was no longer on record at AMARC, its
ultimate fate unknown, perhaps scrapped.
61·0263 This KC-135A airborne command post was deliv-
ered to Lockheed on 16th October 1967. Redesignated as an
EC-135L on 13th December 1967, and delivered to the 305th
AREFS at Grissom AFB on 15th December 1967. Transferred to
the 3rd ACCS and later the 70th AREFS, both at Grissom AFB.
Stored in AMARC on 5th May 1992, as CA015 (see Appendix D).
61·0269 This KC-135A airborne command post was deliv-
ered to Lockheed on 30th October 1967. Redesignated as an
EC-135L on 21st December 1967, and delivered to the 305th
AREFS at Grissom AFB. It remained there until 19th November
1968, when it was reassigned to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth
AFB. Transferred on 9th January 1969, to the 906th AREFS at
Minot AFB. Returned to the 305th AREFS at Grissom AFB on
20th January 1970. Reassigned to the 3rd ACCS and later the
70th AREFS, both at Grissom AFB. Placed on static display at
Grissom AFB on 29th June 1992 (see Appendix D). It bears the
mission marks earned supporting combat operations during
Operation 'Desert Storm', including two MiG-29s, 27 mobile
launchers, and more than 100 tanks. eo
61·0279 Lockheed converted this KC-135A airborne com-
mand post into an EC-135L from 2nd August through 27th
October 1965. Delivered on 3rd November 1965, to the 32nd
AREFS at Lockbourne AFB. Transferred on 29th June 1966, to
the 305th AREFS at Grissom AFB. Reported to have received
the ALCC modification on 5th March 1968, a refit not known to
be applied to EC-135Ls. Reassigned to the 3rd ACCS and later
the 70th AREFS, both at Grissom AFB. Stored in AMARC on
22nd May 1992, as CA018 (see Appendix D).
61·0281 Redesignated an EC-135L on 30th June 1966, and
assigned to the 305th AREFS at Grissom AFB. It remained there
until 13th February 1968, when it was reassigned to the 906th
AREFS, 450th BWat Minot AFB. On 25 July 1968, the 450th BW
123
was inactivated and replaced by the 5th BW, and the airplane
and crews appropriately reassigned. It returned to the 305th
AREFS at Grissorn AFB on 31st December 1969,
Official Air Force records show that 61-0281 was redesignat-
ed as a KC-135A on 1st May 1970. It is unknown what demodi-
fications (if any) were undertaken. Interestingly, it was redesig-
nated an EC-135L on 6th January 1971, and on 15th January
1971, was assigned to the 3902nd ABW at Offutt AFB, On 14th
September 1971, it was assigned to the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB
and had its designation changed back to KC-135A. It remained
associated with the 55th SRW from 28th August through 12th
September 1972, and then underwent some modification by E-
Systems, possibly to remove any existing or remaining commu-
nications equipment. This airplane is not believed to have car-
ried an IFR system, as other demodified and IFR-equipped air-
planes have retained the system and been informally identified
as KC-135A (ARR)s.
In 1989 it was assigned to the 93rd BW at Castle AFB, oper-
ating as a KC-135A, From 13th September 1990, through 15th
February 1991, it received TF33-PW-l02s, was redesignated a
KC-135E, and assigned to the 161 st AREFS, Arizona ANG.
61·0283 Lockheed modified this KC-135A airborne com-
mand post into an EC-135L on 16th August 1965. It was then
assigned to the 32nd AREFS at Lockbourne AFB on 3rd January
1966, It was reassigned on 14th February 1966, to the 28th
AREFS at Ellsworth AFB where it remained until 20th November
1967, when it was transferred to the 305th AREFS at Grissom
AFB, The airplane was again transferred to the 906th AREFS at
Minot AFB on 15th July 1968, and returned to the 305th AREFS
at Grissom AFB on 17th February 1969. Reassigned to the 3rd
ACCS and later the 70th AREFS, both at Grissom AFB. Stored
in AMARC on 6th May 1992, as CA016 (see Appendix D),
61·0288 This KC-135A airborne command post was deliv-
ered for modification to Lockheed on 1st December 1967. It was
redesignated an EC-135L on 9th January 1968, and assigned to
the 906th AREFS, 450th BWat Minot AFB on 4th February 1968.
It remained there until 20th March 1968, when it was reassigned
to the 305th AREFS at Grissom AFB. It returned to the 906th
AREFS at Minot AFB (although the wing had changed from the
450th BW to the 5th BW) on 23rd August 1968. On 31 st
December 1969, the airplane was transferred to the 28th AREFS
at Ellsworth AFB. On 1st May 1970, the airplane's MDS was
changed to that of KC-135A, although nothing is known of any
change in mission or configuration, The designation was changed
back to EC-135L on 5th January 1971, and like EC-135L 6t-
0281, was assigned to the 3902nd ABW at Offutt AFB on 12th
January 1971. Its designation was changed back to KC-135A on
14th September 1971, and the airplane remained associated
with the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB. From 25th June through 1st
September 1972, E-Systems demodified the airplane, after
which it was assigned to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB. By
1989 it was in service with the 93rd BW at Castle AFB as a
tanker. It also served from 1989 through early 1992 as a 'steam
jet' proficiency trainer for the 4th ACCS, as the co-located 28th
AREFS, from which the 4th ACCS had previously drawn its J57-
equipped proficiency KC-135s, had converted to KC-135Rs. In
1992, 61-0288 was modified into a KC-135R.
61·0302 This KC-135A airborne command post completed
conversion into an EC-135L on 11th December 1967, when it
was assigned to Grissom AFB, It was demodified to a KC-135A
tanker on 20th May 1970.
124
EC·135N
A single EC-135N (61-0327) was demodified during 1985 from
its ARIA mission into a C-135N and thereafter transferred to
CENTCOM for use as an airborne command post for the com-
mander. The ARIA nose and PMEE were removed. The airplane
had been re-engined with TF33-PW-l02s by March 1986, and
assigned to the 912th AREFS, 19th AREFW at Robins AFB,
home of its flight and ground crews," The 912th AREFS was
reassigned on 1st April 1994, and the EC-135N assigned to the
99th AREFS, 19th ARW. The airplane is scheduled to be reas-
signed to the 6th AREFW at MacDili AFB by late 1997. . mission for over four years after the 1980 loss
Although its sister ship (55-3125) is designated an EG-135Y,
the internal airframe peculiarities of 61-0327 mean that it is more
alike structurally to the ARIA fleet than to the single EC-135Y,
and consequently retains the EC-135N designation. Why it was
not redesignated an EC-135E following its re-engining as were
the remaining ARIAs is not known. Nonetheless, its mission and
capabilities are similar to if not the same as the EC-135Y, The
airplane has an IFR system installed as well as an extensive
communications and battle staff suite. During Operation 'Desert
Storm', the EC-135N deployed to Riyadh AB in March 1991, to
replace the EC-135Y that had been used until then. Both were
assigned to the 1700lh AREFS (Pl.
EC·135P
Five EC-135As were converted and redesignated EC-135Ps on
31 st March 1967." At the time they were all assigned to the
6486th ACCS, 6486th ABW at Hickam AFB as 'Blue Eagle' air-
borne command posts for USCINCPAC. The unit was later
redesignated the 9th ACCS, 15th ABW. The EC-135Ps also pro-
vided VIP transport for CINCPACAF.
The first of three 9th ACCS EC-135Ps was transferred during
1973 to the 6th ACCS, 4500th ABW at Langley AFB for USCIN-
CLANT as 'Scope Light' airborne command posts," The two
EC-135Ps not transferred to the 6th ACCS were demodified into
KC-t35A (ARR)s. During 1974 and 1975, the 9th ACCS replaced
its EC-135Ps with EC-135Js from the 1st ACCS at Andrews AFB,
which were themselves replaced by E-4As.
The 6th ACCS, which was assigned administratively to TAC
but was under the operational control of USCINCLANT, became
fully operational on 1st January 1974, when an EC-135P was
first placed on ground alert. The EC-135H assigned to the 6th
ACCS (61-0274) was converted into an EC-135P during 1988.
Both the 'Blue Eagle' and 'Scope Light' EC-135Ps provided
an airborne back-up command post in the event that the exist-
ing ground command posts are destroyed during a war or nat-
ural disaster."
Ordinarily, the USCINCLANT or USCINCPAC commanders
did not fly on the airborne alert sorties. Instead, a battle staff
commanded by acolonel (or a Navy captain) executed the com-
mander's mission directives.
The EC-135Ps retained the air refueling boom and had an
IFR system installed, as well as a full battle staff suite installed in
the cargo compartment. ATWA allowed the EC-135P battle staff
to communicate with submerged submarines directly, or via
Lockheed EC-130Qs and Boeing E-6A TACAMOs, a feature
common to EC-135Cs, EC-135Hs, and EC-135Js,
One of the EC-135Ps was destroyed in aground fire and for-
mer NKC-135E 55-3129 was converted into an EC-135P as a
replacement. The remaining two EC-135Ps received TF33-PW-
102s, All EC-135Ps have been stored in AMARC.
For many years SAC and TAC engaged in a
fierce intra-service rivalry over budgets and
assets, with SAC usually winning, even during
the war in Southeast Asia. SAC leaders could
gloat that the SlOP mission was the Air Force's
most important task, and thus no planes could
be spared for TAC's 'contingency' missions.
Some SAC airplanes did serve with TAC,
however, the longest of which was EC-135C
63-8048, which fulfilled the 'Scope Light'
of EC-135P 58-0007. Few could have imagined
during 1980, when this photo was taken, that in
little more than a decade SAC would be gone
and most of its airplanes assigned to TAC's
successor, Air Combat Command.
Joe Bruch collection
55·3129 From 7th April 1983, through June 1984, this NKG-
135E was converted into an EC-135P and assigned to the 6th
ACCS to replace EC-135P 58-0007, which was destroyed in
.1980" Interestingly, 55-3129 retained a bulkhead autographed
by the original seven Mercury astronauts (plus others who fol·
lowed) while the airplane served as a weightlessness trainer.
Duri ng 1989 the airplane was noted with the name Drogue
Dragon. It was stored in AMARC on 31 st January 1992, as
CA008 (see Appendix D).
58·0007 This EC-135A was modified and redesignated an
EC-135P on 31st March 1967, while assigned to the 64861h
ACCS at Hickam AFB (later redesignated the 9th ACCS),
Transferred to the 6th ACCS at Langley AFB after 1974, It was
destroyed at Langley AFB on 3rd January 1980, as the result of
a fuselage fire (see Appendix C).
58·0011 This EC-135A was converted and redesignated an
EC-135P on 31st March 1967, while assigned to the 64861h
ACCS at Hickam AFB (later redesignated the 9th ACCS).
Demodified into a KC-135A (ARR) by 28th July 1976, when n
was assigned to the 93rd BW at Castle AFB.
58·0018 This EC-135A was modified and redesignated an
EC-135P on 31 st March 1967, while assigned to the 6486lh
ACCS at Hickam AFB (later the 9th ACCS), Demodified inlo a
KC-135A (ARR) by 31st March 1976, when it was assigned 10
the 2nd BW at Barksdale AFB.
58·0019 This EC-135A was modified and redesignated an
EC-135P on 31st March 1967, while assigned to the 6486lh
ACCS at Hickam AFB (later the 9th ACCS). Transferred to the
6th ACCS at Langley AFB after 1974. From 24th May through
14th June 1982, 58-0019 received TF33-PW-102s. Stored in
AMARC on 12th February 1992, as CA009 (see Appendix Dj.
58-0022 This EC,135A was modified and redesignated an
EC-135P on 31st March 1967, while assigned to the 64861h
ACCS at Hickam AFB (later redesignated the 9th ACCS),
Transferred to the 6th ACCS at Langley AFB after 1974. From
24th April throug h 14th May 1982, 58-0022 received TF33-PW·
102s, It was stored in AMARC on 5th March 1992, as CA011
(see Appendix D).
 61-0274 This 6th ACCS EC-135H was converted into an
EG-135P as part of the 'Pacer Unk' program, and was redesig-
nated an EC-135P on 23rd May 1988. It was stored in AMARC
on 27th February 1992, as CA010 (see Appendix D).
EC·135Y
During 1983 NKC-135A 55-3125 was converted in to the only
EC-135Y airborne command post for the commander of CENT-
COM, and is the sister ship to EC-135N 61-0327, also a CENT-
COM airborne command post." The test equipment was
removed from 55-3125 and an IFR system was installed (it
retains the air refueling boom), along with an extensive commu-
nications and battle staff suite. The airplane is assigned to the
912th AREFS, 19th AREFW at Robins AFB, home of its flight and
I maintenance crews. In May 1986 it was re-engined with TF33-
PW-102 turbofans. On 1st April 1994, the EC-135Y was reas-
signed to the 99th AREFS, 19th ARW. The EC-135Y is slated to
join the EC-135N with the 6th AREFW at MacDill AFB during late
1997,
The EC-135Y was used during Operations 'Desert Shield'
and 'Desert Storm' until it required its scheduled maintenance
and was replaced in March 1991 by EC-135N 61-0327. In addi-
tion to support for CINC CENTCOM General H Norman Sch-
warzkopf, the EC-135Y occasionally refueled other airplanes
during the course of the war.
KC-135A
KC-135As have been used as airborne command posts for a
number of major programs. These airplanes retained the air
refueling boom and could still function as tankers. All have since
been redesignated as different variants of EC-135s, been
demodified (or programmed for conversion) into KC-135A, or
KC-135E, and KC-135R tankers, or removed from the inventory
Ihrough attrition and retirement.
Initial plans for SAC's airborne command post began in
1958-59 with an intent to have the airplanes configured by 1960.
Actual testing and evaluation began on 1st July 1960, with five
Externally, late-configuration EC-135As, 'Gs,
and 'Ls were nearly indistinguishable.
Internally, however, there were limits to their
interchangeability. EC-135L radio relay birds
could not function as ALCCs without extensive
reconfiguration. Even similar aircraft differed in
their capabilities. EC-135G 62-3579, when
assigned to the 70th AREFS, 305th AREFW at·
Grissom AFB on 6th October 1986, when this
photo was taken, was configured as a radio
relay platform, unlike the EC-135Gs of the 4th
ACCS, 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB which were
configured as ALCCs. William R Peake
KC-135As assigned to the 34th AREFS, 340th BW at Offutt AFB.
The first airplane to be modified (KC-135A 58-0022) began con-
version on 26th May 1960. The new airborne command posts
carried a small battle staff including a SAC general officer and a
team of controllers and communications experts. The tests were
successful, and the KC-135A airborne command posts began
continuous 24-hour-a-day missions on 3rd February 1961,
founding the 'Looking Glass' legacy.
Following the delivery of the more advanced KC-135B air-
borne command post during 1964, the original 'Looking Glass'
KC-135As remained operational until flight crews were qualified
in the new airplanes and the new systems were accepted for
operational use. The KC-135A airborne command posts were
then further modified for more specialized missions such as
radio relay. On 1st January 1965, SAC's KC-135Aairborne com-
mand posts were redesignated EC-135As.
Following its conversion in 1967, the CINC of Strike
Command used KC-135A 61-0316 as an airborne command
post. In 1975 the airplane was demodified and transferred to the
71 st AREFS, 2nd BW at Barksdale AFB for use by the 8th AF
commander. It was destroyed on 19th March 1985 (see
Appendix C).
During 1957 KC-135A 55·3126 was assigned to Air Force
Headquarters as a VIP transport at the request of the Air Force
Vice Chief of Staff General LeMay. It had additional HF antennae
installed on the wingtips along with other improvements that
could allow it to operate as a rudimentary airborne command
post. From approximately 1960 through 1964, 55-3126 may
have supported the NCA as a protean 'Night Watch' airborne
command post, although KC-135A 61-0285 is recognized as the
first airplane to be assigned specifically to the NEACP mission
in June 1962.
Another source of confusion about early KC-135A airborne
command post missions is the 'Thule Monitor' or 'BMEWS
Monitor'. According to at least one source, this may have pro-
vided aerial radio relay or command and control for 'Chrome
Dome' airborne nuclear alert missions:
'". the Thule Monitor [is] an elaborately equipped KC-135
always flying above Thule, Greenland, as an alternate advance
station should the groundeq radar center be wiped out',"'
The Thule Monitor was far from being an 'elaborately
equipped KC-135' airborne command post, and was instead a
back-up system to the US early warning effort. Beginning in
August 1961, a B-52 'Chrome Dome' sortie orbited above the
BM EWS station at Thule, Greenland. Should communications
between Thule and SAC Headquarters be lot, the orbiting B-52
could report to SAC whether the remote facility had been hit by
a Soviet atomic sneak attack or if the base was just experienc-
ing a communications failure. If the B-52 was delayed on the
ground or unable to fulfill this duty, the KC-135A on station with
the 'Ghost Cabin' air refuelling track would take over these mon-
itor and relay duties." In May 1968 SAC replaced the Thule
Monitor mission with a KC-135A over the BMEWS facility at
Clear, Alaska. This second monitor mission was canceled in
December 1968."
The early airborne command posts were also involved in
nuclear weapons tests, both as airborne command and control
centers, and as 'test-beds' used to evaluate the effect of the
nuclear blast on the airplane's communication gear and its
effectiveness in a nuclear environment. During one series of
tests - 'Blue Gill', 'Starfish' and URACCA - of May-July 1962,
KC-135A 58-0011 (backed up by KC-135A 58-0022) provided:
'...communications relay for the UHF multiplex link between
Hickam and Johnston Island. ".[and was] also instrumented to
test UHF FM, UHF AM, HF, SSB and low frequency air to air
reception during test in an environment created by high altitude
nuclear explosions'.
Boeing instrumented the two airplanes with the appropriate
test equipment. Scheduled orbit time during the atmospheric
test was ten hours at an altitude of 31,0000 (9,448m). 58-0011
used the static call sign 'Cognac'."
55·3126 Assigned in 1957 as a VIP transport for Air Force
Headquarters at Andrews AFB. From approximately 1960
through 1964, it may have served as a 'Night Watch' airborne
command post for the NCA. Converted into the 'Speckled
Trout'. Stored at MASDC on 5th January 1978, as CA004 (see
Appendix D).
58-0007 Delivered to the Air Force on 20th February 1959,
and assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 26th February
1959. During 1960 it became one of the five original KC-135As
modified into an airborne command post. On 1st January 1965,
it was redesignated an EC-135A. It was destroyed on 3rd
January 1980 (see Appendix C),
58·0011 Delivered to the Air Force on 27th February 1959,
and arrived at the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 3rd March 1959.
It was one of the five original KC-135As modified into an air-
borne command post. One source suggests that this was the
first KC-135A to be modified into an airborne command post
when the airborne command post suite was installed by 24th
June 1960. However, according to official Air Force records, at
least three other KC-135As received the airborne command
post modification prior to 58-0011. It is possible that this air-
plane was the first to fly following the modification, may have
been the first to fly an operational mission, or some other
notable 'first'" On 15th April 1963, it received the 'Looking
Glass' Phase IV modification. It was redesignated an EC-135A
on 1st January 1965.
58·0018 Handed over to the Air Force on 4th March 1959,
and delivered to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 11th March
1959. It was one of the five original KC-135As for the PACCS
program, and on 9th June 1960, the airborne command post
suite was installed. On 1st January 1965, it was redesignated an
EC-135A.
58-0019 Delivered to the Air Force on 5th March 1959, and
was assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 10th March
1959. On 28th May 1960, the airborne command post suite was
installed and it became one of the five original KC-135A airborne
command posts, From 22nd July through 11th September
1964,58-0019 was loaned to the 1000th ACCS at Andrews AFB,
thereafter returning to Offutt AFB, On 1st January 1965, it was
redesignated an EC-135A. It was stored at AMARC on 12th
February 1992, as CAD09 (see Appendix D).
125
 58·0022 Handed over to the Air Force on 19th March 1959,
and delivered to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 20th March
1959, One of the five original KC-135As to be modified into a
test-bed airborne command post; on 26th May 1960 it became
the first KC-135A to have the airborne command post suite
installed, On 1st January 1965, it was redesignated an EC-135A.
Stored atAMARC on 5th March 1992, as CA011 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0261 On 28th August 1967, this KC-135A was assigned
to the 906th AREFS at Minot AFB as an airborne command post.
Following modification by Lockheed, it was redesignated an as
EC-135L on 25th September 1967, It was stored at AMARC on
29th May 1992, as CA020 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0262 Delivered to the Air Force on 23rd January 1962,
for installation of its airborne command post suite after 26th
January, Assigned on 4th April 1962, to the 34th AREFS at Offutt
AFB, From 9th October 1963, through 8th July 1964, it was
assigned to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB, and until 2nd
September 1964, with the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB, It
was then transferred to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB, On 1st
January 1965, it was redesignated an EC-135A, Placed on dis-
play at Ellsworth AFB on 30th March 1992 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0263 On 10th August 1967, this KC-135A was assigned
to the 906th AREFS at Minot AFB as an airborne command post.
Following modification by Lockheed, it was redesignated an as
EC-135L on 16th October 1967, It was stored at AMARC on 5th
May 1992, as CA015 (see Appendix Dj,
61-0269 On 18th September 1967, this KC-135A was
assigned to the 906th AREFS at Minot AFB as an airborne com-
mand post. Following modification by Lockheed, it was redes-
ignated an EC-135L on 30th October 1967, Placed on static dis-
play at Grissom AFB on 29th June 1992 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0274 Boeing is believed to have converted this KC-135A
into a NEACP during mid-1962, It may have been the first
NEACP delivered to the 1000th ACCS, arriving there on 19th
February 1962, and assuming alert on 1st March 1962, On 6th
September 1967, LTV started conversion into an EC-135H, It
was stored at AMARC on 27th February 1992, as CA010 (see
Appendix D),
61·0278 This KC-135A was delivered on 1st February 1962,
and assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB the following day,
as an airborne command post. On 9th October 1963, it was
reassigned to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB, It was redesig-
nated an EC-135A on 1st January 1965, It was stored at AMARC
on 18th September 1992, as CA048 (see Appendix Dj,
61-0279 On 9th July 1965, this KC-135A was assigned to
the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB as an airborne command post.
From 2nd August through 27th October 1965, Lockheed con-
verted it into an EC-135L, It was stored at AMARC on 22nd May
1992, as CA018 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0281 Little is known of the early history of this airborne
command post. On 30th June 1966, it was redesignated as an
EC-135L,
61·0282 Boeing converted this tanker into a KC-135A
NEACP by 11th June 1962, when it was assigned to the 1000th
ACCS, Redesignated an EC-135A on 16th November 1964, It
became a ground instructional trainer at Sheppard AFB on 15th
November 1991 (see Appendix Dj,
126
61·0283 On 7th July 1965, this KC-135A was assigned to
the 28th AREFS, 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB as an airborne com-
mand post. Following modification by Lockheed, it was redes-
ignated an EC-135L on 16th August 1965, Stored at AMARC on
6th May 1992, as CA016 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0285 Boeing converted this tanker into a KC-135A
NEACP prior to its delivery to the Air Force on 12th March 1962,
It was redesignated EC-135Aon 16th November 1964, Stored at
AMARC on 9th March 1992, as CA012 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0287 This KC-135A was delivered to the Air Force on
12th March 1962, and assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB
on 28th March 1962, as an airborne command post. On 10th
January 1964, it was reassigned to the 22nd AREFS at March
AFB. Transferred on 30th November 1964, to the 32nd AREFS
at Lockbourne AFB. On 1st January 1965, it was redesignated
an EC-135A. Placed on static display at Offutt AFB on 10th
February 1992 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0288 Little is known of the early history of this airborne
command post. On 1st December 1967, it was delivered to
Lockheed for modification, and on 9th January 1968, was redes-
ignated an EC-135L,
61·0289 This KC-135A was delivered to the 34th AREFS at
Offutt AFB on 11th April 1962, as an airborne command post.
Transferred on 31st January 1964, to the 99th AREFS at
Westover AFB, On 1st January 1965, it was redesignated as an
EC-135A, It was stored at AMARC on 8th June 1992, as CA022
(see Appendix D),
61·0291 Boeing delivered this KC-135A tanker to the Air
Force on 13th April 1962, although it remained at Boeing's
Moses Lake facility until 20th April 1962, Boeing then converted
61-0291 into a NEACP beginning on 29th June 1962, and it like-
ly served with the 1000th ACCS, On 15th August 1966, it was
transferred to LTV Electrosystems for conversion to EC-135H
status, It was stored at AMARC on 30th May 1991, as CA007
(see Appendix D),
61·0293 Delivered to the Air Force on 4th May 1962, and
assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 31st July 1962, as
an airborne command post. On 4th March 1964, it was trans-
ferred to the 99th AREFS at Westover AFB, It was redesignated
an EC-135A on 1st January 1965,
61·0297 Delivered to the Air Force on 9th May 1962, and
assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 10th August 1962,
as an airborne command post. Transferred on 21st July 1964, to
the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB, and reassigned on 14th
December 1964, to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB, On 1st
January 1965, it was redesignated an EC-135A, It was stored at
AMARC on 2nd June 1992, as CA021 (see Appendix Dj,
61·0302 Little is known of the early history of this airborne
command post. Lockheed modified it into an EC-135L by 11 th
December 1967,
61·0316 This KC-135A was converted in 1967 into the air-
borne command post for the CINC, Strike Command, and sta-
tioned at MacDili AFB until 1975, It was then demodified into a
KC-135A and assigned by 1979 to the 71st AREFS, 2nd BWat
Barksdale AFB for use by the 8th AF Commander, It burned dur-
ing ground refueling in Egypt, on 19th March 1985 (see
Appendix C),
EC·135H 61·0274 served as a 'Silk Purse' r
airborne command post for USCINCEUR and
SACEUR. In the event of a global conflagration,
the 'Silk Purse' and 'Blue Eagle' USCINCPAC
EC·135s could establish secure
communications links with the 'Looking Glass'
and other PACCS elements to control SlOP
forces worldwide. Joe Bruch collection
62·3570 Delivered on 1st July 1963, and assigned to the
34th AREFS at Offutt AFB 14th November 1963, as an airborne
com mand post. On 5th August 1964, it was transferred to the
913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB, Reassigned on 30th November
1964, to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB, Subsequently con·
verted and redesignated an EC-135G on 14th February 1966, It
was stored at AMARC on 23rd June 1992, as CA024 (see
Appendix Dj.
62·3579 Delivered on 2nd August 1963, and assigned to
the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 10th December 1963, as an air·
borne command post. Transferred on 2nd September 1964, to
.the 1000th ACCS at Andrews AFB it was then redesignated an
EC-135A. It was stored at AMARC on 16th June 1992, as CA023
(see Appendix D),
63·7994 Delivered to the Air Force on 17th October 1963,
and assigned to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB 17th Janua~
1964, as an airborne command post. Transferred on 18th
Aug ust 1964, to the 913th AREFS at Barksdale AFB, and reas·
signed on 30th November 1964, to the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth
AFB. Subsequently converted and redesignated an EC-135G on
3rd May 1966. It was stored at AMARC on 11th September 1992,
as CA045 (see Appendix D),
63·8001 Delivered on 18th November 1963, and assigned
to the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB 19th February 1964, as an air·
borne command post. Reassigned on 14th December 1964, to
the 28th AREFS at Ellsworth AFB, Converted and redesignated
an EC-135G on 3rd May 1966, It was stored at AMARC on 18th
May 1992, as CA017 (see Appendix Dj.
KC·135A·VIII
The most widely known but least understood KC-135A airborne
command post is the KC-135A-Vlll 'Combat Lightning'. Along
with two EC-135Ls serving in a temporary capacity, these seven
KC-135As were part of the Air Force's Lockheed EC-121T AS&CS
program, which provided long range air situation control in
Southeast Asia. 'Combat Lightning' platforms provided secure
real-time radio relay capability for the EC-121T airborne warning
and control aircraft, as well as for other high-priority communica·
tions such as those associated with RC-135M 'Combat Apple'
sorties," 'Combat Lightning' also extended the range of ground
communications stations in South Vietnam, 'mainly to pass warn·
ing information to aircraft operating over North Vietnam, a mis·
sion it performed while orbiting over the Gulf of Tonkin',~ This
ground facility, located at Monkey Mountain near Da Nang,
would transmit warnings of MiGs or PRC border violations detect·
ed by 'Big Eye', and SAM launch warnings detected by 'Silver
 Nearly all EC-135 airborne command posts were
capable of serving as tankers. Crews stayed
, proficient by flying 'flip-flop' sorties, where two
EC·135s would refuel with each other first as
tanker and then as receiver. EC-135H 61-0285
poses for a camera in another 10th ACCS
EC-135H somewhere over the North Sea during
the mid-1980s. Joe Bruch
EC·135Js have served in more commands and
in support of more missions than any other
airborne command post variant, beginning with
the 'Night Watch' NEACP mission, then to 'Blue
Eagle' with PACAF, and finally to 'Looking
Glass' with SAC, ACC, and STRATCOM. Rare
view of 'Night Watch' III EC-135J 63-8055 taken
in late 1966, shortly after its conversion from a
'Night Watch' EC-135C. Joe Bruch collection
Dawn', via 'Combat Lightning' to fighter aircraft operating over
North Vietnam."
E-Systems converted at least 27 C-121s into EC-121Ts by
incorporating an AN/ASQ-136 Airborne Detection and Pro-
cessing System, as well as special HF, UHF communications,
and high speed data link equipment. Additional equipment
included computer analysis equipment. The EC-121T's on-
board computer provided situational data such as a target air-
craft's location, altitude, and speed. These data could then be
stored or transmitted in an encrypted form at 1,200 or 2,400
baud (one unit interval per second)"
Data transmission beyond line-of-sight from the EC-121 T to
the ground-based AN/GYQ-14 Digital Data Processing Station
required some form of airborne radio relay platform. In June
1966 Air Force Headquarters notified SAC that two EC-135L
were under consideration for the 'Combat Lightning' role. Not
wanting to lose two PACCS airplanes, SAC recommended
instead using two KC-135As equipped with the AN/ARC-89
radio relay system." This alternate plan was adopted and E-
Systems modified the first two KC-135As (61-0280 from the
916th AREFS, 5th BW at Travis AFB, and 61-0271 from the 97th
BW at Blytheville AFB, Arkansas) by incorporating the KC-135
Signal Data MultiplexerfTransmitter System, which included
automated high-speed HF and UHF communications relay
equipment. The airplanes were converted and tested in early
September 1966'7 'Combat Lightning' KC-135As were easily
identifiable by nine UHF radio antennae along their dorsal fuse-
lage and four on the ventral fuselage, earning the airplanes the
nickname 'Razorback'. They were also known as 'Luzon Birds'."
The first 'Combat Lightning' arrived at Kadena AB on 14th
September 1966, and both KC-135As deployed to U-Tapao
RTNAB on 20th and 22nd September 1966. The first 'Combat
Lightning' mission was flown on 5th October 1966, and it soon
became apparent that the desired 24-hour coverage would
require at least five airplanes."
Further modification of the required KC-135As was delayed,
so SAC was finally compelled to send two EC-135Ls to U-Tapao
RTNAB in mid-May 1967, and 24-hour coverage with these four
airplanes began at the end of that month. By October 1967 three
additional KC-135As were delivered:incorporating anew secure
voice capability and a scheduled wing fatigue retrofit. The two
existing KC-135A 'Combat Lightnings' were then so modified,
delaying departure of the two EC-135Ls until the end of 1967.'00
Although 'Combat Lightning' operations began at U·Tapao
RTNAB, they moved to Ching Chuan Kang AB when it opened
on 2nd February 1968. Following the departure of all SAC
tankers from CCK near the end of 1970, 'Combat Lightning'
operations returned to U-Tapao RTNAB. Airplane buildups at U-
Tapao RTNAB in the following years dictated that 'Combat
Lightning' deploy to Kadena AB for operations from 23rd
February through 8th June 1971, and during the periods 9-11 th
April 1972, and 2nd-3rd February 1973.'''
Although the 'Combat Lightning's' primary mission was radio
relay, they were fitted with an air refueling drogue in order to
refuel US Navy and drogue-equipped Air Force airplanes should
they experience fuel emergencies. In this capacity, 'Combat
Lightnings' conducted 91 Emergency Air Refueling Tanker
(EART) missions.'''' Following a heavy fuel offload, the 'Combat
127
Lightnings' could divert to Da Nang AB, Republic of Vietnam,
where they would refuel and then return to their 'Combat
Lightning' orbit.
A typical 'Combat Lightning' mission would orbit for approx-
imately eight hours in the Tan Anchor air refueling area until
relieved or the mission terminated. Transit time to and from
Kadena AB was four hours each way, three hours each way to
CCK, and two hours in each direction to U-Tapao RTNAB. The
airplanes had a regular KC-135 flight crew of four plus three to
four radio relay operators in a station along the starboard side
of the fuselage near the wing root.
'Combat Lightning' airplanes provided not only operational
combat information (such as in the assistance of a MiG-21 'kill'
at the end of December 1972), but provided radio relay for
MEDEVAC and rescue operations. They participated in
Operation 'Homecoming', the return of American prisoners of
war from Southeast Asia. In June 1973 'Combat Lightning'
began tests to relay real time target change data to incoming
bombers, but the termination of hostilities ended this program.'"'
By the end of the war, 'Combat Lightning' airplanes had flown
5,802 missions.'"
Following the war, 'Combat Lightning' KC-135As were used
only as tanker~, although their fuel capacity was reduced due to
the weight of the residual radio relay equipment. In 1973 they
were assigned to the 43rd SWat Andersen AFB, and subse-
quently returned to the KC-135 fleet, serving with both active
duty and ANG units. In FY78, two 'Combat Lightnings' were
completely demodified into standard KC-135As. In 1990 four
former 'Combat Lightnings' were converted into KC-135Es and
a fifth modified into a KC-135R.
61-0268 This airplane was selected from the 28th AREFS at
Ellsworth AFB for conversion into a 'Combat Lightning' platform.
Following the war in Southeast Asia, it served as a tanker with a
variety of active duty and ANG units. From 24th May through 4th
September 1990, this airplane was converted into a KC-135E
and assigned to the 940th AREFG at Mather AFB, California.
61·0270 This KC-135A was converted into a 'Combat
Lightning' aerial radio relay platform. Following the war in
Southeast Asia, it served as atanker with a variety of active duty
and ANG units. From 21 st February through 12th June 1990, it
was converted into a KC-135E, and assigned to the 434th
AREFW at Grissom AFB.
61·0271 This airplane was selected from the 97th AREFS at
Blytheville AFB for conversion into one of the first two 'Combat
Lightning' platforms. Following the war in Southeast Asia, it
served as a tanker with a variety of active duty and ANG units.
From 1st November through 26th April 1990, it was converted
into a KC-135E, and then assigned to the 434th AREFW at
Grissom AFB.
61·0280 This airplane was selected from the 916th AREFS
at Travis AFB for conversion into one of the first two 'Combat
Lightning' platforms. Following the war in Southeast Asia, it
served as a tanker with a variety of active duty and ANG units.
From 1st December 1989, through 22nd May 1990, it was con-
verted into a KC-135E, and then assigned to the 452nd AREFW
at March AFB.
61·0303 This airplane was selected from the 922nd AREFS,
17th BW at Wright-Patterson AFB for conversion into a 'Combat
Lightning' platform. Following the war in Southeast Asia, it
served as a tanker with a variety of active duty and ANG units.
From 4th January through 1st June 1990, it was converted into
a KC-135E and assigned to the 452nd AREFW at March AFB.
61·0321 This airplane was selected from the 99th AREFS, at
Westover AFB for conversion into a 'Combat Lightning' plat-
form. Following the war in Southeast Asia, it served as a tanker
with a variety of active duty and ANG units. During 1971, it sup-
ported 'Looking Glass' operations at Offutt AFB, although de-
tails of this are not known. By 31st July 1990, it had been con-
verted into a KC-135R.
63·8881 This airplane was selected from the 380th BW at
Plattsburgh AFB for conversion into a 'Combat Lightning' plat-
form. Following the war in Southeast Asia, it served as a tanker
with a variety of active duty and ANG units. It has since been
converted into a KC-135R.
KC-135B
Boeing began deliveries of the KC-135B airborne command
post to SAC in February 1964. The airplanes had TF33-P-9s,
retained the boom aerial refueling system, and incorporated an
IFR system. Other airframe additions included HF wingtip fence
antennae and aTWA fairing and associated equipment installed
aft of the right main gear well. Improvements to mission equip-
ment inciuded 'multiplex avionics enabling the handling of many
transmissions simultaneously on a single carrier frequency'.lOs
128
Communications monitoring was improved to semi-automatic KC-135E
from the earlier manual monitoring system. The size and weight During 1994 KC-135E 57-2589 assigned for use by the
of the mission systems were reduced. Commander of Strategic Command (STRATCOM) acquired a
The airplanes had afive man flight crew of pilot, copilot, nav- substantial command, control, communication, and intelligence
igator, boom operator, and an in-flight passenger specialist, (C41) capability. Utilizing fiber-optic technology, it can be config·
plus a back-end battle staff composed of a SAC general as the ured with a wide variety of equipment and portray information in
AEAO, an operations planner, an intelligence staff member, a anumber of ways such as video or digital displays. The airplane
material operations controller (with assistant), a teleprinter oper- retains its tanker air refueling capability. It is assigned to the
ator, a communication controller, and three radio engineers. lO' 55th Wg at Offutt AFB.lOB
Later crew makeup included an additional operations planner,
intelligence officer, and logistics planner.
Five KC-135Bs were originally scheduled to be assigned to
the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB, replacing the existing KC-135A
airborne command posts, and four KC-135Bs were intended for
each of the SAC numbered air force headquarters. Actual deliv-
eries varied somewhat, with six KC-135Bs delivered to Offutt
AFB, four to March AFB, three to Barksdale AFB, two to
Westover AFB, and one to the NCA at Andrews AFB.
The KC-135Bs delivered to the NAF headquarters would
replace the primary SAC airborne command post in the event
that it should be incapacitated. Those KC-135Bs dedicated to
8th AF at Westover AFB were assigned to the 99th AREFS,
499th AREFW; the 2nd AF KC-135Bs at Barksdale AFB were
assigned to the 913th AREFS, 2nd BW; and the KC-135Bs
assigned to the 15th AF at March AFB were operated by the
22nd AREFS, 22nd BW.''' The NCA airplane was assigned to
the 1000th ACCS at Andrews AFB.
On 1st January 1965, all PACCS airplanes were redesignat-
ed with the 'EC' prefix; the KC-135B became the EC-135C. As
such, KC-135Bs delivered after 1st January 1965, were deliv-
ered as EC-135Cs although they were built as KC-135Bs.
62·3581 Delivered 'on paper' to the Air Force on 28th
February 1964, but not actually handed over until 29th Sept-
ember 1964, and assigned to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB.
62·3582 Delivered 'on paper' on 5th June 1964 but n'ot
handed over until 16th September 1964, and assigned to the
22nd AREFS at March AFB.
62·3583 Delivered 21 st July 1964, to the 22nd AREFS at
March AFB. Stored at AMARC on 26 May 1992, as CA019 (see
appendix D).
62·3584 Delivered 29th June 1964, and arrived at the 913th
AREFS at Barksdale AFB on 2nd July 1964. Crashed on 29th
May 1992 (see Appendix C).
62·3585 Delivered 24th July 1964, to the 913th AREFS at
Barksdale AFB.
63-8046 Delivered 13th August 1964, to the 913th AREFS at
Barksdale AFB.
63·8047 Delivered 26th August 1964, to the 99th AREFS at
Westover AFB. Stored at AMARC on 12th October 1993, as
CA093 (see Appendix D).
63-8048 Delivered to the Air Force on 14th September
1964, and arrived at the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 30th
September 1964.
63·8049 Delivered to the Air Force on 5th October 1964,
and arrived at the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 23th October
1964. It was placed on static display at the Offutt AFB Museum 'Head Dancer' EC-135K 55-3118 after its
on 29th January 1992 (see Appendix D). conversion under the 'Oxeye Daisy' program.
63·8050 Delivered to the Air Force on 23rd September The EC-135Ks were essential components of
1964, and arrived at the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 30th transoceanic 'fighter drags', ensuring a safe
September 1964. crossing and prOViding a source of assistance
63·8051 Delivered to the Air Force on 12th November 1964, in the event of an in-flight emergency. In
and arrived at the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB on 13th November addition, they served as VIP transports for
1964. Stored in AMARC on 10th July 1992, as CA027 (see App- senior US military and civilian personnel.
endix D). Author's collection
63·8052 Delivered on 30th October 1964, to the 34th
AREFS at Offutt AFB. The only EC·135 variant to see combat duty in
63·8053 Delivered to the Air Force on 30th November 1964, two wars is the EC-135L. In Southeast Asia two
arrived on 8th December 1964 at the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB. were used as interim radio relay platforms
Crashed at Pope AFB, NC, 2nd September 1997 (see Appendix B). pending the delivery of the 'Combat Lightning'
63·8054 Delivered to the Air Force on 9th December 1964, KC-135A-Vllls. During Operation 'Desert Storm'
arrived on 29th December 1964 at the 34th AREFS at Offutt AFB. two 70th AREFS EC-135Ls, including 61-0269,
63·8055 Handed over to the Air Force on 6th January 1965, here at Grissom AFB on 3rd August 1986,
as an EC-135C. Assigned on 20th January 1965, to the 1000th served as intratheater radio relay aircraft.
ACCS at Andrews AFB as a NEACP. Stored at AMARC on 4th Author
October 1993, as CA092 (see Appendix D).
63·8056 Handed over to the Air Force on 25th February Three EC-135Ls (61-0281, 61-0288, and 61-0302)
1965, as an EC-135C and assigned on 2nd March 1965, to the were demodified and redesignated as KC-135As
99th AREFS, 499th AREFW at Westover AFB. Stored in AMARC during 1970, yet all three were reconfigured and
on 23rd March 1992, as CA013 (see Appendix D). redesignated as EC-135Ls during 1971, only to
63·8057 This KC-135B was handed over to the Air Force on be demodified back into KC·135A tankers by
25th February 1965, as an EC-135C and assigned on 4th March the end of 1971. During this time, all three were
1965, to the 22nd AREFS at March AFB. Stored at AMARC (and assigned to the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB, where
later the Pima Air Museum) on 31 st March 1992, as CA014 (see EC·135L 61·0302 appears on the ramp for the
Appendix D). 1971 Open House. Mike Quan
 u-.S-""'.-AJ=-R-=FO=-=R:-::-:CE::-'c--'-----.-------"..----a
=~r -

- - - --_.
~-
"-""----
129
 ,
! f~IZ/l ' ~ /.J71J' (7/' ~ 1, I/iJ:AY{;~

130
Photographs on the opposite page:
Top: CENTCOM EC-135Y 55-3125 differs from its
cohort EC-135N 61-0327 most notably by having
an air refueling boom. During Operation 'Desert
Storm', 55-3125 served occasionally as a 'buck
lanker', refueling a variety of receivers.
Internally, the two CENTCOM jets are nearly
identical, and both have an IFR system
installed. Author's collection
Middle: The crew of airborne command post
KC·135A 58-0018 practices an alert scramble at
Offutt AFB sometime in the early 1960s. The
34th AREFS conducted the original tests of the
KC·135As in this role, and, by virtue of being
co·located with SAC headquarters, became the
first 'Looking Glass' squadron. USAF, by SMSgt
William E'Lummus, Joe Bruch collection
Bottom: EC-135 airborne command posts have
often held the additional role of VIP transport.
Beginning in 1967, KC-135A 61-0316 served as
the airborne command post for the commander
of Strike Command, where its duties were
similar to those of the 'Head Dancer' EC-135Ks.
It later served as the Eighth Air Force
commander's airplane; it burned to destruction
in Cairo on 19th March 1985. Author's collection
Photographs on this page:
Top: Perhaps the most enigmatic MDS assigned
to an airborne command post is that given to
the EC-135N. Operationally equivalent to
CENTCOM's EC-135Y, EC-135N 61-0327 is
structurally more akin to the EC-135N ARIAs
from which it evolved, hence the unexpected
MDS. Both CENTCOM aircraft were originally
based at Robins AFB, where this photo was
taken on 27th April 1988. Author
Above: Of all the airborne command post
variants, the EC-135Ps were perhaps those
with the best claim to the longest lineage.
They were originally the five KC-135As modified
during 1959-60 for SAC, and EC-135P 58-0022
(seen here in PACAF markings) was the first to
receive the airborne command post suite. The
EC-135Ps went on to support USCINCPAC
with the 'Blue Eagle' mission and USCINCLANT
under 'Scope Light'.
Joe Bruch collection
131
 · iJ".....
4 -_

• /&ti U. S. AIR FORCE~Ul

--- - ---. --

Seven KC·135As were converted into 'Combat

Lightning' KC-135A-Vlls for use as radio relay
platforms in Southeast Asia. PACAF had origi-
nally wanted EC-135Ls but SAC was loathe to
release these from their SlOP commitment to
satisfy what they saw as a temporary
contingency mission. After the war the
'Combat Lightnings' had their communication
suites removed but the numerous UHF dorsal
antennas remained, easily identifying the
airplanes' previous mission. Former 'Combat
Lightning' KC-135A 61-2068 in the markings of
the 91st AREFS, 384th AREFW from McConnell
AFB on 17th October 1980. Brian C Buck Rogers

In addition to the 'Head Dancer' EC-135Ks, TAC
operated the 'Scope Light' EC-135Ps, although
these were true airborne command posts for
USCINCLANT rather than deployment support
aircraft. The five 'Scope Light' jets were
assigned to the 6th ACCS at Langley AFB. One
of these, 58-0007 seen here in 1979, burned on
the ramp at Langley AFB in 1980.
Author's collection
Right: Two of the four radio operator positions
inside a 'Combat Lightning' KC135A·VII. This
view looks forward and to starboard. Two more
positions were located aft of these. Equipment
racks were installed along the port side of the
cargo compartment. 'Combat Lightning' jets
were still capable of offloading fuel, and had a
secondary role as emergency tankers.
Author's collection

\~

\\ 80007

132

Reconnaissance Platforms
'Burning Wind' RC·135 sorties have long been a
staple of strategic reconnaissance operations
throughout eastern Asia. RC-135V 64-14842, a
Block III 'Rivet Joint', is seen here in tight for-
mation with another RC-135V en route Clark AB
to Anderson AB during the summer of 1985. The
, pair had earlier departed Kadena AB when a
typhoon struck there. Bill Strandberg collection
It has a certain mystique. Whether at Kadena,
Mildenhall, or any of its other operating loca-
tions, it never fails to attract a crowd at the end
of the runway, waiting with cameras and spot-
ter's logs in hand. As they watch the airplane
taxi to the hammerhead, often with a tanker (or
two) in tow, the talk focuses on the presence or
absence of antennas and fairings, what this
mission might be and where it might go, and
how many 'visitors' it might encounter along
the way. Back at Offutt, friends and family know
only that both airplane and crew are TDY again.
Those who wait seldom ask where to or for how
long. Some refrain because they know it is
pointless. Others avoid the issue altogether
because they know from past experience that
I because of bad weather, bad luck, or the bad
guys, the airplane and crew might not come
, home.
Chapter Ten
With the putative end of the 'Cold War', some
of this mystique has waned. Nonetheless, the
mere mention of the arrival of an RC-135 at a
base is still sure to raise considerable interest,
and photographs of the latest configurations
and markings applied to the RC-135s appear
with unflagging consistency in aviation litera-
ture. Further, in an age of declassification en
masse, it is increasingly less difficult, though
not always easy, to learn about the missions
and accomplishments of the RC-135s and their
predecessors.
With the exception of dramatic events such
as the intercept and destruction of a reconnais-
sance platform by a hostile nation, the aerial
reconnaissance assets of the United States
and its Western allies have operated for nearly
50 years with an absolute minimum of public
attention. Although a number of its predeces-
sors have met a violent end, no KC-135 recon-
naissance variant has ever been destroyed as a
consequence of hostile action, not that they
have been completely free of such danger.'
Although the intent of this low visibility is to
ensure the timely and useful collection of infor-
mation with which US leaders can make sound
national security decisions, this motivation often
' ' -,-....,.-----.1•
has been ignored. Instead, critics of strategic
reconnaissance flights often ascribe another -
more sinister - side to these operations: that
they are dangerous and provocative, if not out-
right illegal, an opinion not necessarily restrict-
ed to political 'doves', Soviet apologists, or
conspiracy theorists. Indeed, noted US diplo-
mat George F Kennan wrote in 1977 that one of
'the most dangerous aspects of these far-flung
and extravagant efforts at snooping is that they
[are] virtually indistinguishable from ... a state of
war'. Government, especially in the US, must
'unilaterally... temper the recklessness and
dangerousness' of such operations. The
'diminution in the intensity and dangerousness
of efforts of this nature' would produce 'a gen-
eral betterment of the atmosphere of Soviet-
American relations.. .'2
Kennan's wisdom notwithstanding, such crit-
icism ignores the realities of RC-135 operations
and perpetuates a gross misrepresentation
that is a blatant disservice to the men and
women who fly these often dangerous mis-
sions.' Unlike overflights that violate territorial
sovereignty, RC-135 reconnaissance sorties
are peripheral missions, operating exclusively
in international airspace along the edges of a
133

·2413~.
nation's borders. From an altitude of 35,000ft
(10,668m), RC-135s can 'see' some 230 miles
(370km) to the horizon and can 'hear' around
the world given optimum atmospheric condi-
tions.' Unlike past 'ferret' flights, intentionally
violating foreign airspace, provoking a reaction
which the ferret would observe and record,
known RC-135 operations intentionally avoid
such territorial incursions. Not only would these
be against US policy, they would place airplane
and crew in unacceptable danger, as a 30 year
old RC-1.35 is no match for modern weapons
such as the SA-1 0 surface-to-air missile and the
Sukhoi Su-27 'Flanker': As a further hedge to
prevent accidental violations, RC-135s are
equipped with sophisticated navigation aids
such as GPS and a stellar-inertial doppler sys-
tem. All current RC-135 crews have two naviga-
tors who cross-check each other and the
navigation systems to avoid course deviations.·
Most importantly, criticisms of strategic aeri-
al reconnaissance overlook the contributions
of RC-135s to global peace and superpower
stability. Specific RC-135 missions are crucial
to the verification of existing arms limitation and
reduction agreements. In the Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty (SALT I) and the Anti-ballistic
Missile Treaty (ABM), for example, the Soviet
Union specifically agreed to provisions that
guaranteed unimpeded observation of relevant
Soviet missile tests and unhindered collection
of corresponding Soviet missile test telemetry
by US platforms such as the RC-135S 'Cobra
Ball'.' As demonstrated in actual combat oper-
ations such as 'Urgent Fury', 'Just Cause',
'Desert Storm', and 'Deny Flight', RC-135s also
make an important contribution to US tactical
military operations. Flying in this same tactical
capacity in peacetime, RC-135s have served as
important peace-keeping tools in troubled
areas such as Iraq, Somalia, and Bosnia.·
Only recently has there been an opportunity
to gather substantive, official information about
reconnaissance KC-135s and their varied mis-
sions. Consequently, the material contained
here derives primarily from secondary sources
that have been subjected to extensive corrobo-
134
fo
're
pc
10
BI
BI
tio
di
o
Ii
3(
Cl
ration.' Nonetheless, this chapter represents Yet another 'ops' sortie begins from Mildenhall,
the most accurate and thoroughly documented this one perhaps north to the Kola Peninsula or
even 'over the top' to Alaska. On 16th May 1987,
unclassified history of RC-135s and their mis- when this photo of RC·135W 62·4131 was taken,
sions available to date. In some cases, it con- encounters with foreign interceptors during
tradicts previously held and often widespread such missions were commonplace. Within five
beliefs about the evolution, operation, and years, Russian interceptions in particular had
especially the designations of the many differ- become nearly non·existent. Robert J Archer
ent variants of RC-135. 1O c
Until 1992 worldwide RC-135 missions fell October 1993 to Offutt AFB. RC-135s from Eief c
under SAC's operational control as part of its son AFB were reassigned to Offutt AFB during il
participation in the 000 Peacetime Aerial 1992. The OC-135Bs were first assigned to
Reconnaissance Program (PARPRO). This McClellan AFB in 1992 and then transferred to 1
name was changed in 1990 to Peacetime Offutt during October 1993-'--There are also sev· 1
Reconnaissance and Certain Sensitive Opera- eral support squadrons and operating loca· F
tions (PRCSO), and may have changed again. tions (OLs) around the world. II
RC-135s have since been assigned to ACC RC-135s deploy worldwide in support oftheir II
under the operational control of theater com- operational commitments. RC-135s routinely c
manders. Beginning on 6th November 1993, fly from RAF Mildenhall in England on missions ~
ACC RC-135 missions were funded and tasked over the Baltic Sea, north of the Kola Peninsula, t
by the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance . or 'over the top' of the world, recovering at Eiel·
Office (DARO). Previously, mission tasking der- son AFB. More recently, RC-135s deployed to
ived from separate requirements levied by a Mildenhall conduct missions over Bosnia in
variety of intelligence agencies including the support of United Nations peacekeeping oper·
National Security Agency (NSA), the Defense ations. Until 1991 RC-135s from Offutt AFB
Intelligence Agency (DIAl. and the Defense deployed to Hellenikon AB, Greece, for mis·
Special Missile and Astronautics Center (DEF- sions over the Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas
SMAC). During March 1995, management and and Southwest Asia. Hellenikon, located in the
tasking of the RC-135S 'Cobra Ball' was trans- environs of Athens, finally closed in 1991 as
ferred from DARO to the National Foreign Intel- required by a 1983 Greco-American defense
ligence Program (NFIP) in an effort designed to agreement, and RC-135 missions were relocat·
co-ordinate all measurement and signatures ed to Souda Bay, Crete. 12
intelligence (MASINT) assets." RC-135s also operate from Kadena AB, fly·
Reconnaissance KC-135s have been as- ing missions along the eastern periphery of the
signed to relatively few units and bases (see Asian landmass and in the vicinity of the South
Appendix E). In December 1962 the 4157th SW China Sea. Flying directly from Offutt AFB, Re·
at Eielson AFB received SAC's first dedicated 135s fly sorties over the Caribbean Sea and in
reconnaissance KC-135A-II, while the 55th the vicinity of Central America. RC-135s, origi·
SRW at Offutt AFB received its first reconnais- nally based at Eielson AFB, and now located at
sance KC-135A in June 1963. From May 1967 Offutt AFB, operated regularly until 1994 from
through September 1976, six RC-135Ms were the 'Rock' - Shemya AFB (renamed Eareckson
assigned first to Yokota AB, then to Kadena AB, AFS in 1993) -located near the tip of the Aleut·
and finally to Offutt AFB. RC-135A photo map- ian Islands, flying sorties near the Kamchatka
ping airplanes were assigned first to Turner Peninsula." After the 1991 Gulf War, RC-135
AFB, Georgia, and then to Forbes AFB, Kan- operations continued from Riyadh AB, Saudi
sas. The WC-135B weather reconnaissance Arabia, until August 1996 when they were trans·
platforms were assigned to Yokota AB and ferred to Prince Sultan AB, near al-Kharj, Saudi
McClellan AFB, California, and beginning in Arabia.
 In addition to recce missions, the RC-135 surface systems that may have military or civil- The balance of this chapter makes frequent ref-
force supports humanitarian and search-and- ian applications... includ[ing] but... not limited erence to the four major protocols used in nam-
rescue (SAR) operations. An RC-135C partici- to, signals from telemetry, beaconing, electron- ing RC-135 operations. These are listed in
pated in the 1972 search over Alaska for the ic interrogators, tracking/fusing/aiming/com- Table 12.
lost plane carrying Alaska Congressman Nick mand systems, and video data links." The first name associated with RC-135s is
Begich and Louisiana Congressman Hale Another major class of SIGINT includes mea- the operational name of the airplane. If more
Boggs. An RC-135S participated in SAR opera- surement and signatures intelligence (MAS- than one configuration exists, the name is enu-
tions for a US Navy Lockheed P-3 Orion that INT) and radiation intelligence (RADINT). merated with Roman numerals to show the
ditched in the bitterly cold northern Pacific Relatively new fields, these utilize sophisticated existing configuration. For example, there have
Ocean. This effort marked the first use of satel- sensors and analysis equipment to 'glean more been six major 'Rivet Joint' configurations
lite communications in rescue operations. On detail from previously unexploited portions of (Blocks I, II, III, III Plus, up to the most recent
30th July 1982, an RC-135S assisted in the res- the electromagnetic spectrum, and from Block VIC). Thus, RC-135V 63-9792 is currently
cue of a US Coast Guard HC-130 Hercules that acoustic and even chemical emissions'.18 a 'Rivet Joint' III Plus. The order in which each
crashed at Massacre Bay, Attu Island, Alaska. Through proper interpretation of COMINT, airplane in a given configuration was converted
Nine survivors were rescued. actual and projected operations may be ana- is indicated by an Arabic numeral. Hence RC-
In April 1993 a China Eastern Airlines lyzed and effective counter operations devel- 135V 63-9792 is 'Rivet Joint' 8. Either name
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 experienced turbu- oped. By the accurate assessment of ELlNT, an should not be confused with an airplane nick-
lence severe enough to kill at least one passen- adversary's electronic order of battle and its name as applied by the crew or crewchief. In
ger and injure 150 others. It made an emergency strengths and weaknesses can be determined this case, 63-9792 is known among those who
I landing at Shemya AFB and the injured were and exploited. Collection of TEll NT, MASINT, fly and maintain it as Damien, for its 'unnatural'
transferred via TC-135S to the hospital at and RADINT allows analysts to evaluate new maintenance problems that recur but cannot
I Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. One patient was weapons under development by potential be duplicated and repaired, or even identified.
injured so critically that he required surgery adversaries. The value of these forms of intelli- Two of the early operational names - 'Wanda
during the flight, making this perhaps the first gence cannot be underestimated, and some Belle' and 'Lisa Ann' - had rather unique ori-
time a KC-135 variant has been used as an air- airplanes are so specialized that they collect gins. AMC had for several years assigned girls'
borne operating room. Although unconfirmed, primarily only one type of SIGINT. names to some of its major programs, includ-
Offutt AFB-based RC-135s may fly missions in The evolution of individual reconnaissance ing the 'Nancy Rae' JKC-135A (59-1491). When
conjunction with US government counternar: missions is a labyrinthine pathway complicated this airplane underwent modification as part of
cotics agencies in an effort to stem the flow of by the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the the 'Big Safari' program, it needed a new pro-
I illegal drugs into the US." reconnaissance community. Consequently, gram name. 'Big Safari' program director F E
the names by which these missions are known, O'Rear suggested his daughter's name of
, The Missions the airplane operational names, and the names 'Wanda Leigh', but 'Wanda Lee' had already
To appreciate the diversity ofthe many different of the airplane modification programs are a been assigned, so they settled instead on
RC-135 operations requires rudimentary know- constant source of confusion, particularly as 'Wanda Belle'. In naming RC-135E 62-4137,
ledge of the various means of intelligence col- these names change and programs evolve. O'Rear wanted to honor his mother Dora, but
lection. Most notions of intelligence gathering
center around human intelligence (HUMINT) or Table 12 - RC-135 RECONNAISSANCE CHRONOLOGY ANO PROGRAM NAMES
I photographic intelligence (PHOTINT). While
Year Airframe Operational Operational Conversion
the RC-135A was developed and used for Introduced MDS Name Order Program Other Name
unclassified photographic mapping and car:to-
graphic duties, these were certainly not what 1961 KC-135A 'Speed Light' 'Big Safari'
one might consider 'strategic reconnaissance' 1962 KC-135A-11 'Office Boy' 'Cotton Candy' 'Big Safari'
JKC-135A 'Nancy Rae'
PHOTINT platforms such as the Lockheed U-2.
1963 RC-135S 'Nancy Rae' 'Music Blue' 'Big Safari'
Asizable portion of intelligence collected on a 1964 KC-135A 'Rivet Stand' 'Cotton Candy' 'Big Safari' 'Gariic Salt'
regular basis comes not from human or photo- 1965 RC-135D 'Office Boy' 'Cotton Candy'
graphic sources but from the electromagnetic WC-135B 'Constant Phoenix' 'Pacer Day'
spectrum. This is signals intelligence (SIGINT), 1966 RC-135E 'Lisa Ann' 'Music Blue' 'Big Safari'
RC-135S 'Wanda Belle' 'Music Blue' 'Big Safari'
and forms the basis for several major classes of
1967 KC-135R 'Rivet Stand' 'Burning Light' 'Big Safari' 'Briar Patch'
intelligence. RC-135C 'Burning Candy' 'Big Team' 'Burning Pipe'
The first of these is communications intelli- RC-135D 'Rivet Brass' 'Burning Candy' 'Big Safari'
gence (COMINT), which is the 'interception RC-135E 'Rivet Amber' 'Burning Star' 'Bi g Safari'
and processing of foreign communications RC-135M 'Rivet Cord' 'Burning Candy' 'Big Safari' 'Combat Appie'
RC-135S 'Rivet Ball' 'Music Blue'
passed by radio, wire, or other electromagnetic
1968 RC-135A 'Pacer Swan'
means'." A second subclass of SIGINT is elec- KC-135R 'Rivet Quick' 'Burning Light' 'Big Safari'
1969
tronic intelligence (ELI NT) , which is the collec- KC-135T 'Cobra Jaws' 'Burning Light' 'Big Safari' 'Rivet Jaw'
tion of 'information derived from foreign RC-135S 'Cobra Ball' 'Burning Star' 'Big Safari'
non-communications electromagnetic radia- 1971 RC·135T 'Rivet Dandy' 'Burning Candy'
tions emanating from other than atomic deto- RC-135U 'Combat Sent' 'Big Safari'
1974 RC-135V 'Rivet Joint' 'Burning Wind' 'Big Safari'
nations or radioactive sources'. This includes RC-135M 'Rivet Cord' 'Burning Cord'
'frequencies, signal strength, pulse lengths, 1980 RC-135W 'Rivet Joint' 'Burning Wind' 'Big Safari'
pulse rates, and other specifications' of radars 1985 TC-135S 'Big Safari'
and electronic warfare equipment." Another 1988 TC-135W 'Big Safari'
class of SIGINT includes telemetry intelligence 1989 RC-135X 'Cobra Eye' 'Burning Vision' 'Big Safari' DAMP
1993 OC-135B
(TEll NT) , the collection of electromagnetic
TC-135B } Open Skies
emissions: 1995 OC-135W } Open Skies
'associated with the testing and operational WC-135W 'Big Safari'
deployment of aerospace, surface, and sub-

135
that name had already been assigned to anoth-
er project. O'Rear's youngest daughter was
named Lisa Ann, and so the RC-135E had a
name. Of course 'Wanda Belle' was later
renamed 'Rivet Ball', and 'Lisa Ann' became
'Rivet Amber', but for a while two young ladies
were honored in the service oftheir country."
The second of these names is the Opera-
tional Order, customarily referred to as the
'OpOrd'. This is the name given to the specific
mission undertaken by the HC-135 and typical-
ly describes the mission's purpose, command
and control elements, and mission procedures
for the given operation. An OpOrd may apply to
more than one aircraft type. For example, both
KC-135A-lis and RC-135Ds flew worldwide
SIGINT missions under the 'Cotton Candy'
OpOrd. Some OpOrds had specific subcate-
gories for each geographic region in which
they operated. For example, 'Burning Candy',
included 'Baltic Candy', 'Mediterranean Candy',
'Arctic Candy', and 'Cuban Candy'.
The third major name affiliated with RC-135
projects is the conversion program name. This
logistics nickname identifies the purpose of the
conversion and the facility responsible for it.
For example, as part ofthe 'Big Team' program
Glenn L Martin converted ten RC-135Bs into
RC-135Cs . By far, however, most RC-135 con-
versions have been part of the 'Big Safari' pro-
grams undertaken by E-Systems and its
predecessors (beginning in 1961 with Ling-
TEMCO, which became Ling-TEMCO-Vought,
in 1961, reorganized inJ 965 as LTV Electrosys-
tems, finally becoming E-Systems in 1972).
Thefinal category of names includes specific
136
programs that do not fall into any of the three
previous categories. The RC-135X 'Cobra Eye',
for example, operated under the 'Burning
Vision' OpOrd but was part of the joint Army-Air
Force-SDIO Optical Aerial Measurement Pro-
gram (OAMP).
Just as the B-52 replaced the B-47 as SAC's
front-line bomber, it seemed only natural that a
more modern and capable airframe replace the
reconnaissance variants of the B-47. Although
the B-52 was considered as a replacement for
the SIGINT RB-47s, it lacked the desired space
to carry the envisioned reconnaissance suite.
Other candidates included the B-58 Hustler
and the C-130 Hercules, but these, too, were
considered inadequate. 20 The KC-135's large
cargo compartment and considerable fuel cap-
acity made it the best choice as an RB-47
replacement. In addition, the reconnaissance
KC-135 was not derived from a bomber, which
made it appear less threatening (especially to
Soviet interceptor pilots) and less likely to be
fired upon."
To date, there have been 25 KC-135 variants
dedicated to strategic and weather reconnais-
sance or observation (including three dedicat-
ed trainers), with series suffixes ranging from 'A
to 'X, although not all have been designated as
RC-135s. In addition to the RC-135s and the
reconnaissance KC-135s, the weather plat-
forms are designated WC-135s, the Open
Skies airplanes are OC-135s, and the dedicat-
ed trainers are TC-135s.
In general the RC-135s have been similarly
configured. With the exception of the RC-135A,
all reconnaissance KC-135s had an IFR system
Most of the RC-135s are easily recognized by
their extended nose and the 'cheek' on each
side of the forward fuselage. RC 'crew dogs'
refer to the extended nose as a 'hog nose',
although this sobriquet is also applied to the
ARIA eC-135s. Two RC-135Ws shOWing the
longer e-Systems cheeks, which extend over
the crew entry door and have now replaced the
shorter Martin cheeks installed on the original
RC-135Cs. Aerofax collection
installed, considerably extending their range
and endurance. 22 Reconnaissance platforms
converted from KC-135A tankers had the upper
deck fuel tank removed. Other fuel-related
modifications include the removal of fuselage
fuel cells on some versions to make room for
additional mission equipment.
With the exception of the reconnaissance
KC-135A, all of the RC-135s had a fuel dump
tube installed in lieu of the air refueling boom,
either of which allows rapid jettisoning of fuel to
reduce weight when required for climb or in
cases of emergency. Reconnaissance KC-135As
all had the air refueling boom at one time and
are believed to have retained the ability to
offload fuel (as well as jettison it through the
boom) when required. Only the 'Nancy Rae'
JKC-135A had an APU.
Among other significant external structural
changes to some RC-135s are the trademark
extended nose and the 'cheeks' on each side
of the forward fuselage. The RC-135's nose is
known as a 'hog nose' (although E-Systems
personnel refer to this as the 'long nose').
Kadena AB, for example, earned the nickname
'Hog Heaven' because of RC-135 operations
there, while RAF Mildenhall garnered the nick-
name 'Hoghenge', Hellenikon AB inherited the
name 'Hogcropolis', and Eielson AFB became
known as 'The Hog Pole'.
The hog nose extends the fuselage to 133ft
7in (40.7m). The standard AN/APN-59 naviga-
tion radar of the KC-135 is retained within the
new nose but is located much farther forward
within the radome. The RC-135's AN/APN-59
incorporates a camera that photographically
records the airplane's radar-plot history during
each sortie for use in post-mission analysis. By
1988 this camera had been replaced with a
video cassette recorder (VCR). Several other
antennae have been observed inside the
extended nose, and may be SIGINT receivers!3
Airplanes without the hog nose include the
'Nancy Rae' JKC-135A, the reconnaissance
KC-135A, 'T (briefly), OC-135B, 'W, RC-135A,
'C, 'U, TC-135B and WC-135B.
The other major structural alteration to sever-
al RC-135s is the addition of the large fairings
on each side of the forward fuselage. These
'cheeks' are aerodynamic fairings that cover a
variety of smaller antennae or receivers. These
antennae are part of the Automatic ELiNT Emit-
ter Locator System (AEELS)!' Despite having
been incorrectly identified in the press for many
years, they are absolutely not side-looking air-
borne radars - SLARs.
Spurious tail numbers, especially those
involving the RC-135U 'Combat Sent', often
give rise to reports of the conversion of an
RC·135 from one variant to another. Wearing
Bicentennial markings in late 1976, 64-14849
at RAF Mildenhall as '64-14843' (an RC-135V)'.
These changes were sometimes pranks and
other times intended to confuse foreign
observers, military or civilian.
Paul Bennett, Bill Strandberg collection
As part of the proof-of-concept testing for the
RC-135, ASD and LTV modified two NKC-135As
for evaluation purposes. Beginning' in 1962
NKC-135A 55-3132 tested several cheek con-
figurations, aerodynamic cross-sections, and
fuselage locations as part of the Electronic
Reconnaissance System program. In another
program, 55-3132 had been equipped with
cheeks by 1963 in the same configuration as
NKC-135A 56-3596, and both participated in
the 'Recce Strike' Program. 'Recce Strike' was
a side-looking radar program, and although
test flown by SAC crews was not adopted for
use on the RC-135. These tests demonstrated
the validity of the structural, systems, and aero-
dynamic modifications later incorporated into
the various RC-135 airframes. 25
There have been two main 'brands' of
cheeks: the original Martin cheeks installed on
the RC-135Cs and retained on the 'Us and 'Vs
(and initially installed on RC-135Ws); and E-
Systems cheeks eventually installed on 'Us,
'Vs, 'Ws, the TC-135W, and the WC-135W.
Other variations of these cheeks appeared on
the RC-135D.
Addition of the hog nose and cheeks alters
the normal air flow around the forward fuselage
where various static ports and pitot heads are
located. Accordingly, wingtip static booms (or
a compensated system as on the RC-135C)
were added to allow for more accurate static
pressure readings (such as those used to
determine altitude and rate of climb). These
booms are often mistaken for HF antennae.
Some RC-135s carry an additional teardrop-
shaped antenna fairing immediately forward of
the horizontal stabilizer. This fairing has been
noted on the KC-135R, RC-135M and'S.
Markings and Tail Numbers
Originally, RC-135s were painted overall with
aluminum Coroguard. They later acquired a
white fuselage top and vertical stabilizer above
the Coroguard fuselage and wings. FollOWing
the fleet-wide painting in the early 1980s of all
KC-135s with FS16473 grey paint, the RC-135s
received an FS17875 white fuselage top to
reflect heat and help cool the crewmembers
and equipment inside. The RC-135S 'Cobra
Ball' and RC-135X 'Cobra Eye' differ signifi-
cantly in coloring from their sister RC-135s, pri-
marily in having a black starboard wing and
appendages. All other markings (such as
national insignia, stenciling, etc) applied to the
airplanes are in accordance with USAF Techni-
cal Order (TO) 1-1-4, although the inscription
'U.S. AIR FORCE' is painted above the wings
rather than in its normal location on the forward
fuselage where it would cover portions of the
cheeks. Beginning in 1986 all RC-135s dis-
played the US flag on the vertical stabilizer.
FollOWing their incorporation into ACC, all
RC-135s acquired the 55th Wg 'OF' tail code.
By the end of 1994, Offutt AFB-based RC-135s
acquired a colored tail band to identify their
assigned squadron. The RC-135Us, RC-135Vs,
RC-135Ws, and the TC-135W which operate
with crews from the 38th RS, 343rd RS, and the
97th IS carry a green tail band. The RC-135Ss,
WC-135Bs and 'Ws, the TC-135S, and the TC-
135B which operate with crews from the 45th
RS carry a black tail band.
The WC-135Bs traded their traditional
'WEATHER'taii band for the 'OF' tail code, and
the OC-135B/Ws carry the Open Skies tail
markings. The sole WC-135W assigned to the
E-Systems facility at Majors Field, Greenville,
Texas, carried the highly unofficial 'MF' tail
code briefly.
As part of the security precautions associat-
ed with strategic reconnaissance missions,
RC-135s have for over 25 years carried no dis-
tinctive unit markings such as tail bands or
wing patches. Only in the late 1980s was there
any lessening of restrictions on unique mark-
ings applied to SAC reconnaissance assets.
Despite the long lasting official proscription
against these markings, individual airplanes
137

have consistently appeared wearing unique (if
unauthorized!) nose-art, usually applied by
spirited flight crews while on overseas deploy-
ments. These special markings range from
'shark's teeth' to camel-shaped mission mark-
ings and even include the Soviet Union's 'Out-
standing Aircraft Maintenance' nose badge!
During 1988 CINCSAC General John Chain
authorized nose-art on all SAC airplanes,
including RC-135s.
One reason for this Spartan appearance was
to prevent foreign, potentially hostile sources
from tracking the comings and goings of indi-
vidual airplanes, or identifying them with a spe-
cific unit. Despite this precaution, aviation
enthusiasts and photographers around the
world (not to mention foreign agents) easily fol-
lowed the movements of the RC-135s by spot-
ting their tail numbers."
On several occasions, some RC-135s (and
even KC-135A tankers) have been pho-
tographed wearing the tail number of a different
variant of KC-135. Other observed tail numbers
are entirely beyond the range of allocated serial
numbers for KC-135s.
Most common of these spurious numbers is
'64-14848', a number officially allocated to an
RC-135V. This particular tail number appears
occasionally on the two RC-135Us, prompting
perennial reports of a new RC-135U conver-
sion."
On 30th August 1976, RC-135U 64-14847
bore the serial number '64-14850', and on 26th
September 1976, it carried '64-14851', both of
which extend beyond the KC-135 family of seri-
al numbers. On 3rd July 1982, this same air-
plane wore '64-14848', this time while parked
next to RC-135V 64-14848! The most recent
appearance of this spurious tail number on an
RC-135U was on 17th February 1986.2 '
Given the absence of any official comment
about (or even acknowledgement of) these
anomalous markings, their intent remains in
the realm of a debate of pure speculation.
138
An International Affair
The US is not alone in recognizing the value of
strategic aerial reconnaissance platforms. In
addition to nations that operate assets such as
the British Aerospace Nimrod R.1, SIGINT ver-
sions of the Douglas DC-8, or reconnaissance
variants of the Tupolev Tu-95 and Tu-142
'Bear', at least five countries are known to use
heavily-modified Boeing 707s in a strategic
reconnaissance role.
Israel operates several 'RC-707s', with a
reported reconnaissance capability compara-
ble to the RC-135VIW 'Rivet Joint'. In 1988
Israel announced the production of the indige-
nously designed Phalcon SIGINT and radar
suite for the RC-707, further emphasizing Israeli
confidence in the strategic reconnaissance
mission. 29 Chile is the first export customer for
the Phalcon. Argentina may have acquired a
single RC-707 from Israel in response to the
lack of adequate Argentine aerial warning and
command and control during the 1982 Falk-
lands/Malvinas War, although this has not been
confirmed. 30 South Africa's NO.60 Squadron at
Waterkloof AB operates at least one 'RC-70T
acquired from Israel, although others may have
been modified indigenously.31
Saudi Arabia received its first 'Rivet Joint'
analog on 24th May 1993, when RE-3B 1817
flew non-stop from the E-Systems facility at
Greenville to Riyadh AB. The air refueling boom
and wingtip refueling pods were removed,
cheeks added, and an 'antenna farm' installed
underneath the fuselage. The obligation to con-
vert this airplane dates to the Carter administra-
tion. There have been reports of a single Iranian
Air Force KC-707 converted into a 'Rivet Joint'
analog, but without any of the external modifi-
cations such as cheeks or antennae. After the
1979 fall of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the
modifications were removed and the airplane
returned to Iran in 'bare-bones' condition.
Finally, an Indian Air Force RC-707 'Rivet Joint'
analog was noted at Delhi, India, in late 1994.
With the demise of SAC and the change in the
worldwide military picture, RC·135s have
acquired an increasingly tactical role and
adopted exterior changes to match. Wearing Air
Combat Command markings (but still with the
old 55th SRW patch which is no longer carried
and is sorely missed) and the new 'OF' tail
code, RC·135U 64·14847 pictured on 13th June
1993. Note the newly·installed E-Systems
cheeks and the absence of the trademark
'rabbit ear' dipole antennas. Joe Bruch
Defining the Future
In the wake of 'Desert Storm', the demise ofthe
Soviet Union, and the deep cuts in defense
spending of the early 1990s, the future roles
and missions of the RC-135 fleet have been the
subject of considerable debate. The tactical
success of the 'Rivet Joint' during 'Desert
Storm' has made it a platform in high demand
by theater commanders. Since 1991 RC-135Vs
and RC-135Ws have deployed to Riyadh AS
extensively in support of 'Southern Watch' and
'Vigilant Warrior' over Iraq. On 22nd February
1995, a 'Rivet Joint' flew the 1000th 'Southern
Watch' mission, a record worthy of the 'Combat
Apple' missions flown during the war in South·
east Asia. 32
The RC-135's tactical capabilities are being
explored in a variety of ways, including the Tac·
tical Exploitation of National Capabilities Pro·
gram (TENCAP). Although TEN CAP primarily
emphasizes space-based assets, the 'Rivet
Joint' can function as part of this network by
relaying the intelligence it collects in real-time
via satellite to the 'warfighters'. Similarly, the
'Cobra Ball' can be used to detect and transmIT
via satellite timely warnings of theater ballistic
missile launches. 33
Efforts to trim, if not slash, the budget avail·
able to support strategic reconnaissance mis-
sions have led to a number of suggestions
designed to combine these assets. During
1992 Congressional planners recommended
combining RC-135 missions with those of the
EP-3E Orion, with only one'of the two platforms
surviving future funding cuts. Clearly a disas-
trous case of mixing incompatible resources,
this decision was reversed in early 1993.~
Other budgetary limits imposed on the RC-135
fleet include on-again, off-again re-engining of
all RC-135s with F1 08s without thrust reversers,
the acquisition of at least three additional 'Rivet
Joint' aircraft, and sensor upgrades.
One substantial drain on available money for
these improvement programs is the develop-
ment of stealthy unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV). By the end of 1994, for example, $1.5 bil-
lion intended for RC-135 and U-2 sensor
upgrades had been diverted to ARPNDARO
Tier 2+ and Tier 3 stealth UAVs. Despite this
growing fascination with stealth and UAVs,
funding for RC-135 programs remains secure,
particularly as operational demands widen to
include non-traditional missions such as coun-
ternarcotics and environmental monitoring."
 In the long term, a type to replace the RC-135
is not in sight. In the mid 1980s, rumors circulat-
ed of a McDonnell Douglas 'RC-17' or a Boeing
'RC-767', although the latter's two engines ver-
sus four on the RC-135 was asubject of some
anxiety given the typical haunts of the RC-135
fleet. One 1992 proposal advocated using a
Northrop 'RB-2' either to complement or sup-
plant RC-135s, arguing that the stealthy 'RB-2'
could operate undetected, thereby increasing
its reconnaissance value. With satellite relay
capability, the 'RB-2' could transmit in real-time
what it collects to ground-based analysts, elimi-
nating the need for a large airborne crew. 36
Regardless of the nature of the platform, the
RC-135's mission remains essential. Indeed, in
the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the end of the 'Cold War', and the challenge of
global instability epitomized by rogue states
and multi-national peacekeeping forces, the
use of RC-135s to gather intelligence is consid-
ered to be one key area in which the US is on
the 'cusp' of what has become known as 'RMA'
- revolutionary military affairs.
This should come as little surprise to those
who for nearly 40 years have flown, supported,
or utilized the products of RC-135 missions.
Perhaps the only difference is that more people
are aware now of just how important the RC-
135 mission has been in the past and will be in
the futu re. 37
Believed to be in 'Briar Patch' configuration,
reconnaissance KC-135A 55-3121 on the ramp
at Offutt AFB sometime during 1967. Note the
trapeze-like structure instead of the traditional
air refueling boom, and the 'torpedo' which .
trailed from it. The small fairing just below the
fuselage national insignia is a periscope to view
the trapeze when extended and the trailing wire
apparatus. Aerofax collection
rl-l 1-I-tfTlrTjlrl
\
RECONNAISSANCE PLATFORMS - AIRCRAFT DETAILED
KC·135A
Identifying the first KC-135 variant modified for reconnaissance
operations has been a daunting task. Secrecy, time, competing
programs, and confusing nomenclature have all conspired to
cloud an already uncertain issue. Further, the dividing line
between reconnaissance variant and test-bed has not always
been so clear, and what one agency might consider to be a
'recce jet' another agency might label as atest aircraft,
By the beginning of 1961 the United States Intelligence Board
was committed to using the 'Nancy Rae' JKC-135A as a 'special
collection' platform, operating from Shemya AFB, no later than
'late 1961'." At this time the airplane was still part ofthe TRAP pro-
gram and was legitimately considered a test-bed. Although the
'Nancy Rae' eventually became a pioneering reconnaissance
platform, the claim of first KC-135 modified to support strategic
intelligence gathering lies elsewhere.
John F Kennedy's first few months as president were hardly
successful in terms of improving Soviet-American relations. After
a weak American performance at the May 1961 Vienna summit
with Nikita Khrushchev followed by the Soviet construction of the
Berlin Wall in August, it seemed that the Soviet Union held the
upper hand in superpower affairs. To demonstrate Soviet
strength in a more tangible way, Khrushchev boasted of plans to
test a 100 megaton nuclear bomb, American atomic scientists
and weapons developers at the Los Alamos laboratory were
intensely curious to learn how the Soviets had built such abomb,
and if indeed it could deliver the promised 100 megaton yield.
In a rush effort General Dynamics modified a KC-135A under
'Big Safari'. It was configured with equipment for 'recording elec-
tromagnetic radiations of radio and visible light frequencies from
thermonuclear explosions' from which US scientists could ana-
lyze the Soviet blast. The program was named 'Speed Light'."
On 30th October 1961, the Soviets detonated their behemoth
nuclear device at Novaya Zemlya. The 'Speed Light' KC-135A
collected important technical data which were promptly returned
for analysis, From this senior American scientists determined that
the device had only a 58 megaton yield, which was most fortu-
nate for the 'Speed Light' airplane and crew. As it happened, the
airplane flew so close to the blast that the sides of the fuselage
were scorched by the heat from the explosion, Had the blast
been the advertised 100 megatons, the fireball would have been
approximately the size of the state of Maryland, and surely would
have engulfed and likely destroyed the 'Speed Light' airplane."
The success of the program earned the crews the personal
thanks of President Kennedy, and two more KC-135As were con-
verted to support the mission. These were 'Speed Light-Alpha'
and 'Speed Light-Delta' ('Bravo' and 'Charlie' may have been
assigned to different aircraft, such as Martin RB-57s, although
'this is uncertain). Afourth airplane (or perhaps just adifferent pro-
gram name) associated with this effort was 'Dominic You'," By
1963 General Dynamics had begun the 'Rivet Digger' NC-135A
modifications which no doubt benefitted from these early pro-
grams (see Chapter Eight),
Irrefutably identifying the 'Speed Light' airplanes has not yet
been possible, KC-135A 59-1514 has been conclusively identi-
fied as 'Speed Light-Delta' and was assigned to the 913th
AREFS, 2nd BW at Barksdale AFB." One source suggests that
55-3121 was the original 'Speed Light' aircraft, although at the
time it was atest-bed KC-135A assigned to AFSC." JKC-135A 55-
3132 was also associated with 'Speed Light', although perhaps in
afollow-on test capacity, so the AFSC link for 55-3121 should not
be too surprising, KC-135A 59-1465 has also been noted in the
'Speed Light' configuration, so could well have been the 'Speed
Light-Alpha' aircraft,
As with the 'Nancy Rae', to say that the 'Speed Light' aircraft
were the first reconnaissance KC-135 variant is open to debate,
Although the 'Speed Light' airplanes gathered intelligence from
foreign sources, their role was not unlike a 'stock' B-47 hastily
modified to carry acamera in the bomb bay for overflight photog-
raphy of the USSR, hardly qualifying as a dedicated reconnais-
sance platform. Still, the crews who flew the 'Speed Light'
missions no doubt fell they were flying 'real recon', no less impor-
tant than the KC-135M 'Office Boy' airplanes which hold the offi-
cial honor as the first dedicated KC-135 reconnaissance variants.
By 1963 the 'Speed Light' aircraft-55-3121, 59-1514, and 59-
1465 - all dedicated to gathering intelligence related to foreign
atomic weapons tests, became the three 'Rivet Stand' aircraft, an
extension of the 'Speed Light' mission. The airplanes conducted
operations on behalf of the Air Force Technical Applications Cen-
ter (AFTAC), the Air Force organization devoted to detecting
atomic 'events' around the world.
Already configured with nuclear detection and recording gear
provided by atomic research organizations such as the Denver
Research Institute (DRI) and Edgerton, Germeshausen, and
Grier Inc (EG&G) , LTV installed a self-protection system known
as 'Garlic Salt' in each of the three airplanes. Based on equip-
ment used in the 'Sun Valley' I and II C-130 COMINT and ELiNT
platforms, the positions were manned by personnel from the Air
Force Security Service, later renamed Electronic Security Com-
mand (ESC). All three aircraft were so configured by October
1964, and were designated simply as KC-135As, KC-135As 59-
1514 and 59-1465 were assigned in 1963 to the 34th AREFS,
385th SAW at Offutt AFB, and 55-3121 joined them there during
1966, In addition to the 'Rivet Stand' missions, the KC-135As are
reported to have supported CIA-sponsored missions including
'Iron Lung' and 'Briar Patch'. These missions are associated with
55-3121 and 59-1465.
The three deployed for periods of approximately one month at
atime to locations such as McClellan AFB, RAF Upper Heylord,
England, and, most often, Hickam AFB. These locations, particu-
larly Upper Heylord and Hickam, afforded easy access to the
areas where most nuclear testing was being conducted, notably
Novaya Zemlya and the southern Pacific Ocean. Sorties flown
from Hickam AFB included those dedicated to US atmospheric
nuclear tests. KC-135As 55-3121 and 59-1514 participated in the
1962 'Dominic' tests to 'support AFTAC' collection of 'electro-
magnetic radiations of radio and visible light frequencies from
thermonuclear explosions for purpose of test and calibration of
139
equipment'." Once the equipment on board the 'Rivet Stand' air-
craft was calibrated against US nuclear detonations of known
magnitude, more precise intelligence could be derived from col-
lections made against Soviet blasts.
By March 1969 55-3121 had been further modified into the
'Rivet Jaw' (also known as 'Busted Jaw') configuration. On 1st
June 1967, all three airplanes were redesignated KC-135Rs.
Although the three KC-135As were generally configured in the
same way, subtle differences suggest the variety of missions to
which the airplanes were dedicated, All three lacked the hog
nose but retained the air refueling boom. All three were equipped
with an IFR system and had the upper deck fuel tank removed.
The KC-135As used J57 turbojets. Each airplane had five three-
blade mast 'towel-bar' antennae along the dorsal fuselage, plus a
single three-blade antenna underneath the fuselage just forward
of the main landing gear well. These many blade antennae
earned the airplanes such nicknames as Horned Toad, Porcu-
pine, and Razorback. Of the upper five antenna groups, the for-
wardmost and the lower group were for the AN/ALC-l0l Long
Range Aid to Navigation (LORAN) system. The other four upper
antenna groups provided signals for the DRI equipment con-
tained within the airplane,
Another modification common to reconnaissance KC-135As
was the installation of four small camera ports on both sides of
the forward fuselage between FS380 and FS460 (C and Dcom-
partments). These windows were for an unidentified system from
EG&G.
55-3121 This airplane may have been the first 'Speed Light'
aircraft, and was among the three original 'Rivet Stand' and
'Garlic Salt' aircraft. According to AFSC histories, ASD used 55-
3121 for at least two major non-nuclear test programs during
1964 and 1965, and in March 1965 it was redesignated a JKC-
135A. SAC acquired 55-3121 from ASD in July 1966. It was
redesignated a KC-135A upon its delivery to the 55th SRW at
Offutt AFB in November 1966. It was redesignated a KC-135R
on 1st June 1967. At one point, it was nicknamed Porcupine,
and carried nose-art reffecting that moniker. It crashed as the
RC-135T on 25th February 1985 (see Appendix C).
59-1465 This KC-135A may have been the 'Speed
Light-Alpha' airplane. By 1964 it had been converted into a
reconnaissance KC-135A as part of the 'Rivet Stand' and 'Garlic
Salt' programs, and was assigned to the 55th SRW. On 1st June
1967, it was redesignated a KC-135R. As with the other recon-
naissance KC-135As, 59-1465 carried five three-blade LORAN
antennae on the spine, The airplane crashed as a KC-135R on
19th July 1967 (see Appendix C).
59-1514 This KC-135Awas the 'Speed Light-Delta' airplane,
and had been so configured prior to 23rd March 1962, and was
assigned to the 913th AREFS, 2nd BW at Barksdale AFB. It was
used in the 'Dominic' series of US atmospheric nuclear tests,
perhaps to calibrate its on-board sensors, and an unidentified
operation known as 'Texas Star'," From 5th April through 27th
May 1963, LTV further modified the airplane into the 'Garlic Salt'
configuration, after which it was reassigned to the 34th AREFS
140
at Offutt AFB. On 25th June 1966, the 34th AREFS moved and
the airplane was reassigned to the 55th SRW, newly relocated
to Offutt AFB, The airplane was redesignated a KC-135R on 1st
June 1967.
Further modifications to the airplane included an additional
door on the aft port fuselage and a crew escape chute in the aft
starboard fuselage. ~ike its two sister ships, it had the five three-
bladed 'towel-bar' antennae,
KC·135A·1I
The earliest official reconnaissance version ofthe KC-135 was the
three 'KC-135A-lIs', These were occasionally referred to (both
officially - but incorrectly - and unofficially) as 'RC-135As'. This
was an informal appellation and should not be confused with the
RC-135A photographic and geodetic survey airplanes. They
were known operationally by the name 'Office Boy', and conduct-
ed SIGINT operations in support of the 'Cotton Candy' OpOrd,
First delivered in December 1962 to the 4157th SWat Eielson
AFB, they operated routinely from there and from the wing's
Detachment 1atShemyaAFB."
Beginning in September 1961 three MATS C-135As were
delivered from the 1611lh ATW at McGuire AFB to LTV at
Greenville, Texas, for conversion into reconnaissance platforms,
The first airplane (60-0357) arrived at Eielson on 19th December
1962, with the two remaining deliveries soon thereafter, The oper-
ational flight crew included a pilot, co-pilot, two navigators, and
two electronic warfare officers, all assigned directly to the 4157th
SW's Reconnaissance Division (DOR)."
On 1st January 1965, the airplanes were officially redesignat-
ed RC-135Ds, but this did not take effect until the airplanes com-
pleted an impending upgrade program; in late 1965, for example,
KC-135A-1160-0357 returned to LTV, after which its records show
it as an RC-t35D. By t966 all three KC-t35A-lis had been so
modtlied and redesignated.
No photographs of the airplanes as KC-135A-lis have been
made available to the public. Their appearanpe may have been
similar to the early RC-135Ds with the characteristic hog nose
and associated wingtip static booms, and long tubular fairings
(aerodynamic covers for a variety of antennae) on the lower for-
ward fuselage ahead of the wing roots. The first 'Office Boy' (60-
0357) had the Coherent Automatic Signal Tracking (CAST)
System installed in these fairings; its function is not known. The
KC-135A-lis were the first IFR-equipped KC-135 variants.
Early KC-135A-1I operations were plagued by frequent aborts,
particularly due to problems with the G-l 080 navigational system
computer and astro tracker. Shortages of spare parts and the
awkward logistics 'pipeline' to Alaska further contributed to de-
lays in mission readiness. Once these problems were resolved,
the three began fairly steady and productive operations. 48
During 1963 at least one airplane conducted 'Jig Time' alert,
believed to have been aquick-reaction posture to ensure that a
SIGINT collection platform could be airborne quickly in response
to asubject of considerable interest but of unpredictable frequen-
cy or brief duration, This may have included the collection of
Starboard side of 'Rivet Stand' reconnaissance
KC-135R 55-3121 at Offutt AFB. The 'towel bar'
antennas were for precise navigation. The
ra.dome beneath the forward fuselage
remained after 55-3121 was converted into
a reconnaissance KC-135T.
Bill Strandberg collection
telemetry from Soviet ballistic missiles fired at the Klyuchi Range
on Kamchatka. 'Jig Time' could have operated in conjunction
with 'Nancy Rae', providing ameasure of SIGINT collection aloog
with the 'Nancy Rae's' OPTINT capabilities,"
60-0356 This airplane arrived atthe LTV facility on 31 st Octo-
ber 196t, for modification into an 'Office Boy' KC-135A-11, arxl
was delivered to the 4t57th SW on 3tst January t963. On 5th
March 1966, it refurned to LTV for a systems upgrade and was
redesignated an RC-135D.
60-0357 This airplane was delivered to the LTV facility on 6th
October 196t, for conversion into an 'Office Boy' KC-135M, II
arrived at Eielson AFB on t9th December 1962, making it the first
dedicated reconnaissance variant of the KC-135 to be delivered
to an operational unit. During late 1965 60-0357 was returned to
LTV and became the first RC-t35D,
60-0362 Destined for modification into an 'Office Boy', this
airplane was delivered on 6th September t 961, to the LTV facili~
and reached the 4157th SWon 4th April 1963. In October 1966i
was returned to LTV for RC-135D upgrade and redesignation,
KC·135R
The fhree recce KC-135As were redesignated as KC-135Rs on
1st June 1967, and scheduled for modification during each air-
plane's subsequent PDM. A fourth airplane (58-0126) was can·
verted from aKC-135A tanker into aKC-135R beginning in 1969,
The 'R was the next logical series letter (after KC-135Q), although
it is widely held to stand for 'reconnaissance', and should not be
confused with the Fl08 turbofan re-engined KC-135R tanker.
Although the aviation press has referred to these as 'RC-t35Rs',
official Air Force use of this designation has not been document·
ed. Despite repeated reports, KC-135A 58-0124 was never a
reconnaissance KC-135R. It did, however, serve with the 55th
SRW as aflight crew proficiency trainer, primarily for EC-135C air-
borne command post crews.'"
KC-135Rs were operated worldwide by the 55th SRW based
at Offutt AFB. Their primary mission remained associated wlh
nuclear testing by foreign nations, primarily under the 'Burning
Light' OpOrd. There was a 'Burning Light' Task Force at Hickam
AFB for reconnaissance operations associated with French
atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific, The Hickam AFB
operation was also known by the name 'Nice Dog', Subsidiary
'Burning Light' missions included 'Hula Hoop' and 'Dice Game',"
The airplanes did have a secondary SIGINT role in the form of
'Cotton Candy' tasking as part of 'Burning Candy' missions. In
Southeast Asia, KC-135Rs also supported RC-135M 'Combat
Apple' operations.
Photographs reveal anumber of KC-135R configurations that
suggest a variety of specialized missions. These airplanes were
configured as required for whatever mission was assigned to
them." All four airplanes were equipped with J57 turbojets and
had an IFR system installed. The air refueling boom was retained
on 59-1465 and 59-1514, although it was later replaced. Only one
KC-135R (58-0126) was equipped with the hog nose modifica-
tion. Three airplanes (55-3121, 59-1465, and 59-1514) retained
the full complement of five three-bladed mast antennae along the
fuselage spine (plus the single triplet underneath the fuselage)
acquired when they were reconnaissance KC-135As. The fourth
airplane (58-0126) had only the forward trio on the upper fuse-
lage as well as the lower towel bar. As with the reconnaissance
KC-135As, these antennae earned the airplanes nicknames like
Horned Toad, Porcupine, and Razorback. The antennae selVed
the same purpose as they did on 1he reconnaissance KC-135As.
The forward towel bars, both top and bottom, were part of the
ANfALC-101 LORAN system. The other four antenna groups
(where retained) provided signals for the DRI mission equipment.
At least two KC-135Rs - 55-3121 and 59-1465 - operated in
the 'Briar Patch' configuration. This was an ELiNT mission and
involved a trapeze-like structure attached to the aft fuselage.
According to published sources, this supported a 12,OOOft
(3,657m) cable which towed a 10ft (3m) 'blivet', which may have
been an 'optical flash detector called aBhangmeter which [deter-
mined] the explosive yield of anuclear blast by the brightness of
~s flash', or it may have measured EMP or other RADINT signa-
tures." Aformer crewmember, however, discounts this, recalling
that the device could trail out only 100ft (30m) and was a special
emitter designed to 'coax the Soviets into bringing up one of their
particular defense radars', whose signatures would then be
recorded for analysis and exploitation. 54
Other 'Briar Patch' modifications included a small structure
extending from the port side of the aft fuselage just forward of the
horizontal stabilizer. The area aft of the device, probably a view-
ing port for the trapeze, was painted black, to act as an anti-glare
surtace. Small pylons were appended to each side of the forward
fuselage approximately midway up the fuselage. Sensor equip-
ment of an unknown nature was attached to these pylons. The
first 'Briar Patch' deployment took place in June 1967 with 58-
1465, w~h questionable success.
'Ri vet Quick' reconnaissance KC·135R 59·1514
at Hickam AFB sometime between 1971 and
1973 in support of the 'Burning Light' Task
Force. Dielectric panels in the cargo door and
ahead of it collected EMP radiation. Optical
windows aft of the cargo door were for high
speed cameras to film nuclear detonations, and
other optical sensors. Note the black leading
edge of the port wing extending to the outboard
pylon and the black engine intakes to reduce
glare that could detract from optical collection.
Bill Strandberg collection
The KC-135Rs retained the four small camera ports installed
on the KC-135A (these were added to KC-135R 58-0126) on both
sides of the forward fuselage in the vicinity of the cargo door
between FS380 and FS460 (C and D compartments), for an
unidentified system from EG&G. All four airplanes have either
been demodified or lost.
55-3121 While a KC-135R 55-3121 was associated with the
'Rivet Stand' mission and was also configured for the 'Briar
Patch' mission. By December 1969 55-3121 had been further
converted into a KC-135T for the 'Rivet Jaws' mission. The air-
plane crashed as the sole RC-135T on 25th February 1985 (see
Appendix C).
58-0126 To replace crashed KC-135R 59-1465, LTV con-
verted 58-0126 into a KC-135R in June 1969 as the prototype
'Rivet Quick' platform, delivering ~ to the 55th SRW in December
1970. The airplane supported AFTAC tests and incorporated a
self-protection system manned by security selVice personnel. In
addition to the installation of the hog nose and deletion of the air
refueling boom, LTV added a teardrop-shaped fairing forward of
each horizontal stabilizer. The airplane had a dual navigator sta-
tion and carried a single towel bar LORAN antenna on the top of
the forward fuselage. The right wing tip had an additional
AN/ARC-58 HF radio antenna. Other modifications included the
installation of a closed circuit television to look outside the air-
craft and special optical sensors.
During 1973 E-Systems modified the airplane into the 'Rivet
Dandy' configuration by removing the AFTAC equipment and
installing additional COMINT gear from the original 'Rivet
Dandy' aircraft, 55-3121. E-Systems demodified 58-0126 into a
KC-135A (ARR) in January 1976.
59-1465 This 'Rivet Stand' KC-135R retained the five anten-
na triplets but lacked a hog nose. The air refueling boom was
eventually replaced with the 'Briar Patch' trapeze-like device. On
19th July 1967, 59-1465 crashed after take-off from Offutt AFB
(see Appendix C).
59-1514 This KC-135R retained its five three-bladed towel
bar antennae. In this configuration the airplane had a single nav-
igator, no upper deck fuel tank, and lacked the hog nose. It was
modified to the 'Rivet Quick' configuration during 1970. The air-
plane incorporated only asingle towel bar antenna on the upper
fuselage. Two large dielectric panels were mounted in the port
side of the fuselage replacing the cargo door. These covered
sensors used in EMP research.
E-Systems demodified the airplane into a KC-135A (ARR) in
January 1973. In September 1981 ~ underwent conversion to
the first KC-135E (ARR), returning to Offutt AFB in March 1982.
KC·135T
By March 1969 LTV had modified KC-135R 55-3121 from the
'Rivet Stand' to the 'Rivet Jaw' configuration. By December 1969
the Air Force had redesignated the airplane as a KC-135T.55
Although unconfirmed, the mission name of 'Cobra Jaws' is
believed to have been assigned sometime in 1969. During a
November 1970 deployment to England, 55-3121 carried apaint-
ing of a wheeled cobra (from Ford Motor Company's Cobra Hot
Wheels pictures) painted by Dave Johnson. In May 1971 the air-
plane was redesignated an RC-135T and modified for the 'Rivet
Dandy' mission." The KC-135T was assigned to the 55th SRW at
OffuttAFB.
The KC-135T featured a hog nose, had only one dorsal mast
antenna triplet, had ateardrop-shaped antenna fairing forward of
each horizontal stabilizer, carried a large circular radome be-
neath the forward fuselage, and retained the KC-135R's trapeze-
like structure attached to the aft fuselage.
OC·135B and 'W, TC·135B
In the years leading to the height of the 'Cold War', American
fears of an unknown Soviet military capability were considerable.
By 1955 the US believed itself to be behind the Soviet Union in
terms of bomber production, with doomsayers and pundits loud-
ly lamenting the 'bomber gap'. This gap was largely the product
of faulty intelligence collection and analysis, and emphasized the
need for more accurate sources of intelligence on Soviet capabil-
ities, especially for asurprise attack, than were available.
The mid-1950s was also atime of American economic growth.
President Eisenhower was committed to this booming prosperity
but coupled it to a balanced bUdget. To accomplish this, federal
spending (especially defense spending) had to be kept to an
absolute minimum. From Ike's perspective, the US could ill afford
any unnecessary military expenditures just to keep up w~h inac-
curately assessed Soviet mil~ary capability.
For these and other reasons, in July 1955 Eisenhower pro-
posed the Open Skies program to the heads of state gathered at
the Geneva Conference. Open Skies would allow each partici-
pant to overfly the territory of another and take photographs of
military installations and forces, thus reassuring the obselVing
nation with a more realistic appraisal of the other nation's pre-
paredness and thereby minimizing its own defense expendi-
tures. Not surprisingly, the Soviet Union rejected this proposal as
outright espionage. Ike expected this, and had already set into
motion the seeds of what would become the Lockheed U-2, a
platform that would accomplish Open Skies goals for the US
without Soviet acquiesence." The first U-2 overflight of the Soviet
Union took place on 4th JUly 1956, with CIA pilot HalVey Stock-
man at the controls, and the last such overflight occurred on 1st
May 1960, when CIA pilot Gary Powers and his U-2 were shot
down by Soviet SAMs over Ekaterinberg.
Some 40 years later, the Open Skies program is again alive
and well. Resurrected in May 1989 by President George Bush,
two dozen nations signed a new treaty in Helsinki, Finland, on
24th March 1992. The premise of the new Open Skies remains
the same as the old, and each nation selects its aircraft. For the
US, this is one ofthe newest variants ofthe ubiquitous KC-135.
The US Open Skies platform is designated the OC-135, with
the '0' meaning 'obselVation'. Initially they were OC-135Bs, with
the 'B from the original C-135B (and later WC-135B) MDS from
which they were modified. By 1993 efforts to eliminate flight engi-
neers from the OC-135s and WC-135s as a cost-saving measure
meant that the MDS would have to change (owing to tech order
demands) and OC-135Bs became OC-135Ws. Changing the
MDS from 'B to 'W on the single dedicated Open Skies trainer,
TC-135B 61-2667, proved troublesome, as the TC-135W MDS
has already been assigned, so it became aWC-135W.
The 4950th TW at Wright-Patterson AFB modified the air-
planes from WC-135Bs into the Open Skies configuration. The
first OC-135B, 61-2674, rolled out on 30th June 1993. Two addi-
tional WC-135Bs (61-2672 and finally 61-2670) have also been
modified. WC-135B 61-2673 was intended as an OC-135B con-
versions, but it lacked the 'Star Cast' modification and was rele-
gated to AMARC instead and 61-2670 was selected." The
number of airplanes converted was based on the minimum mis-
sion requirements to fly 15 sorties per year initially, increasing to
42 annual sorties at full treaty implementation. 59
The first OC-135B was assigned to the 55th WRSat McClellan
141

I I
~
~';~U.S.AlR fORCE
AFB beginning in June 1993. With that unit's inactivation, the air-
plane was transferred on 1st October 1993, to the 24th RS, 55th
Wg atOffuttAFB. On 30th June 1994, the 24th RS was inactivated
and replaced by the 45th RS, and the OC-135B reassigned
accordingly. Open Skies flight crews are Air Force officers,
whereas mission crews are US military officers from the On-Site
Inspection Agency (OSIA), the Dulles lAP-based federal organi-
zation responsible for implementing the treaty. The Open Skies
mission teams have four members: the team chief (a lieutenant
colonel), his deputy (a major or captain), and two sensor opera-
tors/linguists.
The treaty's provisions allow for the OC-135B to be 'loaned' to
other nations, with details to be worked out by the State Depart-
ment on a bilateral basis. Under these conditions, the mission
crew would be from the 'borrowing' nation but the flight crew
would still be aUS Air Force crew. All data collected on any flight
is available in its entirety to any signatory of the treaty: what is col-
lected by one nation is available to all. 60 For the US, the OC-135Bs
will collect little information not otherwise available via more
sophisticated and definitive sources such as satellites. In this
sense, the Open Skies platforms offer no real intelligence gains.
According to the OSIA, the real benefits from Open Skies will be
'a more open relationship between participants of the treaty'.61
Selecting the Open Skies airplanes was fairly straightforward:
the treaty requires that the airplanes not be previously or current-
ly configured for reconnaissance or intelligence gathering, and
thatthey be large enough to carry not only the observing nation's
representatives but a representative from the nation being over-
flown.~ Canada and Belgium were among the first nations to con-
duct Open Skies flights over the Soviet Union using C-130s. The
former Soviet Union selected the Antonov An-30 'Clank' twin-
engined turboprop, aplane with limited range, capacity, and few
passenger comforts.
For the US, aKC-135 variant was an excellent and economical
choice, and top candidates included the WC-135Bs and the two
TC-135s given their abilityto be refueled in flight. As the WC-135B
mission could be increasingly accomplished by fewer airplanes
and the TC-135s were in heavy demand by RC-135 squadrons, a
WC-135B was the best choice. The specific WC-135Bs chosen
were selected on the basis oftheir maintenance records.
The first OC-135B began its conversion by the Aeronautical
Systems Center's 4950th TW Directorate of Aircraft Modification
at Wright-Patterson AFB in late July 1992. Modifications included
the removal of all weather gathering mission equipment, the 'Star
Cast' equipment (but not the 'Star Cast' window on the port side
of the fuselage - interestingly, 61-2674 was the first WC-135B to
receive the 'Star Cast' modification), and the installation of the
Open Skies mission equipment." According to the treaty, all mis-
sion equipment must be 'off-the shelf' and exportable with no
technology transfer limitations. The OC-135B carries four optical
cameras (mounted in the air refueling boom pod) with a maxi-
mum resolution of300mm (11%in), flight deck avionics have been
upgraded, an APU and storage facilities installed, and provisions
made to seat 38 crew, observers, and passengers. 64
Mission equipment underwentflighttests on board amodified
142
Convair 580 operated by the Environmental Research Institute of
Michigan under contract to OSIA. The airplane was configured
with two Chicago Aerial KS-87B oblique-view cameras on the left
and right sides of the fuselage, and a KS-87B is installed on the
aircraft centerline, along with aChicago Aerial KA-91 Apanoramic
camera, equipment to be used in the OC-135B. Although not
scheduled for use in the early phase of Open Skies, a
Goodyear/Loral UPO-8 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) from the
RF-4 was installed on the Convair for training and testing, and will
be incorporated into Open Skies missions by 1997.~ Additional
equipment and interior modifications were surplus from the 'Pacer
Link' EC-135 upgrade. These include galleys, tables, lighting,
seats, and latrines. Additional optical windows were surplus from
an unidentified program. 56
The first OC-135B Open Skies joint training mission took
place from 24th-31 st August 1994. US and Ukranian crews over-
flew parts of the United States. 51 Flights must be planned well in
advance and specific procedures followed prior to entering for-
eign airspace. For OC-135B flights over the Russian Federation,
the airplane must land at Rhein-Main AB to pick up the Russian
observers and then fly directly to Kubinka AB near Moscow. Mis-
sions over the eastern section of Russia must depart from Yokota
AB and then proceed to Magadan AB. The Open Skies overflight
must begin from one of these two Russian bases. The use of
Magadan AB as apoint of departure for the observation of Siberia
is coldly ironic, given that this town was once the last stop for mil-
lions of Soviet political prisoners en route to the Kolyma death
camps. Hopefully Open Skies will not fall prey to the same dezin-
formatsia and maskirovka that deceived US Vice President Henry
Wallace during avisit to that area in 1944, when he found 'no evi-
dence' of such camps.56
Open Skies mission altitudes will vary according to the sensor
in use. For example, the KS-87Bs require aheight of only 3,000 to
6,000ft (9,144-1 ,828m) above ground level (AGL) , whereas the
KA-91A panoramic camera best operates at some 20,OOOft
(6,096m) AGL." Flights at lower altitudes will burn more fuel, thus
demanding meticulous mission planning and flight plan co-ordi-
nation with air traffic control agencies to ensure minimum delays,
as little interference as possible with civil and military traffic, and
adequate fuel reserves necessary to accomplish the mission.
Treaty restrictions also prohibit the OC-135B from overflying the
same spot more than once on asingle flight."
61·2667 A single WC-135B was redesignated during 1993
as a TC-135B. Its weather gathering equipment was removed
and it was reassigned to the 24th RS, 55th Wg at Offutt AFB.
There were reports during 1994 that a lack of funding for this air-
plane might mean its retirement to AMARC, but in late 1995 the
airplane was redesignated a WC-135W and retained in service.
61·2670 This airplane is the third WC-135B scheduled for
conversion into an OC-135B. It is assigned to the 45th RS at
Offutt AFB.
61·2672 The second WC-135B converted into an OC-135B.
It is assigned to the 45th RS at Offutt AFB.
61·2674 The first WC-135B converted into an OC-135B,
beginning in July 1992. Officially delivered in June 1993, and
el
w
IT
d
t!
e
s
a
tI
7
n
c
After conversion from a 'Rivet Stand' KC·135R,
55-3121 was redesignated as the 'Cobra Jaws'
KC·135T. Conversion involved the addition of
the hog nose, enlargement of the ventral
rC\dome, two towel bar antennas were removed,
and 'tear·drop' shaped fairings were installed
forward of the horizontal stabilizers.
Paul Bennett, Joe Bruch collection
assigned to the 55th WRS at McClellan AFB. It was transferred
on 1st October 1993, to the 24th RS at Offutt AFB, and arrived
there on 19th November 1993. It was reassigned to the 45th RS
at Offutt AFB on 1st July 1994.
RC·135A
In 1962 MATS ordered nine RC-135As to replace 16 RB-50
Superfortresses assigned to unclassified aerial mapping and
geodetic survey duties in non-hostile airspace for DoD and other
US Government agencies." The RC-135A program ran into prob·
lems almost immediately. Additional RC-135A program funds
were disapproved in 1963 after the RC-135A was shown to be
27% over budget, and the number of RC-135As was reduced to
six. Afurther 20% decrease in 1964 program funding reduced the
fi nal number of RC-135As to fou r. Each RC-135A ai rfram eeventu·
ally cost $11 million (in FY64 dollars), and each AN/USQ·28
Photo Mapping System cost $24 million (in FY67 dollars)." Can·
celed RC-135A serial numbers include 63-8062 through 63·8066.
Production was scheduled for one airplane per month from
September through November 1965, with three basic airframes
(minus mapping equipment) to be delivered directly to the opera·
tional unit and one airplane (including mapping equipment)
delivered by February 1966 to Wright-Patterson AFB for testing.
Intended initial operational capability (IOC) date was July 1966.
The RC-135A's first flight was on 28th April 1965, and thefirsl
airplane was delivered on 14th September 1965, to the 1371s1
Mapping and Charting Squadron (MCS), 1370th Photo Mapping
Wing (PMW) at Turner AFB. The 1370th PMW reported to the
APCS, which itself answered directly to MATS Headquarters. The
first airplane delivered to Turner AFB lacked mapping equipment
and was used initially as an aircrew and ground maintenance
trainer.
On 1st January 1966, MATS was reorganized into MAC and
the APCS was redesignated the Aerospace Audio-Visual Service 1
(AAVS). During August 1967 the 1370th PMW moved to Forbes
AFB, Kansas, and flight testing moved there from Wright-Patter·
son AFB. Continued problems delayed the lac to January 1967.
Disappointing system and flight test results again deferred the
lac to January 1968, another deadline which would not be met."
On 1st October 1968, the 1370th PMW became the Aerial Car·
tographic and Geodetic Service (ACGS), with the 1371st MCS
RC-135As and crews reassigned to the 1st Aerospace Carto·
graphic and Geodetic Squadron (ACGSq). Category III Test and
Evaluation flights were conducted from Forbes AFB from 14th
April through 30th June 1969, and RC-135A 63-8058 flew the first
operational mapping mission on 15th September 1969. A Cate-
gory III Follow-on Evaluation was undertaken from 1st November
1969, through 30th April 1970, with operations conducted from
Forbes AFB, Brasilia, Brazil, and Santiago, Chile. For this, only
three RC-135As were available and of these only two were
equipped with the AN/USQ-28 mapping system. One KC-135A
was loaned by SAC to ACGS for 30-day intervals every other
month during these tests for pilot proficiency."
Primary purposes of Category III follow-on tests were the
development of operational standards for the AN/USQ-28 sys-
tem, evaluation of the RC-135A and AN/USQ-28 in an operational
environment, and determination of the adequacy of the logistical
system required to support an aerial survey team in the field." In
addition to routine testing, the flights from Santiago would map
the border separating Chile and Argentina as part of Project AF
70-14, an effort to help resolve the border dispute between those
nations. The first successful flight as part ofthis projecttook place
on 15th March 1970; the final flight was on 28th April 1970. Flight
results were shared with the host nation (a representative from
each country flew on each mapping mission), providing a mea-
Detail view of one of the external sensors
retained on 'Cobra Jaws' KC-135T 55-3121 after
its conversion from a 'Rivet Stand' KC-135R.
Top 'wing' may have detected atmospheric
ionized particles released by a nuclear blast,
indicating its strength and technical
sophistication. Multiple camera windows
are also noteworthy. Bill Strandberg collection
sure of economic development to these countries as well as the
other participating nations - Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
Results of the follow-on test showed that the RC-135A could
deploy efficiently to overseas locations for long periods, although
not without some inconveniences. Contaminated fuel made
engine starts difficult at best, and the need for 600-plus gallons of
distilled water for each water-injection augmented take-off com-
plicated the logistics requirements of remote operations. Existing
problems with the SHIRAN system (described below) remained
unresolved, notably compromising the RC-135A's mission capa-
bility.
Despite progress with individual components, the complete
RC-135A system had still not been declared operational by
November 1970." The program also suffered as aresult of grow-
ing US commitments in Southeast Asia, which drained funds
away from non-combat program development." By May 1971
many considered the RC-135A aprogram without afuture, in part
due to the increase in satellite mapping capability and to disillu-
sionment with the program's overall lack of success. As a result,
the RC-135A program ended by 1972.
Missions flown as part of the RC-135A system validation
included those in South America and a series of flights in Febru-
ary 1971 from Eielson AFB across Alaska and the northern US as
part of aproject designed to measure snow depth and thus pre-
dict springtime melted snow runoff for flood control planning.
Mission altitudes were typically between 30,000 and 40,000ft
(9,144 and 12,192m) at airspeeds designed for maximum en-
durance in the project area. Flights usually originated from an air-
field in the vicinity of the project area rather than being flown as
'round-robin' sorties from Turner AFB or Forbes AFB. Projected
mapping capability was 40,000 miles' (103,592km~per day.
Flight crews consisted of a pilot, copilot, flight engineer,
photoftnertial navigator, S-band high precision ranging equip-
ment (S-band HIRAN, further abbreviated as SHIRAN) navigator,
-
...J-
computer operator, terrain profile recorder (TPR) operator, and
first and second photographers. Not all crewmembers flew on
every mission, as the TPR operator, for example, was not needed
on apurely photographic mission.
Heart of the RC-135A mapping system was the Kollman
Instrument Corporation AN/USQ-28 Aerial Electro-Photo Map-
ping System, designed for the following mapping missions:
'(1) Aerial Electronic Geodetic Survey measured the distance
along a course flown between two SHIRAN stations, from which
the actual sea level distance between the two sites could be cal-
culated.
(2) Electronically Positioned Aerial Photography combined a
sophisticated camera mapping system with an airborne inertial
navigation system that steered the airplane and recorded its posi-
tion during each photograph. The tip and tilt of each camera (with
respect to the vertical axis of the airplane flight path) was record-
ed on each film frame. Distances were measured from as many
as four SHIRAN stations and were integrated with the high preci-
sion navigation system [HIPERNAS (sic)] inertial navigation plat-
form. Prior to such flights in the RC-135A, very little
HIRAN-controlled photography had been accomplished.
(3) Control Point Photography allowed accurate determina-
tion of the position of a ground site without requiring any ground
surveying.
(4) Precision Mapping Photography was aless sophisticated
form of Electronically Positioned Aerial Photography, lacking the
SHIRAN airplane positioning feature. Nonetheless, landmarks of
known position could be used to manually update the airplane's
position (already quite accurate given the HIPERNAS position-
ing) via the navigator's viewfinder.
(5) Airborne Terrain Profiling determined the actual profile of
terrain overflown by the RC-135A. A barostatic system recorded
minute variations in airplane altitude while a narrow beam radar
system measured the airplane's actual height above ground.
143
 ~------
• -=-
UNITED STATES OF" AMERICA
(6) Airborne Geodetic Azimuth Determination was anight-time
operation designed to provide an increase in surveyed accuracy
of geographical regions not suited to triangulation, such as long
narrow chains of islands'." Other projected missions include air-
borne gravity surveys and weather radar mapping."
Aerial Electronic Geodetic Survey and Precision Mapping
Photography were the most common missions undertaken. Air-
borne Terrain Profiling could be (and often was) combined with
any other mission. Electronically Positioned Aerial Photography
and Control Point photography had not reached operational sta-
tus when the RC-135A program ended, Airborne Geodetic
Azimuth Determination missions were never declared opera-
tional due to lack of equipment.
The RC-135A's navigator's station was redesigned to incorpo-
rate both aground viewfinder and the HIPERNAS, as well as stan-
dard KC-135 navigational equipment. The viewfinder looked out
of awindow located on the bottom of the forward fuselage just ail
of the nose radome and provided a60' field of view, with limits of
1OO'forward, 35' aft, and 50' either side ofthe centerline,
The AN/USQ-28 system used two tandem KC-6A cameras
located in the lower fuselage compartment normally occupied by
two cells of the forward body fuel tank. The aft camera was the
primary mapping camera, and was co-mounted with the HIPER-
NAS inertial platform. The cameras had a30in (76.2cm) diameter
2~in (6,35m) thick optically-ground window in the bottom of the
fuselage providing 120' of panoramic coverage. An external
track-mounted door slid aft to expose the camera window. The
camera compartment was pressurized and temperature regulat-
ed for optimum camera performance.
Each camera had a 6in (15.2cm) focal length, f/5,0 aperture,
color-corrected Geocon IV lens, providing 90' angular coverage
on a 9in' (58cm') film format. Resolution was sufficient to distin-
guish 10ft (3m) size objects on the ground from an altitude of
40,00Oft (12,192m).'" The KC-6 development was protracted due
to mating problems with the RC-135A, butthe camera eventually
vindicated itself following installation in the General Dynamics-
converted WB-57F.
The Terrain Profile Recorder Antenna was a 44in (111.7cm)
stabilized radar dish located in a modified fairing in the boom
pod. The TPR had avertical accuracy of 10ft (3m) from altitudes
ranging from 1,500 to 40,OOOft (457 to 12,192m),"
An Airborne Digital Computer was an integral part of the navi-
gation subsystem which collected and compiled navigational
and supporting information for accurate mapping as well as air-
plane guidance. This computer required aconsiderable ground
warm-up prior to each flight, and most aborts were due to the fail-
ure of this system."
On the underside of the fuselage slightly behind and below
the aft wing root was a small structure which provided a point-
light source for the Airborne Geodetic Azimuth Determination
system using the Sodano method of azimuth measurement.
Theodolites at two ground stations tracked the RC-135A as it flew
across the line connecting the two stations, with aircraft radio
pulses synchronizing the camera exposures of theodolite read-
ings at the stations. From these measurements the azimuth
between the stations could then be determined.
The RC-135As differed significantly from the balance of
MAC's C-135A fleet with over 70 major engineering changes. For
example, the RC-135As had an electrically-powered wing-flap
secondary drive mechanism (whereas the KC-135As have a
144
IGJ,-,- =_
manually-powered wing-flap secondary drive mechanism), and a
second air conditioning pack was added to the RC-135A to cool
the on-board photo-mapping systems. The RC-135A lacked an
ARR system as the intended mission duration did not exceed the
airplane's take-off fuel capacity. The airplane utilized afuel dump
tube and was never equipped with an air refueling boom.
Following the end of their operational lives as photo-mapping
platforms, the RC-135As were demodtlied and some were
assigned to the transport role. Although retaining the designation
RC-135A, they served in SAC as CSAs - 'demodified
tanker/logistics support, cargo carrier, and troop transport air-
craft', By the end of 1971 63-8059 was assigned to the 55th SRW
at Offutt AFB as aCSA. The remaining RC-135As were all similarly
demodified by 197~. After demodification 63-8060 was stored at
MASDC from 29th June through 27th July 1972, and given the
identification code CA001. RC-135A 63-8058 was loaned on 19th
July 1978, to the 132nd AREFS, 101st AREFW, Maine ANG, at
Bangor, for training. RC-135A 63-8060 was loaned on 30th June
1978, to the 197th AREFS, 161st AREFG, Arizona ANG, at
Phoenix's Sky Harbor lAP.
In 1979 all four RC-135As were scheduled for PDM input
under program R-Q6076(1) for modification by E-Systems into
KC-135Ds, after which they were assigned to the 305th AREFW at
Grissom AFB as tankers. In 1990 all four had their J57-P/F-53W
turbojets replaced with TF33-PW-102 turbofans. The airplanes
were then reassigned to the 168th AREFS, 176th COMPG, Alaska
ANG, at Eielson AFB," Ailer the 168th AREFS converted during
1995 to KC-135Rs, the four ex-RC-135As were reassigned to
other ANG units, eventually arriving at Forbes ANGB with the
KansasANG.
Although the RC-135A never achieved fully operational status,
it was not necessarily due to the failure of the idea or its execu-
tion. The RC-135A was seen as a 'bridge' between existing
atmospheric aerial photo mapping technology and the as-yet
unrealized use of satellites in photo mapping, Eclipsed financially
and operationally by the war in Southeast Asia, the RC-135A lost
the aggressive support it needed to overcome its forbidding tech-
nological problems such as the limitations of its on-board com-
puter. The RC-135A was the first airplane designed specifically
for geodetic survey, and in short, the airplane and its systems
were 'too much, too late'."
RC·135Band'C
The RC-135B was the first KC-135 variant specifically built by
Boeing for use as a reconnaissance platform, From 27th May
1964, through 9th February 1965, Boeing delivered directly to the
Glenn L Martin Co, in Baltimore, Maryland, ten RC-135Bs where
they were placed in long term storage pending the installation of
reconnaissance equipment under the 'Big Team' conversion pro-
gram. as Following this modification, the airplanes were redesig-
nated as RC-135Cs, with the first airplane (63-9792) delivered to
the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB on 27th January 1967.'" Martin deliv-
ered the final RC-135C (64-14849) on 29th November 1967,
replacing the 55th SRW's last RB-47H Stratojet."
The first RC-135C operational sortie was flown in April 1967
with the first global mission (in excess of 22 hours) in May 1967. A
typical mission might involve a 24-hour (or longer) flight from
Offutt AFB, landing at an overseas base. Following aday or two of
rest, the crew would then return to Offutt AFB, flying another 24-
hour mission. The RC-135Cs conducted SIGINT missions as part
The first Open Skies OC-135B 61·2674 at Offutt 1
AFB during November 1993. The two windows ~
in the cargo door are residue from the 'Star ~
Cast' system installed when 61-2674 was a ~
WC-135B. By themselves the OC-135Bs may
never prove as sophisticated as other collection ,
t
methods such as satellites, but they contribute
to personal trust and understanding between
crews of the many nationalities which use them,
Joe Bruch
of the 'Burning Candy' OpOrd, and beginning on 15th FebruaJy
1968, supported 'Burning Pipe' operations as welL" Additional
mission tasking for the RC-135Cs came on 17th June 1969, with
'Busy Pipeline'.OJ
Beginning on 6th July 1970, General Dynamics modified three
of the ten RC-135Cs into RC-135Us as part of the 'Combat Sent
program. The first RC-135C delivered to General Dynamics was
64-14847, followed by 63-9792, and then by 64-14849. On 1st
December 1972, E-Systems converted the first of the remaining
seven RC-135Cs into RC-135Vs. The last RC-135C converted
was 64-14841, which was delivered as an RC-135V to the 55~
SRW on 19th January 1976. On 17th October 1975, RC-135U 63-
9792 began further modification into an RC-135V.
As part of the 'Big Team' conversion, Martin added the now-
famous cheeks. The RC-135C lacked ahog nose, having instead
asmall chin fairing along with acircular radome beneath the 101'
ward fuselage. This circular radome caused severe turbulence
wifh resultant cracking of the lower fuselage skin aft of the
radome, Consequently, the radome shape was changed to that
of a teardrop and its depth decreased which smoothed the air·
flow and eliminated the cracking problem. Asecond HF antenna
was mounted atop the starboard wingtip.
Martin revised the flight deck to accommodate asecond nil\i-
gator and the requisite controls for the new navigation equip-
ment. An RC-135C crew originally included a flight crew of three
pilots, two navigators, three electronic warfare (EW) specialists-
popularly known as 'ravens' - (EW Director, EW Operator, and
EW Specialist), and two Inflight Maintenance Technicians (IMTs)
capable of repairing failed equipment during flight, thus eliminat·
ing mission aborts due to equipment problems. For longer sor·
ties, afourth pilot and athird navigator could be added, but wi1h
only one IMT on board. Later in the RC-135C's operationallrre ~
crew composition was decreased to an even dozen: two pilots,
two navigators, three EWs, one IMT, and four systems operators.
The large crew number dictated the installation of an addition~
emergency escape chute in the aft starboard fuselage.'"
Two of the forward body fuel cells and the upper deck fuel
tank were deleted to make room for additional reconnaissance
equipment. Boeing delivered the airplanes to Martin with an IFR
system installed and a fuel dump tube in lieu of an air refueling
boom. The RC-135Cs had TF33-P-9 turbofans.
Among the mission equipment installed in the RC-135Cswas
a KA-59 camera in what was normally (on a KC-135) the boom
operator's compartment." Mission electronics eventually in-
stalled during the RC-135C's lifetime included an AN/ALA-6 pulse
analyzer, the AN/APR-17 intercept receiver by Loral, a Sanders
AN/ALQ-70 system, and an AILlMelpar/GTE AN/ASD-1 ELiNT
 _....."..._.--r::----
The single TC-1358 (61-2667) serves as a
dedicated trainer for the Open Skies OC-1358s.
No stranger to such missions, it has long
performed yeoman duties as an in-flight
trainer for E-3, EC-135, and WC-135 crews.
Two years after this November 1993 photo,
it was redesignated as a WC-135W.
Joe Bruch
system that incorporated an AN/ASR-5 automatic reconnais-
sance system, an AN/ALD-5 semi-automatic reconnaissance
technical analysis system, and a Watkins-Johnson QRC-259
last-sweep' ELiNT manual analysis system."
The RC-135C introduced the first operational automated
reconnaissance system. The reconnaissance systems of previ-
ous platforms (such as those on board ERB-47s and RB·47s)
required manual acquisition, tracking, and identification of a sig-
nal of interest. The sophisticated equipment aboard the RC-135C
eliminated much (but not all) of the tedious and repetitive work
demanded by manual operation. For example, the AN/ASR-5
could automatically intercept, locate, identify, and summarily
analyze signals of interest. The system was programmed to alert
the EWO in the event that the signal was unusual or of particular
interest. The EWO would then use the AN/ALD-5 system to deter-
mine the signal's special capabilities or characteristics. Finally,
the EW Specialist would use the QRC-259 system to conduct a
linite and detailed analysis of the signal, all while the RC-135C
remained airborne, allowing for a more thorough and detailed
collection."
The RC-135C ELINT suite earned the nickname 'The Vacuum
Cleaner' because of its powerful ability to locate, collect, identify,
and record signals from throughout the electromagnetic spec-
trum. The ALD-5 system, for example, could not only identify an
electromagnetic source (perhaps a 'Fan Song' radar), but could
also recognize and identify anomalies in its signal (perhaps due
toa dent in the 'Fan Song' radar antenna)"
RC-135Cs also included 'manned communications intelli-
gence [COMINT] equipment' to 'augment the primary ELiNT
configuration'." LTV provided a G-3018 Electronic Reconnais-
sance Group suite for each RC-135C for this purpose. Up to a
dozen COMINT system operators were carried on early missions.
In addition to their strategic recce missions, RC-135Cs were in
considerable demand to support combat operations in Vietnam
and throughout Southeast Asia, often in conjunction with 'Com-
bat Apple' missions. RC-135Cs were themselves in short supply
in Southeast Asia, especially early in their careers, and were
occasionally augmented by reconnaissance KC-135Rs. Some
RC-135Cs in Southeast Asia were reportedly configured for Pro-
ject 'Blue Bird' and 'Fresh News', although details of these have
not been made public.
63-9792 The Air Force accepted this RC-135B from Boeing
on 26th May 1964, and delivered it to Martin the following day
lor conversion into an RC-135C. It was placed into long term
storage at Martin on 10th July 1964, through 12th March 1966.
The conversion was completed by 26th January 1967, and on
27th January it became the first RC-135C delivered, arriving at
Offutt AFB. From 17th October 1970 through 9th December
1971, General Dynamics modified it into an RC-135U.
64-14841 Boeing delivered this RC-135B to the Air Force on
1st October 1964. It was then handed over to Martin on 8th
October for conversion it into an RC-135C. It was stored from
8th October through 18th June 1966, and the modification was
completed on 22nd March 1967. It arrived at Offutt AFB on 22nd
March 1967. E-Systems converted the airplane from 1st January
1975, through 19th January 1976, into an RC-135V.
64-14842 Martin converted this RC-135B into an RC-135C
from 27th October 1964, through 31st March 1967. The airplane
was further converted into an RC-135V from 20th November
1973, through 6th January 1975.
64-14843 Converted from an RC-135B into an RC-135C
beginning on 9th November 1964. It was delivered to the 55th
SRW on 25th February 1967. From 4th December 1973, through
5th February 1975 E-Systems modified it into an RC-135V.
64-14844 Boeing delivered this RC-135B to Martin on 10th
November 1964, for conversion into an RC-135C. It arrived at
Offutt AFB on 21st April 1967. The airplane was again modified
from 8th January 1974, to 3rd March 1975, into an RC-135V.
64-14845 From 15th December 1964, until 28th April 1967,
Martin converted this RC-135B into an RC-135C. E-Systems
modified it further into an RC-135V from 1st October 1974,
through 21 st November 1975.
64-14846 Delivered on 29th December'1964, for conversion
into an RC-135C, this airplane arrived at the 55th SRW on 1st
June 1967. The airplane was modified into an RC-135V from
22nd January 1974, through 18th December 1975.
64-14847 This RC-135B arrived at Martin for modification
into an RC-135C on 26th January 1965. Martin delivered it to
Offutt AFB on 1st September 1967. From 6th July 1970, through
18th June 1971, General Dynamics converted the airplane into
an RC-135U.
64-14848 Martin converted this RC-135B into an RC-135C
from 3rd February 1965, through 26th July 1967. E-Systems
converted it from 1st December 1972, until 6th August 1973, into
an RC-135V.
64-14849 Boeing delivered this RC-135B to the Martin
Company for conversion into an RC-135C on 9th February
1965. It arrived at Offutt AFB on 29th November 1967. General
Dynamics converted it into an RC-135U from 19th April 1971,
through 17th December 1971. RC-135B 64-14849 was the final
KC-135 produced - although not the last to be delivered to the
Air Force - an honor befalling the four RC-135As.
RC·135D
Known operationally as 'Office Boy', the three RC-135Ds initially
supported the 'Cotton Candy' OpOrd.ln January 1967 the opera-
tional name was changed to 'Rivet Brass' and the OpOrd
renamed 'Burning Candy'." The RC-135Ds conducted SIGINT
operations from Eielson AFB and were frequent visitors to the
98th SW's Detachment 1at RAF Upper Heyford.
On 1st January 1965, the three KC-135A-lis assigned to the
4157th SWat Eielson AFB were officially redesignated RC-135Ds. 97
It was not until after LTV Electrosystems modified the three air-
planes during 1965-1966 that their records show the change in
designation.
A 'phantom' fourth RC-135D was the 'Wanda Belle' RC-135S
59-1491. Also assigned to Eielson AFB, it operated routinely from
Eielson's Detachment 1 at Shemya AFB. Given the paucity of
accurate reports on the operation and configuration of RC-135s,
it is easy to understand how this airplane was assumed to be an
RC-135D by virtue of its co-location with the three RC-135Ds at
Eielson AFB."
Flight crews were permanently assigned to the 4157th SW
Reconnaissance Division (DOR), and included a pilot, co-pilot,
two navigators, and two electronic warfare officers." On 25th
March 1967, the 4157th SW was inactivated and its assets ab-
sorbed by the 6th SW, and the RC-135Ds were then fiown by
crews from the newly reactivated and redesignated 24th SRS.
In addition to the RC-135D's 'Burning Candy' missions, begin-
ning in June 1969 RC-135Ds deployed to Kadena AB to augment
the RC-135M 'Combat Apple', particularly when an RC-135M was
returned stateside for PDM.'oo As with any major substitution of
mission equipment, the success of these deployments was the
source of some disagreement. Although filling aneed, one crew-
member recalls that RC-135Ds 'caused more problems than
[they] solved'.''' Another crewmember disagrees, considering
this 'an exaggerated statement' .'112
Troublesome leaks of all sorts (hydraulic, fuel, water injection,
etc) and electronic equipment failures have been attributed to the
move from the cold of Alaska to the heat of Okinawa. Given that
lhe RC-135Ds departed Eielson AFB in the summer when Alas-
kan temperatures (but not humidity) can equal those in Kadena,
these problems were not likely to have been the result of any sig-
nificanttemperature change. Instead, they were more likely due
to the increased humidity and torrential rainfall of the tropics, a
problem which beset all RC-135 operations from Kadena AB, not
just RC-135Ds. Further, J57 turbojet-powered RC-135Ds lacked
the TF33 turbofan-powered RC-135M's range and endurance.'"
All things considered, although the RC-135Ds may have suffered
due to their somewhat degraded engine performance, they were
no more vulnerable to climatic vagaries and the ensuing mainte-
nance problems than were the RC-135Ms.
The final RC-135D 'Burning Candy' sortie from Eielson AFB
was flown on 13th March 1975, having been replaced by the 55th
SRW's more advanced RC-135M and RC-135V platforms as part
of the new 'Burning Wind' OpOrd. Replacement of the 'Rivet
Brass' with the 'Rivet Cord' and later the 'Rivet Joint' was more
the result of the natural evolution of RC-135 SIGINT capability
lhan arefiection ofthe RC-135D's inability to fulfill its mission. Fur-
ther, the termination of hostilities in Southeast Asia freed the six
RC-135Ms from their 'Combat Apple' mission and permitted their
use in 'Rivet Cord' global operations. As a consequence, the 'Ds
were declared 'surplus' and eventually demodified into KC-135A
(ARR)s and returned to operational status as tankers by 1979.
Following the loss of EC-135K 62-3536 on 14th September 1977,
two former RC-135Ds (60-0357 and 60-0362) were considered
for conversion into a replacement EC-135K, but the former FAA
KC-135A 59-1518 was chosen instead.
The RC-135D configuration evolved considerably throughout
its lifetime. The airplanes retained the IFR system installed while
configured as KC-135A-lis. At no time did they ever have an air
refueling boom despite their earlier KC-135 designation, instead
using afuel dump tube through which to jettison fuel.
The airplanes had the characteristic hog nose and wingtip sta-
tic booms. Long tubular fairings (aerodynamic covers for anten-
nae) were added to the lower forward fuselage ahead of the wing
roots, and at one time the airplanes had teardrop-shaped fairings
mounted ahead of each horizontal stabilizer. 'Rivet Brass' 3 was
demodified from this configuration and equipped with a large
145
 U. S. AIR FORCE
RC·135C 64-14844 sits on the ramp at RAF
Mildenhall, perhaps awaiting its return trip to
Offutt AFB. The RC-135C's automated AN/ASD-1
ELiNT system represented a major
improvement in collection capability over the
manual systems in the RB-47.
Joe Bruch collection
Kadena AB on 11 th September 1967, Missions began at the rate
of one every third day, increasing to two per day through 1973,
decreasing to one per day, In over six years of operations, 3,250
operational 'Combat Apple' sorties were flown with 39,286 orbit
hours,'"
During its heyday, a typical 'Combat Apple' sortie lasted
18-22 hours, Two airplanes flew each day (with a spare avail-
able), Crews occasionally landed from one sortie, completed the
required crew rest, and then flew another sortie, RC-135Ms con-
tinued infrequent 'Burning Cord' strategic reconnaissance mis-
sions around the Asian landmass, so demand for crews and
airplanes was considerable,
Each 'Combat Apple' sortie included approximately three
hours transit time from Kadena to Vietnam, Once on station, the
airplane would establish an orbit in the Gulf ofTonkin, As signals
of interest were noted, smaller orbits were established until elec-
tronic study of the subject was completed, The airplane then
returned to its original orbit which usually lasted from 12 to 16
hours, On occasion, two RC-135Ms were in orbit together, or an
RC·135M shared the orbit with an RC-135C or KC-135R delaying
in the Gulf of Tonkin while on a PARPRO sortie, During 1968
'Combat Apple' orbits began over Laos and the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Other areas of interest during the war eventually included the Yel-
low Sea, the East China Sea, and Hainan Island,
EC·135Ls and KC-135A-VIII 'Combat Lightning' radio relay
airplanes served as an electronic bridge between the RC-135Ms
and headquarters or operational units and airplanes, For exam-
ple, mission specialists aboard a 'Combat Apple' might deter-
mine that North Vietnamese defenses were utilizing certain
search radar and radio frequencies, These data would then be
relayed via 'Combat Lightning' to the striking airplane's head-
quarters (or even directly to US airplanes themselves en route to
bomb targets in North Vietnam), Knowing this information, the
airplanes' courses could be altered as necessary, threatening
radar frequencies jammed more effectively, and weaknesses of
the North Vietnamese defenses better exploited,
'Combat Apple' sorties also assisted in SAR operations or in
the warning of North Vietnamese SAM or MiG activity, The elec-
tronic presence ofthe 'Fan Song' radar was astrong indication of
potential or actual SAM activity and received the immediate atten-
tion of the 'Combat Apple', Threat warnings were then broadcast
to vulnerable airplanes while recordings were made of the SAM's
electronic 'fingerprint' for analysis and the development of appro-
priate jamming equipment."'
RC-135M crews could often detect a MiG's taxi and take-off
(from its radio calls) and could listen to the North Vietnamese
ground controller, thus discerning the MiG's vectors and intend-
ed targets, Appropriate warnings about the MiG could then be
torwarded to waiting combat air patrol (CAP) fighters, and the
hunter soon became the prey, '19 Orbiting RC-135s were not
immune from pursuit, and US Air Force and Navy fighters often
escorted or orbited with the unarmed reconnaissance aircraft,
'Several' MiGs are said to have been lost to these escorts as the
MiGs pursued the RC-135s, although a few of these 'MiGs' are
now known to have been US drones, '20
When RC-135Ms rotated back to the US for PDM, RC-135Ds
from the 6th SWat Eielson AFB and KC-135Rs from the 55th SRW
at Offutt AFB substituted for the absent airplanes, There remains
some confusion about the environmental effects on RC-135Ms in
Southeast Asia, One source indicates that tropical torrential rains
caused short circuits in the RC-135M thrust reverser system,'
causing 'the engine to go into reverse' with its associated violent
yaw and decay of airspeed, While inadvertent thrust reverser
actuation may have occurred, it was not due to any electrical
short circuit. The thrust reverser system on the RC-135M is pneu-
matically actuated and operated; whereas water might short cir-
cuit and illuminate the thrust reverser indicator light in the plane's
cockpit, it could not actuate the reverser itsel!.'"
RC-135Ms participated in other major operations in Southeast
Asia including 'Linebacker' I and II, 'Eagle PUll' (the evacuation of
Phnom Penh from 11-13th April 1975), 'Frequent Wind' (the evac-
uation of Saigon from 29-3Oth April 1975), and the rescue of the
SS Mayaguez and her crew from their Cambodian pirate cap-
tors,'22 Other Southeast Asia PARPRO operations included mis-
sions near Hainan Island in the Gulf of Tonkin during the border
conflicts between Vietnam and the PRC,
62·4131 Delivered to LTV Electrosystems on 15th June
1966, for conversion from a C-135B into an RC-135M,
Converted by E-Systems from 29th June 1979, through 9th
March 1981, into an RC-135W.
62·4132 This C-135B was delivered to LTV Electrosystems
on 14th November 1966, for conversion into an RC-135M, E-
Systems converted it into an RC-135W by 30th November 1984,
62-4134 LTV Electrosystems converted this C-135B into an
RC-135M from 11th September 1967, Converted by E-Systems
into an RC-135W 7th January 1981, to 16th August 1981,
62-4135 This was the first C-135B converted to an RC-135M
beginning in 1966, It flew the 2,00Oth 'Combat Apple' sortie,
This RC-135M was also the first RC-135M converted into a 'W
from 5th September 1978, through 15th November 1980,
62-4138 Converted into an RC-135M beginning on 27th
October 1967, This RC-135M flew the 3,00Oth 'Combat Apple'
sortie, E-Systems converted it into an RC-135W from 9th
January 1980, through July 1981,
62-4139 This was the last C-135B converted to an RC-135M,
beginning on 14th December 1967, It flew the 1,00Oth 'Combat
Apple' sortie, This airplane was involved in atake-off accident at
Clark AB in the Philippines, prompting reports that it had been
written off, The airplane was repaired and resumed operations,
although with a slightly twisted fuselage resulting in the airplane
flying in a perpetual yaw, This was the last RC-135M to be con-
verted into an RC-135W, It flew the last RC-135M mission from
Kadena AB on 11th November 1984, After its conversion, it
arrived at Offutt AFB in August 1985,
RC·135S and TC·135S
The RC-135S 'Cobra Ball' has been the prime airborne platform
ofthe 'Burning Star' OpOrd, In conjunction with the 'Cobra Dane'
land-based radar located at Shemya AFB, and the 'Cobra Judy'
sea-based radar located on board the USNS Observation Island,
the RC-135S has served as anational technical means ofverifica-
tion of Soviet compliance with the Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty (SALT) and other arms control or elimination treaties, 123
For over 30 years the 'Cobra Ball' and its predecessors have
flown peripheral reconnaissance missions in international air-
space abeam the Kamchatka peninsula while tracking trajecto-
ries and studying Soviet ballistic missiles and re-entry vehicles
targeted against the Klyuchi test range, an 'impact site on the
Kamchatka Peninsula for missile tests from Plesetsk, Tyuratam,
the Barents [Sea], and the White Sea', ",
Throughout these three decades, one airplane was typically
on 24-hour alert at its forward operating location at Shemya
Island, popularly known as the 'Rock', Crews ate, slept, and wait-
ed in facilities within the 'Cobra Ball' hangar, ensuring a quick
response when there were indications of an impending Soviet
launch,'25 During 1993 Shemya AFB was renamed Colonel
William 0 Eareckson AFS, and by 30th August 1994, regular
reconnaissance flight operations from the 'Rock' had come to an
end, The 'Cobra Ball' air operations facility transferred to caretak-
er status on 31st March 1995, effectively ending over three de-
cades of regular reconnaissance operations from Shemya, The
airplanes and crews are currently assigned to the 45th RS, 55th
Wg at Offutt AFB, and deploy worldwide rather than just to
Alaskan bases, '25 Atypical mission crew consists of aflight deck
crew of four (pilot, co-pilot, and two navigators) and a mission
specialist crew of approximately 12,
A single TC-135S provides logistics support and initial and
recurring training for RC-135S flight deck crews,
The first known example of an aerial platform for the optical
tracking of missiles was a specially configured Boeing B-29
Superfortress, In 1954 the Servo Corporation of America outfitted
one B-29 with equipment designed to detect and analyze amis-
sile given its infrared signature,'27 The success of this effort is not
known, but the technical maturity gained provided asound basis
for at least two major follow-on developments,
The RC-135S 'Cobra Ball' can trace its mission lineage to the
Boeing EB-47E(TT),'" Three 'Tell Two' airplanes were modified
and assigned in 1958 to Detachment 4, 55th SRW at Incirlik AB,
Turkey,'" 'Tell Two' operations continued as late as 1967, includ-
ing flights from Shemya AFB and both Midway and Wake Islands,
The EB-47E(TT) carried equipment as part of the 'Iron Works'
program designed to collect pre-burnout telemetry from missile
launches at the Soviet Tyuratam and Kapustin Yar complexes,
Two distinct 'Tell Two' nose antenna configurations are known,
both of which were nearly identical to those appearing later on
different versions of the RC-135S 'Cobra Ball', One major draw-
back to the 'Tell Two' program was the absence of an optical col-
lection capability, and by 1961 a program was underway to
correct this deficiency,
Under a program known as 'Nancy Rae', beginning in 1962
AFSC conducted classified test operations at Shemya AFB using
JKC-135A 59-1491, which had previously participated in the
TRAP II program (see Chapter Eight) ,'30 'Nancy Rae' developed
an optical collection capability with which to observe and record
ballistic vehicle characteristics, 'Nancy Rae' was transferred to
SAC on 1st March 1963, at which time it was redesignated as an
RC-135S, Subsequently, as part of 'Big Safari' LTV installed the
'Jolly Polly' system - about which nothing is known - in the air·
147
 MILlTA.R Y
-
circular ventral radome under the forward fuselage, with an addi-
tional small dorsal radome located on the fuselage above the
leading edge of the wing.
60-0356 Converted lrom a KC-135A-11 into an RC-135D from
5th March 1966 through September 1966, 60-0356 was
assigned to the 4157th SWat Eielson AFB as the 'Rivet Brass'
2. During June 1969 the airplane deployed to Kadena AB in sup-
port of 'Combat Apple' operations. Following the termination of
RC-135D 'Burning Candy' sorties from Eielson AFB, 60-0356
departed Alaska on 3rd March 1975, lor the 376th SWat Kadena
AB, although whether it continued in the reconnaissance role
while at Kadena is unclear. It was delivered to E-Systems for
demodification into a KC-135A (ARR) on 4th January 1978.
60-0357 This airplane was delivered to the 4157th SWat
Eielson AFB on 18th January 1966, as the first RC-135D, and
was known as the 'Rivet Brass' 1. This airplane was demodified
into a KC-135A (ARR) in 1976.
60-0362 Converted into the RC-135D 'Rivet Brass' 3 from
October 1966, through early 1967, and assigned to the 4157th
SW. This was the first RC-135D to deploy to Kadena AB in sup-
port of 'Combat Apple' (doing so from May through June 1969).
This airplane had a large antenna mounted in a 200in (508cm)
ventral radome between stations 420 and 620. It was demodi-
fied into a KC-135A (ARR) in 1976.
RC·135E
The RC-135E was one 01 at least three RC-135 series dedicated
to observing foreign ballistic missile testing. Following its delivery
in 1966 the RC-135E was known operationally as 'Lisa Ann' and
flew in conjunction with the 'Wanda Belle' RC-135S on missions
directed by the 'Music Blue' OpOrd. In January 1967 the opera-
tional name for the RC-135E was changed to 'Rivet Amber' and
the OpOrd was renamed 'Burning Star.'DI
From 30th September 1963, through 30th March 1966, LTV
modified the former MAC C-135B into aC-135B-11. This MDS was
changed before the airplane was delivered and 62-4137 instead
became the sole RC-135E. It was assigned to the 4157th SWat
Eielson AFB and was flown by crews from the wing's Reconnais-
sance Division. Recon crewmembers were from the 55th SRW,
Detachment 1. It was deployed to and operational from Shemya
AFB by October 1966.'05 On 25th March 1967, the4157th SWwas
inactivated and replaced by the 6th Sw. The airplane was reas-
signed accordingly, with flight crews assigned to the 24th SRS.
The 'Rivet Amber' mission suite was updated during the mid-
dle of 1968 and the airplane resumed normal operations that
September. On 5th June 1969, the RC-135E disappeared over
the Bering Sea while returning from Shemya AFB to Eielson AFB.
Lost presumably due to structural failure, no trace of the airplane
or the 19 crewmembers on board was ever found (see Appendix
C). Standard crew complement for the airplane was two pilots,
two navigators, two radar and one computer operators, an IMT,
and three systems operators.
The configuration of the RC-135E has been the source of con-
siderable debate and confusion. The airplane had a large anten-
na structure embedded in the forward fuselage, and some
reports falsely suggest that this wrapped completely around the
fuselage.'" Another source of misunderstanding was the pres-
ence of alarge pod beneath each wing, inaccurately reported as
everything from sampling pods to equipment pods.'07
146
AIRLIF T COMMAND
The RC-135E's primary mission equipment was a 7.5
megawatt phased-array radar located in the forward fuselage.
The antenna itself was made of metal wave guide material and
was situated behind a 12in (30cm) high by 20ft (6m) long fiber-
glass antenna incorporated into the body of the fuselage. The
one-piece laminated fiberglass panel ran from aft of the nose
gear well to just aft of the wing root leading edge, covering only
the starboard hemisphere of the luselage, and was designed to
withstand basic fuselage bending, pressurization loads, and
thermal stresses."· Some reports claim that a thermal blanket
could be placed over the antenna to prevent cracking and brittle-
ness while the airplane was on the ground and not heated by
either the cabin pressurization system or dissipated energy from
the mission equipment but existence of this 'blanket' has never
been corroborated.
The right half of the cargo floor adjacent to the antenna was
removed and the affected control cables rearranged. A vertical
panel supported the modified floor and allowed for complete nor-
mal cabin pressurization above the cargo deck. Thick lead
shielding was inserted in the form of abulkhead which separated
the flight deck compartment from the radar compartment, provid-
ing the crew with asizable measure of protection from irradiation
by the phased-array radar. Lead shielding also lined the floor of
the radar compartment and was used in a second protective
bulkhead separating the radar compartmentfrom the aft fuselage
mission crew compartment. Once the radar was in operation,
passage from front to back of the airplane was not possible, a
source of some concern for the flight deck crew as the latrine was
in the back of the airplane! The radar could track a 1ft' (0.1m')
object at adistance of 300nm (555km), and could track a 10.7ft'
(1 m~ target at 1,000nm (1 ,853km).
A large power amplifier provided electricity to the phased-
array radar via four power dividers. The amplifier and dividers
were so large that installing them first required that they be
packed in dry ice for several hours to shrink them in order to fit
through the airplane's cargo door! Moving the amplifier itself
once inside the airplane necessitated using a6in (15.2cm) slab of
dry ice beneath the device. When the dry ice evaporated, the
amplifier was in place to stay, although cocked slightly off center;
it was bolted down in just that fashion."" The radar compartment
also held aphase control unit to direct the radar beam's azimuth.
Asmall circular window on the starboard fuselage aft of the fiber-
glass antenna covered atelescopic camera, known as a'ballistic
streak camera', coupled to the phased-array radar. This camera
could be controlled either automatically by an on-board Hughes
863 computer or manually by the system operator."' The phased-
array radar located and tracked the vehicles re-entering the
atmosphere while the telescopic camera recorded the event.
The considerable power required to operate the phased-array
radar, the telescopic camera, and the extensive computer equip-
ment on the RC-135E exceeded the electrical generating capabil-
ity of the airplane's four TF33-P-5 engine-mounted generators.
Further, the mission equipment generated tremendous amounts
of heat energy - approximately 1 million BTUs (251,000kcal) -
which could not only make the interior uncomfortably hot for the
crew but could damage the equipment as well.
E-Systems solved these problems by designing and installing
an external power generating pod and an external heat exchang-
er. One pod was installed beneath each wing next to the fuse-
RC-135A 63·8058 flew the first operational
photo-mapping mission on 15th September
1969. The entire RC-135A program was fraught
with technical difficulties, repeatedly delaying
its operational debut. Joe Bruch collection
lage, infrequently spawning reports of a'six-engine RC-135' 01 an
RC-135 with 'sampling pods'. At least one source incorrectly
described these as 'SIGINT pods'.'"
The starboard pod was a heat exchanger designed to dissi·
pate the considerable heat loads generated by the electron~
equipment aboard the airplane. The port pod contained amodi·
fied Lycoming T-55-L5 turbine engine connected to a 350kva
generator. Each pod was 37in (93.9cm) in diameter and 12~n
(322.5cm) in length."'
Other changes included the deletion of the forward fuselage
body fuel tank to allow for the phased-array radar, incorporation
of an IFR system, addition of the hog nose, an aft escape chute,
and installation of an alternate static system and wingtip stalic
booms.
RC·135M
RC-135Ms originally conducted SIGINT operations as part of the
'Burning Candy' OpOrd.''' As combat operations in Southeast
Asia increased and RC-135Cs began strategic reconnaissance
missions in earnest, RC-135Ms were increasingly dedicated to
the mission for which they are best remembered - 'Combat
Apple' - created on 20th March 1967. After direct US involvement
in the war in Southeast Asia ended, the RC-135Ms resumed
'Burning Cord' strategic reconnaissance missions. Beginning in
1978 E-Systems converted the RC-135Ms into 'Rivet Joint' 'Ws
under the 'Big Safari' program.'''
E-Systems converted six MAC C-135Bs into RC-135M "Oflice
Boy" follow-on' aircraft as part of the 'Rivet Cord' program begin-
ning with 62-4135 during early 1966.'15 The RC-135Ms were
assigned to Detachment 1, 3rd AD at Yokota AB (beginning with
62-4135 on 23rd May 1967), where they operated in a strategic
reconnaissance role under the 'Burning Cord' OpOrd. Crews and
airplanes deployed to Kadena AB to support 'Combat Apple'
operations to 2nd January 1968, at which time all RC-135Ms and
crews were assigned to the 82nd SRS, 4252nd SW, at Kadena
AB, terminating routine operations from Yokota AB. On 1st April
1970, the 376th SW absorbed the assets of the 4252nd SW in
situ, including the 82nd SRS and its RC-135Ms.'16 By 11th Sep-
tember 1976, all RC-135Ms were reassigned to the 55th SRWat
OffuttAFB.
RC-135M modifications included the addition of the hog nose
and the associated wingtip static booms. The RC-135Ms inoor-
porated an IFR system. The area normally utilized on aKC-135A
by the boom operator's pod was restructured and mission equip-
ment installed therein. Ateardrop fairing was located on the side
of the fuselage forward of each horizontal stabilizer_ RC-135Ms
had TF33-P-5 turbofans.
'Combat Apple' is perhaps the most well known and best doc-
umented strategic reconnaissance program of the war in South-
east Asia. The first 'Combat Apple' mission was flown from
crashed 'Rivet Ball' as well as new equipment intended for an
imminent upgrade of the 'Rivet Ball', 61-2663 entered service in
October 1969 in a 'bare bones' configuration, and was known
as the 'Cobra Ball Minimum'.'" During the summer of 1970, the
airplane received further equipment upgrades, bringing it to a
fully operational configuration. After a second aircraft (C-135B
61-2664) was converted into an RC-135S, 61-2663 became
known as 'Cobra Ball' I.
When RC-135S 61-2664 crashed on 15th March 1981, 61-
2663 was undergoing PDM. It was immediately pressed back
into service, and flew an operational mission on 21 st May 1981,
plus additional missions in June, July, and September. Crew
limITations further hindered routine operations, but these were
overcome as new crewmembers were transferred in, trained,
and certified as mission-ready.lS' Beginning in 1987, 61-2663
was nicknamed No Ka Oi, which is Hawaiian ior 'The Finest'. In
1989 it was renamed Bering Maiden.
61·2664 Like her sister ship 61-2663, this C-135B was trans-
ferred from AFSC to SAC in 1969 for conversion by E-Systems
into an RC-135S under the 'Big Safari' conversion program. The
airplane was delivered to the 6th SW in early 1970 as 'Cobra
8all' II. It crashed while attempting to land at Shemya AFB, on
15th March 1981 (see Appendix C). The name 'Cobra Ball' II
was retired in honor of the six crewmen lost in this accident, and
61-2662 became known as the 'Cobra Ball' III.
62-4128 With the increasing need during the mid-1990s for
the mission capability of the RC-135S 'Cobra Ball', a decision
was made in 1995 to convert the stored RC-i35X 'Cobra Eye'
into an RC-135S 'Cobra Ball'. Initially to be configured with a
minimal on-board sensor suite for an early availability, the air-
plane will eventually be equipped with a complete 'Cobra Ball'
sensor package. Moreover, its sensors will be capable of obser-
vation from either side of the airplane, rather than just the star-
board side as with the remaining RC-i 35S platforms.
62-4133 The 6th SW operated the sale RC-135T to provide
inITial and recurring training to 'Cobra Ball' flight deck crews
wIThout using an RC-135S and subsequently degrading mission
coverage capability. The RC-135T was to be reassigned to the
'Rivet Amber' RC·135E 62·4137 gains speed
during a daytime launch from Shemya AFB
sometime during early 1967. Rumors have long
circulated regarding its sudden disappearance
on 5th June 1969, over the Bering Sea. Among
the more extreme is the claim that a Soviet sub·
marine lay in wait, surfaced, fired a SAM at the
RC·135E, and then collected the wreckage. -
Structural failure associated with the fuselage
radome remains the most likely cause.
Mark Oppenheim
The RC·135E during a visit to Offutt AFB.
Clearly visible is the Lycoming T·55·L5 turbine
engine and electrical generator pod. A similar
pod on the starboard side dissipated heat pro·
duced by the Hughes radar and its equipment.
Author's collection
55th SRW in July 1985 in the same trainer role as at Eielson
AFB, with the 6th SW gaining the newly converted TC-135S as
its replacement. The RC-135T crashed, however, on 25th
February 1985. The TC-135S was delivered to the 6th SWan
22nd July 1985. Although by outward appearances the TC-135S
replaced the RC-135T because it crashed, the TC-135S was
intended as the replacement for the RC-135T anyway. The 55th
SRW was thus forced to continue using KC-135E 59-1514 as a
trainer until funds could be made available for the conversion of
TC-135W 62-4129.
Beginning in early 1985 E-Systems converted the former
AFSC EC-135B into the TC-135S . It has the hog nose and
wingtip static probes, along with the HF fence antenna on the
port wing, but lacks any other mission-related external similari-
ties to the RC-135S. The airplane is not known to have any
reconnaissance mission capability. It has TF33-P-5 turbofans,
an IFR system, and no air refueling boom. In 1986 it acquired a
dark blue tail band with a yellow stylized shooting star, and in
1987 the TC-135S was noted with the nickname North Star. In
October 1988 it received a black starboard wing and a US flag
on the vertical stabilizer, although the colorful tail band had
been removed. During the 1991 Gulf War, it was pressed into
service as a shuttle aircraft, flying personnel and equipment
between Offutt AFB and Riyadh AB, making regular stops at
RAF Mildenhall.
RC·135T
The sale KC-135Twas redesignated as the RC-135T in May 1971,
and photographs of the airplane taken in November 1970, show it
in the RC-135T configuration. The 'T' designation was the next
logical RC-135 series suffix (after RC-135S) and did not, as some
have suggested, necessarily denote that it was a trainer, a mis-
sion it acquired much later. While in a reconnaissance role, the
airplane was assigned to the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB.
After removing the 'Rivet Jaws' equipment, LTV installed nine
COMINT stations and the airplane operated as part of the 'Rivet
Dandy' mission under the 'Burning Candy' OpOrd. The RC-135T
had aflight crew offour (pilot, copilot, and two navigators), and a
mission crew of eleven (a single 'raven', nine systems operators,
and an IMT).
In July 1973 the airplane was demodified into atrainer and its
reconnaissance gear transferred to KC-135R 58-0126. Most exte-
rior modifications were removed from 55-3121, although there
were some exceptions. The airplane retained the hog nose as
well as the associated wingtip static booms. Numerous small
radomes and dielectric panels remained as inert residue of earli-
er mission configurations until they were removed during PDM.
The windows in the forward fuselage also remained for the bal-
ance olthe airplane's lifetime.
The IFR system was retained but inactivated, and the three-
blade LORAN antenna was left in place. IS' The airplane was
assigned to the 376th SWat Kadena AB.ln April 1979 the airplane
was reassigned to the 305th AREFW at Grissom AFB along with
the remainder of the KC-135A (ARR)s, although 55-3121 lacked
an air refueling boom and remained designated an RC-135T.
Its stay at Grissom AFB was brief. In December 1979 it was
assigned to the 6th SWat Eielson AFB as aflight crew trainer. The
hazards of traffic pattern training were not to be ignored, as fully
mission capable reconnaissance KC-135R 59-1465 crashed
immediately after take-off on a training flight from Offutt AFB on
19th july 1967. This costly lesson produced in turn not only the
RC-135T but the TC-135B, TC-135S, and TC-135W as well. The
RC-135T provided initial and recurring training to RC-135 pilots
and navigators, eliminating the need to utilize one of a limited
number of extraordinarily expensive and much in demand opera-
tional reconnaissance airirames for such routine training. The air-
plane had no reconnaissance capability.
On 18th January 1982, 55-3121 was flown from Eielson AFB to
the BMAC facility for the addition of TF33-PW-102 turbofans,
making it more compatible with the turbofan-equipped RC-135S
'Cobra Balls' flown by the 24th SRS aircrews. In the absence of
55-3121, NKC-135E 55-3129 served as asubstitute trainer for the
6th SW prior to its subsequent conversion into an EC-135P. The
RC-135T returned to Eielson AFB on 26th February 1982, to
resume training duties. Following the change in engines, 55-
3121 's upper LORAN towel rack antenna was removed. No upper
deck tank was installed and 55-3121 lacked an APU. The airplane
had normal mission flight and navigational equipment. Known
additional electronics and antennae included four small dorsal
fuselage antennae, the AN/APN-151 LORAN receiver, aVHF-1 01
communications radio, and athird AN/ARC-58 HF radio, with two
HF wire antennae plus the tail 'probe' HF antenna. The airplane
had amicrowave landing system (MLS) installed, the first opera-
tional KC-135 variant to be so equipped.
The RC-135Twas intended to be replaced in mid-1985 by the
newly converted TC-135S, with the RC-135T reassigned to Offutt
AFB, where itwould replace KC-135E (ARR) 59-1514 in its role as
a reconnaissance trainer for the 55th SRW. The RC·135T
crashed, however, on 25th February 1985, near Valdez, Alaska,
while practicing instrument approaches (see Appendix C).
149
plane, In January 1964 59-1491 was assigned to the 4157th SW
at Eielson AFB, and was then known operationally as 'Wanda
Belle', conducting operations as part of the 'Music Blue' OpOrd,
In January 196759-1491 was renamed 'Rivet Ball' and the OpOrd
name changed to 'Burning Star',131 The 'Rivet Ball' RC-135S was
destroyed after landing at Shemya AFB on 13th January 1969,
Each of its three successors have been identified operationally as
'Cobra Ball' I, II, and III. 'Cobra Ball' II (61-2664) crashed at She-
myaAFB on 15th March 1981 (see Appendix C),
Shemya is located at the western tip of the Aleutian chain at
the confluence of the Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea, The
'Rock' is subject to extreme and unique weather conditions such
as simultaneous 65mph (104km/h) winds and dense fog, As a
result, only the most experienced pilots in SAC were selected for
Shemya operations,
With the exception of the limited press attention paid to the
crash of the two RC-135Ss, 'Cobra Ball' operations continued
with little public awareness or interest until 31 st August 1983,
when a Soviet Sukhoi Su-15 'Flagon' destroyed a Korean Air
Lines Boeing 747-230B after Soviet military authorities claimed
they had identified it as an RC-135, '32 It is neither possible nor
practical to review the arguments associated with the claims of
the Korean Air Lines 747's role as a 'spy' plane or in conjunction
with an RC-135,'''The USSR admitted their mistake in destroying
the 747, and released considerable data on this tragic event.'''
Nonetheless, with insinuation came implication, and with it the
hue and cry for the termination of RC-135 flights (particularly
those by the 'Cobra Ball') to avoid provoking the Soviet Union
into any further such action, Wiser heads prevailed and 'Cobra
Ball' operations continued, In an effort to prevent accidental
attacks involving military aircraft, the US and Soviet Union con-
ducted special flights in December 1989 over the Bering Strait
and the Mediterranean Sea, These flights were part of the Dan-
gerous Military Activities agreement signed in June 1989 by the
US and the Soviet Union, and took effect on 1st January 1990,135
During one flight over the Bering Sea during December 1989, for
example, a Soviet Tu-95 'Bear' bomber rendezvoused with the
TC-135W, The Tu-95 then proceeded into the US Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ) while the TC-135 flew into the Soviet
ADIZ, F-15 Eagles intercepted and communicated via radio with
the 'Bear's' crew, while Su-27 'Flankers' did the same with the
TC-135W crew, Neither the Tu-95 nor the TC-135W penetrated
the airspace of the other country, '" In addition to communicating
with the interceptors, pilots of the 'Bear' and TC-135W were 'able
to speak directly to other aircraft or to ground and ship-based
controllers'.'" As a result of this test, both the US and Soviet
Union now have a means to prevent accidental conflicts in the
event an airplane from one's forces inadvertently enters the air-
space ofthe other's,
The RC-135S is easily distinguished by a variety of optical
sensor ports and fairings, primarily on the starboard side of the
fuselage, All of the RC-135Ss have the hog nose (although the
early.'Nancy Rae' did not) and associated wingtip static probes,
The exterior configuration ofthe airplane, particularly in the vicini-
ty of the forward starboard side of the fuselage, has evolved con-
siderably over the lifetime of the program and of each airplane,
Position of windows, number, shape, and location of antennae,
and other details vary from airplane to airplane,
148
For example, the 'Rivet Ball' had ten windows along the star-
board fuselage and three large dipole antennae around the for-
ward fuselage, whereas the 'Cobra Balls' have had from one to
four windows along the forward starboard fuselage and a num-
ber of antenna patterns and locations, The 'Rivet Ball' retained
the original J57-P/F-59W turbojets, whereas the 'Cobra Balls'
have all been former C-135Bs equipped with TF33-P-5 turbofans,
The 'Rivet Ball' had a small glass blister atop the fuselage from
which an operator would visually locate an object of interest and
then aim the 'Rivet Ball's' sensor gear; the 'Cobra Balls' have no
such blister. The 'Cobra Balls' also have a teardrop shaped fair-
ing forward of eacti horizontal stabilizer. 138
The RC-135S's TEllNT capabilities are believed to be similar
to those of the EC-135E and EC-18B ARIAs, and has OPTINT
capabilities significantly more advanced than those of the earlier
and now outdated NKC-135A RAMPfTRAP programs, which
were used to monitor US missile tests and should not be inferred
as having been used to monitor foreign missile tests, '39
From approximately 1969 through 1981, an open-bay camera
compartment was installed on the upper starboard forward fuse-
lage, and presumably housed optical equipment and tracking
gear similar to that on NASA's Lockheed L-300 Gerard PKuiper
Airborne Observatory or the TRAP/RAMP NKC-135As, This com-
partment was replaced by asuite enclosed entirely within the air-
frame, obviating the need for the older system's prominent
sliding door that covered the optical bay,
Publicly-known equipment on board the 'Cobra Ball' has
included a ballistic framing camera system (BFCS) and a medi-
um resolution camera system (MRCS), According to one source,
the BFCS imaged 'all the objects of interest in the re-entry phase',
while the MRCS photographed 'individual re-entry vehicles,
",determin[ing] the re-entry vehicle size, Size estimates [were]
used in turn to produce estimates of the explosive yield of the
warheads','" On-board TELINT equipment included the
Advanced Telemetry System,'41 More improved systems have
since replaced the BFCS and MRCS, This newer gear includes
the Real-Time Optical System (RTOS), the Multiple Object Dis-
criminator System (MODS), and the Large Aperture Tracking
System (LATS),'" More recent equipment installations may
include the 'Talon Lance' intelligence distribution system,'"
The starboard wing and engines on the RC-135S are painted
a non-glare matte black, reducing glare on the mission optics,
although with the newer equipment this anti-glare feature is less
important, if not altogether unnecessary,,.. Stenciling on all black
areas is red, To preclude obstructing the sensor field of view, the
wingtip HF antenna is mounted on the port side rather than the
starboard, The airplanes are equipped with an IFR system,
Until 1991 the 'Cobra Ball' was used almost exclusively in
strategic reconnaissance operations associated with interconti-
nental ballistic missiles, The 1991 Gulf War changed this, and the
'Cobra Ball' has since expanded its operational role to include
reconnaissance of tactical and theater ballistic missiles (TBMs).
With Iraq's combat use of 'Scud', al-Husayn, and al-Hijjara TBMs
against Saudi Arabi and Israel, Coalition commanders sought
some way to identify the launch sites of these mobile missiles.
One such means was to use the 'Cobra Ball' to spot the TBM
early in flight and extrapolate the flight path backward to find the
launch position, Although plans were made in January 1991 to
The 'Rivet Brass' RC-135Ds evolved from the
'Office Boy' KC-135A-lis. Note the nonstandard
display of the serial number on 'Rivet Brass' 1
60-0357. Bill Strandberg collection
deploy one RC-135S and two crews from Eielson AFB to Riyadh
AB, these were not carried out. "s
Worries over American inabilities to defend against TBM
attacks have given the 'Cobra Ball' important new missions duro
ing the 1990s. In addition to combat operations similar to those
proposed during 'Desert Storm', future missions for the RC-135S
will include the location of 'clandestine testing of ballistic and
cruise missiles' and even the detection of stealth aircraft.'"
59-1491 This KC-135A was assigned to AMC at Wnght·
Patterson AFB on 9th July 1960, and on 7th February 1962, was
redesignated a JKC-135A. It deployed to Shemya AFB from
1961-1963, operating under the program name 'Nancy Rae' as
the prototype for what would become the RC-135S. The air·
plane was transferred to SAC and assigned to the 4157th SWal
Eielson AFB on 1st March 1963. On 7th October 1963, it under·
went conversion by General Dynamics and LTV Electrosystems
into and was redesignated an RC-135S. Modifications included
the installation of the 'Jolly Polly' operator positions associated
with the optical collection gear.'" In January 1964 it was
assigned to the 4157th SWat Eielson AFB, where it operated
under the 'Music Blue' OpOrd. The airplane had ten small opti,
cal windows along the upper starboard fuselage, at least three
large dipole antennae on the starboard side of the forward fuse-
lage, and a small radome underneath the forward fuselage, The
airplane was not configured with a hog nose.
Efforts in 1965 to improve the 'Nancy Rae's' collection capa·
bility resulted in further modifications, and, in 1966, the 'Nancy
Rae' was renamed the 'Wanda Belle'; the OpOrd remained
'Music Blue'. Acquisition of the hog nose was the most notable
external modification. Although this airplane has been referred
to as an RC-135D, its official records do not show this.'" In
January 1967 the airplane was renamed 'Rivet Ball' and its oper·
ational program renamed 'Burning Star'.'''
On 13th January 1969, the 'Rivet Ball' failed to stop after
landing at Shemya AFB, coming to rest in a ravine. The airplane
was written off 10th March 1969 (see Appendix C).
61-2662 Following the loss of RC-135S 61-2664 on 15th
March 1981, 61-2662 was selected as the replacement 'Cobra
Ball'. C-135B 61-2662 departed Wright-Patterson AFB (where n
had served as a SATCOM test-bed) in June 1981 for conversion
by E-Systems into an RC-135S. Its designation was changed to
RC-135S on 2nd November 1983, and it was delivered to the 6th
SWat Eielson AFB on 11th November 1983. It is the 'Cobra Ball'
III, and from 1988 bore the nickname Island Girl.
61-2663 Followi'ng the 13th January 1969, crash of RC-135S
59-1491, this airplane was transferred on 26th March 1969, from
AFSC to SAC, and was the first C-135B converted by E-Systems
into an RC-135S under the 'Big Safari' conversion program, It
arrived at E-Systems on 29th April 1969, and was redesignated
an RC-135S on 24th October 1969, Using parts from the
RC·135U
On 17th April 1970, the Air Force responded to the need for an
increased capability to undertake scientific and technical collec-
tion of intelligence data, 'Combat Sent' was thus born, and begin-
ning on 6th July 1970, General Dynamics started conversion of
three RC-135Cs into RC-135Us under the 'Big Safari' program,'53
Crew familiarization flights began in April 1971 and the first air-
plane arrived at the 55th SRW at Offutt AFB on 18th June 1971,
Anumber of modifications make the RC-135U one of the most
distinctive RC-135s, The 'Combat Sent' retains the cheeks on the
forward fuselage but lacks the characteristic hog nose, Instead
the RC-135U has a 'chin' fairing with angled forward-facing
antenna surfaces, and a ventral radome centered beneath the
forward fuselage, The right cheek has alarge ram air intake at its
lower leading edge, Until 1991 , two large dipole antennae were
mounted horizontally in tandem above the cheeks, Each wingtip
is extended and enlarged with outward-facing fairings housing
additional receiver antennae, An HF aerial is mounted over the
right wing near the tip, All RC-135Us have TF33-P-9 engines,
Early on, the RC-135Us had the MD-7 range-only radar (from
the B-58 Hustler) mounted in abullet-shaped fairing near the top
of the vertical stabilizer, although the radar has long been
removed and recently plans made to delete the empty fairing,'"
The end of 1he fuselage is both extended and 'crimped', with
additional aft-facing antennae on this extension, Beginning in the
mid-1980s, RC-135U 64-14847 acquired a turret-like structure
located in the rear portion of the aft fuselage underbody fairing,
This modification is said to be part of a system known as 'Com-
pass Era', which incorporates infrared thermal imaging, interfer-
ometer-spectrometer, and spectral radiometer sensors,'" This
RC-135U is reported to have participated in operations associat-
ed with the USSR's 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident.'"
Another system reportedly carried by the 'Combat Sent' is the
Precision Power Measurement System (PPMS), which 'is capa-
ble of making very precise measurements of an emitter's maxi-
mum power output, transmission pattern and polarisation', '57
On avariety of occasions RC-135Us have been photographed
wearing serial numbers assigned to RC-135Vs, and even serial
numbers beyond the range allocated to the KC-135 series, ".
PopUlar explanations for this phenomenon range from crew-
member pranks to intentional deceptive alterations, In the ab-
sence of any official acknowledgement of this situation, the
purpose for this renumbering remains unknown,
63-9792 General Dynamics converted this RC-135C into an
RC-135U from October 1970, through 9th December 1971 as
'Combat Sent' 3, It was further converted from 17th October
1975, through 24th July 1977, into an RC-135V, During the late
1970s this airplane wore a skunk beneath the cockpit.
64-14847 The first RC-135C converted into an RC-135U
from 6th JUly 1970, through 18th June 1971 as 'Combat Sent' 1,
This airplane conducted crew familiarization flights at Offutt AFB
in April and May 1971, In December 1983 this airplane was pho-
tographed at RAF Mildenhall wearing shark's teeth and was
named Jaws II, In October 1984 it bore the name Bear Chaser
II, and in late 1986 was known as Thunder Child,
64-14849 This RC-135C was converted into an RC-135U
from 19th April 1971 , through 17th December 1971 as 'Combat
150
Sent' 2, Among its many missions were 'Busy Penny', the sup-
port of the 1972 'Linebacker' II bombing operations against
North Vietnam,'" In June 1984 it was named Bear Chaser, and
in January 1987 it had the name Bad News,
RC·135V
Beginning in 1972, LTV converted seven RC-135Cs and one 'U
into 'Rivet Joint' RC-135Vs under the 'Big Safari' modification
program. E-Systems also converted the six RC-135Ms into 'Rivet
Joint' aircraft under 'Big Safari'. Although designated RC-135Ws,
these six additional 'Rivet Joints' have the same mission tasking
as their RC-135V counterparts, Unless otherwise indicated,
descriptions of the RC-135W operational capabilities and mis-
sions should be considered identical to those of the RC-135V.
The RC-135Vs provide worldwide COMINT and ELiNT recon-
naissance as part oj the 'Burning Wind' OpOrd.'w They have
always been assigned to the 55th Wg (or its SRW predecessor) at
Offutt AFB, and routinely deploy to such forward operating loca-
tions (FOLs) as Kadena AB, RAF Mildenhall, and Riyadh AB,
Flight crews are assigned to the 38th RS and mission crews are
assigned to the 343rd RS, both located at OffuttAFB.
If any RC-135 strategic reconnaissance mission could be
described as 'routine', the 'Burning Wind' sorties might be con-
sidered as such. Some of these sorties are little more than 'vacu-
um cleaner' missions, loitering when and where required to
collect as much data as possible. While on such a mission the
RC-135V is seldom alone, often escorted by an interceptor from
whatever nation has drawn the attention of the 'Rivet Joint'. The
fighters react to the RC-135 as it flies in international airspace
near their national borders and often stay with it until it departs for
home. With the events of glasnost and the 'collapse' of the Soviet
Union, such reactions have been increasingly rare, as fuel and
flying time for former-Soviet interceptors have dwindled to the
point of non-existence. In its heyday, however, Soviet reactions
were both exciting and occasionally nerve-wraCking.
Needless to say, both sides spent agreat deal of time looking
at (and photographing) one another. A number of 'flier's tales'
show that despite the seriousness of the PARPRO business,
there exists a universal sense of humor among pilots of all
nations, RC-135 crewmembers are said to display foldouts from
magazines such as Playboy, prompting the fighters to close to
within less than the RC-135's wingspan in order to get a better
view. RC-135 crewchiefs routinely put aEuropean driver learner's
permit emblem on the fuselage beneath the copilot's window, no
doubt producing considerable mirth among the Soviet-bloc
pilots allhe expense of new and unknowing RC-135 copilots.
Not all encounters with potentially hostile fighters are so rou-
tine or innocent. These 'in-close' operations can sometimes have
adifferent intent, as the reacting fighter attempts to discourage a
PARPRO platform from flying in a given area. An Su-27 'Flanker'
collided with a Royal Norwegian Navy P-3 on 13th September
1987, while attempting such a maneuver; both airplanes landed
safely.'''
On 15th September 1980, a 'Rivet Joint' reportedly was inter-
cepted in international airspace and fired upon by Libyan fight-
ers. The unidentified Libyan airplanes were said to have fired two
air-to-air missiles at the RC-135 (perhaps 64-14842), which suc-
cessfully avoided the missiles and returned to Hellenikon Nj, Sf
Less than a week later, on 21 st September, four Libyan MiG·23 'R
'Floggers' and four Libyan Dassault Mirage fighters attempted 10 ur
surround and 'kidnap' the same RC-135 with the intent of forcing ar
it to land in Libya. The RC-135 was this time under radar sUiveil· ai
lance by the American aircraft carrier USSJohn FKennedy, which at
immediately launched at least five Grumman F-14A Tomcats, aI fu
armed and authorized to 'shoot to kill'. This action did not go At
unnoticed by Libyan ground controllers who promptly recalled
their eight fighters, ending the episode without direct confronta· TI
tion between the fighters. The RC-135 landed safely.'" 'C
RC-135s have not been entirely unresponsive to such har· vi
rassment, as annoying Soviet fighters trailing close behind the al
RC-135 have been doused with jet fuel from the fuel dump tube, vi
Soviet pilots intent on staying in position with the lumbering 'Rivet in
Joint' occasionally failed to notice that the RC-135 was intentKio- o
ally and insidiously slowing to speeds well below that needed to
keep the fighter aloft, with the result being a high altitude stall and
hairy recovery on the part oltha Soviet pilot.
In addition to their traditional SIGINT role, 'Rivet Joints' are
increasingly dedicated to special combat support missions, often E
serving as airborne command posts. During 1983 'Rivet Joinf
RC-135s operated as airborne intelligence platforms dun~ S
Libya's foray into the Sudan, monitoring radio transmissions tt
between Libyan pilots and their ground controllers. The RC·135s
also tracked and recorded radar emissions from bases within kl
Libya.''' ir
FollOWing the 1985 Palesiine Liberation Front (PLF) hijacki~ l!
of the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro and murder of an American f(
on board, the terrorists involved fled to Egypt and were subse- n
quently allowed to leave on board an EgyptAir Boeing 737 char· II
tered by the Egyptian government. An elaborate US joint-service Ii
operation was planned within a matter of hours to intercept the ~
737 and force it to land at alocation where the hijackers could be r
extradited to the United States for trial. A'Rivet Joint' RC-135 par·
ticipated in this 10th October 1985, operation as an on-scene air-
borne command post, with commands and essential information
relayed via secure data link to 1he radio-silent intercepting Grum·
man F-14As.'" On board the RC-135 were:
'Arabic-speaking personnel who were prepared to relay
orders to the captain and other crewmembers of the Egyptian
plane in the event they did not understand English, or pretended
that they did not... The Arabic-speaking personnel also moni-
tored radio conversations between the airliner and Egyptian
authorities... [as well as keeping] a close watch on Libyan and
RC-135M 62-4139 achieved a series of notable
'lasts'. It was the last C-135B to be converted
'into an RC-135M and the last RC-135M to be
converted into an RC-135W. It has also had the
most flying hours among all RC-135s, totalling
well in excess of 40,000 hours. In this view il
clears the active runway at Offutt AFB on 2nd
September 1982. George R Cockle,
author's collection
Seen inside Hangar No.2 at Shemya AFB,
'Rivet Ball' RC-135S 59-1491 wears a large and
unauthorized shark's mouth. The dipole
antennas collected TELl NT. Note that the
airplane is ready to be backed out of the hangar
at a moment's notice. Crews lived in the hangar,
further reducing response time..
Author's collection

The exterior configuration of each RC-135S

'Cobra Ball' has changed dramatically. This
view taken in May 1993 shows the multiple
antenna fairings on the starboard side. Sensors
visible behind the optically ground windows
include RTOS, MODS, and LATS, all designed to
observe and record ballistic objects. Joe Bruch

Egyptian air bases within close range of the intercept area. '165
The operation was successful, with the 737 escorted to NAS
Sigonella, Sicily. Italian officials, however, refused extradition of
the terrorists to the US.
'Rivet Joint' RC-135s also participate in a variety of peace-
keeping operations. As part of Operation 'Southern Watch',
intended to prevent Iraqi aircraft from flying into an aerial buffer
zone south of the 32nd parallel in southern Iraq, RC·135s watch
lor hostile aircraft and electronic weapons (such as SAMs or
radar-directed anti-aircraft artillery). An RC-135 was involved in
the 27th December 1993, F-16 Fighting Falcon shootdown of an
Iraqi MiG-29 'Fulcrum' in the Iraqi no-fly zone. 166 'Rivet Joints' also
played akey role in Operation 'Vigilant Warrior' ,the October 1994
response to a potential Iraqi military operation against Kuwait.,67
In response to the civil war in Bosnia, 'Rivet Joints' provide
regular intelligence on Bosnian Serb troop movements and
threat assessments, including the detection of SAM missiles.
They also provide aerial threat warning as part of Operation' Deny
Flight', and were part of the first NATO combat air operation in the
organization's history, on 21 st and 23rd November 1993.'68
'Rivet Joint' combat support operations have been extensive.
These include 'Urgent Fury', the 1983 US invasion of Grenada,
missions in support of the US peacekeeping efforts in Lebanon,
'EI Dorado Canyon', the 1986 US joint-service strike against
Libyan terrorist bases, 'Just Cause', the 1989 US invasion of
Panama, and 'Uphold Democracy', the 1994 US mission to Haiti.
During this operation, RC-135s monitored not only Haitian
threats, but potential Cuban threats to the US aerial armada.,69
On 2nd August 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. Within a
week, US forces began arriving in Saudi Arabia and adjacent 'Rivet Joint' was liable to at least one combat loss), afifth RC-135 the longer and shallower E-Systems cheeks. Beginning in the
countries as part of Operation 'Desert Shield', intended to protect arrived at Riyadh AB on 16th January 1991. RC-135s were early 1990s, E-systems began replacing the Martin cheeks on the
the Saudi kingdom from Iraqi aggression beyond Kuwait.'70 chased by Iraqi Mirage F.1s and MiG-23s, were fired upon by RC-135Vs with E-Systems cheeks. The receivers for the first gen-
On 7th August 1990, the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed that SAMs, and suffered damage as a consequence of Iraqi 'Scud' eration fully automated SIGINT suite installed in the 'Rivet Joint',
'three RC-135 ('Burning Wind') aircraft' deploy to the Gulf 'as missiles during the war. For example, on 25th January, RC-135V known as the Automatic ELiNT Emitter Locating System
soon as possible'. Requests for at least two more RC-135s fol- 64-14846 suffered moderate damage when a 'Scud' missile (AEELS), are located in the large cheeks. 17' RC-135Vs have TF33-
lowed within the next two days. The first 'Rivet Joint' arrived in- exploded over Riyadh AB. Maintenance personnel quickly P-9 engines, whereas RC-135Ws have TF33-P-5s with thrust
theater on 10th August, after departing Hellenikon AB, flying an repaired the damage, and '846' was airborne within 30 minutes."3 reversers. Efforts are underway to re-engine all of the 'Rivet
operational mission en route to its new base at Riyadh Military AB In conjunction with E-3 AWACS, 'Rivet Joints' provided 'real- Joints' with F108 engines, although this remains incomplete
(Old Riyadh), Saudi Arabia. Effective 24th August, the RC-135s time intelligence coverage' as part of a 'complete theater air pic- pending funding.
were assigned to the 1700th RS(P), 1700th SW(P). Afourth air- ture' distributed through a 'data-sharing network' with EC-130 Other structures common to 'Rivet Joint' airplanes are an HF
plane arrived at Riyadh AB during the week of 29th August, afifth Airborne Battle Command and Control Centers (ABCCCs), the antenna mounted above the right wingtip, four large mushroom-
arrived the week of 9th January 1991, and two more (totalling ground-based Tactical Air Control Center (TACC), and US Navy shaped MUCELS (pronounced 'mussles') antennae located on
seven) were in position atthe onset of hostilities on 16th January. E-2 Hawkeyes. m Such intelligence coverage included monitor- the bottom of the fuselage forward of the main gear well, and
Continuous 24-hour coverage RC-135 missions (typically lasting ing 'the enemy's electronic signals to evaluate how he was react- three large blade antennae (and several other smaller antennae)
15-plus hours each, and providing surveillance of all of Kuwait ing to [a coalition] raid's progress'.175 aft of the gear well. 'Rivet Joint' Block III aircraft have three blade
and southern Iraq) began on 11th August, and continued through In addition to the RC-135s at Riyadh AB, at least two RC-135s antennae along the ventral fuselage immediately aft of the nose
lOth December, when RC-135 coverage dropped to a single 12- conducted reconnaissance missions as part of Operation radome. Only RC-135V 63-9792 was configured with somewhat
hour period. During the ensuing lUll, RC-135 crews and aircraft 'Proven Force' over Turkey, flying from Hellenikon AB. 176 During improved 'Rivet Joint' Block II equipment, as all other RC-135Vs
were readied for wartime pacing. On 20th December, 24-hour 'Desert Storm' (from 16th January through 28th February), RC- were converted directly to the advanced Block III configuration.
RC-135 coverage resumed. In conjunction with Lockheed U-2Rs 135s flew a total of 197 missions, including 157 combat sorties All RC-135Ws were delivered with Block III equipment installed.
and TR-1 s, RC-135s flew atotal of 620 strategic reconnaissance during the first 42 days. RC-135s flew 43 'Proven Force' At present, 'Rivet Joints' have upgraded to Block 111+ status.
sorties during 'DesertShield'.171 missions. 177 By 1997 the latest 'Rivet Joint' configuration had been deliv-
With the onset of the war on 16th January 1991, RC-135V and In the aftermath of the Gulf War, Congressional inquiries and ered. This was the Block VIC version, 64-14842, and can be dis-
RC·135Ws flew four missions per day in two orbits, one adjacent Air Force tactical analyses reaffirmed the value of RC-135 'Rivet tinguished by the addition of antennas all along the dorsal
to Kuwait and one along the western Saudi-Iraqi border.'72 As with Joint' platforms. Although the analysis of US intelligence was fuselage. Internal improvements are substantial, especially
the 'Combat Apple' sorties during the war in Southeast Asia, a considered 'mixed' and the distribution of intelligerce found to among the Raven and operator positions.
'Rivet Joint' was on station for a 12-hour period before being be 'very poor', intelligence collection, including that by RC-135 Beginning 'in 1986 all 'Rivet Joint' airplanes were equipped
relieved by a replacement. Including transit time to and from 'Rivet Joints', was found to be 'generally very good and deserv- with the 'Ten High' modification, undertaken as part of the 'Have
Riyadh AB, missions lasted in excess of 15 hours. Whereas these ing of praise' .'76 Siren' program. This is part of an infrared suppression system
demanding continuous operations were common for programs The RC-135V is easily distinguishable from its sister RC-135s, designed to defeat heat·seeking missiles.'"o This system is
such as the EC-135 'Looking Glass', those of 'Desert Shield' and though it is nearly identical to and is easily confused with the RC- mounted in a cylindrical fairing located on the trailing edge of
'Desert Storm' were flown in combat and under adverse environ- 135W. Other than by tail number, it is difficult to distinguish each engine strut.
mental conditions. To bolster the number of RC-135s available between the RC-135V and RC·135W. Originally, the RC-135V had 63·9792 E-Systems modified this RC-135U into an RC-135V
during the war (and aware that a high-value asset such as the the shorter Martin-designed cheeks, whereas the RC-135W had from 17th October 1975, through 24th July 1977, as 'Rivet Joint'

151
 8, the final airplane to be converted into an RC-135V. It was
delivered to Offutt AFB on 4th August 1977.
64-14841 This was the final RC-135C converted into a 'Vas
'Rivet Joint' 7.'" Modified from (and redesignated on) 1st January
1975, through 19th January 1976, it was noted in August 1985
with the name Red Eye.
64-14842 Converted from 20th November 1973, through 6th
January 1975, as 'Rivet Joint' 2, the second RC-135C modified
into an RC-135V. This airplane is said to have participated in
1986 in 'EI Dorado Canyon'."'ln June 1983 it was named Shot
at and Missed, and in April 1986 it had been renamed Fair
Warning. First Block VIC update.
64-14843 Converted from 4th December 1973, to 5th Feb-
ruary 1975 as 'Rivet Joint' 3, this former RC-135C was the third
RC-135V conversion. In November 1986 it was named Don't Bet
On It! It was previously noted with ared hog painted on the crew
entry door. Slated for Block VIC update.
64-14844 The fourth RC-135V was converted from a 'C from
8th January 1974, through 3rd March 1975, as 'Rivet Joint' 4.ln
June 1984 it was named Nice, in January 1986 it was known as
Air Assassin, and by October 1986 renamed Problem Child.
Slated for Block VIC update.
64·14845 This RC-135C was converted into 'Rivet Joint' 5
from 1st October 1974, through 21 st November 1975, into the
fifth RC-135V.ln December 1984 it bore the name Smokey, and
by September 1985 had been renamed Luna Landa.
64-14846 RC-135C modified into the sixth 'Y from 22nd
January 1974, through 18th December 1975, as 'Rivet Joint' 6.
1266~_
152
64-14848 The first RC-135C to be converted into a 'Y, 'Rivet
Joint' 1 was modified from 1st December 1972, through 6th
August 1973. This tail number has been seen on an RC-135U.
RC·135W and TC·135W
Beginning in 1978, E-Systems converted the first RC-135M into a
'Rivet Joint' RC-135W under the 'Big Safari' modification pro-
gram. The RC-135Ws, like the RC-135Vs, participate in world-
wide SIGINT operations as part of the 'Burning Wind' OpOrd. In
1987 asingle C-135B (62-4129) underwent conversion from aVIP
transport into the TC-135W trainer. All seven airplanes are
assigned to the 55th Wg at Offutt AFB and are flown by crews
from the 38th RS and 343rd RS. They deploy to the same FOLs as
the RC-135Vs. Beginning in 1966 three C-135Bs began conver-
sion into RG-135Us.
Like the RC-135V, the RC-135W has ahog nose, as well as the
E-Systems cheeks installed on each side of the forward fuselage.
An HF antenna is located above the right wingtip. As on the 'Ys,
four large mushroom-shaped MUCELS antennae are located on
the bottom of the fuselage forward of the main gear well, with
three large blade antennae situated aft of the main gear well. All
RC-135Ms were modified directly to RC-135W 'Rivet Joint' Block
III standards. The RC-135Ws have TF33-P-5 engines and incor-
porate the 'Ten High' equipment on each engine strut.
62-4125 This former C-135B began conversion by E-Sys-
tems into a 'Rivet Joint' RC-135W during 1996 for delivery to the
55th Wg by late 1997 orearly 1998.
62-4127 In response to the increased demand for 'Rivet
Joint' aircraft, the Air Force approved the conversion of this C.
135B into an RC-135W, with adelivery date forecastfor sometime
well after 1998 or even 1999.
62-4129 In June 1985, following the delivery of the TC-135S
to the 6th SWat Eielson AFB, RC-135T 55-3121 was scheduled
to move to Offutt AFB to serve as the 38th SRS's trainer, with
KC-135E (ARR) 59-1514 exclusively supporting 2nd ACCS ope!'
ations. After the crash of the RC-135Ton 25th February 1985, the
38th SRS was without a dedicated trainer until the availability
RC-135S 61-2663 was the first 'Cobra Ball', and
entered service as 'Cobra Ball Minimum' in
October 1969. The sensor configuration in this
1982 view is substantially more capable,
although the box-like fairing is strikingly similar
to that of the 'Tell Two' EB-47E(TT) Stratojet.
Author's collection
The ill-fated 'Cobra Ball' II (61-2664) sits on a
frozen ramp at Eielson AFB. Weather has been
the bane of 6th SW losses, as RC-135S 59·1491
slid off an icy runway at Shemya AFB, RC-135S
61-2664 crashed while landing at Shemya AFB
during severe weather, and RC-135T 55-3121
crashed while practicing landings during a
blizzard at Valdez AP: Author's collection
a

Long before tail bands appeared on RC-135s,
from 1987 through 1988 TC-135S 62-4133
carried a dark blue and orange shooting star
representing the 6th SW's 'Burning Star'
mission. After PDM the tail band was removed
and the starboard wing painted black, in
keeping with the wing's tradition. Author
14847 _.
f "\.. - u.S.AIRFORC£
2L7~
After years of duty as an active reconnaissance
platform, RC-135T 55-3121 ended its days as a
flight-deck trainer for Eielson AFB's 6th SW. It
still had J57 turbojets when photographed on
26th March 1981, visiting Offutt AFB, but these
were replaced In 1982 with TF33 turbofans.
'121' struck a mountaintop on 25th February
1985, killing its crew of three.
Don McGarry, Brian C 'Buck' Rogers collection
rn~
,
4841
RC-135U 64-14847 in the original 'Combat Sent'
configuration shortly after its arrival at Offutt
AFB in June 1971. This included a smaller chin
radome and wingtip radomes than currently
carried on the 'Combat Sent', no MD-7 radar
fairing on the vertical stabilizer (since deleted),
and differences in the 'boom pod'. It retained
the Martin cheeks installed when it was an
RC-135C. Bill Strandberg collection
153
through commercial sources of two C-137Cs (85-6973 and 85-
6974) freed C-135B 62-4129 from its VIP duties with the 89th
MAW at Andrews AFB for conversion into the TC-135W begin-
ning in February 1987 with delivery to Offutt on 221h April 1988.
Akin to the TC-135S, it provides for initial qualification and
proficiency training for RC-135U, RC-135V, and RC-135W
crews. The TC-135W has the hog nose and cheeks of its RC-135
sisters but lacks the 'antenna farm' seen beneath the fuselage
on the other 'Rivet Joint' RC-135s. The cheeks more closely
approximate the aerodynamic feel of the RC-135V and 'Wand
are not part of any partial reconnaissance capability. In October
1988 the airplane was noted with the name Greyhound.'83
The TC-135W has had its share of notoriety. In the late 1980s
its cargo door opened shortly after take-off. The crew landed the
airplane safely, but for many months afterward received good-
natured ribbing in the form of a modified salute that looked like
the airplane in flight with the cargo door open! In 1990 the 'W
was involved in a landing incident at Offutt AFB, dragging the
number four engine on the runway. The airplane suffered
repairable damage and soon returned to flight status. A more
serious incident occurred on 25th February 1993, when, during
a pre-flight inspection, the nose gear collapsed, trapping the air-
craft commander and crew chief in the nose gear well, where
both were critically injured. os.
62·4130 This former C-135B began conversion by E-
Systems into a 'Rivet Joint' RC-135W during 1996 for delivery to
the 55th Wg by late 1997 or early 1998.
62·4131 From 29th June 1979, through 9th March 1981, E-
Systems modified this RC-135M into the second RC-135W as
'Rivet Joint' 10. In January 1985 it was noted with the name Junk
Yard Dog.
62·4132 The fifth RC-135M converted into an RC·135W by
E-Systems, this airplane was delivered to Offutt AFB on 30th
November 1984 as 'Rivet Joint' 13.lt was seen in February 1986
with the name Anticipation. This RC-135W is reported to have
participated in the 1986 'EI Dorado Canyon' mission.'85
62·4134 The fourth RC-135M converted by E-Systems into a
RC-135W, modified from 7th January 1981, through 16th August
1981 as 'Rivet Joint' 12. The airplane was noted with the name
Snoopy in May 1983 and The Flying Win September 1985.
62·4135 The first RC·135M converted into an RC-135W by
E-Systems from 5th September 1978, through 15th November
1980 as 'Rivet Joint' 9. It was first seen visiting RAF Mildenhall in
December 1980. It has been photographed with five camels
painted above the crew chief's name plate. In March 1986 it was
named Rapture.
62·4138 This was the third RC-135W ('Rivet Joint' 11) con-
verted by E-Systems from an RC-135M. It was converted from
9th January 1980, through July 1981. It has been named Smokie
in both November 1984 and May 1985, and Jungle Assassin in
February 1987.
62·4139 The final RC-135M to be converted by E-Systems
into an RC-135W, as 'Rivet Joint' 14, was delivered to Offutt AFB
on 22nd January 1985. It is reported to have participated in 'EI
Dorado Canyon'.' B6 ln January 1986 it was named Sniper.
RC·135X
The RC-135X was born of a requirement for an airborne platform
dedicated to midcourse optical identification and discrimination
of ballistic missile re-entry vehicles, and was jointly sponsored by
the US Army and Air Force. It collected and recorded 'high-quali-
ty spectral data on strategic weapons systems and targets of
interest to the US Army Strategic Defense Command and the
SOlO' .'87 The airplane was known operationally as 'Cobra Eye'
and conducted missions directed by the 'Burning Vision' OpOrd.'"
Although the Army had initially considered a wide-body air-
craft - specifically a Boeing 767 - for the Optical Aerial Measure-
ment Program (OAMP) role, the 767's high procurement and
operating costs dictated an alternate solution.'" The availability
of an AFSC EC-135B and its flight-deck similarity to the RC-135S
(as the Air Force flight-deck crews which would fly the RC-135X
also flew the RC-135S) made the EC-135B a more economical
choice for conversion.
E-Systems began converting the EC-135B into an RC-135X
on 29th July 1983, with an estimated delivery date of 30th April
1986. Technological delays precluded its delivery until 16th July
1989."" For example, by December 1988 the airplane had made
only six test flights.'81 The 'Cobra Eye' was assigned to the 24th
SRS, 6th SRW at Eielson AFB (and briefly in 1992 to the 55th Wg),
and operated routinely from Shemya AFB obselVing Soviet bal·
listic missile tests at the Klyuchi impact site on the Kamchatka
Peninsula.'"
The first operational 'Cobra Eye' mission was on 15th August
1989. During the flight, the 'sophisticated computer used to con-
trolthe "Cobra Eye" sensor shut down without waming', although
the crew was able to restore the computer 'just minutes before
the expected event time' .'83 Despite these technical problems,
'the aircraft was perfectly positioned for the event and the first
ever data associated with a strategic weapon system was suc-
cessfully collected'.'" The 'Cobra Eye' has also been used in
conjunction with tests of US weapons systems.'85
The primary sensor onboard the 767 AOA is a long-wave
infrared (lWIR) device designed to 'detect and track enemy long-
range ballistic missires', which suggests similar capabilities for
the 'Cobra Eye'.'" Among the 'Cobra Eye's' mission equipment
was alarge optical sensor designed 'to obselVe and record spec-
tral data on the high endoatmospheric characteristics of Soviet
reentry vehicles' .'87 The 'Cobra Eye' sensor was manufactured by
Ball Aerospace Systems. Capabilities of the 'Cobra Eye' sensor
included the detection of:
'... an object's spectra to determine the four dimensions: spa-
tial (location of the object); temporal (temperature of the object)
[sic]; radiometric (brightness in the infrared); and, [sic] spectral
(color in the infrared). The sensor system's telescope, the first
with simultaneous spectral and radiometric measurement capa-
bilities, [took] precise, calibrated measurements in three infrared
bands.
'... [the] sensor [was] acryogenically cooled system that fea-
ture[d] an infrared telescope and focal plane assembly'.'"
Additional sensors on the RC-135X support other SOlO exper-
iments.'"
The airplane has ahog nose, but lacks any cheeks. The 'X has
an alternate static system with wingtip static probes, and carnes
an HF fence-style antenna on the port wingtip. A large sliding
door on the starboard side of the fuselage forward of the wing
root covers the sensor bay, and, like the'S, the starboard wing is
painted black to reduce glare on the mission optics."" Like other
RC-135s, it has an IFR system. It has TF33-P-5 engines.
The RC-135X's operational future was tied closely to interpre·
tation of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Under at least one
interpretation, the 'Cobra Eye' was banned by the treaty.~' The
end of the 'Cold War' and the de-emphasis of SOl projects, how·
ever, pre-empted the issue of the 'Cobra Eye's' future. lacking
support amid sweeping budget cuts, the RC-135X was with-
drawn from operational use and flown from Offutt AFB to Majors
Field at Greenville, Texas, on 22nd February 1993. It was placed
in long term storage with its sophisticated sensors removed.
NASA was reportedly interested in replacing its l-300 Kuiper
laboratory with a wide-bodied platform, possibly a 747, and the
RC-135X could have been used in flight tests of new NASA sen·
sors. By mid-1995, however, the future of the RC-135X was in
some doubt. According to one source, it was to be modified for
use as a reconnaissance trainer much like the TC-135B, 'S, and
'W. The need for another 'Cobra Ball' platform, however, proved
the most pressing, and beginning in late 1995 the RC-135X
began conversion into an RC-135S. 202
WC·1358 and TC·1358
Ten former MAC C-135Bs were converted by Hayes Internation~
during 1965 by Modification 1421 for weather reconnaissance
duties and were designated WC-135Bs and operated under the
'Constant Phoenix' OpOrd. Providing low-to-medium altrtude
atmospheric weather reconnaissance, they complemented US
Air Force lockheed U-2s (and NASA ER-2s) for high altrtude
research.
·WC-135Bs were originally assigned to the 55th WRS (nick·
named The Pole Vaulters) at McClellan AFB and the 56th WRS al
Yokota AB, with the airplanes periodically rotating between
squadrons."" Both squadrons were part ofthe 9th WRWoftheAir
Weather SelVice (along with Boeing WB-47s and Martin WB-57s).
The 56th WRS was inactivated on 15th January 1972, and weath-
er operations from Yokota AB were conducted as a 9th WRW
operating location (Ol) until the wing's disbandment in 1975,
when it was replaced by the 41 st RW&RW and the Ol assigned to
it. The 41st RW&RWwas inactivated on 31st July 1989, and the
55th WRS was attached directly to Air Rescue SelVice.
In an effort to collect ELI NT associated with
radars and other emitters, the RC·135U has a
reputation of 'prodding' the other guy to turn
them on. Preparing to take·off for just such a
mission from RAF Mildenhall on 9th May 1987,
RC·135U 64·14849. Robert J Archer
 Further organizational changes followed the sweeping alter-
ations in the Air Force. On 1st June 1992, the 55th WRS was reas-
signed directly to AMC, and on 1st January 1993, the 55th was
reassigned to the 60th AW. The 55th WRS was finally inactivated
on 1st October 1993, and the WC-135Bs transferred to Detach-
ment 1, 24th RS, 55th Wg at Offutt AFB. The 24th RS was inacti-
vated on 30th June 1994, and the airplanes were reassigned on
lstJulytothe45th RS, 55thWg.
As of 1997 no WC-135Bs remained in service, two are stored
in AMARC, and eight have been demodified. Of these, three were
converted first into C-135Bs and later into C-135C VIP transports
(one of these is now on static display). Afourth has been redesig-
nated as the TC-135B, and afifth serves as aWC-135Wtest-bed.
Three additional WC-135Bs were converted into OC-135Bs.
Although it may seem inappropriate to consider weather
reconnaissance amid the present survey of electronic and optical
strategic reconnaissance RC-135s, the weather mission is no
less important. In addition to the obvious role of worldwide weath-
er survey and analysis for forecasting purposes, WC-135Bs collect-
ed information vital to world health, verification of arms limitations
agreements (particularly those involving nuclear weapons), and
to the preparation of the SlOP, the West's plan in the event of all-
out nuclear war.'"
Two WC-135Bs (61-2666 and 61-2672) provided atmospheric

1 ....
sampling support during April and May 1986 following the Cher-
nobyl nuclear reactor accident. They collected aerial samples
Irom around the world to determine the extent, amount, and
effects of radiation released by the destroyed Soviet reactor.""
Following a nuclear test anywhere around the world, WC-135Bs ~L~~~~~_~:
. ,__..__~:~~~
could determine if any radioactive material was released into the
atmosphere and if so, help scientists determine the size and
I -
nature oj the nuclear device, ultimately ensuring compliance with
existing arms agreements."" The WC-135Bs 'collected nuclear
.:---...
debris [including radioactive particles] that may escape another
country's border; the source of which might be a nuclear test or
nuclear accident', with most missions flown in the arctic region at
~titudes near 2,500ft (762m).''' Most recently, a WC-135B col-
lected atmospheric data in early October 1993, confirming that
the People's Republic of China had detonated a nuclear weapon
at their Lop Nor facility on 5th October. Air Force Chief of Staff
General Merrill McPeak acknowledged the valuable contribution
of the WC-135B to nuclear nonproliferation, saying that 'an air-
borne sniffer of some kind', similar to the WC-135B, was essential
to detecting nuclear weapons.""
Manned bombers, tankers, and missiles of any type engaged
in the SlOP are all vulnerable to the effects ofthe atmosphere. For
example, strong headwinds could mean that a bomber would
burn more fuel than planned, reducing its range and its ability to
strike its assigned targets. As ballistic missiles increase their
accuracy to strike hardened targets, they also increase their vul-
nerability to strong winds aloft which may be sufficient to blow
either the boost vehicle or the re-entry vehicle off course and
make it miss its target. WC-135Bs routinely studied the winds
aloft, expanding adata base used to account for their effects.
Polar missions, essential for this weather data base, were
Ilown, in part, along the 'Ptarmigan Track', the world's oldest
weather track (established in 1947). While on such a mission,
flown, for example, at the 500-millibar level Gust over 18,000ft -
5,486m), WC-135Bs gathered 'horizontal' data such as wind
speed and direction, temperature, latitude, longitude, time, and
date. Other observations include air turbulence, icing, and cloud
covers. Sensitivities of each observation are acute, with tempera-
ture differences of 3' or wind changes of 15kts (27.7km/h) sulfi-
cientto require anew series of observations.
'Vertical' data were collected at approximately 450nm
(B33km) intervals by dropsondes ejected through a pneumatic
ejection tube, which report temperature, pressure, and humidity
as they descend each 500ft (152m).'''' At selected intervals (vary-
ing between two and 20 minutes), both the 'horizontal' and 'verti-
cal' data are fed into an on-board computer which integrates the
data with the other information for storage and eventual broad-
cast via single-side band radio to military and civilian weather sta-
lions worldwide. Although a shark's mouth is now de rigeur for In the optimal location to collect atmospheric
These weather reports were also shared with civil research the RC·135U, nose·art was nearly unheard of in residue from re·entering ballistic missiles,
organizations around the world. For example, on 15th January its early years of service. This skunk on revealing their composition and level of sophis·
1979, two WC-135Bs operating from Ascension Island 'launched RC·135U 63·9792 is said to be for 'Combat tication. Joe Bruch
1,945 dropsondes from heights between 30,000 and 37,00011 S~ent', a clever pun on the RC·135U's opera·
[9,144 and 11,277m] in support of the United Nations World tional name. Ted Boydston In an effort to defeat the threat of shoulder·
Meteorological Organization's attempts to gather information on launched heat·seeking SAMs fired by terrorists,
atmospheric and oceanic phenomena'.''' Some WC·135Bs acquired an optical tracking primarily at Hellenikon AB, RC·135s acquired
Weather operations were not without hazard, and on at least and collection capability in the form of the the 'Have Siren' system. The aft·faclng
one occasion aWC-135B was reportedly an unwitting participant 'Star Cast' and 'Cast Glance' systems. Installed transmitters are covered with conical fairings,
in aSoviet laser beam incident.''' WC-135Bs are said to have sup- behind the cargo door, these enabled the which are removed prior to launch and landing
ported Operations 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm', collecting WC·135B, among other things, to position itself in 'hostile' environments. John Gourley

155
156
'Rivet Joint' RC-135s made their combat debut
during Operations 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert
Storm'. In the baking heat at Riyadh AB
RC·135W 62-4135 awaits another 'Desert Shield'
mission during September 1990. Author
Although RC-135 flight-deck crews maintain
proficiency in fully configured RC-135s, they
also benefit from training sorties in dedicated
trainers. The 'back-end' of these airplanes, such
as TC-135W 62-4129 at Offutt in May 1993, is
empty, enabling it to support deployments.
Joe Bruch
WC-135B 61-2673 commences its take-off roll
from Yokota AB. Although the 'weather birds'
earned their reputation collecting traditional
wind, temperature and other meteorological
data, they also had a valuable role in
reconnaissance associated with atmospheric
nuclear testing. By 1996, however, only one
remained in service, the others converted or
stored. Joe Bruch collection
weather data useful in predicting the effects of Iraqi chemical and
biological weapons should they have been released into the
atmosphere. The WC-135Bs are believed to have operated from
RAF Mildenhall, and are not known to have flown missions direct-
Iyfrom or into the Gulf combat zone.
Although the WC-135B was yet another Boeing product in a
series of airplanes dedicated to weather reconnaissance (WB-29
Superfortress, WB-50 Superfortress, WB-47 Stratojet, etc), it was
not intended as a mere airframe upgrade for 1hen-existing sys-
tems. The C-135 provided a substantial increase in airframe
capability, and the development and installation of anew weather
reconnaissance suite further increased its mission capability.
The WS 460-L Weather Reconnaissance Suite was designed
lor use between 1962 and 1970.''' It was developed specifically
lor the KC-135 airframe, but SAC tanker requirements precluded
any KC-135s from undergoing conversion. Not until the arrival of
theC-141 (which eliminated MAC's requirement for its C-135Bs)
was the conversion of the first WC-135 begun. Initial tests of the
system were undertaken aboard the Boeing 'Dash 80',
The heart of this Bendix equipment was the AN/AMQ-15
Weather Reconnaissance System, designed to provide both
global weather and geophysical reconnaissance in aflying labo-
ratory. While airborne the WC-135B could utilize rocketsondes
and dropsondes, a variety of probes and sensors, cloud and
storm radars, and record and analyze the data collected with sev-
eral on-board computer systems.
Throughout its lifetime, WC-135B mission equipment has
included aU-1 foil collection system mounted in acylindrical fair-
ing above each wing root aft of the overwing hatch. Also included
are the AN/AMQ-25 Meteorological System, an AN/ASN-610ngi-
IUde-latitude computer, and the Atmospheric Research Equip-
ment (ARE) System.
Beginning in 1988 WC-135Bs were modified to carry 'Star
Cast'.'" This electro-optical system is 'designed to photograph
high speed objects in support of several strategic research and
development programs', as well as NASA space shuttle tests.'''
On the WC-135B, part of the 'Star Cast' system has replaced the
left U-1 foil collector. In addition, a 30in (76.2cm) optical window
has been installed in the middle of the cargo door at FS480, and a
14in 35,5cm) optical window inserted higher and farther on the
cargo door at FS460.
The first 'Star Cast' mission was flown on 29th September
1988, during the launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Orbiting
120nm (222km) east of Cape Canaveral, the WC-135B recorded
the launch of the shuttle and the separation of its solid boosters.
The WC-135B crew then assisted the Coast Guard in locating and
retrieving the boosters.'''
An IFR system was installed in most of the airplanes during
their conversion to WC-135B standards (the exceptions believed
10 be 61-2668 and 61-2671). The airplanes had afuel dump tube
in lieu of an air refueling boom, and the fairing normally occupied
on the KC-135 by the boom operator's pod has been seen in sev-
eral configurations, including one containing the dropsonde
pneumatic ejection tube. The airplanes had TF33-P-5 engines.
The WC-135Bs represented asignificant improvement in crew
comfort and working conditions. Missions were shorter than
those flown in the slow piston-powered WB-50s, and the large
iuselage interior allowed crewmembers to get up and 'stretch'
during missions, a difficult task in the WB-47 and impossible in
the WB-57. The WC-135B had a crew of seven, including pilot,
co-pilot, navigator, weather officer, flight engineer, and two
weather technician/dropsonde operators,
With the end of the 'Cold War', the specialized mission of the
WC-135B decreased in importance and demand, and rumors
abounded that the fleet of weather birds would be grounded or
even scrapped, especially because of reportedly severe corro-
sion problems. Indeed, one WC-135B (61-2667) has been in use
as a flight-deck crew trainer for many years with the 552nd
AW&CW (for E-3 AWACS crews), the 10th ACCS (for EC-135H
crews), and now with the 55th Wg (for the C-135, RC-135, and
EC-135 crews), and in 1993 was given a new MDS ofTC-135B,
Another WC-135B (61-2666) has been assigned to the RC-135
maintenance depot (Del. 2, 55th Wg and later Del.2, 645th MatS)
operated by E-Systems at Greenville, Texas (with responsibilities
that may include test duties for new RC-135 systems or equip-
ment), and in May 1995 was redesignated aWC-135W. With the
Open Skies mission passed on to the OC-135W, the important
contributions of the former WC-135B fleet will continue.
61-2665 Beginning in November 1965, this C-135B was
converted into a WC-135B. It received 'Star Cast' by November
1988.'16 In 1995 it became a WC-135W. It was stored in AMARC
on 11th September 1996 as AAC01 07 (see Appendix C),
61-2666 This C-135B was converted to a WC-135B in
August 1965. Assigned in the late 1980s to the E-Systems facil-
ity at Greenville, Texas, as part of Del. 2, 55th Wg. It carries the
highly unofficial 'MF' tail code (for Majors Field) and is nick-
named Loose Caboose in honor of a Detachment 2 crewmem-
ber who has become something of an institution among the
reconnaissance community, In May 1995 it was redesignated a
WC-135W.
61·2667 This C-135B was redesignated a WC-135B on
22nd October 1965. It served from 24th March 1977, with the
966th AWACTS at Tinker AFB as an air refueling receiver trainer
for E-3 Sentry crews. This WC-135B was returned to weather
duties with the 55th WRS following its replacement at Tinker
AFB on 19th December 1984.'17 It was transferred to the 10th
ACCS at RAF Mildenhall on 22nd April 1989, for use as a flight
deck trainer much like the TC-135S and TC-135W.218It received
'Star Cast' by 3rd April 1990, Subsequently, it was reassigned to
the 24th RS, 55th Wg at Offutt AFB and redesignated TC-135B
in 1993. It was reassigned to the 45th RS on 1st July 1994. In
1995 it was redesignated a WC-135W.
61·2668 This C-135B was converted in 1965 to a WC-135B
and utilized as such until October 1971. It was demodified and
placed in storage at MASDC from 20th July to 1st November
1972 and given the storage code CA002, 1n 1973 it was modi-
fied into staff configuration and reactivated, as a C-135B. In
1974 it was further converted into a C-135C, It is now assigned
to 65th ALS at Hickam AFB,
61-2669 This C-135B was converted in 1965 to a WC-135B
and so used until January 1972, It was then demodified and rel-
egated to MASDC on 20th July 1972, and given the storage
code CA003. On 8th November 1972, it was modified into staff
configuration and reactivated as a C-135B. From 4th January
1974, through 8th February 1975, it was converted to a C-135C.
It then became the 'Speckled Trout' aircraft,
61-2670 This C-135B was converted in 1965 to a WC-135B.
It was scheduled to receive the 'Star Cast' system in December
1988. It has since been identified for conversion into the third
OC-135B, beginning in the mid 1990s.
61·2671 This C-135B was converted in 1965 to a WC-135B
until March 1973, when it was converted back into a C-135B, In
1974 it was again converted, this time to staff configuration and
designated a C-135C, assigned to Del. 1, 89th MAW at Hickam
AFB, It was withdrawn from use on 30th October 1991, while
undergoing PDM at Tinker AFB, and placed on static display
there (see Appendix D).
61-2672 A C-135B converted in 1965 into a WC-135B. It
received the 'Star Cast' modification in January 1989. In early
1990 it was noted in a new paint scheme of white fuselage top,
vertical stabilizer, engine turbofan nacelles, and nose. During
1994 it began conversion into the second OC-135B.
61-2673 This C-135B was modified in 1965 into aWC-135B.
Noted in 1993 with the nickname River City Gambler. It was
scheduled for conversion into an OC-135B, but due to extensive
corrosion it was instead placed in AMARC on 28th September
1993 (see Appendix Dj.
61-2674 This C-135B was modified in 1965 into aWC-135B.
In August 1988 it became the first WC-135B to incorporate the
'Star Cast' system. Beginning in July 1992 it underwent conver-
sion into the first OC-135B.
WC-135W
As part of a1995 effort to consolidate disparate airframes operat-
ing under avariety of technical orders and flight manuals, all for-
mer WC-135B airframes not otherwise redesignated were
assigned the WC-135W MDS, This proved somewhat confusing
as the three remaining such platforms were each in a different
configuration and undertook separate missions.
61-2665 Dedicated to AFTAC missions, this WC-135W is
equipped with hush kits on its TF33 engines to meet Stage 3
noise limitations. Returned to AMARC on 11 th September 1996,
as AAC0107 due to lack of funding (see Appendix C),
61-2666 During May 1995, the single WC-135B used by
Detachment 2, 645th MatS, located a1 the E-Systems facility at
Majors Field, Texas, was redesignated as a WC-135W.
The airplane had been used as atest platform for new equip-
ment developed by E-Systems for use in the many RC·135s
maintained by the company, In addition, the airplane served as
a trainer for the Air Force flight crews assigned to Del. 2,
As originally configured, it was externally little different from
its sister WC-135Bs, distinguishable primarily by small fairings
or attachments for equipment under evaluation. In early 1995, E-
Systems added cheeks and a hog nose, as well as a complete
set of SIGINT antennae, to the airplane. Externally, it is indistin-
guishable from the RC-135W. Internally, it lacks a complete
reconnaissance suite found in the operational 'Rivet Joints'. Its
primary role remains that of test and evaluation, although it is
possible tha1 the airplane could be fully modified to conduct
'Rivet Joint' missions.
61-2667 Previously the TC-135B, this airplane has since
been designated a WC-135W. It remains assigned to the 45th
RS, 55th Wg.
Extending an internationally recognized salute,
the pilot of a Soviet MiG-23M expresses his
opinion of having to 'escort' an RC-135 in
international airspace along the USSR. Gone
are the days when MiG-15s would attack and
shoot down RB-50 Superfortresses and RB-47
Stratojets, predecessors to today's RC-135
missions. Still, MiGs and Sukhois 'thump' and
otherwise harrass RC-135s in an effort to
discourage them from loitering.
Bill Strandberg collection
157
 a

./1-
5312/

~-u.S. AIR fORCE

c::!J-

J
All.
-f!) ,
- '

RC-135T 55-3121 of the 6th SW, visiting Offutt
AFB in 1984. The following year it was lost in a
crash near its base at Eielson - see Appendix C.
Author's collection
Although equipped with an IFR receptacle,
RC-135E 62-4137 seldom used in-flight refueling
because of its short mission duration and
airframe limits. The airplane also had an unusu-
ally forward centre of gravity, requiring superb
pilot technique to complete IFR.
USAF, author's collection
The start of another day at 'Hog Heaven'.
RC-135M 62-41"38 from the 82nd SRS prepares
to depart northbound from Kadena AB,
Okinawa. Crews became adept at dodging
severe thunderstorms in the tropics, especially
on the 'Dogger' and 'Super Dogger' sorties
around Vietnam. Author's collection

158
An LTV publicity illustration clearly revealing
the large ventral radome installed on RC·135D
60·0362 'Rivet Brass' 3. Neither of the other two
RC·135Ds were so configured. Just discernable
behind the radome is the LORAN navigation
antenna. Courtesy China Clipper

The RC·135U is well known for its many

unusual shapes and bulges. 64·14847 on low
approach to Offutt AFB during the 1980s clearly
revealing the enlarged wingtips, the extended
tail section and the chin fairing. Sensors on
each of these flattened, orthogonal surfaces
gather energy to use in measuring the power
output of a variety of emitters. Author's collection

The WC·135Bs served as weather pathfinders

for 'Arc Light' B·52 missions, supported U·2 and "

SR·71 flights and flew the daily synoptic

weather track between McClellan AFB and RAF
Mildenhall via the North Pole in support of SlOP
weather forecasting. WC·135B 61·2670 on
approach to Castle AFB on 8th May 1985. Author

159
RC-135B 64-14845, prior to its delivery to Martin KC-135A 55·3121 as it appeared in the 'Speed have been vaporised as it orbited so close to
for conversion into an RC-135C, showing just Light' configu ration in the early 1960s. This Novaya Zemlya. Author's collection
how much the airframe has changed over the airplane could well have been the one which
past 30 years. Although it built the airframe, all monitored the Soviet 58-megaton
of the reconnaissance variants have been thermonuclear test on 30th October 1961.
converted by companies other than Boeing. Had the blast been the 100-megatons
Author's collection " Khrushchev promised, the airplane would

160
 Appendix A

KC·135s
in Colour
Right: Although it was the primary test-bed for
the ALOTS program, NKC-135A 55-3123 is best
known for its role as the Airborne Laser Lab.
Joe Bruch collection

Center: After LeMay established several world

records in KC-135A 55-3126, it acquired a high
visibility color scheme commensurate with its
VIP transport role. Author's collection

Bottom: Long before 501, the USAF evaluated

programs to detect, target, and destroy Soviet
ICBMs immediately after launch or during their
boost phase. JKC-135A 55-3127 supported this
goal by using infra-red and spectroscopic cam-
eras as part of the RAMP program.
Joe Bruch collection

161
Top: Winglets for large aircraft were first tested Center: KC-135A 55-3137 from the 71st AREFS at Bottom: KC-135A 56-3594 of the 906th AREFS,
on NKC-135A 55-3129 at Edwards AFB. Barksdale AFB visiting RAF Mildenhall on 5th BW, Minot AFB, photographed on 31st
The joint USAF-NASA program demonstrated 7th December 1985. Robert J Archer August 1989. Author
their benefits. Ron McNeil via Paul Minert

162
Top: After a dozen years as an USAF test-bed,
NKC-135A 56-3596 was transferred to the Navy
in 1975 as the first 'King Crow', illustrated in
November 1989. 56-3596 was relegated to
AMARC on 26th June 1995. Rick Morgan
Center: KC-135s assigned to the Combat Crew
Training Squadron at Castle AFB flew more
hours than their counterparts elsewhere in SAC,
so aircraft were frequently rotated through the
93rd BW to ensure that no one airframe accrued
excessive hours or cycles. KC-135A 56-3601 is
basking in the hot sun on 9th April 1989. Author.'
Bottom: KC-135A 56-3616, 917th AREFS,
96th BW, at Dyess AFB gets a 'last chance'
inspection prior to departure from Eielson AFB
on 31 st August 1989. Author
163
 --Ii ..-.....
U. S.lIR FORCE"-' ~

Top: KC-135A 56-3617 on 9th July 1986, while
assigned to the 340th AREFW at Altus AFB. It is
now used for destructive testing at NATC
Patuxent River. Author
Center: 42nd BW KC-135A 56-3619 at its Loring
AFB base on 21st March 1988. Loring was
popular with many crews because of the busy
flying schedule that supported trans-Atlantic
fighter 'drags' and cargo flights. Robert J Archer
Bottom: KC-135A 56-3644 from the 909th AREFS,
376th SWat Kadena AB, over the Sea of Japan,
November 1990. This scheme made the aircraft
easy to spot from long distances, a help to
receiver crews during the refueling rendezvous.
Author

164
Top: SAC's senior KC-135 - not in terms of age
but in terms of rank. CINCSAC used KC·135E
57-2589 for trips to the Pentagon and to SAC
bases worldwide. Known by its static call-sign
of 'Casey 01', it now supports Strategic
Command both as a VIP transport and as a C 4 1
airborne command post. Tony Cassanova
Center: KC-135A 57-2609 from the 920th AREFS,
379th BW, at Wurtsmith AFB visits Carswell
AFB, 5th April 1987. Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
Bottom: While assigned to the 6th ACCS, 1st
TFW, at Langley AFB EC-135P 58-0019 was
operated by TAC but supported the 'Scope
Light' mission for the CINCLANT commander,
a Navy four-star admiral. Yves Richard
165
Top: KC-135A 58-0028 was assigned to the 68th
BW at Seymour Johnson AFB, located in North
Carolina, in this 1978 photograph.
Author's collection
166
Center: Open for business, KC-135A 58-0033
from the 909th AREFS, 376th SWat Kadena AB,
2nd November 1990. The air refueling boom is
in the trail position, indicating that the tanker is
ready. Author
Bottom: KC-135A 58-0070 from the 410th BWat
K I Sawyer AFB on TOY to Eielson AFB, 24th
July 1988. Author

Top: The relative position of tanker and receiver
during air refueling. While in contact, the
receiver, in this case a B-52H, can move around
in an imaginary box behind and below the
tanker. KC-135A 59-1449 from the 7th AREFS,
7th BW, at Carswell AFB, 12th September 1988.
Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
\ '(;~",
.
1111 u,~.IIRIFORCE
Center: KC-135s have always been popular on
the airshow circuit. KC-135A 59-1454 from the
93rd BW at Castle AFB awaits the crowd at the
June 1982 open house at NAS Lemoore.
Author's collection
71J
r
,.
Bottom: A rare sunny day at Shemya AFB finds
'Rivet Ball' RC-135S 59-1491 outside Hangar
No.2 following a mission. The aircraft was not
so lucky when landing at Shemya AFB on 13th
January 1969 - sliding off the icy runway,
59·1491 broke in half. Joe Bruch collection
167

Top: Other EC-135 airborne command post
missions included support for the CENTCOM
commander as well as operational deployment
aircraft used during overwater fighter 'drags'.
EC-135K 59-1518 of 8th TDCS, 28th AD,
prepares to depart RAF Mildenhall on 11th
July 1990. Robert J Archer
168
UN/rEO srArE~.LR FORCE
Center: Following its retirement on 9th June
1976, NC-135A 60-0369 served as a ground
instructional airframe at the Chanute Technical
Training Center. Particularly noteworthy in this
26th June 1982 view is the open crew door on
the aft starboard fuselage. William R Peake
Bottom: Although two of the three 'Rivet Digger'
aircraft were stored or scrapped during the
1970s, NC-135A 60-0371 served on until 1994.
Beginning in 1986 it operated in support of
several SOl programs, occasionally bringing the
aircraft to RAF Mildenhall, for example 7th
February 1989. Robert J Archer
 --'--
u...S.A~
- ----
Top: The numerous fairings installed on C-135A
60-0377 for use as the Northrop B-2A avionics
flight test-bed are shown to good effect. To
accommodate the tremendous electrical
demand created by these systems, additional
generators were added to the J57 turbojets.
Author's collection
--~_.~ ...
Center: Command Support Aircraft C-135A
60-0378, assigned to ACC's 55th Wing at Offutt
AFB (when this 13th June 1993 photograph was
taken). Tasking for the aircraft came primarily
from AMC, a rather odd arrangement.
Joe Bruch
Bottom: Caught in the sunlight on a dark
winter's day in 1986, EC·135L 61·0279 of the
70th AREFS, 305th AREFW, on alert at Grissom
AFB. The cover over the windshield prevents
ice and snow build up and can be removed
quickly for an alert launch. 'Buck' Overbey
169

Top: 4th ACCS, 28th BW EC-135A 61-0297 prior
to a mission from Ellsworth AFB on 28th June
1989. Primarily an ALCC aircraft, it could per-
form other missions. Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
170
UNITED STA r£~OF AMERicA
Center: March AFB was home to the 15th AF
Commander, and KC-135A 61-0300 was
assigned for his use. It retained full tanker
capabilities. In late 1976, it wore a Bicentennial
color scheme of natural metal with red, white,
and blue bands on the top of the vertical stabi-
lizer, the wingtips, and the ruddevators.
Douglas E Siowiak via Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
Bottom: Among the most unusual configurations
applied to any KC·135 variant was the ARIA or
TRIA nose modification. EC-135N 61-0328
preparing to depart McClellan AFB on 19th April
1971, en route to Pago Pago.
Peter B Lewis via Rene J Francillon
Top: During the 1990s, the 'Cobra Ball' acquired
a new, more tactical mission - the detection of
theater ballistic missiles such as the notorious
'Scuds' and their launch sites. RC-135S 61-2662,
in May 1993, in the most recent configuration
and wearing ACC markings. Joe Bruch
Center: During the 1980s SAC wings acquired
tail bands. The 19th AD used a checkerboard
pattern, with the colours dependent upon the
wing. KC-135A 62-3574 of the 305th AREFW at
Grissom AFB, on 30th August 1986, used black
and white inspired by the nearby Indianapolis
Speedway. Author
Bottom: EC-135Gs served as radio relay
platforms, ALCCs, and as back up airborne
command posts. All of the EC-135 fleet were
also tanker capable and crews practised both
tanker and receiver operations. EC-135G
62-3579, of the 4th ACCS, 28th BW at Ellsworth
AFB, receiving attention, 2nd May 1989.
Brian C 'Buck' Rogers
171
Top: RC-135X 62-4128 backs away from the
tanker after refueling over the Bering Sea
during 1992. Delayed by technical problems, the
'Cobra Eye' served only from July 1989 until
February 1993, when funding was discontinued
for its SOl-related programs. Jim Benson
172
Bottom: At first glance this 89th MAW C-135B
might be mistaken for its VIP C-137 cousin_ The
absence of windows on 62·4130, at Eielson AFB
on 10th August 1987, is a give-away that it is a
former C-135 cargo and troop transport. Author
 241~-
\ (
Top: A typical nasty grey day at Shemya AFB in
1967 finds 'Rivet Amber' RC·135E 62·4137 out of
its hangar for servicing. The upper limit of the
fiberglass panel on the starboard side, as well
as the camera window aft of the panel are
evident. Mark Oppenheim via William R Peake
Center: KC·135A 63·8010 assigned to the 22nd
AREFS, 22nd BW (later AREFW) at March AFB,
visiting Eielson AFB on 24th July 1988. Author
Bottom: KC·135A 63·8016 of the 41st AREFS,
416th BW at Griffiss AFB on 13th May 1988,
while visiting Eielson AFB. It was retired to
AMARC on 12th May 1994 after accumulating
13,443.4 flying hours. Author
173
 Left: The KC·135R made quite an impression
during 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm',
KC·135R crews managed to 'multiply' their
effectiveness as seen in this 31st January 1991,
photo of 305th AREFW KC-135R 63-8037 over
the Arabian Gulf. It has just refueled a Grumman
KA·6D Intruder which is then able to refuel a
waiting McDonnell Douglas FjA·18C Hornet,
freeing the KC·135R's basket for an EA·6B
Prowler to take its turn at the tanker, effectively
doubling the boom-to-receiver ratio, Rick Morgan

Center: EC-135C 63·8047 at Ellsworth AFB,

assigned to the 4th ACCS, 28th BWon 10th
March 1989. Brian C 'Buck' Rogers

Bottom: EC·135C 63·8049, landing at Offutt AFB,

30th September 1989. It was transferred to the
SAC Museum in Bellevue, Nebraska, on 29th
January 1992. John Gaffney

174
Top: French tanker operations mirrored those of
KC-135s in many ways. Both participated in the
1991 Gulf War, which the French called
'Operation Daguet'. The French were the first to
camouflage their tankers, seen here on 63-8470,
using the same two-tone color scheme as on
their Mirage F.1s. Patrick Sigel
Center: Just prior to its final flight as a C-135F
in 1988,62-12737 awaits its departure to BMAC
at Wichita for conversion into the last C-135FR.
Additional aircraft acquired by France are
KC-135Rs rather than C-135FRs.
Author's collection
Bottom: The many individual antennas on a
'Rivet Joint' make it well suited for collecting
COMINT, and the receivers in the 'cheeks' do
the same for ELINT. RC-135V 64-14845 Block I
'Rivet Joint' during an sortie in late 1981 as it
verifies and validates the newly-installed Block
III reconnaissance configuration in RC-135W
62-4131, from which this photo was taken.
Bill Strandberg
175
Top: With the end of the 'Cold War' and the 1992
demise of SAC, KC-135s acquired a variety of
missions for which they were not necessarily
designed, ranging from strategic airlift to
tactical low altitude refueling. Despite having a
new owner (in this case Air Mobility Command),
176
some things did not change, such as the need
to refuel Air Combat Command B-52s. Both
KC-135 and B·52 will soldier on for at least
another 20 years, outlasting all of their
contemporaries.
Jim Benson
Above: Over 100 KC-135s, ranging from 'buck'
tankers to test-beds to airborne command
posts, have been or are now stored in AMARC.
Some are well preserved for potential future
use whereas others have been dismantled or
salvaged for parts. Joe Bruch collection
\
 Appendix A

Mission-Design-Series (MDS) List

This table reflects the status and evolution of individ-
ual KC-135s and derivatives. The original Mission-
Design-Series (MOS) and block number are shown
on the left, followed by the Air Force serial number,
Boeing model number, and construction number
(c/no). Some canceled airplanes were not assigned
block or construction numbers, nor were construc-
tion numbers always in sequence. The table contin-
ues with the roll-out date, the first flight date, delivery
date (when the airplane officially became the prop-
erty of the Air Force), the flyaway date (when the Air
Force actually flew the airplane to its first assign-
ment), the re-engining date, and the attrition date, if
appropriate (see Appendix C and 0). The final col-
umn shows sequentially subsequent MDS's and
cancellation notes. Airplanes marked with 'FMS'
indicate potential AMARC transfers to foreign coun-
tries.
Airplanes identified as (KC-135A), (KC-135R),
and (KC-135T) are recce variant KC-135s. Airplanes
identified as [KC-135A], [KC-135R] and [KC-135E]
are KC-135As, KC-135Rs, and the KC-135E
respectively, equipped with an IFR system. Air-
planes marked as 'C-135B' operated as TRIAs or
test-beds, while those marked as 'KC-135A' and
'EC-135C' were test-beds. Airplanes identified as
{KC-135A}, {KC-135E}, or {EC-135N}have been
configured as airborne command posts or radio
relay platforms.
KC-135 MDS by MISSION TYPE
Tankers
C-135F, C-135FR, GKC-135A, KC-135A,
KC-135A(ARR), KC-1350, KC-135E, KC-135E
(ARR), KC-135H, KC-135ME, KC-135Q, KC-135R,
KC-135R(ARR), KC-135T, KC-135X, KC-135Y
Transports
C-135A, C-135B, C-135C, C-135E, KC-135A,
C-135K, KC-135E, NKC-135A, RC-135A,
VC-135A, VC-135B.
Airborne National Command Posts
EC-135A, EC-135C, EC-135G, EC-135H,
EC-135J, EC-135K, EC-135L, EC-135N,
EC-135P, EC-135Y, GEC-135H, KC-135A,
KC-135A-VIII, KC-135B, KC-135E
Reconnaissance
C-135B-II, JKC-135A, KC-135A, KC-135A-II,
KC-135R, KC-135T, OC-135B, OC-135W,
RC-135A, RC-135B, RC-135C, RC-1350, RC-
135E, RC-135M, RC-135S, RC-135T, RC-135U,
RC-135V, RC-135W, RC-135X, TC-135B,
TC-135S, TC-135W, WC-135B, WC-135W
Test-beds
C-135A, C-135B, C-135C, C-135E, C-135N,
EC-135B, EC-135C, EC-135E, EC-135N,
GNC-135A, GNKC-135A, JKC-135A, KC-135A,
NC-135A, NKC-135A, NKC-135B, NKC-135E
Notes:
Total designations 84. Excludes unofficial desig-
nations such as VKC-135A and RC-135R. Includes
IFR-equipped tankers as (ARR) and proposed
variants. KC-135Qs and KC-135Ts include partial
variants.

MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing C/no Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Attrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away
KG-135A-Dl·BN 55·3118 717-lODA 17234 18 Jul56 31 Aug 56 24 Jan 57 Jul6D 9 Mar 82 150ct96 'KC·135A' EC·135K
55-3119 717-100A 17235 5 Nov 56 18 Dec 56 27 Feb 57 19 Mar 58 6Jul93 JKG-135A NKC-135A
55·3120 717-100A 17236 13 Dec 56 1 Feb 57 11 Mar 57 27 Mar 58 15 Dec 93 NKC-135A
KG-135A-Q2·BN 55-3121 717-100A 17237 22 Jan 57 7 Mar 57 29 Apr 57 30 Apr 57 1 Mar82 25 Feb 85 JKC-135A (KC-135A) (KC-135R) (KG-1351) RC-135T
55·3122 717-100A 17238 8 Feb 57 20 Mar 57 29 Apr 57 30 Apr 57 19 Oct 93 JKC-135A NKC-135A
55·3123 717-100A 17239 1 Mar 57 5 Apr 57 18 May 57 18 May 57 20 May 88 JKC-135A NKC-135A
55-3124 717-100A 17240 13 Mar 57 27 Apr 57 31 May 57 4 Jun 5'7 7 Mar 91 'KC-135A' JKC-135A NKC·135A GNKG-135A
n/a 717·100A n/a 25 Jan 57 n/a n/a n/a Static Test Airframe
55·3125 717-100A 17241 22 Mar 57 10 May 57 31 May 57 4 Jun 57 25 Apr 86 'KC-135A' JKC·135A NKC-135A EC-135Y
55-3126 717-100A 17242 29 Mar 57 17 May 57 25 Jun 57 26 Jun 57 5 Jan 78 'KC-135A' {KC-135A} KC-135A
KC-135A-03·B N 55-3127 717-100A 17243 4 Apr 57 27 May 57 28 Jun 57 28 Jun 57 31 Aug 92 JKC-135A NKC-135A
55-3128 717-100A 17244 22 Apr 57 3 Jun 57 27 Jun 57 28 Jun 57 20 May 1996 JKC-135A NKC-135A
55-3129 717-100A 17245 30 Apr 57 11 Jun 57 28 Jun 57 28 Jun 57 28 Jun 82 31 Jan 92 JKC-135A NKC-135A NKC-135E EC-135P
55-3130 717-100A 17246 7 May 57 28 Jun 57 30 Jul 57 1 Aug 57 15 Dec 92
55-3131 717-100A 17247 13 May 57 9 Jul 57 31 Jul 57 13 Aug 57 19 Oct 92 JKC-135A NKC-135A
55-3132 717-100A 17248 3 Jun 57 12 Jul57 30 Jul 57 1 Aug 57 31 Jan 91 JKC-135A NKC-135A NKC-135E
55-3133 717-100A 17249 14Jun57 18 Jul57 31 Jul 57 5 Aug 57 24 Sep 68
55-3134 717-100A 17250 25 Jun 57 1 Aug 57 28 Aug 57 28 Aug 57 JKC-135A NKC-135A
55-3135 717-100A 17251 8 Jul57 7 Aug 57 3 Sep 57 4 Sep 57 27 Mar 82 JKG-135A NKC-135A NKC-135E
KC-l35A-04-BN 55-3136 717-100A 17252 18 Jul57 13 Aug 57 16 Sep 57 18 Sep 57 28 Apr 93 'KC-135A' KC-135A
55-3137 717-100A 17253 24 Jul57 28 Aug 57 19 Sep 57 19 Sep 57 14Jul93
55-3138 717-100A 17254 1Aug 57 9 Sep 57 20 Sep 57 24 Sep 57 2 Oct 68
55-3139 717-100A 17255 8Aug 57 13 Sep 57 4 Oct 57 8 Oct 57 3 Apr 93
55-3140 717-100A 17256 19 Aug 57 24 Sep 57 11 Oct 57 16 Oct 57 19 Apr 67
55-3141 717-100A 17257 25 Aug 57 30 Sep 57 17 Oct 57 21 Oct 57 6 Jan 84 KC-135E
55-3142 717-100A 17258 28 Aug 57 3 Oct 57 23 Oct 57 25 Oct 57 12 Jul94
55-3143 717-100A 17259 9 Sep 57 10 Oct 57 28 Oct 57 30 Oct 57 1 Oct 82 KG-135E
55-3144 717-100A 17260 13 Sep 57 160ct57 11 Nov 57 12 Nov 57 8 Aug 62 'KC-135A'
55-3145 717-100A 17261 18 Sep 57 25 Oct 57 16 Dec 57 18 Dec 57 26 Sep 86 KC-135E
55-3146 717-100A 17262 23 Sep 57 29 Oct 57 25 Nov 57 26 Nov 57 12 Jul 84 KG-135E
KC-135A-QS-BN 56-3591 717-146 17340 27 Sep 57 31 Oct 57 1Nov 57 11 Mar 56 28 Jul93
56-3592 717-146 17341 3 Oct 57 14 Nov 57 27 Nov 57 6 Dec 57 4 Oct 89
56-3593 717-146 17342 7 Oct 57 22 Nov 57 28 Dec 57 3 Jan 58 7 Sep 84 KC-l35E
56-3594 717-146 17343 14 Oct 57 26 Nov 57 28 Dec 57 3 Jan 58 17 Sep 92
56-3595 717-146 17344 170cl57 9 Dec 57 31 Dec 57 17 Jan 58 1Apr 94
56-3596 717-146 17345 22 Oct 57 9 Dec 57 29 Dec 57 3 Jan 58 26 Jun 95 NKC-135A
56-3597 717-146 17346 29 Oct 57 10 Dec 57 29 Dec 57 10 Jan 58 27 Feb 63
56-3598 717-146 17347 4 Nov 57 17 Dec 57 29 Dec 57 8 Jan 58 25 Nov 58
56-3599 717-146 17348 6 Nov 57 18 Dec 57 30 Jan 58 31 Jan 58 27 Jun 58
56-3600 717-146 17349 11 Nov 57 20 Dec 57 30 Jan 58 31 Jan 58 13 Apr 93
56-3601 717-146 17350 13 Nov 57 26 Dec 57 31 Jan 58 6 Feb 58 21 Jul93
56-3602 717-146 17351 18 Nov 57 30 Dec 57 30 Jan 58 31 Jan 58 25 Mar 69
56-3603 717-146 17352 21 Nov 57 31 Dec 57 31 Jan 58 6 Feb 58 21 Jul92
56-3604 717-146 17353 25 Nov 57 7 Jan 58 31 Jan 58 6 Feb 58 29 May 84 KC-135E
56-3605 71U46 17354 2 Dec 57 9 Jan 58 30 Jan 58 ?Feb 58 18 Nov 60
56-3606 717-146 17355 6 Dec 57 17 Jan 58 31 Jan 58 ?Feb 58 1 Feb 84 KC-135E

177
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing Clno Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Attrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

KC-135A-06-BN 56-3607 717-146 17356 10 Dec 57 20 Jan 58 26 Feb 58 4 Mar 58 8 Oct 82 KC-135E
56-3608 717-146 17357 13 Dec 57 20 Jan 58 25 Feb 58 27 Feb 58 23 Jul 92
56-3609 717-146 17358 16 Dec 57 21 Jan 58 27 Feb 58 4 Mar 58 22 Oct 82 KC-135E
56-3610 717-146 17359 20 Dec 57 23 Jan 58 13 Mar 58 16 Mar 58 4 Nov 92
56-3611 717-146 17360 26 Dec 57 24 Jan 58 25 Feb 58 27 Feb 58 10 Oct 84 KC-135E
56-3612 717-146 17361 30 Dec 57 27 Jan 58 26 Feb 58 9 Mar 58 23 Mar 83 KC-135E
56-3613 717-146 17362 6 Jan 58 31 Jan 58 20 Feb 58 21 Feb 58 19 Jan 67
56-3614 717-146 17363 8 Jan 58 4 Feb 58 28 Feb 58 5 Mar 58 7 Jun 93
56-3615 717-146 17364 16 Jan 58 5 Feb 58 28 Feb 58 5 Mar 58 30 Jul 92
56-3616 717-146 17365 20 Jan 58 7 Feb 58 27 Feb 58 4 Mar 58 6 Jan 93
56-3617 717-146 17366 21 Jan 58 11 Feb 58 10 Mar 58 11 Mar 58 3 Mar 93
56-3618 717-146 17367 22 Jan 58 13 Feb 58 28 Feb 58 6 Mar 58 9 May 62
56-3619 717-146 17368 23 Jan 58 18 Feb 58 18 Mar 58 20 Mar 58 7 Oct 92
56-3620 717-146 17369 27 Jan 58 24 Feb 58 6 Mar 58 7 Mar 58 7 Mar 94
56-3621 717-146 17370 29 Jan 58 18 Feb 58 12 Mar 58 14 Mar 58 23 Jun 94
56-3622 717-146 17371 31 Jan 58 25 Feb 58 24 Mar 58 25 Mar 58 9 Aug 84 KC-135E
56-3623 717-146 17372 4 Feb 58 27 Feb 58 13 Mar 58 16 Mar 58 8 Aug 86 KC-135E
56-3624 717-146 17373 6 Feb 58 3 Mar 58 27 Mar 58 28 Mar 58 7 Jul94
56-3625 717-146 17374 10 Feb 58 6 Mar 58 27 Mar 58 28 Mar 58 5 May 93
56-3626 717-146 17375 11 Feb 58 10 Mar 58 20 Mar 58 21 Mar 58 3 Aug 83 KC-135E
56-3627 717-146 17376 13 Feb 58 11 Mar 58 2 Apr 58 3 Apr 58 21 Oct 92
56-3628 717-146 17377 18 Feb 58 14Mar58 2 Apr 58 3 Apr 58 3 Feb 60
56-3629 717-146 17378 19 Feb 58 18Mar58 8 Apr 58 9 Apr 58 19 Dec 69
56-3630 717-146 17379 20 Feb 58 19Mar58 8 Apr 58 13 Apr 58 19 Jul 84 KC-135E
56-3631 717-146 17380 24 Feb 58 21 Mar 58 10 Apr 58 11 Apr 58 11 Apr 84 KC-135E
KC-135A-07-BN 56-3632 717-146 17381 25 Feb 58 13 Mar 58 25 Mar 58 26 Mar 58 16 Feb 93
56-3633 717-146 17382 1 Mar 58 28 Mar 58 29 Apr 58 1 May 58 20 Aug 92
56-3634 717-146 17383 5 Mar 58 31 Mar 58 29 Apr 58 1 May 58 22 Sep 92
56-3635 717-146 17384 6 Mar 58 3 Apr 58 30 Apr 58 5 May 58 25 Aug 92
56-3636 717-146 17385 10 Mar 58 4 Apr 58 30 Apr 58 3 May 58 28 Jul 92
56-3637 717-146 17386 13 Mar 58 8 Apr 58 29 Apr 58 2 May 58 6 Aug 92
56-3638 717-146 17387 17 Mar 58 9 Apr 58 30 Apr 58 3 May 58 17 Sep 82 KC-135E
56-3639 717-146 17388 19 Mar 58 11 Apr 58 29 Apr 58 29 Apr 58 1Jul92
56-3640 717-146 17389 21 Mar 58 15 Apr 58 13 May 58 14 May 58 18 May 84 KC-135E
56-3641 717-146 17390 24 Mar 58 17Apr58 8 May 58 9 May 58 19 Jan 84 KC-135E
56-3642 717-146 17391 26 Mar 58 21 Apr 58 13 May 58 15 May 58 11 Aug 93
56-3643 717-146 17392 28 Mar 58 24 Apr 58 14 May 58 16 May 58 18 Jan 83 KC-135E
56-3644 717-146 17393 1Apr 58 28 Apr 58 7 May 58 9 May 58 16 Ju19?!
56-3645 717-146 17394 2 Apr 58 28 Apr 58 '8 May 58 12May58 15 Aug 90 KC-135E
56-3646 717-146 17395 4 Apr 58 29 Apr 48 21 May 58 22 May 58 11 Aug 92
56-3647 717-146 17396 7 Apr 58 30 Apr 58 19 May 58 21 May 58 10 Sep 92
56-3648 717-146 17397 9 Apr 58 1 May 58 22 May 58 23 May 58 21 Dec 83 KC-135E
56-3649 717-146 17398 10Apr58 2 May 58 19 May 58 23 May 58 16 Jun 93
56-3650 717-146 17399 14 Apr 58 6 May 58 23 May 58 23 May 58 16 Apr 84 KC-135E
56-3651 717-146 17400 16 Apr 58 8 May 58 2 Jun 58 5 Jun 58 1 Sep 92
56-3652 717-146 17401 17 Apr 58 13 May 58 26 May 58 29 May 58 9 Aug 93
56-3653 717-146 17402 23 Apr 58 14 May 58 26 May 58 3 Jun 58 7 Jul 92
56-3654 717-146 17403 24 Apr 58 16 May 58 18Jun58 19 Jun 58 12 Mar 84 KC-135E
56-3655 717-146 17404 25 Apr 58 19 May 58 18 Jun 58 19 Jun 58 30 Jul 68
56-3656 717-146 17405 29 Apr 58 20 May 58 20 Jun 58 23 Jun 58 13 Nov 92
56-3657 717-146 17406 30 Apr 58 22 May 58 6 Jun 58 6 Jun 58 25 Jan 62
56-3658 717-146 17407 2 May 58 26 May 58 5 Jun 58 6 Jun 58 23 Oct 84 KC-135E
KC-135A-08-BN 57-1418 717-148 17489 5 May 58 28 May 58 19 Jun 58 20 Jun 58 18Apr91 KC-135R
57-1419 717-148 17490 7 May 58 29 May 58 27 Jun 58 27 Jun 58 26 Feb 91 KC-135R
57-1420 717-148 17491 9 May 58 4 Jun 58 20 Jun 58 24 Jun 58 15 Sep 92
57-1421 717-148 17492 12 May 58 5 Jun 58 18 Jun 58 19 Jun 58 ?Feb 85 KC-135E
57-1422 717-148 17493 13 May 58 9 Jun 58 27 Jun 58 2 Jul 58 6 Aug 86 KC-135E
57-1423 717-148 17494 15 May 58 10 Jun 58 19Jun58 20 Jun 58 24 Apr 91 KC-135E
57-1424 717-148 17495 16 May 58 11 Jun 58 25 Jun 58 26 Jun 58 17 May 66
57-1425 717-148 17496 20 May 58 12 Jun 58 9 Jul58 9 Jul 58 19 Nov 82 KC-135E
57-1426 717-148 17497 21 May 58 16 Jun 58 30 Jun 58 3 Jul 58 16 Aug 84 KC-135E
57-1427 717-148 17498 23 May 58 17Jun58 8 Jul 58 9 Jul58 27 Aug 86 KC-135R
57-1428 717-148 17499 26 Jun 58 18 Jun 58 15 Jul58 18 Jul58 30 Apr 84 KC-135E
Oct 95 KC-135R
57-1429 717-148 17500 28 May 58 20 Jun 58 14 Jul58 15 Jul58 24 Feb 84 KC-135E
57-1430 717-148 17501 2 Jun 58 25 Jun 58 15 Jul58 17 Jul58 18 Jan 91 KC-135R
57-1431 717-148 17502 3 Jun 58 25 Jun 58 15 Jul58 17 Jul58 21 Apr 83 KC-135E
57-1432 717-148 17503 4 Jun 58 27 Jun 58 22 Jul 58 24 Jul58 9 Feb 93 KC-135R
57-1433 717-148 17504 6 Jun 58 1 Jul58 15Jul58 18 Jul58 26 Aug 82 KC-135E
57-1434 717-148 17505 9 Jun 58 2 Jul58 28 Jul58 1Aug 58 17 Dec 84 KC-135E
57-1435 717-148 17506 11 Jun 58 3 Jul 58 23 Jul58 24 Jul58 21 Jan 92 KC-135R
57-1436 717-148 17507 12 Jun 58 8 Jul 58 21 Jul58 25 Jul58 15 Oct 87 KC-135E
Oct 95 KC-135R
57-1437 717-148 17508 16 Jun 58 9 Jul 58 31 Jul58 1 Aug 58 12Apr91 KC-135R
57-1438 717-148 17509 18 Jun 58 11 Jul58 23 Jul 58 1 Aug 58 8 Jan 85 KC-135E
57-1439 717-148 17510 19 Jun 58 14Jul58 28 Jul 58 31 Jul 58 21 Dec 90 KC-135R [F-UKAE]
57-1440 717-148 17511 20 Jun 58 16 Jul58 30 Jul 58 31 Jul 58 30 Apr 85 KC-135R
57-1441 717-148 17512 24 Jun 58 16 Jul58 1Aug 58 26 Aug 58 26 Jan 88 KC-135E
57-1442 717-148 17513 26 Jun 58 18 Jul58 1Aug 58 1 Aug 58 16 Jan 65
57-1443 717-148 17514 27 Jun 58 22 Jul58 14 Aug 58 15 Aug 58 6 Sep 84 KC-135E
57-1444 717-148 17515 1 Jul58 24 Jul58 14 Aug 58 15 Aug 58 18 May 66
57-1445 717-148 17.516 2 Jul 58 24 Jul58 8 Aug 58 12 Aug 58 14 Sep 84 KC-135E
57-1446 717-148 17517 7 Jul 58 29 Jul58 7 Aug 58 8 Aug 58 22 Jun 59
57-1447 717-148 17518 8 Jul 58 4 Aug 58 29 Aug 58 4 Sep 58 1 Oct 90 KC-135E
57-1448 717-148 17519 10 Jul58 4 Aug 58 27 Aug 58 2 Sep 58 3 Apr 84 KC-135E
57-1449 717-148 17520 11 Jul58 6 Aug 58 15 Aug 58 19 Aug 58 3 Feb 60
57-1450 717-148 17521 15 Jul58 6 Aug 58 19 Aug 58 22 Aug 58 9 Jul 84 KC-135E
57-1451 717-148 17522 16 Jul58 6 Aug 58 22 Aug 58 26 Aug 58 28 Feb 91 KC-135E
57-1452 717-148 17523 17 Jul58 8 Aug 58 21 Aug 58 26 Aug 58 12 Aug 82 KC-135E
57-1453 717-148 17524 21 Jul58 12 Aug 58 22 Aug 58 26 Aug 58 10Jun92 KC-135R
57-1454 717.-148 17525 22 Jul 58 12 Aug 58 5 Sep 58 5 Sep 58 2 Jun 89 KC-135R

178
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing Clno Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Attrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

57-1455 717-148 17526 23 Jul58 14 Aug 58 28 Aug 58 29 Aug 58 10 Sep 82 KC-l35E

57-1456 717-148 17527 25 Jul58 19 Aug 58 5 Sep 58 6 Sep 58 26 Jan 90 KC-135R
57-1457 717-148 17528 28 Jul58 19 Aug 58 29 Aug 58 2 Sep 58 3 Feb 60
57-1458 717-148 17529 30 Jul58 21 Aug 58 8 Sep 58 10 Sep 58 11 May 83 KC-135E
57-1459 717-148 17530 31 Jul58 21 Aug 58 12Sep58 16 Sep 58 15 Aug 91 KC-135E
Nov 95 KC-135R
KC-135A-D9-BN 57-1460 717-148 17531 1Aug 58 26 Aug 58 28 Sep 58 5 Oct 58 KC-135E
57-1461 717-148 17532 5 Aug 58 27 Aug 58 11 Sep 58 11 Sep58 6 Dec 89 KC-135R
57-1462 717-148 17533 6 Aug 58 27 Aug 58 15 Sep 58 19 Sep 58 21 Dec 85 KC-135R
57-1463 717-148 17534 7 Aug 58 29 Aug 58 28 Sep 58 4 Oct 58 10 May 84 KC-135E
57-1464 717-148 17535 11 Aug 58 2 Sep 58 29 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 6 Mar 84 KC-135E
57-1465 717-148 17536 12Aug58 3 Sep 58 29 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 13 Jun 84 KC-135E
57-1466 717-148 17537 14 Aug 58 4 Sep 58 28 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 8 Mar 60
57-1467 717-148 17538 15 Aug 58 8 Sep 58 22 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 27 Aug 92
57-1466 717-148 17539 18 Aug 58 5 Sep 58 29 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 4 Feb 85 KC-135E
Nov 96 KC-135R
57-1469 717-148 17540 20 Aug 58 11 Sep58 30 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 18 Sep 89 KC-135R
57-1470 717-148 17541 21 Aug 58 11 Sep58 30 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 15 Nov 90 10 Dec 93 KC-135R
57-1471 717-148 17542 22 Aug 58 12 Sep 58 7 Oct 58 9 Oct 58 8 Oct 87 KC-135E
57-1472 717-148 17543 26 Aug 58 16 Sep 58 8 Oct 58 9 Oct 58 8 Dec 89 KC-135R
57-1473 717-148 17544 27 Aug 58 17 Sep 58 160ct58 21 Oct 58 7 Aug 85 KC-135R
57-1474 717-148 17545 28 Aug 58 19 Sep 58 23 Oct 58 24 Oct 58 6 Dec 91 KC-135R
57-1475 717-148 17546 2 Sep 58 22 Sep 58 21 Oct 58 23 Oct 58 21 Dec 82 KC-135E
57-1476 717-148 17547 3 Sep 58 24 Sep 58 140ct58 16 Oct 58 13 Aug 92
57-1477 717-148 17548 5 Sep 58 25 Sep 58 28 Oct 58 29 Oct 58 18 Aug 92
57-1478 717-148 17549 8 Sep 58 29 Sep 58 8 Oct 58 12 Oct 58 24 Sep 82 KC-135E
57-1479 717-148 17550 9 Sep 58 3 Oct 58 21 Oct 58 23 Oct 58 18 Jun 86 KC-135E
Dec 96 KC-135R
57-1480 717-148 17551 11 Sep 58 7 Oct 58 27 Oct 58 28 Oct 58 21 Jun 84 KC-135E
57-1481 717-148 17552 12 Sep 58 10 Oct 58 27 Oct 58 29 Oct 58 20 Jun 84 20 Sep 89 KC-135E
57-1482 717-148 17553 16 Sep 58 16 Oct 58 29 Oct 58 31 Oct 58 30 Aug 84 KC-135E
57-1483 717-148 17554 17 Sep 58 16 Oct 58 28 Oct 58 31 Oct 58 14 Jun 85 KC-135R
57-1484 717-148 17555 18 Sep 58 20 Oct 58 31 Oct 58 3 Nov 58 7 Dec 82 KC-l35E
57-1485 717-148 17556 22 Sep 58 21 Oct 58 31 Oct 58 2 Nov 58 19 Aug 82 KC-135E
57-1486 717-148 17557 23 Sep 58 23 Oct 58 10 Nov 58 12Nov58 20 Mar 89 KC-135R
57-1487 717-148 17558 24 Sep 58 24 Oct 58 7 Nov 58 13 Nov 58 3 Oct 89 KC-135R
57-1488 717-148 17559 26 Sep 58 27 Oct 58 12 Nov 58 15 Nov 58 24 Apr 90 KC-135R
57-1489 717-148 17560 29 Sep 58 30 Oct 58 10 Nov 58 12 Nov 58 13 Mar 82
57-1490 717-148 17561 1 Oct 58 30 Oct 58 17 Nov 58 19 Nov 58 29 Sep 92
57-1491 717-148 17562 2 Oct 58 31 Oct 58 17 Nov 58 19 Nov 58 29 Oct 84 KC-135E
57-1492 717-148 17563 3 Oct 58 31 Oct 58 14 Nov 58 19 Nov 58 18 Dec 87 KC-135E
57-1493 717-148 17564 7 Oct 58 3 Nov 58 21 Nov 58 24 Nov 58 13 Mar 90 KC-135R
57-1494 717-148 17565 8 Oct 58 4 Nov 58 19 Nov 58 21 Nov 58 19 Sep 84 KC-135E
57-1495 717-148 17566 9 Oct 58 6 Jun 58 26 Nov 58 3 Dec 58 5 Nov 82 KC-135E
KC-135A-l0-BN 57-1496 717-148 17567 13 Oct 58 7 Nov 58 21 Nov 58 21 Nov 58 20 Jul82 KC-135E
57-1497 717-148 17568 14 Oct 58 12 Nov 58 21 Nov 58 25 Nov 58 29 May 91 KC-135E
57-1498 717-148 17569 15 Oct 58 8 Nov 58 25 Nov 58 26 Nov 58 21 Jun 63
57-1499 717-148 17570 17 Oct 58 12 Nov 58 25 Nov 58 26 Nov 58 16Mar90 KC-135R
57-1500 717-148 17571 20 Oct 58 14 Nov 58 26 Nov 58 3 Dec 58 5 Mar 74
57-1501 717-148 17572 22 Oct 58 17 Nov 58 4 Dec 58 9 Dec 58 7 Dec 84 KC-135E
57-1502 717-148 17573 23 Oct 58 18 Nov 58 8 Dec 58 16 Dec 58 8 Aug 85 KC-135R
57-1503 717-148 17574 24 Oct 58 19 Nov 58 4 Dec 58 9 Dec 58 18 Feb 83 KC-135E
57-1504 717-148 17575 28 Oct 58 21 Nov 58 11 Dec 58 16 Dec 58 3 Apr 86 KC-135E
57-1505 717-148 17576 29 Oct 58 21 Nov 58 22 Dec 58 26 Dec 58 21 Mar 84 KC-135E
57-1506 717-148 17577 31 Oct 58 24 Nov 58 12 Dec 58 16 Dec 58 1 May 90 KC-135R
57-1507 717-148 17578 3 Nov 58 24 Nov 58 2 Jan 59 7 Jan 59 26 Jul 84 KC-135E
57-1508 717-148 17579 4 Nov 58 26 Nov 58 12 Dec 58 16 Dec 58 10 Sep 90 KC-135R
57-1509 717-148 17580 6 Nov 58 26 Nov 58 23 Dec 58 30 Dec 58 1 Jun 83 KC-135E
57-1510 717-148 17581 7 Nov 58 3 Dec 58 26 Dec 58 5 Jan 58 29 Jul 82 KC-135E
57-1511 717-148 17582 10 Nov 58 3 Dec 58 29 Dec 58 5 Jan 59 7 Jul86 KC-135E
57-1512 717-148 17583 12 Nov 58 5 Dec 58 7Jan 59 8 Jan 59 30 Sep 86 KC-135E
57-1513 717-148 17584 13 Nov 58 8 Dec 58 19 Dec 58 27 Dec 58 15 Oct 59
57-1514 717-148 17585 17 Nov 58 15 Dec 58 22 Dec 58 27 Dec 58 26 Apr 89 KC-135R
57-2589 717-148 17725 18 Nov 58 13 Dec 58 16Jan59 21 Jan 59 11 Oct 83 KC-135E {KC-135E}
57-2590 717-148 17726 19 Nov 58 15 Dec 58 29 Dec 58 5 Jan 59 3 Sep 92
57-2591 717-148 17727 21 Nov 58 13 Dec 58 23 Dec 58 30 Dec 58 19 Apr 93 FMS
57-2592 717-148 17728 24 Nov 58 19 Dec 58 15 Jan 59 29 Jan 59 23 Jun 93 FMS to Turkey
57-2593 717-148 17729 25 Nov 58 19 Dec 58 30 Dec 58 5 Jan 59 17 Oct 91 KC-135R
57-2594 717-148 17730 1 Dec 58 27 Dec 58 13 Jan 59 14 Jan 59 28 Oct 83 KC-135E
57-2595 717-148 17731 2 Dec 58 23 Dec 58 15 Jan 59 19 Jan 59 9 Sep 83 KC-135E
57-2596 717-148 17732 4 Dec 58 29 Dec 58 21 Jan 59 23 Jan 59 21 Apr 93 FMS
57-2597 717-148 17733 5 Dec 58 29 Dec 58 13 Jan 59 14 Jan 59 22 May 91 KC-135R
57-2598 717-148 17734 8 Aug 58 2 Jan 59 20 Jan 59 22 Jan 59 4 Sep 86 KC-135E
Mar 97 KC-135R
57-2599 717-148 17735 10 Dec 58 2 Jan 59 15Jan59 17 Jan 59 17 Oct 90 KC-135R
57-2600 717-148 17736 11 Dec 58 6 Jan 59 22 Jan 59 27 Jan 59 18 Feb 86 KC-135E
57-2601 717-148 17737 12 Dec 58 8 Jan 59 28 Jan 59 4 Feb 59 25 Jul91 KC-l35E
57-2602 717-148 17738 16 Dec 58 8 Jan 59 27 Jan 59 4 Feb 59 30 Aug 91 KC-l35E
57-2603 717-148 17739 17 Dec 58 12 Jan 59 30 Jan 59 12Feb59 15 Jul86 KC-135E
Feb 97 KC-135R
57-2604 717-148 17740 19 Dec 58 13 Jan 59 29 Jan 59 4 Feb 59 30 Nov 82 KC-135E
57-2605 717-148 17741 22 Dec 58 13 Jan 59 6 Feb 59 10Feb59 26 Feb 91 KC-135R
57-2606 717-148 17742 26 Dec 58 14 Jan 59 3 Feb 59 4 Feb 59 1Apr 83 KC-135E
57-2607 717-148 17743 30 Dec 58 19 Jan 59 6 Feb 59 12Feb59 17 Nov 83 KC-135E
57-2608 717-148 17744 31 Dec 58 20 Jan 59 11 Feb 59 12 Feb 59 12 Oct 83 KC-135E
57-2609 717-148 17745 5 Jan 59 21 Jan 59 13 Feb 59 19 Feb 59 20 Jan 93 FMS
KC-135A-l1-BN 58-0001 717-148 17746 6 Jan 59 4 Feb 59 20 Feb 59 25 Feb 59 6 Sep 90 KC-135R
58-0002 717-148 17747 8 Jan 59 26 Jan 59 11 Feb 59 17Feb 59 31 Mar 59
58-0003 717-148 17748 9 Jan 59 29 Jan 59 10 Feb 59 13 Feb 59 12 Apr 83 KC-135E
58-0004 717-148 17749 13 Jan 59 29 Jan 59 17 Feb 59 19 Feb 59 21 Apr 89 KC-135R
58-0005 717-148 17750 14 Jan 59 4 Feb 59 18 Feb 59 20 Feb 59 17 Nov 87 KC-135E

179
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing C/no Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Attrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

58-0006 717-148 17751 16 Jan 59 4 Feb 59 23 Feb 59 26 Feb 59 15 Oct 82 KC-135E

58-0007 717-148 17752 19 Jan 59 5 Feb 59 20 Feb 59 26 Feb 59 3 Jan 80 {KC-135A} EC-135A EC-135P
58-0008 717-148 17753 20 Jan 59 11 Feb 59 24 Feb 59 26 Feb 59 10 Feb 84 KC-135E
Nov 95 KC-135R
58-0009 717-148 17754 22 Jan 59 11 Feb 59 5 Mar 59 9 Mar 59 6 Apr 90 KC-135R
58-0010 717-148 17755 23 Jan 59 12 Feb 59 4 Mar 59 9 Mar 59 21 Mar 90 KC-135R
58-0011 717-148 17756 27 Jan 59 12 Feb 59 27 Feb 59 3 Mar 59 27 Apr 90 {KC-135A} EC-135A EC-135P
[KC-135A] [KC-135R)
58-0012 717-148 17757 28 Jan 59 13 Feb 59 25 Feb 59 27 Mar 59 6 Jan 83 KC-135E
58-0013 717-148 17758 29 Jan 59 19 Feb 59 10 Mar 59 12 Mar 59 6 May 86 KC-135E
58-0014 717-148 17759 2 Feb 59 19 Feb 59 9 Mar 59 10 Mar 59 21 Oct 87 KC-135E
58-0015 717-148 17760 3 Feb 59 20 Feb 59 11 Mar 59 12 Mar 59 26 Mar 91 KC-135R
58-0016 717-148 17761 4 Feb 59 20 Feb 59 9 Mar 59 10 Mar 59 1 Feb 91 KC-135R
58-0017 717-148 17762 6 Feb 59 25 Feb 59 16 Mar 59 16 Mar 59 30 Apr 84 KC-135E
58-0018 717-148 17763 9 Feb 59 25 Feb 59 4 Mar 59 11 Mar 59 17Feb 89 {KC-135A} EC-135A EC-135P
[KC-135A] [KC-135R]
58-0019 717-148 17764 10 Feb 59 26 Feb 59 5 Mar 59 10 Mar 59 23 Jun 82 12 Feb 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A EC-135P
58-0020 717-148 17765 12 Feb 59 27 Feb 59 10 Mar 59 11 Mar 59 14 Jan 86 KC-135E
58-0021 717-148 17766 13 Feb 59 3 Mar 59 19 Mar 59 19 Mar 59 8 Feb 90 KC-135R
58-0022 717-148 17767 17Feb 59 4 Mar 59 19 Mar 59 20 Mar 59 17 May 82 5 Mar 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A EC-135P
58-0023 717-148 17768 18 Feb 59 5 Mar 59 19 Mar 59 20 Mar 59 8 Mar 90 KC-135R
58-0024 717-148 17769 19 Feb 59 10 Mar 59 24 Mar 59 26 Feb 59 20 May 83 KC-135E
58-0025 717-148 17770 23 Feb 59 11 Mar 59 24 Mar 59 26 Feb 59 4 Aug 93 FMS
58-0026 717-148 17771 24 Feb 59 12 Mar 59 3 Apr 59 8 Apr 59 17 Jan 68
58-0027 717-148 17772 25 Feb 59 13 Mar 59 1 Apr 59 2 Apr 59 5 Jul 90 KC-135R
58-0028 717-148 17773 27 Feb 59 17 Mar 59 1 Apr 59 2 Apr 59 7 Apr 93
58-0029 717-148 17774 2 Mar 59 18 Mar 59 7 Apr 59 8 Apr 59 2 Dec 92
58-0030 717-148 17775 3 Mar 59 19 Mar 59 8 Apr 59 10 Apr 59 29 Mar 90 KC-135R
58-0031 717-148 17776 5 Mar 59 24 Mar 59 15Apr59 16 Apr 59 19 Mar 82
58-0032 717-148 17777 6 Mar 59 24 Mar 59 10Apr59 14Apr59 12 Aug 83 KC-135E
58-0033 717-148 17778 10 Mar 59 26 Mar 59 22 Apr 59 24 Apr 59 9 Jul 92
58-0034 717-148 17779 11 Mar 59 27 Mar 59 27 Apr 59 1 May 59 22 Dec 92 KC-135R
KC-135A-12-BN 58-0035 717-148 17780 12 Mar 59 30 Mar 59 7 Apr 59 9 Apr 59 7 Jun 90 KC-135R
58-0036 717-148 17781 16 Mar 59 31 Mar 59 29 Apr 59 1 May 59 15 Oct 92 KC-135R
58-0037 717-148 17782 17 Mar 59 3 Apr 59 20 Apr 59 21 Apr 59 4 Dec 87 KC-135E
58-0038 717-148 17783 19 Mar 59 6 Apr 59 28 Apr 59 1 May 59 31 Jan 91 KC-135R
58-0039 717-148 17784 20 Mar 59 7 Apr 59 23 Apr 59 1 May 59 3 Jun 71 KC-135Q
58-0040 717-148 17785 23 Mar 59 9 Apr 59 30 Apr 59 7 May 59 16 Sep 83 KC-135E
58-0041 717-148 17786 25 Mar 59 10 Apr 59 '4 May 59 6 May 59 18 Aug 86 KC-135E
58-0042 717-148 17787 26 Mar 59 13 Apr 59 4 May 59 7 May 59 29 Nov 93 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0043 717-148 17788 27 Mar 59 15 Apr 59 4 May 59 6 May 59 29 Oct 82 KC-135E
58-0044 717-148 17789 31 Mar 59 17 Apr 59 6 May 59 8 May 59 14 Sep 90 KC-135E
58-0045 717-148 17790 1 Apr 59 17 Apr 59 13 May 59 16 May 59 21 Feb 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0046 717-148 17791 3 Apr 59 20 Apr 59 19 May 59 20 May 59 21 Jul95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0047 717-148 17792 6 Apr 59 23 Apr 59 21 May 59 26 May 59 11 Jan 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0048 717-148 17793 7 Apr 59 29 Apr 59 14 May 59 19 May 59 13 Mar 72
58-0049 717-148 17794 9 Apr 59 24 Apr 59 15 May 59 20 May 59 24 Apr 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0050 717-148 17795 9 Apr 59 1 May 59 21 May 59 21 May 59 11 Apr 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0051 717-148 17796 13 Apr 59 4 May 59 21 May 59 21 May 59 20 Apr 89 KC-135R
58-0052 717-148 17797 14 Apr 59 4 May 59 26 May 59 28 May 59 22 May 86 KC-135E
Jan 97 KC-135R
58-0053 717-148 17798 16 Apr 59 5 May 59 4 Jun 59 5 Jun 59 12 Sep 86 KC-135E
58-0054 717-148 17799 17 Apr 59 7 May 59 26 May 59 28 May 59 24 May 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0055 717-148 17800 21 Apr 59 8 May 59 28 May 59 2 Jun 59 28 Feb 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0056 717-148 17801 22 Apr 59 12 May 59 28 May 59 3 Jun 59 12 Nov 90 KC-135R
58-0057 717-148 17802 24 Apr 59 18 May 59 3 Jun 59 5 Jun 59 8 Nov 83 KC-135E
58-0058 717-148 17803 27 Apr 59 18 May 59 9 Jun 59 11 Jun 59 26 Aug 86 KC-135E
58-0059 717-148 17804 29 Apr 59 19 May 59 5 Jun 59 8 Jun 59 3 Nov 89 KC-135R
58-0060 717-148 17805 30 Apr 59 20 May 59 18 Jun 59 24 Jun 59 3 May 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0061 717-148 17806 4 May 59 21 May 59 12 Jun 59 16 Jun 59 4 Nov 93 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0062 717-148 17807 5 May 59 22 May 59 12 Jun 59 16 Jun 59 6 Jul 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0063 717-148 17808 7 May 59 26 May 59 12 Jun 59 16 Jun 59 7 Jan 92 KC-135R
58-0064 717-148 17809 8 May 59 27 May 59 23 Jun 59 30 Jun 59 15 Apr 86 KC-135E
KC-135A-13-BN 58-0065 717-148 17810 12 May 59 28 May 59 19 Jun 59 24 Jun 59 27 Dec 93 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0066 717-148 17811 13 May 59 2 Jun 59 17 Jun 59 19Jun59 24Feb93 KC-135R
58-0067 717-148 17812 15 May 59 5 Jun 59 24 Jun 59 25 Jun 59 26 Sep 83 KC-135E
58-0068 717-148 17813 18 May 59 5 Jun 59 30 Jun 59 7 Jul59 30 Aug 83 KC-135E
58-0069 717-148 17814 20 May 59 9 Jun 59 25 Jun 59 26 Jun 59 27 Sep 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0070 717-148 17815 21 May 59 10 Jun 59 30 Jun 59 7 Jul59 150ct92 GKC-135A
58-0071 717-148 17816 25 May 59 11 Jun 59 2 Jul59 7 Jul59 29 Aug 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0072 717-148 17817 26 May 59 15 Jun 59 7 Jul59 9 Jul59 29 Sep 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0073 717-148 17818 28 May 59 18 Jun 59 10 Jul59 14 Jul59 8 Mar 90 KC-135R
58-0074 717-148 17819 1 Jun 59 17 Jun 59 7 Jul59 14 Jul59 14 Nov 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0075 717-148 17820 3 Jun 59 19 Jun 59 13 Jul59 14 Jul59 20 Jun 91 KC-135R
58-0076 717-148 17821 5 Jun 59 22 Jun 59 27 Jul 59 29 Jul 59 1 Oct 90 KC-135R
58-0077 717-148 17822 8 Jun 59 24 Jun 59 23 Jul 59 24 Jul 59 14Mar95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0078 717-148 17823 9 Jun 59 26 Jun 59 14 Jul59 15 Jul59 22 Aug 83 KC-135E
58-0079 717-148 17824 11 Jun 59 30 Jun 59 22 Jul59 28 Jul 59 20 Feb 90 KC-135R
58-0080 717-148 17825 12Jun59 30 Jun 59 15Jul59 17 Jul59 5 Aug 82 KC-135E
58-0081 717-148 17826 16 Jun 59 1 Jul59 15Jul59 21 Jul59 16 Oct 92
58-0082 717-148 17827 17 Jun 59 6 Jul59 31 Jul59 6 Aug 59 12 Mar 86 KC-135E
58-0083 717-148 17828 19 Jun 59 8 Jul59 22 Jul59 24 Jul59 7 Dec 90 KC-135R
58-0084 717-148 17829 22 Jun 59 9 Jul 59 30 Jul59 4 Aug 59 13 Sep 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0085 717-148 17830 24 Jun 59 14 Jul59 29 Jul 59 4 Aug 59 24 Mar 86 KC-135E
Apr 97P KC-135R
58-0086 717-148 17831 26 Jun 59 16 Jul59 7 Aug 59 10 Aug 59 19 Jan 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0087 717-148 17832 30 Jun 59 21 Jul59 21 Aug 59 25 Aug 59 16 Jun 83 KC-135E
58-0088 717-148 17833 2 Jul59 22 Jul59 21 Aug 59 25 Aug 59 14 Apr 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0089 717-148 17834 7 Jul59 27 Jul59 21 Aug 59 26 Aug 59 24 Jan 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
58-0090 717-148 17835 9 Jul59 28 Jul 59 21 Aug 59 27 Aug 59 10 Jun 86 KC-135E
58-0091 717-148 17836 13 Jul 59 29 Jul59 21 Aug 59 28 Aug 59 18 Aug 93

180
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing C/no Roll-out Firstllight Delivered USAF Re-engined Altrited SUbsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

58-0092 717-148 17837 15 Jul59 4 Aug 59 21 Aug 59 26 Aug 59 7 Aug 92 KC-135R

58-0093 717-148 17838 20 Jul59 5 Aug 59 21 Aug 59 26 Aug 59 28 Sep 89 KC-135R
KC-135A-14-BN 58-0094 717-148 17839 21 Jul59 7 Aug 59 28 Aug 59 1 Sep 59 15 Feb 94 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0095 717-148 17840 23 Jul59 11 Aug 59 28 Aug 59 1 Sep 59 13 Dec 94 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0096 717-148 17841 27 Jul 59 17 Aug 59 28 Aug 59 2 Sep 59 18 Jan 85 KC-135E
58-0097 717-148 17842 30 Jul 59 18 Aug 59 31 Aug 59 2 Sep 59 8 Sep 92
58-0098 717-148 17843 31 Jul59 19 Aug 59 21 Sep 59 23 Sep 59 15 Jan 86 KC-135R
58-0099 717-148 17844 4 Aug 59 20 Aug 59 21 Sep 59 23 Sep 59 11 Nov 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0100 717-148 17845 7 Aug 59 24 Aug 59 21 Sep 59 23 Sep 59 7 Nov 89 KC-135R
58-0101 717-148 17846 10 Aug 59 27 Aug 59 21 Sep 59 25 Sep 59 29 Apr 77
58-0102 717-148 17847 12Aug59 1 Sep 59 21 Sep 59 24 Sep 59 14 Nov 91 KC-135R
58-0103 717-148 17848 14 Aug 59 2 Sep 59 21 Sep 59 23 Sep 59 8 Nov 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0104 717-148 17849 18Aug59 8 Sep 59 23 Sep 59 10c159 15 Jun 90 KC-135R
58-0105 717-148 17850 20 Aug 59 9 Sep 59 28 Sep 59 29 Sep 59 23 Aug 93 FMS
58-0106 717-148 17851 24 Aug 59 15 Sep 59 30 Sep 59 2 Oct 59 12 Feb 92 KC-135R
58-0107 717-148 17852 27 Aug 59 16Sep59 30 Sep 59 6 Oct 59 2 Sep 82 KC-135E
58-0108 717-148 17853 28 Aug 59 17Sep59 14 Oct 59 15 Oct 59 14 May 86 KC-135E
58-0109 717-148 17854 1 Sep 59 21 Sep 59 7 Oct 59 12 Oct 59 22 Aug 89 KC-135R
58-0110 717-148 17855 3 Sep 59 23 Sep 59 15 Oct 59 23 Oct 59 Jun 97 FMS to Turkey - KC-135R
58-0111 717-148 17856 4 Sep 59 24 Sep 59 8 Oct 59 140ct59 10 Feb 83 KC-135E
58-0112 717-148 17857 10 Sep 59 28 Sep 59 15 Oct 59 26 Oct 59 1 Feb 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0113 717-148 17858 11 Sep59 30 Sep 59 23 Oct 59 28 Oct 59 30 Jul 92 KC-135R
58-0114 717-148 17859 14 Sep 59 2 Oct 59 23 Oct 59 28 Oct 59 6 May 92 KC-135R
58-0115 717-148 17860 18 Sep 59 6 Oct 59 23 Oct 59 4 Nov 59 6 May 83 KC-135E
58-0116 717-148 17861 18 Sep 59 9 Oct 59 30 Oct 59 4 Nov 59 15 Od 90 KC-135E
58-0117 717-148 17862 24 Sep 59 14 Oct 59 3 Nov 59 4 Nov 59 5 Jul95 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0118 717-148 17863 28 Sep 59 15 Oct 59 4 Nov 59 6 Nov 59 3 Feb 92 KC-135R
58-0119 717-148 17864 30 Sep 59 19 Oct 59 13 Nov 59 19 Nov 59 21 Aug 92 KC-135R
58-0120 717-148 17865 2 Oct 59 22 Oct 59 10 Nov 59 12 Nov 59 28 Aug 85 KC-135R
58-0121 717-148 17866 6 Oct 59 27 Oct 59 17 Nov 59 20 Nov 59 26 Jan 93 KC-135R
58-0122 717-148 17867 8 Oct 59 28 Oct 59 18 Nov 59 20 Nov 59 8 Jan 91 KC-135R
58-0123 717-148 17868 12 Oct 59 30 Oct 59 23 Nov 59 25 Nov 59 12 Feb 91 KC-135R
58-0124 717-148 17869 14 Oct 59 4 Nov 59 25 Nov 59 3 Dec 59 12 May 89 [KC-135A) [KC-135R)
58-0125 717-148 17870 16 Oct 59 5 Nov 59 2 Dec 59 8 Dec 59 30 Nov 94 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0126 717-148 17871 22 Oct 59 10 Nov 59 7 Dec 59 8 Dec 59 23 Jan 89 (KC-135R) [KC-135A] [KC-135R)
58-0127 717-148 17872 27 Oct 59 12 Nov 59 2 Dec 59 4 Dec 59 19 Sep 79
58-0128 717-148 17873 30 Oct 59 17 Nov 59 28 Dec 59 31 Dec 59 2 Jul91 KC-135R
58-0129 717-148 17874 4 Nov 59 25 Nov 59 15Dec59 23 Dec 59 25 Oct 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
58-0130 717-148 17875 9 Nov 59 25 Nov 59 28 Dec 59 31 Dec 59 6 Dec 90 KC-135R
KC-135A-BN 58-0131 717-148 17876
to to Canceled
58-0157 717-148 17902
KC-135A-15-BN 59-1443 717-148 17931 12 Nov 59 8 Dec 59 30 Dec 59 5 Jan 60 27 Aug 85
59-1444 717-148 17932 16 Nov 59 8 Dec 59 30 Dec 59 5 Jan 60 19 Jun 89 KC-135R
59-1445 717-148 17933 23 Nov 59 16 Dec 59 7 Jan 60 9 Jan 60 27 Jan 86 KC-135E
59-1446 717-148 17934 25 Nov 59 16 Dec 59 8 Jan 60 14 Jan 60 25 Oct 85 KC-135R
59-1447 717-148 17935 2 Dec 59 18 Dec 59 11 Jan 60 14 Jan 60 23 Jul86 KC-135E
59-1448 717-148 17936 7 Dec 59 28 Dec 59 14 Jan 60 19 Jan 60 8 Oct 84 KC-135E
Dec 95 KC-135R
59-1449 717-148 17937 10 Dec 59 31 Dec 59 19 Jan 60 21 Jan 60 27 Aug 93 FMS
59-1450 717-148 17938 15 Dec 59 14 Jan 60 26 Jan 60 29 Jan 60 7 Aug 84 KC-135E
Feb 96 KC-135R
59-1451 717-148 17939 18 Dec 59 8 Jan 60 21 Jan 60 27 Jan 60 26 Jun 86 KC-135E
59-1452 717-148 17940 23 Dec 59 14 Jan 60 29 Jan 60 1 Feb 60 6 Feb 86 KC-135E
59-1453 717-148 17941 30 Dec 59 19 Jan 60 9 Feb 60 12Feb 60 5 Sep 85 KC-135R
59-1454 717-148 17942 5 Jan 60 22 Jan 60 8 Feb 60 9 Feb 60 1 Sep 93 FMS
59-1455 717-148 17943 8 Jan 60 27 Jan 60 11 Feb 60 12 Feb 60 23 Sep 85 KC-135R
59-1456 717-148 17944 13 Jan 60 3 Feb 60 16 Feb 60 17Feb 60 7 Jul83 KC-135E
59-1457 717-148 17945 18 Jan 60 3 Feb 60 12 Feb 60 16 Feb 60 27 Oct 83 KC-135E
59-1458 717-148 17946 21 Jan 60 11 Feb 60 19 Feb 60 24 Feb 60 31 Jul 85 KC-135R
59-1459 717-148 17947 26 Jan 60 11 Feb 60 26 Feb 60 29 Feb 60 7 Jan 86 KC-135R
59-1460 717-148 17948 29 Jan 60 16Feb60 25 Feb 60 26 Feb 60 20 Dec 94 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1461 717-148 17949 3 Feb 60 18Feb60 3 Mar 60 14 Mar 60 22 Mar 91 KC-135R
59-1462 717-148 17950 8 Feb 60 25 Feb 60 11 Mar 60 1 Apr 60 27 Sep 94 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1463 717-148 17951 11 Feb 60 26 Feb 60 11 Mar 60 30 Mar 60 13 Aug 90 KC-135R
59-1464 717-148 17952 16 Feb 60 2 Mar 60 11 Mar 60 1 Apr 60 20 Jun 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1465 717-148 17953 19 Feb 60 8 Mar 60 28 Mar 60 31 Mar 60 17Jul67 (KC-135A) (KC-135R)
59-1466 717-148 17954 24 Feb 60 11 Mar 60 31 Mar 60 1Apr 60 6 May 85 KC-135R
59-1467 717-148 17955 29 Feb 60 16 Mar 60 29 Mar 60 1Apr 60 9 Feb 94 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1468 717-148 17956 2 Mar 60 18 Mar 60 8 Apr 60 12 Apr 60 16Jun94 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1469 717-148 17957 8 Mar 60 23 Mar 60 8 Apr 60 14 Apr 60 11 Sep 90 KC-135R
59-1470 717-148 17958 11 Mar 60 28 Mar 60 15 Apr 60 15 Apr 60 4 Nov 94 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1471 717-148 17959 16 Mar 60 31 Mar 60 18 Apr 60 21 Apr 60 22 May 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1472 717-148 17960 22 Mar 60 7 Apr 60 15 Apr 60 19 Apr 60 7 May 90 KC-135R
KC-135A·16-BN 59-1473 717-148 17961 21 Mar 60 4 Apr 60 22 Apr 60 27 Apr 60 12 Nov 82 KC-135E
59-1474 717-148 17962 24 Mar 60 13Apr60 28 Apr 60 3 May 60 8 May 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1475 717-148 17983 29 Mar 60 18 Apr 60 4 May 60 6 May 60 13 Jan 89 KC-135R
59-1476 717-148 17964 1 Apr 60 21 Apr 60 10 May 60 11 May 60 5 Jun 90 KC-135R
59-1477 717-148 17965 6 Apr 60 25 Apr 60 18 May 60 19 May 60 2 Jun B6 KC-135E
59-1478 717-148 17966 11 Apr 60 26 Apr 60 18 May 60 19 May 60 30 Apr 86 KC-135R
59-1479 717-148 17967 14 Apr 60 29 Apr 60 17 May 60 19 May 60 28 Feb 83 KC-l35E
59-1480 717-148 17968 19 Apr 60 4 May 60 18 May 60 18 May 60 22 Nov 95 KC-1350 KC-135T
59-1481 717-148 17969 22 Apr 60 10 May 60 20 May 60 1 Jun 60 KC-135A
59-1482 717-148 17970 27 Apr 60 13 May 60 2 Jun 60 3 Jun 60 13May85 KC-135R
59-1483 717-148 17971 2 May 60 18 May 60 1 Jun 60 3 Jun 60 14 Jun 89 KC-135R
59-1484 717-148 17972 5 May 60 20 May 60 8 Jun 60 10Jun60 11 Mar 83 KC-135E
59-1485 717-148 17973 10 May 60 25 May 60 13 Jun 60 14 Jun 60 19 Oct 83 KC-135E
59-1486 717-148 17974 13 May 60 31 May 60 8 Jun 60 10 Jun 60 7 Jun 93 KC-135R
59-1487 717-148 17975 18 May 60 6 Jun 60 17 Jun 60 22 Jun 60 25 Jul 83 KC-135E
59-1488 717-148 17976 23 May 60 8 Jun 60 24 Jun 60 25 Jun 60 13 Mar 92 KC-135R

181
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing C/no RolI·out First flight Delivered USAF Re·engined Attrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

59-1489 717-148 17977 26 May 60 13 Jun 60 23 Jun 60 24 Jun 60 8 Feb 83 KC-135E

59-1490 717-148 17978 1 Jun 60 17 Jun 60 1Jul60 1 Jul60 22 Dec 95 KC-l35Q KC-135T
59-1491 717-148 17979 6 Jun 60 21 Jun 60 5 Jul60 6 Jul60 13Jan69 JKC-135A RC-135S
59-1492 717-148 17980 9 Jun 60 24 Jun 60 13 Jul60 14 Jul60 16 Oct 90 KC-135R
59-1493 717-148 17981 14 Jun 60 29 Jun 60 13 Jul60 15 Jul60 12 Jan 88 KC-135E
59-1494 717-148 17982 17 Jun 60 6 Jul60 14 Jul60 22 Jul60 26 Oct 84 11 Jan 90 KC-135E
59-1495 717-148 17983 22 Jun 60 12 Jul60 25 Jul60 26 Jul60 8 Apr 86 KC-135R
59-1496 717-148 17984 27 Jun 60 14 Jul 60 25 Jul60 26 Jul60 1Apr 91 KC-135E
59-1497 717-148 17985 30 Jun 60 19 Jul 60 3 Aug 60 4 Aug 60 8 Jul83 KC-135E
59-1498 717-148 17986 6 Jul60 22 Jul 60 2 Aug 60 5 Aug 60 2 Aug 89 KC-135R
59-1499 717-148 17987 11 Jul60 27 Jul60 10 Aug 60 11 Aug 60 11 Jun84 KC-135E
Jan 96 KC-135R
59-1500 717-148 17988 14 Jul 60 29 Jul60 10 Aug 60 11 Aug 60 11 May 93 KC-135R
59-1501 717-148 17969 19 Jul60 3 Aug 60 12 Aug 60 17 Aug 60 11 Mar 92 KC-135R
59-1502 717-148 17990 22 Jul60 8 Aug 60 19 Aug 60 22 Aug 60 12 Jun 92 KC-135R
KC-135A-17-BN 59-1503 717-148 17991 27 Jul60 11 Aug 60 24 Aug 60 26 Aug 60 30 Oct 87 KC-135E
59-1504 717-148 17992 1 Aug 60 17 Aug 60 2 Sep 60 9 Sep 60 6 Jun 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
59-1505 717-148 17993 4 Aug 60 19 Aug 60 7 Sep 60 8 Sep 60 23 Aug 84 KC-135E
Feb 96 KC-135R
59-1506 717-148 17994 9 Aug 60 24 Aug 60 9 Sep 60 14 Sep 60 2 Aug 83 KC-135E
59-1507 717-148 17995 12 Aug 60 1 Sep 60 13 Sep 60 15 Sep 60 26 Aug 92 KC-135R
59-1508 717-148 17996 17 Aug 60 8 Sep 60 19 Sep 60 20 Sep 60 9 Oct 92 KC-135R
59-1509 717-148 17997 22 Aug 60 13 Sep 60 21 Sep 60 23 Sep 60 31 Oct 84 KC-135E
Mar 96 KC-135R
59-1510 717-148 17998 25 Aug 60 15Sep60 23 Sep 60 23 Sep 60 17 Aug 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
59-1511 717-148 17999 30 Aug 60 20 Sep 60 3 Oct 60 5 Oct 60 1 Dec 86 KC-135R
59-1512 717-148 18000 2 Sep 60 23 Sep 60 3 Oct 60 4 Oct 60 28 Mar 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
59-1513 717-148 18001 8 Sep 60 28 Sep 60 10 Oct 60 11 Oct 60 21 Mar 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
59-1514 717-148 18002 13 Sep 60 4 Oct 60 18 Oct 60 20 Oct 60 30 Jan 82 (KC-135A) (KC-135R) [KC-135A] [KC-135E]
59-1515 717-148 18003 16 Sep 60 7 Oet 60 17 Oct 60 20 Oct 60 30 Jul85 KC-135R
59-1516 717-148 18004 21 Sep 60 12 Oet 60 26 Oct 60 28 Oct 60 3 Nov 87 KC-135E
Dec 95 KC-135R
59-1517 717-148 18005 26 Sep 60 13 Oct 60 25 Oct 60 28 Oct 60 4 Nov 85 KC-135R
59-1518 717-148 18006 29 Sep 60 14 Oct 60 19 Oct 60 20 Oct 60 24 Apr 82 KC-135A EG-135K C-135K
59-1519 717-148 18007 4 Oct 60 25 Oet 60 3 Nov 60 8 Nov 60 14 Dec 82 KC-135E
59-1520 717-148 18008 7 Oct 60 27 Oct 60 3 Nov 60 7 Nov 60 1Aug 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
59-1521 717-148 18009 17 Oct 60 4 Nov 60 17 Nov 60 17 Nov 60 27 Mar 87 KC-135R
59-1522 717-148 18010 12 Oct 60 1 Nov 60 14 Nov 60 14 Nov 60 30 Sep 92 KC-135R
59-1523 717-148 18011 20 Oct 60 11 Nov 60 • 21 Nov 60 22 Nov 60 3 Jun 94 KC-135Q KG-135T
KC-135A-18-BN 6(}.()313 717-148 18088 2 Nov 60 22 Nov 60 29 Nov 60 1 Dec 60 23 Dec 87 KC-135R
60-0314 717-148 18089 28 Oct 60 22 Nov 60 30 Nov 60 9 Dec 60 23 May 89 KC-135R
60-0315 717-148 18090 30 Nov 60 20 Dec 60 29 Dec 60 30 Dec 60 11 Aug 89 KC-135R
60-0316 717-148 18091 7 Nov 60 29 Nov 60 7 Dec 60 12 Dec 60 18 Mar 91 KC-135E
60-0317 717-148 18092 10 Nov 60 5 Dec 60 16 Dec 60 20 Dec 60 110et88
60-0318 717-148 18093 15 Nov 60 12 Dec 60 19 Dec 60 20 Dec 60 14 Aug 92 KC-135R
60-0319 717-148 18094 18 Nov 60 13 Dec 60 21 Dec 60 22 Dec 60 29 Jun 92 KC-135R
60-0320 717-148 18095 23 Nov 60 20 Dec 60 28 Dec 60 30 Dec 60 21 Oct 91 KG-135R
60-0321 717-148 18096 28 Dec 60 18 Jan 61 25 Jan 61 27 Jan 61 14 Sep 85 KC-135R
60-0322 717-148 18097 5 Dec 60 10 Jan 61 18 Jan 61 20 Jan 61 30 Sep 86 KC-135R
60-0323 717-148 18098 8 Dec 60 6 Jan 61 13 Jan 61 16 Jan 61 27 Jun 89 KC-135R
60-0324 717-148 18099 13 Dec 60 6 Jan 61 12 Jan 61 13 Jan 61 15 Mar 91 KC-135R
60-0325 717-148 18100 16 Dec 60 12 Jan 61 18 Jan 61 1 Feb 61 FMS to Turkey
60-0326 717-148 18101 21 Dec 60 16 Jan 61 31 Jan 61 2 Feb 61 FMS to Turkey
60-0327 717-148 18102 24 Jan 61 16 Feb 61 28 Feb 61 3 Mar 61 14 May 91 KC-135E
60-0328 717-148 18103 3 Jan 61 24 Jan 61 2 Feb 61 3 Feb 61 10 Dec 91 KC-135R
60-0329 717-148 18104 6 Jan 61 26 Jan 61 6 Feb 61 8 Feb 61 10 Mar 86 KC-135R
60-0330 717-148 18105 11 Jan 61 2 Feb 61 9 Feb 61 15 Feb 61 13 Feb 87
60-0331 717-148 18106 16 Jan 61 7 Feb 61 27 Feb 61 3 Mar 61 30 Mar 89 KC-135R
60-0332 717-148 18107 19 Jan 61 8 Feb 61 28 Feb 61 2 Mar 61 28 Apr 92 KC-135R
60-0333 717-148 18108 17 Feb 61 13 Mar61 22 Mar 61 23 Mar 61 11 Aug 89 KC-135R
60-0334 717-148 18109 27 Jan 61 22 Feb 61 3 Mar 61 6 Mar 61 19 Sep 89 KC-135R
60-0335 717-148 18110 1 Feb 61 22 Feb 61 14 Mar 61 15 Mar 61 11 Aug 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0336 717-148 18111 6 Feb 61 28 Feb 61 9 Mar 61 10 Mar 61 14 Jul94 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0337 717-148 18112 9 Feb 61 1 Mar 61 13 Mar 61 14 Mar 61 21 Mar 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0338 717-148 18113 14 Feb 61 3Mar61 16 Mar 61 17 Mar 61 8 Feb 80 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0339 717-148 18114 17 Feb 61 8 Mar 61 3 Apr 61 4Apr61 20 May 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0340 717-148 18115 22 Feb 61 14 Mar 61 3 Apr 61 4Apr61 8 Jul64
60-0341 717-148 18116 27 Feb 61 17 Mar 61 3Apr61 5Apr61 26 Jun 87 KC-135R
60-0342 717-148 18117 2 Mar 61 22 Mar 61 4Apr61 6 Apr 61 15 Aug 95 KC-135Q KC-l35T
KC-135A-19-BN 60-0343 717-148 18118 7 Mar 61 27 Mar 61 12 Apr 61 13Apr61 18 Nov 93 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0344 717-148 18119 10 Mar 61 31 Mar 61 18Apr61 18Apr61 20 Oct 94 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0345 717-148 18120 15 Mar 61 7 Apr 61 9 May 61 12 May 61 8 Dec 95 KC-135Q KC-135T
60-0348 717-148 18121 20 Mar 61 11 Apr 61 3 May 61 5 May 61 26 Jul 94 KC-135Q KG-135T
6(}.()347 717-148 18122 23 Mar 61 24 Apr 61 4 May 61 8 May 61 27 Feb 86 KC-135R
60-0348 717-148 18123 28 Mar 61 19Apr 61 2 May 61 3 May 61 4 Mar 92 KC-135R
60-0349 717-148 18124 23 Jun 61 17 Jul61 11 Sep 61 11 Sep 61 5 Jul91 KC-l35R
60-0350 717-148 18125 5 Apr 61 26 Apr 61 15 May 61 15May61 4 Oct 91 KC-135R
60-0351 717-148 18126 10Apr61 28 Apr 61 12 May 61 12May61 8 Aug 91 KC-135R
60-0352 717-148 18127 13 Apr 61 3 May 61 1 Jun 61 1 Jun 61 10 Sep 62
60-0353 717-148 18128 18Apr61 8 May 61 1 Jun 61 5 Jun 61 9 May 86 KC-135R
60-0354 717-148 18129 21 Apr61 11 May 61 1 Jun 61 5 Jun 61 7 Dec 75
60-0355 717-148 18130 26 Apr 61 16 May 61 6 Jun 61 7 Jun 61 8 Apr 93 KC-135R
60-0356 717-148 18131 1 May 61 19 May 61 2 Jun 61 9 Jun 61 5 Jan 89 C-135A KC-135A-1I RC-135D [KC-135A]
[KC-135R]
60-0357 717-148 18132 4 May 61 24 May 61 6 Jun 61 9 Jun 61 5 Jul 88 C-135A KC-135A-1I RC-135D [KC-135A]
(KC-135R]
60-0358 717-148 18133 9 May 61 29 May 61 3 Jul61 6 Jul61 19 Dec 91 KC-135R
60-0359 717-148 18134 12 May 61 2 Jun 61 3 Jul61 10 Jul61 14 Jul86 KC-135R
60-0360 717-148 18135 17 May 61 7 Jun 61 10 Jul61 11 Jul61 23 Mar 89 KC-135R
60-0361 717-148 18136 22 May 61 12 Jun 61 5 Jul61 11 Jul61 13 Mar 87
60-0362 717-148 18137 25 May 61 14 Jun 61 5 Jul61 5 Jul61 27 May 88 C-135A KC-135A-11 RC-135D [KC-135A]
[KC-135R]
182
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing Clno Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Attrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

60-0363 717-148 18138 31 May 61 20 Jun 61 3 Aug 61 3 Aug 61 24 Sep 91 KC-135R

60-0364 717-148 18139 5 Jun 61 22 Jun 61 3 Aug 61 3 Aug 61 23 Aug 88 KC-135R
60-0365 717-148 18140 29 Jun 61 19Jul61 30et61 6 Oct 61 20 Jan 86 KC-l35R
60-0366 717-148 18141 13 Jun 61 30 Jun 61 3 Aug 61 3 Aug 61 8 May 89 KC-135R
60-0367 717-148 18142 16 Jun 61 6 Jul61 1 Sep 61 5 Sep 61 4 Oct 85 KC-135R
60-0368 717-148 18143 21 Jun 61 13 Jul61 7 Sep 61 8 Sep 61 6 Feb 76
G-135A-{)1-BN 60-0369 717-157 18144 14 Jun 61 23 Jun 61 6 Oct 61 60ct61 9 Jun 76 NC-135A GNC-135A
60-0370 717-157 18145 3 Jul61 20 Jul 61 11 Aug 61 12 Aug 61 6 Sep 78 NC-135A
60-0371 717-157 18146 18 Jul61 9 Aug 61 23 Aug 61 23 Aug 61 12 Aug 94 NC-135A
60-0372 717-157 18147 1 Aug 61 24 Aug 61 31 Aug 61 31 Aug 61 24 May 82 EC-135N C-135N C-l35E
60-0373 717-157 18146 14 Aug 61 5 Sep 61 15 Sep 61 15 Sep 61 25 Jun 65
60-0374 717-157 18149 24 Aug 61 15 Sep 61 22 Sep 61 25 Sep 61 10 Apr 82 EC-135N EC-135E
60-0375 717-157 18150 7 Sep 61 22 Sep 61 28 Sep 61 28 Sep 61 3 May 82 EC-135N C-135N C-l35E
60-0376 717-157 18151 13 Sep 61 11 Oct 61 27 Oct 61 30 Oct 61 17 Apr 82 VC-l35A C-135A C-135E
60-0377 717-157 18152 22 Sep 61 12 Oct 61 31 Oct 61 1 Nov 61 15 Dec 95
60-0378 717-157 18153 28 Sep 61 17 Oct 61 1 Nov 61 3 Nov 61 23 Jul93 VC-135A C-135A
KC-135A-BN 60-0379 717-148 nja
to Canceled
60-0408 717-148 n/a
KC-135A-19-BN 61-0261 717-148 18168 10 Jul61 31 Jul61 60ct61 IOOct61 29 May 92 {KC-135A} EC-135L
61-0262 717-148 18169 13 Jul61 2 Aug 61 23 Jan 62 26 Jan 62 30 Mar 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A
61-0263 717-148 18170 18 Jul61 8 Aug 61 15 Oct 61 180ct61 5 May 92 {KC-135A} EC-135L
61-0264 717-148 18171 21 Jul61 16Aug61 8 Nov 61 8 Nov 61 18 Jul 89 KC-135R
61-0265 717-148 18172 31 Jul61 25 Aug 61 15 Nov 61 16 Nov 61 4 Jan 65
61-0266 717-148 18173 3 Aug 61 29 Aug 61 17 Nov 61 21 Nov 61 24 Oct 91 KC-135R
61-0267 717-148 18174 16 Aug 61 8 Sep 61 27 Nov 61 27 Nov 61 27 Nov 91 KC-135R
61-0268 717-148 18175 21 Aug 61 14 Sep 61 28 Nov 61 30 Nov 61 4 Sep 90 KC-135A-VIII KC-135A KC-135E
61-0269 717-148 18176 5 Sep 61 26 Sep 61 8 Dec 61 8 Dec 61 29 Jun 92 {KC-135A} EC-135L
61-0270 717-148 18177 12 Sep 61 29 Sep 61 18 Dec 61 20 Dec 61 12 Jun 90 KC-135A-VIII KC-135A KC-135E
61-0271 717-148 18178 15 Sep 61 20 Oct 61 20 Dec 61 21 Dec 61 26 Apr 90 KC-135A-VIII KC-135A KC-135E
61-{)272 717-148 18179 20ct61 24 Oct 61 28 Dec 61 9 Jan 62 21 Jul 87 KC-135R
61-{)273 717-148 18180 100ct61 1 Nov 61 28 Dec 61 29 Dec 61 17 Jan 66
61-{)274 717-148 18181 190ct61 17 Nov 61 4 Jan 62 8 Jan 62 16 Mar 82 27 Feb 92 {KC-135A} EC-135H EC-135P
61-0275 717-148 18182 27 Oct 61 22 Nov 61 11 Jan 62 12Jan62 23 May 89 KC-135R
61-0276 717-148 18183 6 Nov 61 1 Dec 61 16Jan62 19Jan62 30 Jul 85 KC-l35R
61-0277 717-148 18184 13 Nov 61 12 Dec 61 16Jan62 19Jan62 3 Sep 87 KC-135R
KC-135A-2Q-BN 61-0278 717-146 18185 20 Nov 61 21 Dec 61 1 Feb 62 2 Feb 62 18 Sep 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A
61-0279 717-148 18168 27 Nov 61 26 Dec 61 1 Feb 62 6 Feb 62 22 May 92 {KC-135A} EC-135L
61-{)280 717-148 18187 3 Dec 61 29 Dec 61 2 Feb 62 8 Feb 62 22 May 90 KC-135A-VIII KC-135A KC-135E
KC-l35R
61-{)281 717-148 18188 7 Dec 61 4 Jan 62 8 Feb 62 12 Feb 62 15 Feb 91 {KC-l35A} EC-l35L {KC-135A}
EC-l35L KC-135A KG-135E
61-{)282 717-148 18189 12 Dec 61 9 Jan 62 12 Feb 62 13 Feb 62 15 Jun 82 15 Nov 91 {KC-l35A} EC-135A EG-135H GEC-l35H
61-0283 717-148 18190 14 Dec 61 10Jan62 1 Mar 62 2 Mar 62 6 May 92 {KC-l35A} EC-135L
61-0284 717-148 18191 18 Dec 61 16Jan62 1 Mar 62 5 Mar 62 30 Jul 91 KC-135R
61-0285 717-148 18192 21 Dec 61 18 Jan 62 12 Mar 62 12 Mar 62 6 Apr 82 9 Mar 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A EC-135H
61-0286 717-148 18193 27 Dec 61 23 Jan 62 6 Mar 62 9 Mar 62 10 May 82 22 Jan 92 EC-135H GEC-135H
61-0287 717-148 18194 2Jan 62 29 Jan 62 12 Mar 62 28 Mar 62 10 Feb 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A
61-0288 717-148 18195 5 Jan 62 31 Jan 62 2 Apr 62 4 Apr 62 29 Jun 92 {KC-135A} EG-135L {KC-135A}
EC-135L KC-135A KC-135R
61-0289 717-148 18196 12 Jan 62 9 Feb 62 11 Apr 62 11 Apr 62 8 Jun 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A
61-0290 717-148 18197 16 Jan 62 12 Feb 62 9 Apr 62 11 Apr 62 21 Jan 88 KC-135R
61-0291 717-148 18198 19 Jan 62 13 Feb 62 13 Apr 62 20 Apr 62 8 Jun 82 30 May 91 {KC-135A} EC-135H
61-0292 717-148 18199 27 Jan 62 19 Feb 62 19 Mar 62 23 Mar 62 12 Jan 87 KC-135R
61-0293 717-148 18200 3 Feb 62 23 Feb 62 4 May 62 7 May 62 29 Jun 84 {KC-135A} EC-135A [KC-135A] [KC-135R]
61-0294 717-148 18201 9 Feb 62 5 Mar 62 18Jun62 19 Jun 62 10 Feb 87 KC-135R
61-0295 717-148 18202 20 Feb 62 12Mar62 4 May 62 7 May 62 12 Oct 87 KC-135R
61-0296 717-148 18203 1 Mar 62 28 Mar 62 4 May 62 7 May 62 26 Sep 76
61-0297 717-148 18204 13 Mar 62 9 Apr 62 9 May 62 11 May 62 2 Jun 92 {KC-135A} EC-135A
61-0298 717-148 18205 22 May 62 19 Apr 62 15 May 62 16May62 18 Nov 86 KC-135R
61-0299 717-148 18206 3 Apr 62 30 Apr 62 9 May 62 9 May 62 22 Jan 88 KC-135R
61-0300 717-148 18207 12 Apr 62 8 May 62 5 Jun 62 8Jun 62 16 Apr 90 KC-135R
61-0301 717-148 18208 25 Apr 62 29 May 62 8 Jun 62 8 Jun 62 22 Oct 68
61-{)302 717-148 18209 3 May 62 1 Jun 62 13 Jun 62 14 Jun 62 15 May 90 {KC-135A} EC-135L KC-135A KG-135R
KC-135A-21-BN 61-0303 717-148 18210 17 May 63 8 Jun 62 2 Jul62 2 Jul62 1 Jun 90 KC-135A-VIII KC-135A KC-135E
Mar 97 KC-l35R
61-0304 717-148 18211 28 May 62 15 Jun 62 28 Jun 62 29 Jun 62 27 Nov 84 KC-135R
61-0305 717-148 18212 6 Jun 62 21 Jun 62 13 Jul62 16 Jul62 10 May 88 KC-135R
61-0306 717-148 18213 8 Jun 62 26 Jun 62 10 Jul62 12 Jul62 12 Feb 65 KC-135R
61-0307 717-148 18214 14 Jun 62 3 Jul 62 18 Jul62 18Jul62 21 Sep 84 KC-135R
61-0308 717-148 18215 16 Jun 62 10 Jul62 19 Jul62 23 Jul62 26 Mar 85 KC-135R
61-0309 717-148 18216 22 Jun 62 12Jul62 20 Jul 62 23 Jul62 29 Mar 85 KC-135R
61-0310 717-148 18217 26 Jun 62 18 Jul62 25 Jul 62 28 Jul62 190ctB4 KC-135R
61-0311 717-148 18218 2 Jul62 31 Jul62 6 Aug 62 8 Aug 62 22 Apr 85 KC-135R
61-0312 717-148 18219 7 Jul62 6 Aug 62 9 Aug 62 14 Aug 62 27 Jun 85 KC-135R
61-0313 717-148 18220 17 Jul62 10Aug62 17 Aug 62 20 Aug 62 28 Jan 85 KC-135R
61-{)314 717-148 18221 20 Jul62 16Aug62 27 Aug 62 27 Aug 62 8 Feb B6 KC-135R
61-{)315 717-148 18222 25 Jul62 22 Aug 62 29 Aug 62 29 Aug 62 7 Nov B4 KC-135R
61-{)315 717-148 18223 31 Jul62 22 Aug 62 30 Aug 62 5 Sep 62 19 Mar 85 {KC-135A} KG-135A
61-{)317 717-148 18224 2 Aug 62 28 Aug 62 4 Sep 62 5 Sep 62 19 Mar 85 KC-135R
61-0318 717-148 18225 9 Aug 52 31 Aug 62 12 Sep 62 12 Sep 62 20 Dec B4 KC-135R
61-0319 717-148 18226 10 Aug 62 6 Sep 62 6 Sept 62 6 Sep 62 28 Aug 63
61-0320 717-148 18227 13 Aug 62 12 Sep 62 18 Sept 62 19 Sep 62 2 Jul91 KC-135R
61-0321 717-148 18228 20 Aug 62 14 Sep 62 21 Sep 62 21 Sep 62 31 Jul 90 KC-135A-VIII KC-135A KC-135R
61-0322 717-148 18229 23 Aug 62 17 Sep 62 24 Sep 62 25 Sep 62 28 Aug 63
61-0323 717-148 18230 24 Aug 62 20 Sep 62 25 Sep 62 25 Sep 62 18 Jan 90 KC-135R
61-0324 717-148 18231 28 Aug 62 25 Sep 62 28 Sep 62 3 Oct 62 15 Jan 85 KC-135R
61-0325 717-148 18232 28 Aug 62 27 Sep 62 4 Oct 62 5 Oct 62 29 Sep 93 FMS

183
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing C/n Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Allrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

C-135A-02-BN 61-0326 717-157 18233 11 Oct 61 3 Nov 61 16 Nov 61 17 Nov 61 14 Nov 84 EC-135N EC-135E
61-0327 717-157 18234 160ct61 13 Nov 61 29 Nov 61 29 Nov 61 28 Feb 86 EC-135N C-135N {EC-135N}
61-0328 717-157 18235 24 Oct 61 14 Nov 61 1 Dec 61 6 Dec 61 6 May 81 EC-135N
61-0329 717-157 18236 1 Nov 61 1 Dec 61 11 Dec 61 12 Dec 61 2 Dec 83 Jun 96 EC-135N EC-135E
61-0330 717-157 18237 9 Nov 61 14 Dec 61 2 Jan 62 3 Jan 62 20 Mar 82 EC-135N EC-135E
C-135B-01-BN 61-0331 717-158 18238 4 Dec 61 20 Dec 61 31 Jan 62 9 Oct 62 13 Jun 71 'C-135B'
61-0332 717-158 18239 9 Jan 62 2 Feb 62 2 Feb 62 27 Apr 62 11 May 64
C-135B-02-BN 61-2662 717-158 18292 25 Jan 62 15 Feb 62 28 Feb 62 1 Mar 62 'C-135B'RC-135S
61-2663 717-158 18333 31 Jan 62 26 Feb 62 23 Mar 62 24 Mar 62 'C-135B' RC-135S
61-2664 717-158 18340 8 Feb 62 9 Mar 62 28 Mar 62 28 Mar 62 15 Mar 81 'C-135B' RC-135S
61-2665 717-158 18341 13 Feb 62 16 Mar 62 29 Mar 62 29 Mar 62 WC-135B WC-135W
C-135B-03-BN 61-2666 717-158 18342 15 Feb 62 21 Mar 62 30 Mar 62 30 Mar 62 WC-135B WC-135W
61-2667 717-158 18343 22 Feb 62 22 Mar 62 20 Apr 62 20 Apr 62 WC-135B TC-135B WC-135W
61-2668 717-158 18344 27 Feb 62 29 Mar 62 20 Apr 62 20 Apr 62 96 WC-135B C-135B C-135C
61-2669 717-158 18345 7 Mar 62 11 Apr 62 24 Apr 62 25 Apr 62 WC-135B C-135B C-135C
61-2670 717-158 18346 9 Mar 62 18Apr62 25 Apr 62 26 Apr 62 WC-135B OC-135B
61-2671 717-158 18347 15 Mar 62 25 Apr 62 27 Apr 62 28 Apr 62 30 Oct 91 WC-135B C-135B C-135C
61-2672 717-158 18348 20 Mar 62 27 Apr 62 30 Apr 62 30 Apr 62 WC-135B OC-135B
61-2673 717-158 18349 27 Mar 62 7 May 62 16 May 62 16 May 62 28 Sep 93 WC-135B
61-2674 717-158 18350 29 Mar 62 11 May 62 18 May 62 18 May 62 WC-135B OC-135B
KC-135A-22-BN 62-3497 717-148 18480 31 Aug 62 28 Sep 62 8 Oct 62 8 Oct 62 FMS to France
62-3498 717-148 18481 4 Sept 62 5 Oct 62 12 Oct 62 12 Oct 62 24 Feb 92 KC-135R
62-3499 717-148 18482 7 Sep 62 8 Oct 62 12 Oct 62 15 Oct 62 1Apr 86 KC-135R
62-3500 717-148 18483 13 Sep 62 120ct62 18 Oct 62 19 Oct 62 16 Apr 87 KC-135R
62-3501 717-148 18484 14 Sep 62 150ct62 22 Oct 62 22 Oct 62 7 Jul 93
62-3502 717-148 18485 21 Sep 62 17 Oct 62 25 Oct 62 25 Oct 62 2 Dec 92 KC-135R
62-3503 717-148 18486 24 Sep 62 19 Oct 62 25 Oct 62 25 Oct 62 26 Feb 92 KC-135R
62-3504 717-148 18487 28 Sep 62 24 Oct 62 27 Oct 62 27 Oct 62 19 Jun 86 KC-135R
62-3505 717-148 18488 28 Sep 62 26 Oct 62 29 Oct 62 29 Oct 62 22 Aug 91 KC-135R
62-3506 717-148 18489 3 Oct 62 27 Oct 62 30 Oct 62 30 Oct 62 26 Jan 87 KC-135R
62-3507 717-148 18490 5 Oct 62 1 Nov 62 6 Nov 62 7 Nov 62 21 Apr 87 KC-135R
62-3508 717-148 18491 9 Oct 62 5 Nov 62 12 Nov 62 14 Nov 62 2 Jul87 KC-135R
62-3509 717-148 18492 12 Oct 62 7 Nov 62 13 Nov 62 13 Nov 62 29 Jan 92 KC-135R
62-3510 717-148 18493 16 Oct 62 12 Nov 62 15 Nov 62 16 Nov 62 14Aug87 ' KC-135R
62-3511 717-148 18494 19 Oct 62 14 Nov 62 19 Nov 62 19 Nov 62 9 Jun 87 KC-135R
62-3512 717-148 18495 23 Oct 62 20 Nov 62 5 Dec 62 5 Dec 62 26 Nov 91 KC-135R
62-3513 717-148 18496 26 Oct 62 21 Nov 62 .6Dec62 7 Dec 62 10 Nov 88 KC-135R
62-3514 717-148 18497 30 Oct 62 28 Nov 62 3 Dec 62 4 Dec 62 26 Aug 88 KC-135R
62-3515 717-148 18498 2 Nov 62 3 Dec 62 11 Dec 62 12 Dec 62 1Aug 88 KC-135R
62-3516 717-148 18499 6 Nov 62 7 Dec 62 12 Dec 62 13 Dec 62 20 Jul88 KC-135R [F-UKAS]
62-3517 717-148 18500 9 Nov 62 12 Dec 62 18 Dec 62 20 Dec 62 18 Dec 92 KC-135R
62-3518 717-148 18501 13 Nov 62 13 Dec 62 19 Dec 62 20 Dec 62 30 May 91 KC-135R
62-3519 717-148 18502 16 Nov 62 20 Dec 62 26 Dec 62 27 Dec 62 8 Dec 87 KC-135R
KC-135A-23-BN 62-3520 717-148 18503 20 Nov 62 20 Dec 62 4 Jan 63 7 Jan 63 10 Sep 91 KC-135R
62-3521 717-148 18504 27 Nov 62 27 Dec 62 4 Jan 63 15 Jan 63 22 Aug 90 KC-135R
62-3522 717-148 18505 29 Nov 62 2 Jan 63 7 Jan 63 8 Jan 63 4 Mar 77
62-3523 717-148 18506 4 Dec 62 10 Jan 63 17 Jan 63 18 Jan 63 5 Mar 86 KC-135R
62-3524 717-148 18507 6 Dec 62 9 Jan 63 15 Jan 63 16 Jan 63 8 May 91 KC-135R
62-3525 717-148 18508 11 Dec 62 10 Jan 63 17 Jan 63 17 Jan 63 Feb 97 FMS to France - KC-135R
62-3526 717-148 18509 13 Dec 62 2 Jan 63 18 Jan 63 21 Jan 63 10 Feb 92 KC-135R
62-3527 717-148 18510 18 Dec 62 17 Jan 63 18 Jan 63 18 Jan 63 31 Jul91 KC-135E
62-3528 717-148 18511 20 Dec 62 22 Jan 63 1 Feb 63 4 Feb 63 28 Aug 93 KC-135R
62-3529 717-148 18512 27 Dec 62 25 Jan 63 5 Feb 63 6 Feb 63 18 Oct 92 KC-135R
62-3530 717-148 18513 2 Jan 63 30 Jan 63 ?Feb 63 8 Feb 63 3 Jul86 KC-135R
62-3531 717-148 18514 4 Jan 63 5 Feb 63 8 Feb 63 11 Feb 63 10 Aug 87 KC-135R
62-3532 717-148 18515 8 Jan 63 11 Feb 63 26 Feb 63 27 Feb 63 5 Aug 93
62-3533 717-148 18516 13 Jan 63 12 Feb 63 26 Feb 63 28 Feb 63 8 Jul 85 KC-135R
62-3534 717-148 18517 15 Jan 63 14 Jan 63 26 Feb 63 28 Feb 63 8 Aug 86 KC-135R
62-3535 717-148 18518 18 Jan 63 20 Feb 63 28 Feb 63 4 Mar 63 6 Apr 70 'KC-135A'
62-3536 717-148 18519 22 Jan 63 27 Feb 63 28 Feb 63 11 Mar 63 14Sep77 'KC-135A' EC-135K
62-3537 717-148 18520 25 Jan 63 26 Feb 63 6 Mar 63 8 Mar 63 21 Mar 88 KC-135R
62-3538 717-148 18521 30 Jan 63 28 Feb 63 12 Mar 63 12 Mar 63 31 Jul 92 KC-135R
62-3539 717-148 18522 1 Feb 63 4 Mar 63 8 Mar 63 9 Mar 63 FMS to Turkey
62-3540 717-148 18523 5 Feb 63 7 Mar 63 21 Mar 63 25 Mar 63 24 Oct 85 KC-135R
62-3541 717-148 18524 8 Feb 63 11 Mar 63 13 Mar 63 15 Mar 63 7 Sep 89 KC-135R
62-3542 717-148 18525 12 Feb 63 13 Mar 63 18 Mar 63 20 Mar 63 26 May 88 KC-135R
62-3543 717-148 18526 15 Feb 63 20 Mar 63 26 Mar 63 27 Mar 63 5 Nov 86 KC-135R
62-3544 717-148 18527 19 Feb 63 20 Mar 63 2 Apr 63 5 Apr 63 7 May 91 KC-135R
62-3545 717-148 18528 22 Feb 63 22 Mar 63 10 Apr 63 12 Apr 63 22 Feb 89 KC-135R
62-3546 717-148 18529 26 Feb 63 27 Mar 63 26 Apr 63 29 Apr 63 10 Aug 87 KC-135R
62-3547 717-148 18530 1 Mar 63 25 Apr 63 9 May 63 10 May 63 12 Jan 88 KC-135R
62-3548 717-148 18531 5 Mar 63 30 Apr 63 22 May 63 23 May 63 6 Sep 88 KC-135R
62-3549 717-148 18532 8 Mar 63 9 May 63 22 May 63 24 May 63 6 Jun 88 KC-135R
KC-135A-24-BN 62-3550 717-148 18533 12 Mar 63 21 May 63 3 Jun 63 4 Jun 63 9 Oct 86 KC-135R
62-3551 717-148 18534 15 Mar 63 22 Apr 63 30 Apr 63 1 May 63 23 Aug 90 KC-135R
62-3552 717-148 18535 19 Mar 63 11 Apr 63 26 Apr 63 26 Apr 63 11 Aug 86 KC-135R
62-3553 717-148 18536 22 Mar 63 12 Apr 63 23 Apr 63 23 Apr 63 15 Mar 88 KC-135R
62-3554 717-148 18537 26 Mar 63 16Apr63 26 Apr 63 28 Apr 63 24 Sep 86 KC-135R
62-3555 717-148 18538 29 Mar 63 19Apr63 29 Apr 63 30 Apr 63 20 Sep 93 FMS to Turkey
62-3556 717-148 18539 2 Apr 63 24 Apr 63 6 May 63 6 May 63 31 Jul 87 KC-135R
62-3557 717-148 18540 5 Apr 63 2 May 63 9 May 63 10 May 63 18 Jul86 KC-135R
62-3558 717-148 18541 9 Apr 63 6 May 63 16 May 63 17 May 63 16May91 KC-135R
62-3559 717-148 18542 11 Apr 63 8 May 63 23 May 63 23 May 63 23 Jan 92 KC-135R
62-3560 717-148 18543 16Apr63 14 May 63 27 May 63 27 May 63 16 Jun 94
62-3561 717-148 18544 19 Apr 63 17 May 63 3 Jun 63 4 Jun 63 15May87 KC-135R
62-3562 717-148 18545 23 Apr 63 22 May 63 3 Jun 63 4 Jun 63 18 Jun 93 KC-135R
62-3563 717-148 18546 26 Apr 63 27 May 63 7 Jun 63 10Jun63 18 Mar 94 FMS to Turkey
62-3564 717-148 18547 30 Apr 63 3 Jun 63 19 Jun 63 21 Jun 63 16 Dec 85 KC-135R
62-3565 717-148 18548 3 May 63 4 Jun 63 11 Jun 63 13 Jun 63 11 Dec 87 KC-135R

184
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing C/no Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Attrited SUbsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

62-3566 717-148 18549 7 May 63 6 Jun 63 18 Jun 63 19 Jun 63 11 Jun 91 KC-135E

62-3567 717-148 18550 9 May 63 11 Jun 63 17 Jun 63 18 Jun 63 FMS 10 Turkey
62-3568 717-148 18551 14 May 63 13 June 63 1 Jul63 2 Jul63 6 May 87 KC-135R
62-3569 717-148 18552 17 May 63 18 Jun 63 1Jul63 2 Jul63 16 May 86 KC-135R
62-3570 717-148 18553 21 May 63 20 Jun 63 1Jul63 1Jul63 23 Jun 92 {KC-135A} EC-135G
62-3571 717-148 18554 24 May 63 24 Jun 63 11 Jul63 11 Jul63 21 Apr 88 KC-135R
62-3572 717-148 18555 28 May 63 26 Jun 63 12 Jui 63 12 Jul 63 20 Sep 90 KC-135R
62-3573 717-148 18556 31 May 63 1 Jul63 17 Jul63 17 Jul63 290cl87 KC-135R
62-3574 717-148 18557 5 Jun 63 5 Jul 63 12 Jul63 12 Jul63 Jun 97 FMS to France - KC-135R
62-3575 717-148 18558 10Jun63 9 Jul 63 17 Jul63 17 Jul63 190cl88 KC-l35R
62-3576 717-148 18559 12 Jun 63 12 Jul63 7 Aug 63 8 Aug 63 5 Sep 91 KC-135R
62-3577 717-148 18560 14 Jun 63 16Jui 63 1 Aug 63 5 Aug 63 23 Oct 87 KC-135R
62-3578 717-148 18561 17 Jun 63 18 Jul63 8 Aug 63 8 Aug 63 31 Mar 92 KC-135R
62-3579 717-148 18562 20Jun 63 24 Jul63 2 Aug 63 7 Aug 63 16 Jun 92 {KC-l35A} EC-135A EC-135G
62-3580 717-148 18563 24 Jun 63 25 Jul63 13 Aug 63 16 Aug 63 11 Mar 91 KC-135R
KC-135B-Ql-BN 62-3581 717-166 18564 9 Jan 64 14 Feb 64 28 Feb 64 29 Sep 64 EC-135C
62-3582 717-166 18585 19 Feb 64 21 May 64 5Jun 64 16 Sep 64 EC-135C
62-3583 717-166 18566 1 Apr 64 15 Jun 64 21 Jui 64 21 Jul64 26 May 92 EC-135C
62-3584 717-166 18567 20 Apr 64 4 Jun 64 29 Jun 64 2 Jul 64 29 May 92 EC-135C EC-135J
62-3585 717-166 18568 7 May 64 8 Jul64 24 Jul64 24 Jul 64 EC-135C
C-135B-04-BN 62-4125 717-158 18465 5 Apr 62 16 May 62 28 May 62 28 May 62 VC-135B C-135B RC-135W
62-4126 717-158 18466 10 Apr 62 18 May 62 28 May 62 29 May 62 VC-135B C-135B
62-4127 717-158 18467 17 Apr 62 25 May 62 29 May 62 31 May 62 VC-135B C-135B RC-135W
62-4128 717-158 18468 19 Apr 62 25 May 62 31 May 62 1Jun 62 'C-135B' EC-135B RC-135X RC-135S
62-4129 717-158 18469 27 Apr 62 4 Jun 62 8 Jun 62 9 Jun 62 VC-135B C-135B TC-135W
62-4130 717-158 18470 2 May 62 6 Jun 62 15 Jun 62 15 Jun 62 VC-135B C-135B RC-135W
62-4131 717-158 18471 8 May 62 8 Jun 62 19 Jun 62 22 Jun 62 RC-135M RC-135W
62-4132 717-158 18472 10 May 62 12 Jun 62 27 Jun 62 28 Jun 62 RC-135M RC-135W
62-4133 717-158 18473 21 May 62 14 Jun 62 29 Jun 62 29 Jun 62 'C-135B' EC-135B TC-135S
62-4134 717-158 18474 23 May 62 19 Jun 62 29 Jun 62 3 Jul62 RC-135M RC-135W
62-4135 717-158 18475 1Jun 62 21 Jun 62 29 Jun 62 3 Jul62 RC-135M RC-135W
62-4136 717-158 18476 12 Jun 62 3 Jul62 13 Jul62 16 Jul62 23 Oct 62
62-4137 717-158 18477 20 Jun 62 18 Jul62 24 Jul62 27 Jul62 5 Jun 69 C-135B-1I RC-135E
62-4138 717-158 18478 29 Jun 62 1 Aug 62 8 Aug 88 15 Aug 62 RC-135M RC-135W
62-4139 717-158 18479 12 Jul62 17 Aug 62 29 Aug 62 29 Aug 62 RC-135M RC-135W
KC-135A-24-BN 63-7976 717-148 18593 27 Jun 63 29 Jul63 20 Aug 63 20 Aug 63 8 Mar 88 KC-135R
63-7977 717-148 18594 3 Jul63 1 Aug 63 16 Aug 63 19 Aug 63 300cl86 KC-135R
63-7978 717-148 18595 9 Jul63 7 Aug 63 21 Aug 63 22 Aug 63 20 Jul68 KC-135R
63-7979 717-148 18596 11 Jul63 12Aug63 9 Sep 63 10 Sep 63 1 Oct 87 KC-135R
63-7980 717-148 18597 16Jul63 15Aug63 10 Sep 63 10 Sep 63 25 Jui 68 KC-135R
KG-135A-25-BN 63-7981 717-148 18598 18 Jul63 19 Aug 63 9 Sep 63 10Sep63 6 Nov 87 KC-135R
63-7982 717-148 18599 22 Jul 63 21 Aug 63 10 Sep 63 10 Sep 63 19 Nov 91 KC-135R
63-7983 717-148 18600 25 Jul63 26 Aug 63 16 Sep 63 17Sep63 17 Jun 86
63-7984 717-148 18601 30 Jui 63 28 Aug 63 17 Sep 63 18 Sep 63 30 Jan 87 KC-135R
63-7985 717-148 18602 1 Aug 63 3 Sep 63 18 Sep 63 18 Sep 63 16Nov88 KC-l35R
63-7986 717-148 18603 6 Aug 63 5 Sep 63 13 Sep 63 14 Sep 63 15 Sep 93
63-7987 717-148 18604 8 Aug 63 10 Sep 63 2 Oct 63 3 Ocl 63 8 Sep 92 KC-135R
63-7988 717-148 18605 13 Aug 63 12 Sep 63 3 Oct 63 4 Oct 63 8 Nov 90 KC-135R
63-7989 717-148 18606 15Aug63 17Sep63 4 Oct 63 9 Ocl 6S 8 Mar 73
63-7990 717-148 18607 20 Aug 63 19 Sept 63 2 Oct 63 9 Oct 63 31 Jan 89
63-7991 717-148 18608 22 Aug 63 24 Sep 63 10 Oct 63 10 Oct 63 29 Jan 86 KC-135R
63-7992 717-148 18609 27 Aug 63 26 Sep 63 8 Oct 63 8 Oct 63 20 Oct 89 KC-135R
63-7993 717-148 18610 29 Aug 63 1 Oct 63 160ct63 17 Oct 63 26 Feb 87 KC-135R
63-7994 717-148 18611 4 Sep 63 3 Oct 63 17 Oct 63 18 Oct 63 11 Sep 92 {KC-135A} EC-135G
63-7995 717-148 18612 6 Sep 63 8 Oct 63 4 Nov 63 4 Nov 63 25 Apr 86 KC-135R
63-7996 717-148 18613 11 Sep63 10 Oct 63 5 Nov 63 6 Nov 63 15Apr88 KC-135R
63-7997 717-148 18614 13 Sep 63 15 Oct 63 4 Nov 63 5 Nov 63 4 Jun 85 KC-135R
63-7998 717-148 18615 18 Sep 63 18 Oct 63 22 Nov 63 26 Nov 63 KC-135A
63-7999 717-148 18616 20 Sep 63 22 Oct 63 13 Nov 63 13 Nov 63 22 May 85 KC-135R
63-8000 717-148 18617 25 Sep 63 25 Oct 63 27 Nov 63 27 Nov 63 24 Mar 93 KC-135R
63-8001 717-148 18618 27 Sep 63 29 Oct 63 18 Nov 63 18 Nov 63 18 May 92 {KC-135A} EC-135G
63-8002 717-148 18619 3 Oct 63 31 Oct 63 27 Nov 63 27 Nov 63 18 Mar 86 KC-135R
63-8003 717-148 18620 7 Oct 63 5 Nov 63 6 Dec 63 9 Dec 63 4 Apr 88 KC-135R
63-8004 717-148 18621 9 Ocl 63 8 Nov 63 9 Dec 63 13 Dec 63 26 Sep 90 KC-135R
63-8005 717-148 18622 110cl63 12 Nov 63 9 Dec 63 9 Dec 63 11 Jul94
63-8006 717-148 18623 180cl63 15 Nov 63 17 Dec 63 17Dec63 12 Nov 87 KC-135R
63-8007 717-148 18624 23 Oct 63 20 Nov 63 13 Dec 62 13 Dec 62 12 Jan 90 KC-135R
63-8008 717-148 18625 29 Oct 63 27 Nov 63 19 Dec 63 19Dec63 3 Jun 86 KC-135R
63-8009 717-148 18626 31 Oct 63 6 Dec 63 19 Dec 63 20 Dec 63 26 Jul93 FMS to France
63-8010 717-148 18627 6 Nov 63 11 Dec 63 27 Dec 63 30 Dec 63 15 Sep 93
63-8011 717-148 18628 11 Nov 63 16 Dec 63 27 Jan 64 28 Jan 64 6 Apr 90 KC-135R
63-8012 717-148 18629 15 Nov 63 19 Dec 63 9 Jan 64 10 Jan 64 30 Jul 93 KC-l35R
63-8013 717-148 18630 15 Nov 63 31 Dec 63 8Jan 64 8 Jan 64 12 Dec 90 KC-135R
63-8014 717-148 18631 25 Nov 63 6 Jan 64 21 Jan 64 22 Jan 64 20 Nov 92 KC-I35R
63-8015 717-148 18632 2 Dec 63 10 Jan 64 17 Jan 64 20 Jan 64 26 Jun 89 KC-l35R
KG-135A-26-BN 63-8016 717-148 18633 10 Dec 63 16 Jan 64 27 Jan 64 28 Jan 64 12 May 94 FMS
63-8017 717-148 18634 16 Dec 63 20 Jan 64 ?Feb 64 10Feb64 3 Apr 92 KC-135R
63-8018 717-148 18635 18 Dec 63 23 Jan 64 12 Feb 64 13 Feb 64 13 May 92 KC-135R
63-8019 717-148 18636 15 Dec 63 28 Jan 64 14 Feb 64 14 Feb 64 4 May 93 KC-135R
63-8020 717-148 18637 3 Jan 64 5 Feb 64 20 Feb 64 25 Feb 64 3 Jul86 KC-135R
63-8021 717-148 18638 8 Jan 64 13 Feb 64 24 Feb 64 25 Feb 64 17 Jun 88 KC-135R
63-8022 717-148 18639 10 Jan 64 17 Feb 64 26 Feb 64 26 Feb 64 13 Apr 92 KC-135R
63-8023 717-148 18640 16 Jan 64 21 Feb 64 2 Mar 64 3 Mar 64 7 Dec 88 KC-135R
63-8024 717-148 18641 27 Jan 64 27 Feb 64 11 Mar 64 11 Mar 64 2 Apr 87 KC-135R
63-8025 717-148 18642 28 Jan 64 4 Mar 64 19Mar64 19 Mar 64 26 Aug 87 KC-135R
63-8026 717-148 18643 3 Feb 64 9 Mar 64 17 Mar 64 18 Mar 64 18 May 93 KC-135R
63-8027 717-148 18644 6 Feb 64 12 Mar 64 19 Mar 64 19 Mar 64 28 May 92 KC-135R
63-8028 717-148 18645 13 Feb 64 19Mar64 27 Mar 64 31 Mar 64 22 Jun 88 KC-135R
63-8029 717-148 18646 19 Feb 64 24 Mar 64 6 Apr 64 7 Apr 64 13 Aug 90 KC-135R
63-8030 717-148 18647 24 Feb 64 30 Mar 64 13Apr64 15 Apr 64 24 Feb 88 KC-135R

185
MDS & Block No Serial No Boeing Clno Roll-out First flight Delivered USAF Re-engined Attrited Subsequent Designations
Model No Fly Away

63-8031 717-148 18648 27 Feb 64 1 Apr 64 9 Apr 64 9 Apr 64 26 May 92 KC-135R

63-8032 717-148 18649 3 Mar 64 8 Apr 64 16Apr64 17 Apr 64 17 Feb 87 KC-135R
63-8033 717-148 18650 10 Mar 64 13 Apr 64 23 Apr 64 23 Apr 64 27 Sep 88 KC-135R [F-UKAA)
63-8034 717-148 18651 17 Mar 64 16 Apr 64 28 Apr 64 28 Apr 64 9 Apr 93 KC-l35R
63-8035 717-148 18652 19 Mar 64 20 Apr 64 4 May 64 6 May 64 15 Apr 92 KC-135R
63-8036 717-148 18653 27 Mar 64 27 Apr 64 13 May 64 15 May 64 11 Dac86 KC-135R
63-8037 717-148 18654 3 Apr 64 4 May 64 19 May 64 20 May 64 8 Aug 88 KC-135R
63-8038 717-148 18655 7 Apr 64 6 May 64 19 May 64 20 May 64 18 Feb 88 KC-135R
63-8039 717-148 18656 20 Apr 64 19 May 64 25 May 64 28 May 64 5 May 88 KC-135R
63-8040 717-148 18657 23 Apr 64 21 May 64 25 May 64 28 May 64 3 Jun 87 KC-135R
63-8041 717-148 18658 28 Apr 64 27 May 64 4 Jun 64 -8 Jun 64 11 Mar 87 KC-135R
63-8042 717-148 18659 1 May 64 2 Jun 64 11 Jun 64 12Jun64 3 Jun 65
63-8043 717-148 18660 11 May 64 10 Jun 64 16 Jun 64 22 Jun 64 26 Sep 92 KC-135R
63-8044 717-148 18661 14 May 64 15 Jun 64 22 Jun 64 26 Jun 64 16 Jul93 KC-135R
63-8045 717-148 18662 19 May 64 18 Jun 64 25 Jun 64 26 Jun 64 19 Aug 93 KG-135R
KC-1358-01-BN 63-8046 717-166 18663 25 Jun 64 22 Jul64 13 Aug 64 13 Aug 64 EG-135C
63-8047 717-166 18664 11 Jun 64 6 Aug 64 26 Aug 64 26 Aug 64 12 Oct 93 EG-135C
63-8048 717-166 18665 29 Jun 64 14 Aug 64 14Sep64 30 Sep 64 EG-135C
63-8049 717-166 18666 16 Jul 64 28 Aug 64 5 Oct 64 23 Oct 64 29 Jan 92 EC-135C
63-8050 717-166 18667 3 Aug 64 15 Sep 64 23 Sep 64 30 Sep 64 EC-135C
63-8051 717-166 18668 19 Aug 64 5 Oct 64 12 Nov 64 13 Nov 64 10Jul92 EC-135C
63-8052 717-166 18669 4 Sap 64 20 Oct 64 30 Oct 64 30 Oct 64 EC-135C
63-8053 717-166 18701 23 Sep 64 4 Nov 64 30 Nov 64 8 Dec 64 2 Sep 97 EC-135C
63-8054 717-166 18702 9 Oct 64 23 Nov 64 9 Dec 64 29 Dec 64 EC-135C
63-8055 717-166 18703 27 Oct 64 23 Nov 64 6 Jan 65 20 Jan 65 4 Oct 93 EC-135C EC-135J
63-8056 717-166 18704 13 Nov 64 16 Feb 65 25 Feb 65 2 Mar 65 24 Mar 92 EC-135C EC-135J
63-8057 717-166 18705 3 Dec 64 16 Feb 65 25 Feb 65 4 Mar 65 31 Mar 92 EC-135C EC-135J
RC-135A-01-BN 63-8058 739-700 18670 1 Apr 65 27 Apr 65 29 Dec 65 14 Jun 66 13 Jul 90 KC-135D
63-8059 739-700 18671 21 Apr 65 19 May 65 15 Sep 65 15 Sep 65 31 Jul 90 KC-135D
63-8060 739-700 18672 11 Jun 65 15 Jul65 14 Sep 65 15 Sep 65 21 Jun 90 KG-135D
63-8061 739-700 18673 12 Jul65 8 Aug 65 1 Oct 65 2 Jun 66 27 Jul 90 KC-135D
RC-135A-8N 63-8062 739-700 18674
to to Canceled
63-8066 739-700 18678
C-135F-01-BN 63-8470 717-165 18679 5 Nov 63 26 Nov 63 11 Dec 64 12 Dec 64 15 Aug 88 C-135FR [F-UKCA)
63-8471 717-165 18680 9 Dec 63 17 Jan 64 27 Jan 64 3 Feb 64 3 Feb 86 C-135FR [F-UKCBI
63-8472 717-165 18681 31 Dec 63 31 Jan 64 J Mar 64 4 Mar 64 18 Sap 87 C-135FR [F-UKCC]
63-8473 717-165 18682 21 Jan 64 26 Feb 64 6 Apr 64 8 Apr 64 1 Jul72 [F-UKCD)
63-8474 717-165 18683 11 Feb 64 16 Mar 64 4 May 64 6 May 64 22 Oct 86 C-135FR [F-UKCE]
63-8475 717-165 18684 5 Mar 64 6 Apr 64 2 Jun 64 3 Jun 64 8 Jan 87 C-135FR [F-UKCF]
KC-135A-26-BN 63-8871 717-148 18719 22 May 64 19 Jun 64 26 Jun 64 30 Jun 64 19 Dec 88 KC-135R
63-8872 717-148 18720 2 Jun 64 30 Jun 64 10 Jul64 14 Jul64 20 Sap 89 KC-135R
63-8873 717-148 18721 5 Jun 64 7 Jul64 14 Jul64 16 Jul64 9 Nov 92 KC-135R
63-8874 717-148 18722 10 Jun 64 10 Jul64 23 Jul64 28 Jul64 18 Mar 92 KG-135R
63-8875 717-148 18723 16 Jun 64 15 Jul64 16Jul64 15 Aug 91 KG-135R
63-8876 717-148 18724 23 Jun 64 22 Jul64 29 Jul64 6 Aug 64 25 Oct 90 KG-135R
63-8877 717-148 18725 26 Jun 64 23 Jul64 29 Jul64 29 Jul64 28 Jan 93 KC-135R
63-8878 717-148 18726 1Jul64 27 Jul64 31 Jul64 11 Aug 64 27 Aug 91 KC-135R
63-8879 717-148 18727 7 Jul64 31 Jul64 11 Aug 64 21 Aug 64 2 Fab 93 KC-135R
63-8880 717-148 18728 16 Jul64 11 Aug 64 20 Aug 64 4 Sep 64 22 Dec 88 KC-135R
63-8881 717-148 18729 21 Jul 64 14 Aug 64 25 Aug 64 6 Sep 64 24 Sap 93 KC-135A-VIII KC-135A KC-135R
63-8882 717-148 18730 21 Jul 64 18 Aug 64 26 Aug 64 11 Sep64 26 Feb 65
63-8883 717-148 18731 27 Jul 64 21 Aug 64 28 Aug 64 15 Sep 64 20 Mar 89 KC-135R
63-8884 717-148 18732 5 Aug 64 26 Aug 64 28 Aug 64 1 Sep 64 15 Dac 89 KC-135R
63-8885 717-148 18733 10 Aug 64 4 Sap 64 16Sep64 18 Sep 64 20 Oct 93 KC-135R
63-8886 717-148 18734 14 Aug 64 9 Sap 64 18 Sep 64 21 Sep 64 21 Jun 90 KC-135R
63-8887 717-148 18735 19 Aug 64 16 Sap 64 23 Sap 64 24 Sep 64 11 May 93 KC-135R
63-8888 717-148 18736 25 Aug 64 21 Sap 64 29 Sep 64 29 Sep 64 9 Aug 93 KC-135R
RC-1358-01-8N 63-9792 739-4458 18706 15 Apr 64 18 May 64 27 May 64 27 May 64 RC-135C RC-135U RC-135V
G-135F-02-8N 63-12735 717-165 18695 25 Mar 64 23 Apr 64 6 July 64 8 July 64 27 Sap 85 C-135FR [F-UKCG]
63-12736 717-165 18696 10 Apr 64 13 May 64 21 Jul64 22 Jul64 6 Aug 85 C-135FR [F-UKCH]
63-12737 717-165 18697 6 May 64 9 Jun 64 4 Aug 64 5 Aug 64 5 Apr 88 C-135FR [F-UKCI]
63-12738 717-165 18698 27 May 64 29 Jun 64 17 Aug 64 19 Aug 64 30 Jan 88 C-135FR [F-UKCJ)
63-12739 717-165 18699 18 Jun 64 21 Jul64 4 Sap 64 9 Sep 64 23 Nov 85 C-135FR [F-UKCK]
63-12740 717-165 18700 10 Jul64 7 Aug 64 21 Sep 64 28 Sap 64 21 Nov 87 C-l35FR [F-UKCL]
KC-135A-27-BN 64-14828 717-148 18768 3 Sep 64 29 Sap 64 8 Oct 64 13 Oct 64 13 Jan 89 KC-135R
64-14829 717-148 18769 9 Sep 64 6 Oct 64 15 Oct 64 16 Oct 64 29 May 90 KC-135R
64-14830 717-148 18770 15 Sep 64 12 Oct 64 20 Oct 64 22 Oct 64 16Apr91 KC-135R
64-14831 717-148 18771 24 Sap 64 21 Oct 64 23 Oct 64 30 Oct 64 13 May 91 KC-135R
64-14832 717-148 18772 29 Sap 64 26 Oct 64 28 Oct 64 30 Oct 64 16 Feb 89 KC-135R
64-14833 717-148 18773 5 Oct 64 29 Oct 64 6 Nov 64 9 Nov 64 20 Sap 91 KC-135R
64-14834 717-148 18774 16 Oct 64 11 Nov 64 19 Nov 64 20 Nov 64 7 Feb 91 KC-135R
64-14835 717-148 18775 22 Oct 64 16 Nov 64 25 Nov 64 1 Dec 64 16 May 90 KC-135R
64-14836 717-148 18776 28 Oct 64 23 Nov 64 30 Nov 64 2 Dec 64 13 Sap 93 KC-135R
64-14837 717-148 18777 11 Nov 64 4 Dec 64 14 Dec 64 16 Dec 64 6 Oct 93 KC-135R
64-14838 717-148 18778 17 Nov 64 11 Dec 64 22 Dec 64 22 Dec 64 10 Mar 93 KC-135R
64-14839 717-148 18779 30 Nov 64 23 Dec 64 30 Dec 64 6 Jan 65 20 Jul93 KC-135R
64-14840 717-148 18780 7 Dec 64 31 Dec 64 31 Dec 64 12 Jan 65 26 Apr 91 KG-135R
RC-1358-01-BN 64-14841 739-445B 18781 30 Jul64 2 Sep 64 1Oct 64 1 Oct 64 RC-135C RC-135V
64-14842 739-4458 18782 28 Aug 64 24 Sep 64 120ct64 26 Oct 64 RC-135C RC-135V
64-14843 739-445B 18783 18 Sep 64 14 Oct 64 2 Nov 64 9 Nov 64 RC-135C RC-135V
64-14844 739-4458 18784 9 Oct 64 6 Nov 64 13 Nov 64 14 Nov 64 RC-135C RC-135V
64-14845 739-4458 18785 4 Nov 64 2 Dec 64 11 Dec 64 15 Dec 64 RC-135C RC-135V
64-14846 739-4458 18786 24 Nov 64 17 Dec 64 23 Dec 64 29 Dec 64 RC-135C RC-135V
64-14847 739-4458 18787 15 Dec 64 14 Jan 65 20 Jan 65 25 Jan 65 RC-135C RC-135U
64-14848 739-4458 18788 22 Dec 64 21 Jan 65 26 Jan 65 3 Feb 65 RC-135C RC-135V
64-14849 739-4458 18789 30 Dec 64 27 Jan 65 9 Feb 65 9 Feb 65 RC-135C RC-135U

186

Synopses of attrition provide details of KC-135 vari-
ants that have suffered crashes and other accidents
in service. They are listed as follows: first line: by ser-
ial number; MDS; assigned wing and base;
assigned squadron (if applicable). Second line:
attrition date; location; total flight hours (TH, and
given where available). This is followed by a des-
cription of the general circumstances of the air-
plane's attrition. This review is in no way intended to
ascribe any specific cause or contributing factors
unless otherwise stated.
This appendix gives the wing to which the aircraft
was assigned; a squadron is listed only when it was
the sole squadron in the wing that operated the type
(eg, an EC-135L is recorded as from the 70th
AREFS, 305th AREFW, whereas a KC-135A, which
was flown by crews from both the 70th AREFS and
305th AREFS, is recorded without a squadron as
just from the 305th AREFW).
The attrition date is when the aircraft was physi-
cally removed from operational use. This may be the
actual accident date. The write-off date (when the
aircraft is economically unfeasible to repair for flight
operations) is included where it is known and may
be different from the attrition date. All losses are as
of 3rd September 1997.
Finally, some substantive comment is in order as
to why these losses need be so accurately com-
piled. Indeed, aviation historians certainly will find
this information essential reference material. More
importantly, most of the accidents listed here
involved the loss of a number of lives.
It is the recognition that flying is often done at the
limits of an aircraft's or crewmember's capabilities,
whether intentionally or not, that leads to a deep
appreciation for the risks inherent in flying these
machines.
In remembering the loss of these airplanes, we
are remembering the loss of the people on board,
what they stood for, and what they were willing to
sacrifice in order to achieve it.
These men and women, among the rest, were my
friends:
John M 'Mike' Bristow
Wayne K S Ching
Jerry Erhardt
Quinn L DeWitt
Cheryl L Helgerman
William J Mallico
Thomas B McDerby
George Nistico
KC-135A 55-3140 carrying Boondock nose-art
and name, at Loring AFB. It was destroyed on
the ground at Castle, AFB on 19th April 1967.
Joe Bruch collection
AppendixB
Attrition
55-3121 RC-135T, 6th SW, 24th SRS, Eielson AFB, AK,
25th February 1985, near Valdez, AK. TH: 15,072,0.
After flying two practice MLS approaches to the airport at
Valdez, the RC-135T crew commenced their third approach
some four miles (6.4km) north of the prescribed MLS inbound
course. The airplane, call sign Mary 24, descended along this
parallel course until passing beneath radar coverage at 7,100ft
(2,164m) MSL, thereafter striking a mountain top. Weather at the
time was extremely poor (the airport was closed due to bad
weather) and may have contributed to crew disorientation. In
addition, the MLS approach to Valdez used by the RC-135T
crew was certified for use by short take-off and landing (STOL)
aircraft only, specifically the de Havilland Dash 7, and required
a glide slope and missed approach significantly steeper and
more demanding than those usable by the RC-135T. Despite
intensive searches (including flights by Lockheed SR-71 s). the
wreck was not found until 2nd August 1985, reportedly by
another 24th SRS crewmember. Investigators finally reached
the crash site two weeks later to recover the Select crew of
three. The airplane was written off on 1st March 1985,'
55·3133 KC-135A, 509th BW, Pease AFB, NH,
24th September 1968, Wake Island. TH: 6,681.2.
This KC-135A, on temporary duty with the 4258th SW, divert-
ed to Wake Island because of an in-flight engine failure and
shutdown. To expedite the descent from cruise altitude down to
sea level, the crew extended the speed brakes. Perhaps
because of the confusion associated with the diversion and the
planned three-engine approach and landing, the crew neglect-
ed to retract the speed brakes and the airplane developed an
excessive sink rate on final approach, The pilot attempted a
missed approach, but the airplane struck the ground gear-up
short of the runway. The impact separated the tail section from
the fuselage. Eleven of the 52 passengers were killed, several of
whom were seated behind the aft hatch, This accident resulted
in the addition of a well-known warning to the 'Dash One' pro-
hibiting the seating of passengers behind this hatch. The air-
plane was written off on 2nd December 1968.'
55-3138 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
2nd October 1968, U-Tapao RTNAB, Thailand. TH: 6,999.6
This KC-135A was TOY to the 4258th SW. The No.4 engine
failed after the airplane was committed to take-off. Asymmetric
thrust and the plane's heavy weight caused one nose gear tire
to fail followed by the other. The airplane finally became air-
borne just prior to the end of the runway, but struck reinforced
concrete and steel light stanchions 1,800ft (548m) beyond the
end of the runway and crashed, killing the crew of four. The air-
plane was written off on 16th November 1968,'
55-3140 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
19th April 1967, Wake Island. TH: 6,550.0
During servicing of the right main landing gear strut with'
compressed air to correct asevere hydraulic leak, the high pres-
sure air cart was left unattended, allOWing the strut to over-inflate
and explode. This caused the wing tanks to rupture, releasing
fuel which then ignited. The airplane burned beyond repair and
was cannibalized for parts and then scrapped.'
55-3144 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
8th August 1962, Concord, MA.
This airplane crashed fully configured for landing and 8'
nose down in rough terrain on approach to Hanscom Field while
on a ferry flight, killing all three crewmen aboard. Cause of the
crash remains unknown. It was on temporary loan to Wright-
Patterson AFB as a nuclear weapons tesVsupport aircraft dedi-
cated to the AFCRL at Hanscom Field.'
56-3592 KC-135A, 42nd BW, Loring AFB, ME.
4th October 1989, near Perth-Andover, New BrunswiCk,
Canada.
This KC-135A exploded while on approach to Loring AFB,
killing the crew of four. A hydraulically driven aft body tank fuel
pump was operating without fuel in the tank (used to cool the
pump), overheated, and caused fuel vapor in the tank to
explode. This accident spurred a temporary fleet-wide ground-
ing, as two weeks earlier KC-135E 57-1481 exploded on the
ground in asimilar fashion. Even earlier, KC-135As 58-0031 and
60-0330 were lost to the same cause, as was KC-135R 57·1470
some four years later. The problem was circumvented by keep-
ing 3,OOOIb (1,360kg) of fuel in each body tank to cover and cool
the pumps.'
56-3597 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
27th February 1963, Eielson AFB, AK
Immediately after take-off to refuel a 'Chrome Dome' air-
borne alert mission, 56-3597 lost an engine which induced an
asymmetric thrust condition from which recovery proved impos·
sible. 11 crashed into the base gate. In addition to claiming the
airplane's eight crew and passengers, the accident took the life
of a pedestrian and the gate guard, for whom the facility is now
named the 'Roy L Hursey Gate'. The airplane was written off on
28th February 1963.'
56-3598 KC-135A. 42nd BW, 42nd AREFS, Loring AFB, ME.
25th November 1958, Loring AFB, ME. TH: 150 (approx.)
During a touch-and-go landing in moderate crosswind, the
downwind No.4 engine failed due to a faulty fuel control unit (a
fleetwide problem at the time). The airplane became airborne in
an extremely nose high/right wing low attitude, The right wing
struck the ground, the airplane cartwheeled and crashed near
the wreckage of B-47B 51-2199 from the 321st BW at Pinecastle
AFB, Florida, which had crashed on 22nd November. Two of the
seven KC-135 crewmembers survived.
187

.~
63629
56-3599 KC-135A, 4050th AREFW, 99th AREFS, Westover AFB,
MA. 27th June 1958, Westover AFB, MA. TH: 80 (approx.)
This was the third airplane in a four-ship flight (designated
'Top Sail-Cocoa') attempting to set a new round trip trans-
atlantic speed record (see Appendix F). Gross weight and tem-
0
perature dictated a 40 flaps take-off. Once airborne the crew
0
failed to retract the flaps to 30 as required, causing the airplane
to sink and strike trees. This was the first KC-135 to crash.
Among the 15 fatalities were seven crewmembers, including
Brigadier General Donald W Saunders, the 57th Air Division
commander (who made the take-off and for whom the Saunders
Trophy is named), Lieutenant Colonel George M Broutsas, the
99th AREFS commander, and eight journalists and NAA
observers.'
56-3602 KC-135A, 42nd BW, 42nd AREFS, Loring AFB, ME.
25th March 1969, Loring AFB, ME TH: 3,712.0
After abort speed (S,), the pilot aborted the take-off after los-
ing left-side water injection and experiencing reduced power on
engines Nos.l and 2. Because of the snow and ice covering the
runway, the airplane was unable to stop within the confines of
the runway, slid off the end and down an embankment, break-
ing the fuselage into two sections. The crew egressed safely,
but the airplane was unrepairable and was cannibalized for
parts and scrapped. It was written off on 11th April 1969.
56-3605 KC-135A, 42nd BW, 42nd AREFS, Loring AFB, ME.
18th November 1960, Loring AFB, ME.
Pitch response during the approach was 'mushy', and in the
landing flare the airplane failed to respond to pilot pitch and trim
commands altogether. Consequently, the airplane struck the
runway nose gear first and with an excessive sink rate, driving
the nose gear into the forward body fuel tank. The airplane
bounced and settled back to the runway. Sparks ignited the
fuel, destroying the plane. One crewmember among the 17
crew and passengers was fatally injured."
56-3613 KC-135A, 92nd SAW, Fairchild AFB, WA.
19th January 1967, Shadow Mountain, WA. TH: 4,300.1
During an instrument approach for a landing at Fairchild
AFB, the airplane struck Shadow Mountain at an elevation of
4,340ft (1 ,322m)and was totally destroyed. It is possible that the
pilot may have suffered a heart attack or otherwise became
incapacitated, distracting the remainder of the crew from safely
flying the airplane during a critical phase of flight."
56-3618 KC-135A, 42nd BW, 42nd AREFS, Loring AFB, ME.
9th May 1962, Loring AFB, ME.
The No.2 engine failed after abort speed during a heavy-
weight, water-injected take-off. The aircraft yawed to the left and
became airborne but continued to lose airspeed. The 25 second
flight ended when the airplane's left wing struck the ground
1,500ft (457m) from the end of the runway, and the airplane
skidded to a stop and was destroyed. The crew of four and two
passengers were killed."
56-3628 KC-135A, 6th BW, 6th AREFS, Walker AFB, NM.
3rd February 1960, Walker AFB, NM.
Take-off conditions for this flight included extremely gusty
0
crosswinds 70 from the runway heading at 27-34kts (50-
63km/h). The 6th BW commander had directed that an instruc-
tor pilot (IP) accompany all training flights under these condi-
tions, and that the IP be in one of the pilot's seats. Instead, the
IP on 56-3628 sat in the IP/jump seat, inaccessible to a set of
flight controls. The pilot making the take-off was unable to main-
tain directional control and rotated 5-10kts (9-18km/h) early,
forcing the airplane into the air in an unflyable condition. It set-
tled onto the dirt beside the runway, lost two engines, and then
188
skidded onto the mass parking area, destroying two parked KC-
135As (57-1449 and 57-1457)_ The airplane came to rest in a
hangar. Eight people killed, including the entire flight crew."
56-3629 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
19th December 1969, near Taiwan. TH: 6,794.5.
This was the third airplane in athree-ship cell departure from
Ching Chuan Kang AB, Taiwan, while on temporary duty with
the 4220th AREFS, 4252nd SW. The flight encountered extreme-
ly severe low-level turbulence during climbout, from which 56-
3629 was apparently unable to recover. Aircraft wreckage was
spotted after the accident but the airplane and crew of four were
never found."
56-3655 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
30th July 1968, near Mount Lassen, CA. TH: 6,089.0.
The airplane was on an initial training flight for a new crew_
While performing a practice emergency descent from FL390 to
FL230, the pilot (who had a total of 6,000 flying hours, but Orily
eight in the KC-135) made a series of extremely sharp, un-coor-
dinated, and aggressive descending turns. The vertical stabiliz-
er separated from the aircraft, which then departed controlled
flight and crashed into the foothills of Mt. Lassen. All nine on
board were killed. Written off on 20th August 1968."
56-3657 KC-135A, 11th BW, 96th AREFS, Altus AFB, OK.
25th January 1962, Altus AFB, OK.
Maintenance personnel attempted to start the No.4 engine
after its fuel-air starter was replaced. The starter did not disen-
gage at its prescribed limit, and disintegrated due to excessive
RPM. The explosion damaged the wing fuel tanks, and the leak-
ing fuel ignited immediately. Despite fire fighting efforts, the air-
plane was completely destroyed."
57-1424 KC-135A, 461st BW, 909th AREFS, Amarillo AFB, TX.
17th May 1966, Amarillo AFB, TX. TH: 3,482.1.
This airplane, known as Miss Amarillo, struck the ground
961ft (293m) short of the runway during an oscillating, unstable
approach to landing. The right wing struck first, followed by the
left wingtip, No.1 engine, and boom. The airplane burst into
flames, departed the runway, broke apart, and exploded, killing
the crew of four and one passenger. 16
57-1442 KC-135A, 70th BW, 902nd AREFS,
Clinton-Sherman AFB, OK.
16th January 1965, Wichita, KS_
Shortly after a heavy-weight take-off after a B-52 at
McConnell AFB, the pilot of KC-135 57-1442 reported lateral
control problems, possibly with the rudder. The KC-135 may
have been entangled in a F-l05 Thunderchief drag chute acci-
dentally left on the runway and blown onto the KC-135 by the
departing B-52's wake turbulence, binding one of the tanker's
ailerons and thus accounting for the lateral control problems.
Parachute cord of the type used in drag chutes was found
ingested into the aft compressor section of one engine, possibly
complicating the airplane's control problem by causing asym-
metric thrust. The crew may have become distracted with the
directional control problem and allowed the airplane to stall
while in a steep turn low to the ground. The airplane crashed in
a residential area of Wichita, destroying 15 houses and killing 23
civilians plus the crew of seven. Written off 18th January 1965."
57-1444 KC-135A, 484th BW, 919th AREFS, Turner AFB, GA.
18th May 1966, Kadena AB, Okinawa. TH: 3,387.2.
This tanker, on temporary duty with the 4220th AREFS,
4252nd SW, was ferrying an engine for a reconnaissance vari-
ant KC-135 from Kadena AB to Eielson AFB. During a heavy-
weight take-off on a wet runway, the airplane rotated prema-
Low level turbulence during climbout appears
to have been at least a contributory factor to
the loss of KC-135A 56-3629 off Taiwan on 19th
December 1969. Author's collection
turely and became airborne. It failed to sustain adequate air·
speed, settled back to the runway, eventually became airborne
again, and finally crashed 450ft (137m) beyond the end of the
runway. The crew of five, eight passengers, and one civilian 00
the ground were killed. Written off 19th May 1966."
57-1446 KC-135A, 6th BW, 6th AREFS, Walker AFB, NM.
22nd June 1959, Walker AFB, NM.
During routine maintenance of the wing fuel tanks, a spaJk
from static electricity discharge detonated fuel vapors. The
explosion released more fuel which promptly ignited and set fire
to the aircraft. The airplane and hangar were destroyed by the
fire; there were no fatalities. Cause of the accident was deter·
mined to be an improperly grounded air blower cart."
57-1449 KC-135A, 6th BW, 6th AREFS, Walker AFB, NM.
3rd February 1960, Walker AFB, NM.
This airplane was destroyed on the ground when KC-135A
56-3628 lost control during a crosswind take-off, departed the
runway, and crashed into the KC-135 and B-52 mass parking
area. Also destroyed in the crash was KC-135A 57-1457 and a
maintenance hangar."
57-1457 KC-135A, 6th BW, 6th AREFS, Walker AFB, NM.
3rd February 1960, Walker AFB, NM.
This airplane was destroyed on the ground when KC-l35A
56-3628 lost control during a crosswind take-off, departed the
runway, and crashed into the KC-135 and B-52 mass parking
area. Also destroyed in the crash was KC-135A 57-1449 and a
maintenance hangar."
57-1466 KC-135A, 7th BW, 7th AREFS, Carswell AFB, TX.
8th March 1960, Carswell AFB, TX.
During a second instrument landing attempt under poor
weather conditions and with extremely low fuel reserves, the air-
plane was consistently below the glide slope. The pilot mistook
a lighted area on the ground for the runway and, ignoring
ground control approach (GCA) recommendations, dropped
farther below the glideslope to land. The airplane struck the
ground almost a mile from the end of the runway, bounced back
into the air, and finally crashed 1,000ft (304m) from the end 01
the runway. The crew survived the accident."
57-1470 KC-135R, 128th ARG, 126th AREFS, General
Mitchell Field, Milwaukee lAP, WI.
10th December 1993, General Mitchell Field, Milwaukee lAP, WI.
This KC-135R exploded during routine ground maintenance
for minor electrical and avionics discrepancies. The explosion
was probably as a consequence of an overheated body tank
fuel pump, an accident similar to the loss of KC-135As 56-3592,
58-0031,60-0330, and KC-135E 57-1481. This Wisconsin ANG
airplane was the first KC-135R lost or destroyed. Six mainte-
nance personnel were killed in the explosion and ensuing fire.
The wreckage of the airplane was moved to Volk Field,
Wisconsin, for use as a range decoy and target."
57-1481 KC-135E, 176th CompG, 168th AREFS, Eielson AFB, AK.
20th September 1989, Eielson AFB, AK.
While shutting down engines following a training flight, the
airplane exploded in the vicinity of the aft fuselage. Additional
explosions and fire completely destroyed the airplane. Five crew
members escaped, although two boom operators, believed to
be in the aft fuselage when it exploded, were killed. This Alaska
ANG airplane was the first KC-135E lost. Cause of the explosion
was an overheated aft body fuel pump, similar to that responsi·
ble for the loss of KC-135As 56-3592, 58-0031, 60-0330, and
KC-135R 57-1470."
57-1489 KC-135A, 161 st AREFG, 197th AREFS, Phoenix
(Sky Harbor) lAP, AZ.
13th March 1982, near Luke AFB, AZ. TH: 10,650.6.
While flying in instrument conditions this KC-135A of Arizona
ANG was struck by a Grumman-American AA-1 Yankee. The
small airplane hit immediately forward of the empennage, caus-
ing the entire tail section to separate from the KC-135A, which
rolled to the left, nosed over, and crashed. Both civilians in the
Grumman were killed, as was the crew of four in the KC-135A,
\
A static electricity spark during routine
maintenance to the wing tanks of KC·135A
57-1446 destroyed both airplane and hangar at
Walker AFB on 22nd June 1959. Thankfully,
there were no fatalities. Joe Bruch collection

EC-135P 58-0007 at Langley AFB after a ground

fire on 3rd January 1980. A short in the water
injection tank heater caused the blaze,
destroying the aircraft. Aerofax collection

A touch-and-go with a simulated outboard

engine loss at Castle AFB on 19th September
1979 resulted in incorrect control inputs from
the student pilot of KC-135A 58-0127 and all five
of the crew were killed in the resultant crash.
Joe Bruch collection

including Lieutenant Colonel James N Floor, the 197th AREFS

commander."

57·1498 KC-135A, 499th AREFW, Westover AFB, MA.

21st June 1963, six miles north of Westover AFB, MA.
After a normal refueling mission the airplane began an instru-
ment approach in heavy rain. The aircraft descended below
published minimum approach altitude and struck a 790ft (240m)
hill approximately six miles north of Westover AFB. Three of the
four crewmembers survived. Written off on 24th June 1963."

57-1500 KC-135A, 384th AREFW, McConnell AFB, KS.

5th March 1974, McConnell AFB, KS. TH: 7,434.4.
Immediately after take-off on an ORI refueling support mis-
sion, the airplane's NO.1 engine was perceived to have failed
and the instructor pilot (in the copilot's position) retarded its
throttle. Cockpit confusion between the IP and the student air-
craft commander (making the take-off in the pilot's position)
resulted in overcontrol of the airplane. The NO.1 throttle was
then advanced to full thrust, but the airplane still departed con-
trolled flight, crashing 23 seconds after take-off. Two of the
seven crewmembers were killed. Written ofl on 21st March 1974."

57·1513 KC-135A, 4228th SW, 901 st AREFS, Columbus AFB, MS.

15th October 1959, between Hardinsburg and Leitchfield, KY.
The KC-135A was NO.2 in a two-ship cell formation sched-
uled to refuel several 4228th SW B-52Fs. Soon after air refueling
started at approximately 7:50pm, the tanker and its receiver col-
lided, destroying both airplanes. The B-52F (57-0036) carried
unarmed nuclear weapons, all of which were recovered; one
was damaged but released no contamination."

58·0002 KC-135A, 4130th SW, 910th AREFS, Bergstrom AFB, TX,

31st March 1959, near Belton, TX. TH: 50 (approx.).
This KC-135A encountered severe thunderstorms (possibly
even a tornado) four minutes after completing a navigation leg
during a routine training flight. Two engines separated from the
airplane, one striking the tail section, The airplane also may
have been struck by lightning, causing it to explode as it
descended, crashing ten miles southwest of Belton, killing the
Clew of four. Interestingly, 58-0002 was delivered on 17th
February 1959, and had only some 50 hours total time when it
crashed, making it the 'youngest' KC-135 of any variant ever
lost. It was written off on 1st April 1959."
58·0007 EC-135P, 1stTFW, 6th ACCS, Langley AFB, VA.
3rd January 1980, Langley AFB, VA. TH: 16,896.6.
An electrical short in the water injection tank heater wiring
while the airplane was on the ground caused an insidious fire
that was not discovered until it had already caused significant
damage. Dense smoke hampered fire-fighting efforts and the
fuselage was completely burned. The wings, engines, landing
gear, and empennage were salvaged."
58-0026 KC-135A, 22nd BW, March AFB, CA.
17th January 1968, Minot AFB, NO. TH: 4,996,8.
During take-off in a snowstorm the pilot overrotated the air-
plane causing it to stall and crash, All 13 on board were killed,
including Major General Charles MEisenhart, the 15th Air Force
Vice Commander, who made the take-off. This accident is
believed to have prompted the installation of the Collins FD-l09
flight director and rotation-go around (RGA) system. The air-
plane was written off on 1st February 1968,"
58-0031 KC-135A, 126th AREFW, Chicago (O'Hare) lAP, IL.
19th March 1982, Greenwood, IL. TH: 9,249.5.
The airplane departed K I Sawyer AFB, Michigan, for
Chicago's O'Hare lAP with 23 AFRES passengers on board,
previously stranded when their C-130A broke down at Sawyer.
At 13,700ft 4, 175m) during the descent into Chicago the aircraft
exploded, killing all 27 persons on board. Original cause of the
accident was undetermined, but is now believed to have been
due to an overheated aft body fuel pump exploding fuel vapors,
as in KC-135As 56-3592 and 60-0330, KC-135E 57-1481, and
KC-135R 57-1470. 34
58-0039 KC-135Q, 306th BW, 306th AREFS, McCoy AFB, FL.
3rd June 1971, north ofTorrejon AB, Spain. TH: 5,406.1.
The second in a flight of two KC-135Qs TOY to the 98th SW,
this airplane was cleared for an instrument approach to Torrejon
AB. The lead tanker reported light to moderate rain and turbu-
lence during the approach. After commencing its approach, 58-
0039 struck a hill and was completely destroyed."
58-0048 KC-135A, 7th BW, 7th AREFS, Carswell AFB, TX.
13th March 1972, Carswell AFB, TX.
During a practice visual approach and landing, the airplane
remained higher than normal throughout the pattern, It then
began a steep, idle power descending turn and final approach.
The right wingtip struck the ground, the airplane then cart-
wheeled, crashed and exploded, killing all five crewmembers on
board. The airplane was written off on 14th March 1972."
58-0101 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
29th April 1977, Beale AFB, CA. TH: 7,821.5.
During a night touch-and-go landing the airplane struck a
herd of cattle that had wandered onto the runway. The nose and
left main landing gear were sheared off and forced into the fuse-
lage, spilling fuel which promptly ignited. After departing the
runway, the airplane stopped and the entire crew egressed safe-
ly. The same cannot be said about the cattle. The airplane was
written off on 24th May 1977.37
58-0127 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
19th September 1979, Castle AFB, CA. TH: 8,046.9.
After a student training mission, the airplane returned to
Castle AFB for landing practice. During one touch-and-go land-
ing the instructor simulated the loss of an outboard engine. The
student pilot responded abruptly with incorrect opposite control
responses causing the airplane to drag the left wing and crash,
All five crewmembers were killed,"
59·1443 KC-135A, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA.
27th August 1985, Beale AFB, CA. TH: 9,936.7.

189

I I ~ I 1 I
..
"u. S. AIR FORCE
~ \;
Reconnaissance KC-135R 59-1465 at McClellan,
September 1966. It was destroyed in a take-off
accident at Offutt on 17th July 1967.
Peter B Lewis courtesy Rene J Francillon
KC-135E 59-1494 at Pease AFB in 1987. It was
destroyed in a fire on the ground at Pease on
11th January 1990. Author's collection
190
I Il II I I
The fuselage of KC-135Q 60-0338 en route from
Plattsburgh AFB to Griffiss AFB to be used as a
static test-bed for antenna placement.
Jim Moseley collection
C·135B 60-0373 hit high ground shortly after
take-off from MCAS EI Toro on 25th June 1965,
killing all 84 on board. It is pictured at McGuire
in 1963. Author's collection
Because of a pronounced wing rock during a student copilot
landing, the NO.1 engine struck the runway. The engine failed
and caught fire. After recovering the aircraft, the instructor pilol
attempted to reverse course and land in the opposite direction
on Beale's single runway. In so doing he climbed too steeply in
the turn, reached an altitude of approximately 250ft (76m),
stalled, and crashed. All seven crewmembers were killed. This
was the first KC-135 fatality involving a female crewmember, the
student aircraft commander."
59-1465 KC-135R, 55th SRW, 38th SRS, Offutt AFB, NE.
17th July 1967, Offutt AFB, NE. TH: 4,107.4.
The pilot overrotated this reconnaissance KC-135R on initial
take-off, putting the airplane in a nose-high attitude from which
recovery was impossible. The airplane stalled and began a
series of dutch rolls which continued until impact. Four crew
members survived, one did not. The airplane was written afton
19th July 1967. 40
59-1491 RC-135S, 6th SW, 24th SRS, Eielson AFB, AK.
13th January 1969, Shemya AFB, AK.
After the runway at Shemya AFB had been deiced, the 'Rivet
Ball' RC-135S attempted to land under severe runway can·
ditions. Unbeknown to the crew, the melted ice on the runway
had begun to refreeze prior to landing, which made the neces·
sary stopping distance greater than the available runway length.
After a normal touchdown, the 'Rivet Ball' failed to slow despite
normal braking procedures (the airplane was not e~uipped with
thrust reversers). Even after emergency shutdown of the two
inboard engines, the airplane did not slow appreciably. To avoid
running off the departure end of the runway and striking
approach light poles, the pilot steered the airplane off the right
side of the runway. The 'Rivet Ball' broke in half near the wing
root. There was no fire, and the entire crew egressed safely. The
airplane was cannibalized. Written off on 10 March 1969."
59-1494 KC-135E, 157th AREFG, 133rd AREFS, Pease AFB, NH.
11th January 1990, Pease AFB, NH.
After routine servicing of the gaseous oxygen system, afire
of unknown origin erupted and quickly spread out of control.
Despite fire-fighting efforts, there were several explosions, the
fuselage was gutted by fire, and overall the airplane was dam·
aged beyond economical repair."
60-0317 KC-135A,379th BW, 920th AREFS, Wurtsmith AFB, ML
11th October 1988, Wurtsmith AFB, MI.
After a steep final approach in a severe crosswind, a hard
landing and a bounce, the airplane veered sharply off the left
side of the runway and broke up. After stopping it began to burn
and eventually exploded. All ten passengers were able to
escape, although the crew of six perished in the accident."
60-0330 KC-135A, 340th AREFW, Altus AFB, OK.
13th February 1987, Altus AFB, OK. TH: 10,305.6.
Immediately after touchdown an explosion occurred in the
aft fuselage. The airplane stopped on the runway as the fire and
ensuing explosions consumed the fuselage. The crew egressed
the airplane but failed to shut down the engines or set the
brakes before doing so, allowing the airplane to roll off the run·
way onto soft ground, where it burned to destruction. Cause of
the explosion was originally attributed to frayed wiring in the
vicinity of the aft fuel tank, but in light of the loss of KC-135As
56-3592 and 58-0031, KC-135E 57-158t, and KC-135R 57-1470,
the cause for 60-0330's demise may also have been overheated
fuel pumps exploding in a body fuel tank. 44
60-0338 KC-t35Q, 380th BW, Plattsburgh AFB, NY.
8th February 1980, Plattsburgh AFB, NY. TH: 8,015.3.
Despite fire fighting efforts, this airplane burned on the ramp
after catching fire during ground refueling operations. Although
damaged beyond economic repair for operational use, the air-
plane was disassembled and its fuselage and wings moved by
trailer truck to the RADC at Griffiss AFB. It was superficially
repaired and is used as a ground test-bed (upright, unlike the
other 'upside down air force' platforms at RADC) for antenna
placement. The right wing has been donated to an operational
KC-135, and been replaced with a 707 wing."
60-0340 KC-135A, 462nd SAW, 43rd AREFS, Larson AFB, WA.
8th July 1964, Death Valley, CA.
This is the only mid-air collision between a KC-135 and a
fighter aircraft in which both the fighter and the tanker were lost
F-105D Thunderchief (61-009t) of the 355th TFW at McConnell
AFB struck the tanker during air refueling, sending them both
\
out of control. The tanker crashed some 65 miles (104km) north
of George AFB, California. The tanker crew of four and the
'Thud' pilot were killed."
60-0352 KC-135A, 28th BW, 28th AREFS, Ellsworth AFB, SD.
10th September 1962, Mount Kit Carson, WA. TH: 303 (approx.).
This flight was a deployment mission with acrew of four plus
40 passengers. During the penetration and approach into
Fairchild AFB with a 900ft (274m) ceiling caused by 'thick fog
and heavy rain', the airplane apparently deviated from the pub-
lished approach and descended below the minimum safe alti-
tude. It crashed in a deep canyon on Mt Carson while 'attempt-
ing to gain altitude', killing all aboard. The wreckage was found
the following day by two hunters."
60-0354 KC-135A, 380th BW, Plattsburgh AFB, NY.
7th December 1975, near Eielson AFB, AK. TH: 6,594.4.
Following extensive ground delays while awaiting the last-
minute repair of an RC-135 in cell formation with this tanker on
temporary duty with the 6th SW, the ftight was cleared to launch.
Weather was severe with extremely cold temperatures in excess
of -40'F. After take-off the crew reported landing gear problems
and requested a right turn. Afew seconds later the airplane dis-
appeared from radar and crashed. It is believed that the crew of
four, who were all killed, suffered from severe hypothermia as a
consequence of their extended delay prior to take-off in an
unheated airplane in bitter cold, which degraded their flight
skills and judgement, and contributed to the crash. The airplane
was written off on 10th December 1975. 48
60-0361 KC-135A, 92nd BW, Fairchild AFB, WA.
13th March 1987, Fairchild AFB, WA. TH: 10,956.0.
While practicing a low level maneuver with a B-52 as part of
SAC's fledgling 'Thunderhawk' aerial demonstration team, this
KC-135A encountered the B-52 wake turbulence. Already at a
lower altitude than planned and flying at an extremely slow air-
speed, the tanker attempted to turn but stalled and crashed. The
seven crewmembers on the airplane were killed. A 'Thunder-
hawk' KC-135 crewmember not flying that day but observing
from the ground was fatally injured when struck by the crashing
airplane."
60-0368 KC-135A, 410th BW, 46th AREFS, KI Sawyer AFB, MI.
6th February 1976, near Torrejon AB, Spain. TH: 5,481.9.
After a normal air refueling mission launched from RAF
Mildenhall, this KC-135A TOY to the 98th SW began its penetra-
tion and approach into Torrejon AB. No problems were report-
ed from the aircraft. Shortly after being told to contaclTorrejon's
radar approach control the airplane struck a mountain, killing all
seven aboard.
60-0373 C-135A,1611th ATW, McGuireAFB, NJ.
25th June 1965, near MCAS EI Toro, CA.
One minute, 14 seconds after take-off at 0144 hours and in
light rain and heavy fog, this C-135A struck Loma Ridge 200ft
(60m) below the peak, 3.2 miles (5.1 km) from the runway. The
airplane did not follow the prescribed departure flight path,
which required a left turn within two miles after take-off. Official
cause of the accident was determined to be the excessive climb
rate required to fly the departure with adequate obstacle clear-
ance, a rate in excess of the C-135A's performance capability.
Previously, MATS C-135 pilots had issued a hazard report for
MCAS El Toro because the departure requirements exceeded
Ihe C-135's operational limits and were incompatible with its
lake-off and climb procedures. The crew of 12 and the 72 US
Marines en route to Vietnam via Okinawa were killed"
61.Q265 KC-135A, 42nd BW, 42nd AREFS, Loring AFB, ME.
4th January 1965, Loring AFB, ME. TH: 1,353.0.
During climbout following a normal take-off, this KC-135A
encountered turbulence of such magnitude as to induce severe
wing rock accompanied by lateral stress sufficient to shear off
the Nos.3 and 4 engines. The airplane crashed just over two
miles from the runway's departure end. All four crewmembers
were killed."
61·0273 KG-l35A, 340th BW, 910th AREFS, Bergstrom AFB, TX.
17th January 1966, over Palomares, Spain. TH: 1,947.0.
During a 'Chrome Dome' airborne nuclear alert aerial refuel-
~g, B-52G 58-0256 collided with this KC-135A causing both air-
planes to crash. All four tanker crewmembers and three from the
8·52 were killed. Three of the four B28 nuclear weapons in the
8·52 were recovered soon after the accident; the fourth was
recovered from the Mediterranean Sea on 7th April 1966, fol-
lowing an extensive bi-national multi-service recovery effort."
61-0296 KC-135A, 410th BW, 46th AREFS, KI Sawyer AFB, MI.
26th September 1976, 12 miles (19km) SW of Alpena, MI. TH:
6,109.7.
This KC-135A was carrying a group of 'First Team' officers
from four SAC bases to Offutt AFB. En route to Wurtsmith AFB
the airplane developed a cabin pressurization problem which
dictated alower cruise altitude. The crew struck high terrain dur-
ing their approach into Wurtsmith AFB, killing all 15 on board.
The airplane was written off on 1st October 1976. 53
61-0301 KC-135A, 99th BW, 99th AREFS, Westover AFB, MA.
22nd October 1968, 47 miles (75km) from Ching Chuan Kang
AB, Taiwan.
During a night approach over mountainous terrain, the air-
plane descended below the safe approach altitude, striking the
ground 1,0000 (304m) below the top of a 7,3000 (2,225m)
mountain. The flight crew of four from the 901st AREFS, 454th
BW, Columbus AFB, and the two crew chiefs from the 99th BW
were killed. The plane was written off on 20th November 1968."
61-0316 KC-135A, 2nd BW, 71 st AREFS, Barksdale AFB, LA.
19th March 1985, Cairo lAP, Egypt. TH: 10,235.0.
The auxiliary power unit (APU) caught fire during ground
refueling. As the airplane had a modified VIP interior for use by
the 8th Air Force Commander, the fire spread rapidly, com-
pletely consuming the airplane's plush interior. The fire
occurred at Cairo lAP, and the wreckage was moved a week
later to Cairo-East AB for salvage or scrap."
61-0319 KC-135A, 19th BW, 407th AREFS, Homestead AFB, FL.
28th August 1963, 500 miles (804km) northeast of Homestead
AFB (the so-called 'Bermuda Triangle').
This was one of two tankers on a 'Reflex' support mission.
After air refueling the receivers saw this and the other tanker (61-
0322) enter adeck of cirrus clouds and disappear, probably col-
liding with one another. Wreckage was later found on the
ocean's surface. None of the four crew and two passengers in
this airplane were found, nor were the four crew and one pas-
senger from the other KC-135. Written off on 29 August 1963."
61-0322 KC-135A, 19th BW, 407th AREFS, Homestead AFB, FL.
28th August 1963, 500 miles (804km) northeast of Homestead
AFB (the so-called 'Bermuda Triangle').
This was one of two tankers on a 'Reflex' support mission.
After air refueling the receivers saw this and the other tanker (61-
0319) enter adeck of cirrus clouds and disappear, probably col-
liding with one another. Wreckage was later found on the
ocean's surface. None of the four crew and one passenger in
this airplane were found, nor were the four crew and two pas-
sengers from the other KC-135. Both airplanes were written off
on 29th August 1963. 57
61-0328 EC-135N, 4950th TW, 4952nd TS,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
6th May 1981, near Walkersville, MD. TH: 13,471.2.
While on an ARIA training mission with two crewmember's
spouses aboard, this EC-135N (call sign Agar 23) experienced
an abrupt pitch down due to an unexplained full nose down
electric trim setting. The airplane entered an unrecoverable dive
at 29,OOOft (8,839m), resulting in structural failure with ensuing
mid-air explosion and crash. All 21 on board perished. The orig-
inal accident report revealed that one of the spouses was in the
pilot's seat, and that the aircraft commander was in the copilot's
seat but was not strapped in. When the airplane pitched forward
abruptly, the pilot was unable to recover the airplane due to the
negative 'g' forces affecting him. What has long been rumored
and recently confirmed, however, was that 'the wives were
being allowed to sit in both pilots' seat [at the same time). and
one apparently maneuvered the controls, sending the airplane
out of control'.58
61-0331 C-135B, 4950th TW, 4952nd TS,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
13th June 1971, 700 miles (1,126km) SSW of HonolulU, HI. TH:
11,062.0.
This C-135B, part of the 'Burning Light; Task Force, crashed
after observing the French Ence/ade atmospheric nuclear test at
Mururoa. The airplane was en route from Pago Pago to Hickam
AFB. All 24 crewmembers were lost, 12 of them civilians, and
the airplane was written off the next day. In 1980 a court ruled
that a radome modification was inadequately tested and aero-
dynamically unsound, contributing to the accident."
61-0332 C-135B, 1501st ATW, 44th ATS, Travis AFB, CA.
11 th May 1964, Clark AB, Republic of the Philippines.
After descending below the instrument approach glidepath
in heavy rainshowers with low visibility, the pilot attempted to
complete a visual approach. The plane struck a 42ft (12.8m) tall
TACAN antenna 0.25 miles (O.4km) short of the runway and
plunged into the ground nose first some 1,500ft (457m) short of
the runway. Five crewmembers survived; the remaining 78 on
board were killed in the crash or died afterwards. An American
in ataxi struck by the crashing airplane was also killed."
61-2664 RC-135S, 6th SW, 24th SRS, Eielson AFB, AK.
15th March 1981, Shemya AFB, AK. TH: 18,638.9.
At 2245 Bering Standard Time (BST), 'Cobra Ball' II struck
the embankment at the approach end of the runway at Shemya
AFB while landing under extremely severe conditions, including
gusty crosswinds, low visibility, and blowing snow. Five of the
crewmembers were killed. Although the bad weather was acon-
tributing factor, cause of the accident was reportedly an inade-
quately trained and underqualified aircraft commander. As a
result, SAC increased the qualifications necessary for Shemya-
certified aircraft commanders from 1,000 hours (for former
'Cobra Ball' copilots) to 2,500 hours plus standing as an instruc-
tor pilot. The airplane was written off on 16th March 1981."
62-3522 KC-135A, 416th BW, 41st AREFS, Griffiss AFB, NY.
4th March 1977, Griffiss AFB, NY. TH: 6,423.4.
During a ground engine maintenance run, one of the NO.2
engine turbine stages disintegrated, causing the engine to
explode. Fragments and debris penetrated the airplane's skin,
dumping fuel onto the fire. The empennage and right wing sur-
vived the blaze. The airplane was written off 10th March 1977."
62-3536 EC-135K, 19th AF, 8th TOCS, Seymour
Johnson AFB, NC.
14th September 1977, near Kirtland AFB, NM. TH: 7,307.1.
This airplane was a backup airborne command post for a
Readiness Command joint task force exercise. After an extend-
ed crew duty day and considerable delays on the ground at
Kirtland AFB en route to Nellis AFB, Nevada, the exhausted flight
crew failed to account for steep terrain along their intended
climbout path, which they struck at approximately 11 :48pm. The
airplane was written off the following day.'"
62-3584 EC-135J, 55th Wg, 2nd ACCS, Offutt AFB, NE.
29th May 1992, Pope AFB, NC.
This EC-135J was returning to Pope AFB after a mission in
support of the US Army. The EC-135 reportedly landed on the
non-optimum runway (ie, with atailwind). which was wet from a
rainshower. The airplane landed far beyond the normal runway
landing zone (2,000-3,0000 - 609-914m from the approach end)
and well above landing speed. When braking by the aircraft
commander failed to stop the airplane, the copilot applied his
brakes which locked the wheels and blew out several tires. The
airplane ran off the end of the runway, crossed a road, sheared
off the landing gear, stopped, and broke up. There was no fire
or explosion, and the crew egressed safely. This airplane was
intended for storage in AMARC."
62-4136 C-135B, 1611th ATW, McGuire AFB, NJ.
23rd October 1962, NAS Leeward Point, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. TH: 150 (approx).
This new C-135B was heavily loaded with ammunition for the
US military buildup during the Cuban Missile Crisis. While on
final approach the airplane stalled and crashed l,OOOft 304m)
short of the runway. The seven crewmembers were lost, their
memory eclipsed by the global events that produced their
deaths."
62-4137 RC-135E, 6th SW, 24th SRS, Eielson AFB, AK.
5th June 1969, the Bering Sea. TH: 3, 350.7.
Thirty-five minutes after take-off the crew of the 'Rivet Amber'
reported extreme structural vibrations and directed the use of
100% oxygen, suggesting a rapid decompression or structural
failure. Its last reported position was approximately 250 miles
(402km) east of Shemya AFB en route to Eielson AFB. No trace
of the airplane or the 19 crewmembers on board has ever been
uncovered. The Headquarters building at Eielson AFB was
renamed Amber Hall in memory of the airplane and its crew. It
was written off on 20th June 1969."
63-7983 KC-135A, 305th AREFW, Grissom AFB,IN.
17th June 1986, near Rodman Naval Station, Republic of
Panama. TH: 8,041.1.
191
 During a night landing at Howard AB, Republic of Panama,
the airplane struck the runway and sheared off the No,3 engine,
setting the right wing on fire, The airplane became airborne
again but subsequently failed to clear a ridge near Rodman
Naval Station, where it crashed, All four crew were killed."

63-7989 KC-135A, 301st AREFW, 32nd AREFS,

Lockbourne AFB, OH,
.10328 8 March 1973, Lockbourne AFB, OH, TH: 4,933,1,
During a late night practice alert exercise on an unlit alert
ramp, the left wingtip of KC-135A 63-7980 struck the forward
fuselage of KC-135A 63-7989, Fire erupted and 63-7989 was
damaged beyond economical repair, Three crewmembers were
killed, Salvaged parts from it were used to repair 63-7960,
Written off on 7th September 1973."

63-7990 KC-135A, 410th BW, K.1. Sawyer AFB, MI.

31 st January 1989, Dyess AFB, TX.
This KC-135A crashed at 1210 CST during take-off from
Dyess AFB. It had arrived there earlier from KI Sawyer AFB and
was en route to Hickam AFB. The water injection system failed
during a heavyweight take-off in gusty crosswinds. Improper
pilot recovery technique caused the airplane to stall and crash,
All 19 on board were killed,"

63-8042 KC-135A, 6th SAW, 6th AREFS, Walker AFB, NM.

126~
3rd June 1965, Walker AFB, NM.
During a series of touch-and-go landings, visibility became
obscured by blowing dust and sand. The pilot flying the airplane
is believed to have become disoriented and descended below
the instrument approach glide path. The airplane crashed short·
ly before 11 :OOpm, a mile short of the end of the runway, killing
the crew of five. 70

.63-8053 EC-135C, 7th ACCS, 55th Wg, Offutt AFB, NE.

2nd September 1997, Pope AFB, NC.
After a hard landing at Pope AFB, the nose gear collapsed
on this EC-135C which then departed the runway, There were
no fatalities among the eleven crewmembers. As the airplane
was due for retirement by the end of the year, plans were made
to scrap it in place rather than repair it, although this has not
been confirmed,

63-8473 C-135F.
1st July 1972, French Polynesia.
The sole French C-135F lost, this airplane lost an engine duro
ing take-off due to water contamination while heavily loaded
with fuel and crashed immediately afterward. It departed Hao
AB, the forward operating location for the French Polynesian
Pacific Test Center, from which France conducted its later
atmospheric nuclear tests. The C-135F was on a weather recon·
naissance mission associated with a nuclear test. All six
crewmembers were lost."

63-8882 KC-135A, 397th BW, 71 st AREFS, Dow AFB, ME,

26th February 1965, 410 miles (659km) SSE of Harmon AB,
Newfoundland,
This KC-135A was part of a cell scheduled to refuel three
Boeing B-47s returning from a three-week alert deployment to
Torrejon AB, Spain. The second B-47 approached the air refu·
eling boom and, while maneuvering into the contact position,
failed to maintain adequate separation from the tanker. B-47E
52-0171 struck the KC-135A, and both airplanes and all eight
crewmembers aboard them were lost. 52-0171 was the second
B-47E lost in an air refueling collision with a KC-135A, as B-47E
52-0051 crashed after colliding with KC-135A 60-0342 (which
was not lost) from the 43rd AREFS, 4170th SW, Larson AFB,
WA, over Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, on 3May 1962."

EC·135N 61-0328 was destroyed on 6th May

1961. Peter B Lewis, courtesy Rene J Francillon

RC-135S 61-2664 crashed on approach to

Shemya AFB, 15th March 1981.
George R Cockle

EC-135J 62-3584, destroyed at Pope AFB on

29th May 1992. Author's collection

KC-135A 63-7983, crashed in Panama, on 17th

June 1986. Author's collection

192
 AppendixC

Retirements

This summary lists those aircraft stored in MASDC/
AMARC, as well as those in other storage facilities,
non-flying operational uses (such as Battle Damage
Repair- BDR), and in museums or as 'gate guards'.
This appendix lists the wing to which the aircraft
was assigned; a squadron is listed only when it was
the sole squadron in the wing that operated the air-
plane (eg, an EC-135L is recorded as from the 70th
AREFS, 305th AREFW, whereas a KC-135A, which
was flown by crews from both the 70th AREFS and
305th AREFS, is recorded without a squadron as
just from the 305th AREFW). KC-135s from geo-
graphically separated units delivered to AMARC are
noted in the disposition remarks.
The attrition date is when the aircraft was physi-
cally removed from operational use. This may be the
actual date when the aircraft was placed into stor-
age. All losses are as of 1st July 1997.
During 1995 AMARC modified the identification
numbers applied to aircraft stored there. This
appendix uses the original number assigned when it
was initially delivered to MASDC or AMARC, such as
'CA015'. The new number includes an Air Force pre-
fix and a leading zero, thus CA015 is now officially
AACA0015. The two Navy NKC-135s stored at
AMARC received Navy allocations beginning AN6G.

Serial No MDS Date Assigned Wing Assigned Base Total Hours Location and Remarks AMARC No Notes

55-3118 EC-135K 15 Oct 96 552nd ACW Tinker AFB, CA Static display at McConnell AFB, KS
55-3119 NKC-135A 6 Jul93 55thWg Offutt AFB 17,206.4 Stored at AMARC CA067
55-3120 NKC-135A 15 Dec 93 4950th TW Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 12,134.2 Stored at AMARC CA095
55-3122 NKC-135A 19 Oct 93 4950th TW Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 9,390.9 Stored at AMARC CA094
55-3123 NKC-135A 20 May 88 4949th TW Kirtland AFB, NM 6,550.0 Static display at the Air Force Museum, Dayton Ohio
55-3124 NKC-135A 7 Mar 91 4950th TW Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 9,316.4 Declared surplus; stored at Sheppard AFB, TX, GNKC-135A
55-3126 KC-135A 5 Jan 78 1st CompW Andrews AFB, MD Stored at MASDC beginning 31 Ju175, scrapped CA004
55-3127 NKC-135A 31 Aug 92 4950th TW Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 11,355.8 Stored at AMARC CA040
55-3128 NKC-135A 20 May 96 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA Stored at AMARC AACA0106
55-3129 EC-135P 31 Jan 92 lstFW Langley AFB, VA 7,665.7 Stored at AMARC CA008
55-3130 KC-135A 15 Dec 92 19thARW Carswell AFB, TX Static display at March AFB, CA
55-3131 NKG-135A 19 Oct 92 4950th TW Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 13,296.9 Stored at AMARC CA053
55-3134 NKC-135A 20 Feb 96 FEWSG Waco!TSTI AP, TX Stored at AMARC AN6GOO02
55-3136 KC-135A 28 Apr 93 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX 14,062.3 Stored at AMARC CA062
55-3137 KC-135A 14 Jul93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, ND 17,405.2 Stored at AMARC CA070
55-3139 KC-135A 3 Apr 93 398th OG Castle AFB, CA Static display at Castle AFB Museum; last flight 27 Jan 93
55-3142 KC-135A 12 Jul 94 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 17,368.0 Stored at AMARC CAl 04
56-3591 KC-135A 28 Jul93 43rdARW Minot AFB, ND 11,143.3 Stored at AMARC CA074
56-3594 KC-135A 17 Sep 92 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 15,331.5 Stored at AMARC CA047
56-3595 KC-135A 1Apr 94 458th OG Barksdale AFB, LA Static display at Eighth Air Force Museum, Barksdale AFB, LA
56-3596 NKC-135A 26 Jul95 FEWSG Waco!TSTI AP, TX Stored at AMARC AN6GOOOI
56-3600 KC-135A 13Apr93 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 12,809.9 Stored at AMARC CA059
56-3601 KC-135A 21 Jul 93 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 16,603.6 Stored at AMARC CA072
56-3603 KC-135A 21 Jul 92 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX 14,273.9 Stored at AMARC CA029
56-3608 KC-135A 23 Jul 92 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 12,555.3 Stored at AMARC CA030
56-3610 KC-135A 4 Nov 92 19thARW Carswell AFB, TX 11,565.9 Stored at AMARC CA055
56-3614 KC-135A 7 Jun 93 305thARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 12,458.3 Stored at AMARC CA064
56-3615 KC-135A 30 Jul 92 2ndWg Barksdale AFB, LA 11,225.6 Stored at AMARC CA032
56-3616 KG-135A 6 Jan 93 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX Stored for testing at NATC Patuxent River, MD
56-3617 KC-135A 3 Mar 93 398th OG Castle AFB, CA Stored for testing at NATC Patuxent River, MD
56-3619 KC-135A 7 Oct 92 305th ARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 11,198.9 Stored at AMARC CA051
56-3620 KC-135A 7 Mar 94 458th OG Barksdale AFB, LA 14,297.7 Stored at AMARC CA096
56-3621 KC-135A 23 Jun 94 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 12,815.8 Stored at AMARC CA102
56-3624 KC-135A 7 Jul94 398thOG Castle AFB, CA 11,149.5 Stored at AMARC CAl 03
56-3625 KC-135A 5 May 93 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX 11,881.3 Stored at AMARC CA063
56-3627 KC-135A 21 Oct 92 2ndWg Barksdale AFB, LA 13,882.1 Stored at AMARC CA054
56-3632 KC-135A 16 Feb 93 2ndWg Barksdale AFB, LA Stored for testing at NATC Patuxent River, MD
56-3633 KC-135A 20 Aug 92 305thARW Wurtsmith AFB, MI 11,746.8 Stored at AMARC CA037
56-3634 KC-135A 22 Sep 92 305th ARW Wurtsmith AFB, MI 15,448.6 Stored at AMARC CA049
56-3635 KC-135A 25 Aug 92 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX 15,035.4 Stored at AMARC CA038
56-3636 KC-135A 28 Jul92 2ndWg Barksdale AFB, LA 12,061.4 Stored at AMARC CA031
56-3637 KC-135A 6 Aug 92 305th ARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 15,105.0 Stored at AMARC CA033
56-3639 KC-135A 1 Jul92 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX Static display at Dyess AFB, TX
56-3642 KC-135A 11 Aug 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, NO 13,350.5 Stored at AMARC CA078
56-3644 KC-135A 16 Jul92 305thARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 12,318.0 Stored al AMARC CA028
56-3646 KC-135A 11 Aug 92 96thWg Dyess AFB, TX 10,807.4 Stored at AMARC CA034
56-3647 KC-135A 10 Sep 92 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 11,561.1 Stored at AMARC CA044
56-3649 KC-135A 16 Jun 93 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 12,865.3 Stored at AMARC CA065
56-3651 KC-135A 1 Sep 92 43rd ARW Minot AFB, NO 12,578.1 Stored at AMARC CA041
56-3652 KC-135A 9 Aug 93 43rdARW Minot AFB, NO 17,367.5 Stored at AMARC CA077
56-3653 KC-135A 7 Jul92 19th ARW Carswell AFB, TX 11,730.7 Stored at AMARC CA025
56-3656 KC-135A 13 Nov 92 19th ARW Carswell AFB, TX Stored for testing at NATC Patuxent R~er, MD
57-1420 KG-135A 15 Sep 92 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 12,639.8 Stored at AMARC CA046
57-1467 KC-135A 27 Aug 92 305th ARW Wurtsmith AFB, MI 14,105.6 Stored at AMARC CA039
57-1476 KC-135A 13 Aug 92 305th ARW Wurtsmith AFB, MI 12,431.6 Stored at AMARC CA035
57-1477 KC-135A 18 Aug 92 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 11,979.0 Stored at AMARC CA036
57-1490 KC-135A 29 Sep 92 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 14,841.1 Stored at AMARC CA050
57-2590 KC-135A 3 Sep 92 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 13,761.0 Stored at AMARC CA042
57-2591 KC-135A 19 Apr 93 305thARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 13,733.0 Stored at AMARC CA060
57-2592 KC-135A 23 Jun 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, NO 12,292.9 Stored at AMARC CA066
57-2596 KC-135A 21 Apr 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, NO 13,139.4 Stored at AMARC CA061
57-2609 KC-135A 20 Jan 93 96thWg Dyess AFB, TX 12,740.5 Stored at AMARC CA057
58-0019 EC-135P 12 Feb 92 lstFW Langley AFB, VA 23,598.3 Stored at AMARC CA009
58-0022 EC-135P 5 Mar 92 lsiFW Langley AFB, VA 23,353.2 Stored at AMARC CAOll
58-0025 KC-135A 4 Aug 93 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 13,839.5 Stored at AMARC CA075
58-0028 KC-135A 7 Apr 93 305th ARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 12,165.2 Stored at AMARC CA058

193
Retirements continued
Serial No MDS Date Assigned Wing Assigned Base Total Hours Location and Remarks AMARC No Notes

58-0029 KC-135A 2 Dec 92 19thARW Carswell AFB, TJ( 13,262.0 Stored at AMARC CA056
58·0033 KC-135A 9 Jul92 19thARW Carswell AFB, TJ( 15,680.7 Stored at AMARC CA026
58-0070 KC-135A 15 Oct 92 19thARW Carswell AFB, TJ( Maintenance trainer at Sheppard AFB, TJ(; GKC-135A
58-0081 KC-135A 16 Oct 92 2ndWg Barksdale AFB, LA 10,850.5 Stored at AMARC CA052
58-0091 KC-135A 18 Aug 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, ND 11,874.9 Stored at AMARC CA079
58-0097 KC-135A 8 Sep 92 19thARW Carswell AFB, TJ( 14,284.1 Stored at AMARC CA043
58-0105 KC-135A 23 Aug 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, ND 11,821.1 Stored at AMARC CA080
59-1449 KC-135A 27 Aug 93 305th ARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 12,559.6 Stored at AMARC CA082
59-1454 KC-135A 1 Sep 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, ND 12,475.6 Stored at AMARC CA083
59-1481 KC-135A Oct 95 NASA Ellington ANGB, TJ( Stored at Ellington ANGB
60-0369 NG-135A 9 Jun 76 4949th TW Kirtland AFB, NM Ground trainer at Chanute AFB, IL; GNC-135A; scrapped 8
60-0370 NG-135A 6 Sep 78 4949th TW Kirtland AFB, NM 6,354.2 Stored at AMARC CA005 9
60-0371 NC-135A 12 Aug 94 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA Displayed at the Kirtland Rescue Museum, Kirtland AFB, NM 10
60-0377 C-135A 15 Dec 95 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA Displayed at the Edwards AFB Museum, CA
60-0378 C-135A 23 Jul94 55thWg OffuttAFB, NE Bailie Damage Repair (BDR) at Tinker AFB, OK 11
61-0261 EC-135L 29 May 92 28thWg Ellsworth AFB, SD 11,000.3 Stored at AMARC CA020
61-0262 EC-135A 30 Mar 92 28thWg Ellsworth AFB, SD Static dispiay at South Dakota Air & Space Museum
61-0263 EC-135L 5 May 92 305thARW Grissom AFB, iN 10,895.1 Stored at AMARC CA015
61-0269 EC-135L 29 Jun 92 305thARW Grissom AFB, IN Static display at Grissom AFB, IN
61-0274 EC-135P 27 Feb 92 lstFW Langley AFB, VA 15,808.7 Stored at AMARC CA010
61-0278 EC-135A 18 Sep 92 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 13,049.0 Siored at AMARC CA048
61-0279 EC-135L 22 May 92 305th ARW Grissom AFB, IN 11,301.3 Stored at AMARC CA018
61-0282 EC-135H 15 Nov 91 513th ACCW RAF Mildenhall, UK 17,103.8 Maintenance trainer at Sheppard AFB, TJ(; GEC-135H 12
61-0283 EC-135L 6 May 92 305th ARW Grissom AFB, IN 12,971.4 Stored at AMARC CA016
61-0285 EC-135H 9 Mar 92 lstFW Langley AFB, VA 17,082.3 Stored at AMARC CA012
61-0286 EC-135H 22 Jan 92 513th ACCW RAF Mildenhall, UK Maintenance trainer at Sheppard AFB, TX; GEC-135H 13
61-0287 EC-135A 10 Feb 92 305th ARW Grissom AFB. IN c13,000.0 Static display at Offull AFB, NE
61-0289 EC-135A 8 Jun 92 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 13,085.3 Stored at AMARC CA022
61-0291 EC-135H 30 May 91 513thACCW RAF Mildenhall, UK 16,533.0 Stored at AMARC CA007 14
61-0297 EC-135A 2 Jun 92 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 14,524.0 Stored at AMARC CA021
61-0325 KC-135A 29 Sep 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, ND 10.745.5 Stored at AMARC CA091
61-0329 EC-135E Jun 96 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA To Tinkers AFB, OK, as BDR
61-2665 WC-135W l1Sep96 55th Wg OffuUAFB, NE Stored at AMARC MCA0107
61-2668 G-135C 96 15thABW Hickam AFB, HI Wrillen off at Tinker AFB 15
61-2671 C-135C 30 Oct 91 Det 1, 89th AW Hickam AFB, HI Static dispiay at Tinker AFB, OK 16
61-2673 WC-135B 28 Sep 93 55thWRS McClellan AFB, CA 26,581.6 Stored at AMARC CA090
62-3501 KC-135A 7Jul93 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 11,444.2 Stored at AMARC CA068
62-3532 KC-135A 5 Aug 93 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TJ( 10,325.2 Stored at AMARC CA076
62-3535 KC-135A 6 Apr 70 BMAC Wichita, KS 2,975.0 Cyclic test airframe - tested to destruction by Boeing 17
62-3555 KC-135A 20 Sep 93 305th ARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 12,283.9 Stored at AMARC CA087 18
62-3560 KC-135A 16 Jun 94 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 10,940.1 Stored at AMARC CA101
62-3563 KC-135A 18 Mar 94 43rd ARW Dyess AFB, TJ( 12,043.9 Stored at AMARC CA097 19
62-3570 EC-135G 23 Jun 92 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 12,515.4 Stored at AMARC CA024 20
62-3579 EC-135G 16 Jun 92 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 12,701.9 Stored at AMARC CA023
62-3583 EC-135C 26 May 92 55thWg OffuIlAFB, NE 27,849.2 Stored at AMARC CA019
63-7986 KC-135A 15 Sep 93 43rd ARW Minot AFB, ND 12,765.9 Stored at AMARC CA086
63-7994 EC-135G llSep92 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 12,019.9 Stored at AMARC CA045
63-8001 EC-135G 18May92 28th Wg Ellsworth AFB, SD 11,485.9 Stored at AMARC CA017
63-8005 KC-135A 11 Jul94 398th OG CastleAFB, CA Displayed at Grand Forks AFB, ND
63-8009 KC-135A 26 Jul93 305th ARW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 11,882.4 Stored at AMARC CA073 21
63-8010 KC-135A 15 Sep 93 Displayed at Scali AFB, IL, Museum
63-8016 KC-135A 12 May 94 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 13,443.4 Stored at AMARC CA099
63-8047 EC-135C 12 Oct 93 55th Wg OffuIlAFB, NE 21,666.9 Stored at AMARC CA093
63-8049 EC-135C 29 Jan 92 55th Wg Offull AFB, NE SAC Museum at Offull AFB, NE
63-8051 EC-135C 10Jul92 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 19,634.9 Stored at AMARC CA027
63-8055 EC-135J 4 Oct 93 55th Wg Offull AFB, NE 13,933.1 Stored at AMARC CA092
63-8056 EC-135J 24 Mar 92 15th ABW Hickam AFB, HI 13,022.5 Stored at AMARC CA013 22
63-8057 EC-135J 31 Mar 92 15th ABW Hickam AFB. HI 13,692.4 To AMARC on 31 Mar 92, to Pima Air Museum CA014 23

Notes
55-3123. The Airborne Laser Laboratory (ALL) was placed in flyable
storage at Kirtland AFB on 14th May 1984, following completion of
the airplane's scheduled test flights. The airplane made its final flight
on 4th May 1988, from Kirtland AFB to Wright-Pallerson AFB. On
20th May 1988, it was presented to the Air Force Museum and
placed on permanent display.
55-3124. In early 1991 AFSC declared this NKC-135A test-bed as
surplus and offered it for use to other commands. Because of the
extensive modifications ~ received, ~ was uneconomical to convert ~
into a useable operational platlorm. It was flown to Sheppard AFB
on 7th March 1991, for use a ground maintenance instructional
trainer and was redesignated a GNKC-135A.
55-3126. The expense necessary to convert this former 'Speckled
Trout'test-bed into a basic tanker airframe proved prohibitive, so it
was retired to MASDC on 31st July 1975, and given the identification
number CAOO4. It was officially wrillen off on 5th January 1978.
During May 1979 the Department of Energy briefly evaluated it as an
expendable test-bed, but this plan was rejected (see Chapter 8).
Portions of '3126' have since been meted out to other projects_
55-3129. This EC-135P was delivered to AMARC on 31st January
1992, and given the identification number CA008. The airplane's
vertical stabilizer was removed and installed on EC-135J 63-8057.
55-3130. This airplane was the oldest operational KC-135A tanker in
the inventory and was nicknamed Old Granddad. It was the last
KC-135A to depart Carswell AFB on 15th December 1992, when
ACC's 7th Wg was inactivated (the 7th AREFS, to which the
KC-135A was assigned, reported to AMC's 19th ARWat Robins AFB
as a geographically separated unit). The airplane is on static display
at the March AFB Museum.
56-3616. This KC-135A is one of four (along with 56-3617, 56-3632,
and 56-3656) delivered to NATC Patuxent River for use in destruc-
tive testing. In the wake of the 1988 terrorist bombing of a PanAm
747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the FM and DoD began testing ways
to improve survivabil~ of aircraft from explosions in baggage com-
partments. These airplanes are used in ground tests of explosion
containment experiments.
57-2592. identified for FMS transfer to Turkey.
60-0369. After a dozen years as an airborne nuclear weapons
monitor, this NC-135A was delivered on 9th June 1976, to the CTTC
at Chanute AFB and permanently grounded. It was designated a
GNC-135A ground maintenance trainer for use by student aircraft
maintenance technicians training at the CTTC. During October 1991,
follol>1ng the announcement of the closure of Chanute AFB, 60-0369
was cut in hall aft of the wing root. The forward fuselage was sent to
Wright-Pallerson AFB for use in fire training, the engines and some
other parts were reclaimed, and the rest was sold as scrap.
60-0370. Relegated to MASDC on 30th June 1976, and given the
identification number CA005 after twelve years as a nuclear
weapons monitor, this airplane served as a source of spare parts
until it was no longer flyable. It has since been stripped to nothing
but the fuselage and wings, no doubt awa~ing the scrapper's torch.
It was wrillen off on 6th September 1978.
10 60-0371. This test-bed was declared surplus and relegated to the
Rescue Museum at Kirtland AFB for static display. Some reports
suggest that the airplane was intended for use for BDR and fire
training aircraft, but these appear to be incorrect.
11 60-0378. In 1996 this airplane was atest aircraft for the Large
Aircraft Robotic Pain Stripper (LARPS) at Tinker AFB. High preserve
water was sprayed on the aircraft to remove the paint. The aircraft's
BDR duties were taken over by EC-135E 61-0329.
12 61-0282. After the airplane was stripped of useable airborne
command post suite equipment, it was delivered to Sheppard AFB
on 15th November 1991. It was redesignated as a GEC-135H and is
in use as a ground instructional airframe.
13 61-0286. After being stripped of useable airborne command post
equipment, the airplane was delivered to Sheppard AFB on
22nd January 1992. It was redesignated as a GEC-135H and is in
use as a ground instructional airframe.
14 61-0291. This was the first EC-135 to be I>1thdrawn from service as
part of the reduction in airborne command post forces. The airplane
arrived at Langley AFB on 28th May 1991, where portions of ~s bat-
tle staff suite were removed. It arrived at AMARC on 30th May 1991,
and given the code CA007. The engines, horizontal stabilizers, and
other components were removed and installed on a KC-135A to
convert it into a KC-135E. The airframe has been disassembled and
analyzed for fteetwide corrosion and airframe longevity studies, and
was stricken from AMARC records on 4 Dec 15.
15 61-2668. While undergoing PDM at Tinker AFB, declared surplus
and withdrawn from use. Its dispos~ion has not been confirmed.
16 61-2671. During programmed depot maintenance, this airplane was
declared 'surplus' and delivered for static display at Tinker AFB. An
air refueling boom was installed and the airplane painted to appear
as a KC-135E. It was also given a 707 vertical stabilizer without an
HF antenna. During 1993 the considerable efforts of a KC-135
enthusiast resulted in the decision to remove the boom, install a
KC-135 vertical stabilizer, and repaint the airplane in C-135 colors.
17 62-3535. A technical proposal for a cyclic test airframe was submit-
ted on 13th March 1969, and finally approved on 17th February
1970. This KC-135A was selected as the test article and delivered on
6th April 1970, to BMAC at Wichita, Kansas. It was then tested to
destruction, and finally wrillen off on 1st May 1970.

194
MASDC/AMARC Storage and Disposition
Storage Code Serial Number MDS Date Arrived DisposITion Storage Code Serial Number MDS Date Arrived Disposition

CAOOI 63-8060 RC-135A 29 Jun 72 Left MASDC 27 Jul 72; returned to service CA063 56-3625 KC-l35A 5 May 93 Stored at AMARC
CA002 61-2668 C-l35B 20 Jul72 Left MASDC 1 Nov 72; returned to service
CA003 61-2669 WC-135B 20 Jul72 Left MASDC 8 Nov 72; returned to service CA066 57-2592 KC-135A 23 Jun 93 Stored at AMARC
CA004 55-3126 KC-135A 31 Jul75 Scrapped for parts at AMARC CA067 55-3119 NKC-135A 6 Jun 93 Stored at AMARC
CA005 60-0370 NC-135A 30 Jun 76 Scrapped for parts at AMARC CA066 62-3501 KC-135A 7 Jul93 Stored at AMARC
CA006 N70700 367-80 17Feb 76 To the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum Annex, CA069 62-3574 KC-135A 12 Jul 93 Left AMARC early 1997 for PDM. Returned 5 May
VA, 27 Jan 90, see below 97 as AACAOl12 pending conversion. Delivery to
CA007 61-0291 EC-135H 30 May 91 Scrapped for parts at AMARC - KC-135E donor; France as KC-135R on 1 Jul 97.
corrosion studies CA070 55-3137 KC-135A 14 Jul93 Stored at AMARC
CA008 55-3129 EC-135P 31 Jan 92 Stored at AMARC CA071 62-3497 KC-135A 16 Jul93 Left AM ARC on 19 Jan 96 for PDM; returned to
CA009 58-0019 EC-135P 12 Feb 92 Stored at AMARC AMARC 19 Sep 96 as AACA0108 pending conver-
CA010 61-0274 EC-135P 27 Feb 92 Stored at AMARC sion and delivery to France.
CAOll 58-0022 EC-135P 5 Mar 92 Stored at AMARC CA072 56-3601 KC-135A 21 Jul93 Stored at AMARC
CA012 61-0285 EC-135H 9 Mar 92 Stored at AMARC CA073 63-8009 KC-135A 26 Jul93 Stored at AMARC
CA013 63-8056 EC-135J 24 Mar 922 Stored at AMARC see below CA074 56-3591 KC-135A 28 Jul93 Stored at AMARC
CA014 63-8057 EC-135J 31 Mar 92 Stored at AMARC - to Pima Air Museum, AZ., CA075 58-0025 KC-135A 4 Aug 93 Stored at AMARC
on 20 Apr 93 CA076 62-3532 KC-135A 5Aug 93 Stored at AMARC
CA015 61-0263 EC-135L 5 May 92 Stored at AMARC CA077 56-3652 KC-I35A 9 Aug 93 Stored at AMARC
CA016 61-0283 EC-135L 6 May 92 Slored al AMARC CA078 56-3642 KC-l35A 11 Aug 93 Stored at AMARC
CA017 63-8001 EC-135G 18 May 92 Stored at AMARC CA079 58-0091 KC-135A 18Aug93 Stored at AMARC
CA018 61-0279 EC-135L 22 May 92 Stored at AMARC CA060 58-0105 KC-135A 23 Aug 93 Stored at AMARC
CA019 62-3583 EC-135C 26 May 92 Stored at AMARC CA081 62-3525 KC-135A 24 Aug 93 Left AM ARC on 19 Sep 96 for PDM; returned to
CA020 61-0261 EC-135L 29 May 92 Stored at AMARC AMARC 15 May 96 as AACAOI 05. Removed from
CA021 61-0297 EC-135A 2 Jun 92 Stored at AMARC AMARC 19 Feb 97 for re-engining and delivery
CA022 61-0289 EC-135A 8 Jun 92 Stored at AMARC to France.
CA023 62-3579 EC-135G 16 Jun 92 Stored at AMARC CA082 59-1449 KC-135A 27 Aug 93 Stored at AMARC
CA024 62-3570 EC-135G 23 Jun 92 Stored at AMARC CA083 59-1454 KC-135A 1 Sep 93 Stored at AMARC
CA025 56-3653 KC-135A 7 Jul92 Stored at AMARC CA084 60-0326 KC-135A 2 Sep 93 Removed from AMARC early 1997 for PDM and
CA026 58-0033 KC-l35A 9 Jul92 Stored at AMARC conversion prior to delivery to Turkey.
CA027 63-6051 EC-135C 10 Jul92 Stored at AMARC CA085 62-3567 KC-135A 13 Sep 93 Removed from AMARC early 1997 for PDM.
CA028 56-3644 KC-135A 16 Jul92 Stored at AMARC Returned to AMARC 29 Apr 97 as AACAOll1
CA029 56-3603 KC-135A 21 Jul92 Stored at AMARC pending conversion and delivery to Turkey.
CA030 56-3608 KC-135A 23 Jul92 Stored at AMARC CA086 63-7986 KG-135A 15 Sep 93 Stored at AMARC
CA031 56-3636 KC-I35A 28 Jul 92 Stored at AMARC CA087 62-3555 KC-135A 20 Sep 93 Stored at AMARC
CA032 56-3615 KC-135A 30 Jul92 Stored al AMARC CA088 60-0325 KC-135A 22 Sep 93 Removed from AMARC early 1997 for PDM and
CA033 56-3637 KC-135A 6Aug 92 Stored at AMARC conversion prior to delivery to Turkey.
CA034 56-3646 KG-135A 11 Aug 92 Stored at AMARC CA089 58-0110 KG-135A 27 Sep 93 Left AMARC early 1997; returned as AACA0113
CA035 57-1476 KC-135A 13 Aug 92 Stored at AMARC pending delivery to Turkey.
CA036 57-1477 KC-135A 18 Aug 92 Stored at AMARC CA090 61-2673 WC-135B 28 Sep 93 Stored at AMARC
CA037 56-3633 KC-135A 20 Aug 92 Stored at AMARC CA091 61-0325 KC-135A 29 Sep 93 Stored at AMARC
CA038 56-3635 KC-135A 25 Aug 92 Stored at AMARC CA092 63-8055 EC-135J 4 Oct 93 Stored at AMARC
CA039 57-1467 KC-135A 27 Aug 92 Stored at AMARC CA093 63-8047 EC-135C 12 Oct 93 Stored at AMARC
CA040 55-3127 NKC-135A 31 Aug 92 Stored at AMARC CA094 55-3122 NKC-135A 19 Oct 93 Stored at AMARC
CA041 56-3651 KC-135A 1 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CA095 55-3120 NKC-135A 15 Dec 93 Stored at AMARC
CA042 57-2590 KC-135A 3 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CA096 56-3620 KC-135A 7 Mar 94 Stored at AMARC
CA043 58-0097 KC-135A 8 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CA097 62-3563 KC-135A 18 Mar 94 Stored at AMARC
CA044 56-3647 KC-135A 10 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CA098 62-3539 KC-135A 1Apr 94 Removed from AMARC early 1997 for PDM and
CA045 63-7994 EG-135G 11 Sep92 Stored at AMARC conversion prior to delivery to Turkey.
CA046 57-1420 KG-135A 15 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CA099 63-8016 KC-I35A 12 May 94 Stored at AMARC
CA047 56-3594 KC-135A 17 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CAl 00 63-7998 KC-I35A 23 May 94 Left AMARC on 4 Nov 94; to NASA as
CA048 61-0278 EC-135A 18 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC KC-135A N931NA
CA049 56-3634 KC-135A 22 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CAl 01 62-3560 KC-135A 16 Jun 94 Stored at AMARC
CA050 57-1490 KC-135A 29 Sep 92 Stored at AMARC CAl 02 56-3621 KC-135A 23 Jun 94 Stored at AMARC
CA051 56-3619 KC-135A 7 Oct 92 Stored at AMARC CAl 03 56-3624 KC-135A 7 Jul94 Stored at AMARC
CA052 58-0081 KC-135A 16 Oct 92 Stored at AMARC CAl 04 55-3142 KC-135A 12 Jul94 Stored at AMARC
CA053 55-3131 NKC-135A 19 Oct 92 Stored at AMARC AACA0105 62-3525 KC-135A 15 May 96 To Boeing 19 Feb 97 for FMS to France.
CA054 56-3627 KC-135A 21 Oct 92 Stored at AMARC AACA0106 55-3128 NKC-135A 20 May 96 Stored at AMARC
CA055 56-3610 KC-135A 4 Nov 92 Stored at AMARC AACA0107 61-2665 WC-135W 11 Sep 96 Stored at AMARC
CA056 58-0029 KC-f35A 2 Dec 92 Stored at AMARC AACAOlll 62-3567 KC-135A 29 Apr 97 Pending conversion and delivery to Turkey.
CA057 57-2609 KC-135A 20 Jan 93 Stored at AMARC AACA0112 62-3574 KC-135A 5 May 97 Pending conversion and delivery to France.
CA058 58-0028 KC-135A 7Apr 93 Stored at AMARC AACA0113 58-0110 KC-135R 1 Jul97 Pending delivery to Turkey.
CA059 56-3600 KC-135A 13 Apr 93 Stored at AMARC AN6GOOOI 56-3596 NKC-135A 26 Jun 95 Stored at AMARC
CA060 57-2591 KC-135A 19 Apr 93 Stored at AMARC AN6GOO02 55-3134 NKC-135A 20 Feb 96 Stored at AMARC
CA061 57-2596 KC-135A 21 Apr 93 Stored at AMARC
CA062 55-3136 KC-135A 28 Apr 93 Stored at AMARC Notes: CA006: Although not a KG-135 varlant, the 'Dash 80' was assigned a KC-135 storage code rather than a
CA064 56-3614 KC-I35A 7 Jun 93 Stored at AMARC Boeing 707 storage code. CAOf 3: This aircraft arrived at AMARC after duty hours on 23rd March 1992, and was
CA065 56-3649 KC-l35A 16 Jun 93 Stored at AMARC not officially in-processed until 24th March.

Static Display Aircraft

18 62-3555. Identified for FMS transfer to France.
19 62-3563. Identified for FMS transfer to Turkey. Serial Serial
20 62-3570. This EC-135G was delivered to AMARC on 23rd June Number MDS Date Arrived Disposition Number MDS Date Arrived Disposition
1992, and given the identification number CA024. Beginning in 1993
the lower fuselage of this airplane was donated to repair KC-135R 55-3118 EC-135K 15 Oct 96 McConnell AFB, KS 61-0262 EG-l35A 30 Mar 92 South Dakota Air & Space
62-3540, which had been badly damaged in a mid-air collision with 55-3123 NKC-I35A 20 May 88 Air Force Museum, Dayton, OH Museum, Ellsworth AFB, SD
Rockwell B-1 B Lancer 86-0093 on 24fh March 1992. 55-3130 KC-135A 15 Dec 92 March Museum, Riverside, CA- 61-0269 EC-f35L 29 Jun 92 Grissom Museum, Peru, IN
21 63-8009. Identified for FMS transfer to France. from 7th AREFS, Carswell AFB 61-0287 EC-135A 10 Feb 92 Gate guard at Offutt AFB, NE
22 63-8056. This EC-135J was delivered to AMARC on 23rd March 55-3139 KG-I35A 3 Apr 93 Castle Museum, Atwater, CA; 61-2671 C-135C 30 Oct 91 Gate guard at Tinker AFB, OK
1992, after duty hours. 11 was not processed into the facility until last flight on 27 Jan 93 63-8005 KC-135A 21 Jul 94 Gate guard at Grand Forks AFB
24th March and given the identification number CA013. 56-3595 KC-135A 1Apr 94 Eighth Air Force Museum, - from 93rd AREFS, Castle AFB
23 63-8057. This EC-135J was delivered to AMARC on 31 st March Barksdale AFB, LA 63-8010 KC-f35A 15 Sep 93 Scott AFB Museum, IL
1992, and given the storage code CAOI4. It was transferred on 20th 56-3639 KC-135A 1Jul92 Dyess AFB, TX 63-8049 EC-135C 29 Jan 92 SAC Museum, Bellevue, NE
April 1993, to the Pima Air Museum at Tucson, AZ., for static display. 60-0371 NC-135A 12 Aug 94 Kirtland Rescue Museum, 63-8057 EC-135J 20 Apr 93 Pima Air Museum, AZ - from
The vertical stabilizer from EC-135P 55-3129 was installed on Kirtland AFB, NM AMARC (CAOI4) on 30 Jun 93
63-8057 for some unknown reason. 60-0377 C-135A 15 Dec 95 Edwards AFB Museum, CA

195
 AppendixD

Units

An accurate history of every unit to operate the Boe-
ing KC-135 or its variants has been difficult to com-
pile. Some dates listed are those for the arrival of the
first KC-135 assigned to the unit, others are when
the unit was established, relinquished its previous
airplanes, was re-established or redesignated, or
when it was declared 'mission ready' on the type.
The intent here is to show when units operated the
airplanes, not to provide a unit lineage. Uncorrobo-
rated dates are not listed. All information is current
as of 1st July 1997. Rapid changes in the structure
and organization of the Air Force have made recent
revisions and additions more difficult to list, espe-
cially as operating locations appear and then inacti-
vate with little fanfare. The remarks section contains
the airplane type(s) most recently operated by the
unit. Companion trainer aircraft are not identified or
included. As part of the Air Force unit reorganization
that began in 1991, squadrons were reassigned
from wings to operational groups that report to the
wings. Other than for geographically separated
squadrons (those located at a base other than the
home base for the wing to which they are assigned
and abbreviated here as 'GSU'), the operations
group has the same number as the wing, and do not
appear in these tables. Prior to this 1st September
1991, reorganization, most Air Refueling Wings or
Squadrons were designated as 'Heavy', and officially
abbreviated as AREFW(H) or AREFS(H) to distinguish
them from earlier units that operated 'medium'
tanker assets such as KC-97s or KB-50s. These
tables use the abbreviation AREFW for these 'heavy'
wings, and make no distinction for the squadrons,
which remain AREFS throughout. After the 1991
reorganization, the designator 'Heavy' was deleted.
To show this change, these tables use the abbrevia-
tion ARW. On 1st February 1992, all AFRES units
deleted the 'Heavy' designator, as did ANG units on
16th March 1992.

AIRBORNE COMMAND POp SQUADRONS

7
Squadron or Oet Wing or Oet Assigned base Date from Date to Squadron status - most recent MOS I Mission

1st ACCS lstCW Andrews AFB, MD 1Jul69 1 Nov 75 converted to E-4As - EC-135J 'Night Watch' (NEACP)
2nd ACCS 55th SRW OffuttAFB, NE 1Apr 70 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
2nd ACCS 55th Wg OffuttAFB, NE 1 Sep91 19 Jul94 inactivated and mission reassigned to 7th ACCS - EC-135C/J 'Looking Glass' (SACI ACCI STRATCOM)
3rd ACCS 305th AREFW Grissom AFB, IN 1Apr 70 31 Dec 75 inactivated - EC-135C/G/L 'Cover All' (SAC)
4th ACCS 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SO 1Apr 70 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
4th ACCS 28th Wg Ellsworth AFB, SO 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 wing redesignated
4th ACCS 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SO 1 Jun 92 30 Sep 92 inactivated - EC-135NC/G/L 'Cover All' (SAC)
6th ACCS 4500th ABW Langley AFB, VA 3 Oct 72 18Aug76 reassigned
6th ACCS lslTFW Langley AFB, VA 19 Aug 76 30 Sep 91 wing redesignated
6th ACCS 1st FW Langley AFB, VA 1 Oct 91 1 Oct 92 inactivated - EC-135C/H/P 'Scope Light' [fAC/USCINCLANTj
7th ACCS 55th Wg OffuttAFB, NE 19 Jul94 -current- EC-135C 'Looking Glass' (ACC/STRATCOM)
8th ACCS 4500th ABW Langley AFB, VA 15 Oct 69 8 Mar 71 inactivated
8th ACCS Del.I Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 15 Oct 69 30 Sep 70 inactivated
8th ACCS 19th AF/TAC Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 1 Feb 72 30 Apr 74 redesignated
8th TDCS 19th AF/TAC Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 1 May 74 31 Dec 77 reassigned to parent wing at Tinker AFB, OK
8th TOCS 552nd AWACW Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 1 Jan 78 14 Jun 78 relocated
8thTOCS 552nd AWACW Tinker AFB, OK 15 Jun 78 28 Feb 86 reassigned
8th TOCS 28th AD Tinker AFB, OK I Mar 86 31 Oct 91 redesignated
8th ADCS 28th AD Tinker AFB, OK 1Nov91 28 May 92 reassigned
8th ADCS 552nd ACW Tinker AFB, OK 29 May 92 30 Jun 94 redesignated
8th ACCS 552nd ACW Tinker AFB, OK 1 Jul94 15 May 96- EC-135K 'Head Dancer' (ACC)
9th ACCS 6486th ABW Hickam AFB, HI 150ct69 31 Oct 71 reassigned
9th ACCS 15th ABW Hickam AFB, HI 1 Nov 71 31 Mar 92 inactivated - EC-135C/P/J 'Blue Eagle' (PACAF/ USCINCPAC)
10th ACCS 513th TAW RAF Mildenhall, England 1 Jan 70 17Jun87 wing redesignated
10th ACCS 513thACCW RAF Miidenhall, England 18 Jun 87 31 Dec 91 inactivated - EC-I35H silk purse (USAFE/USCINCEUR)
22nd AREFS 22nd BW March AFB, CA 1 Jul63 31 Mar70 mission reassigned to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ACCS - KC-135A/B, EC-135NC 'Cover All' (SAC)
28th AREFS 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SO 1Jan 65 31 Mar 70 mission reassigned to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ACCS-- KC-135A, EC-135A 'Cover All' (SAC) Note 1
32nd AREFS 301stAREFW Lockbourne AFB, OH 3 Mar 65 30 Jun 66 mission reassigned to 305th AREFS - KC-135A, EC-135A 'Cover All' SAC) Note 2
34th AREFS 340th BW OffuttAFB, NE 1 Oct 58 30 Sep 59 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 4321st SW OffuttAFB, NE 1 Oct 59 31 Dec 62 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 385th SAW OffuttAFB, NE 1 Jan 63 30 Nov 64 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 818th SAD OffuttAFB, NE 1Dec 64 24 Mar 65 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 810th SAD OffuttAFB, NE 25 Mar 65 30 Jun 65 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 13th SMD OffuttAFB, NE 1 Jul65 25 Jun 66 mission changed and relocated - EC-135NC 'Looking Glass' (SAC)
38th SRS 55th SRW OffuttAFB, NE 16 Aug 66 31 Mar 70 mission reassigned to 2nd ACCS - EC-135C 'Looking Glass' (SAC)
70th AREFS 305th AREFW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Jan 76 31 Aug 91 redesignated from AREFS(H) to AREFS
70th AREFS 305th AREFW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 wing redesignated
70th AREFS 305th ARW Grissom AFB, iN 1Jun 92 1Apr 93 inactivated - EC-135NG/L 'Cover All' (SAC)
91st AREFS 6thARW MacDili AFB, FL 97 current EC-135N/y (CENTCOM)
99th AREFS 499thAREFW Westover AFB, MA 31 Jan 64 31 Dec 65 reassigned
99th AREFS 99th BW Westover AFB, MA 1 Jan 66 31 Mar 70 mission reassigned to 2nd, 3rd, & 4th ACCS - EC-I35C 'Cover All' (SAC)
99th AREFS 19thARW Robins AFB, GA 1 Apr 94 30 Jun 96 wing redesignated
99th AREFS 19th ARG Robins AFB, GA 1 Jul96 97 mission transferred to 6th ARW. EC-135N/Y (CENTCOM)
305th AREFS 305th BW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Jul66 31 Dec 69 wing redesignated
305th AREFS 305thAREFW Grissom AFB, IN 1Jan 70 31 Mar 70 mission reassigned to 3rd ACCS - EC-135A 'Cover All' (SAC)
906th AREFS 450th BW Minot AFB, NO Feb 68 24 Jul68 wing inactivated Note 3
906th AREFS 5th BW Minot AFB, NO 25 Jul68 Dec 69 mission reassigned to 4th ACCS - EC-135A 'Cover All' (SAC)
912th AREFS 19th AREFW Robins AFB, GA 83 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
912th AREFS 19th ARW Robins AFB, GA 1 Sep91 31 Mar 94 reassigned EC-135N/y (CENTCOM)

196
Squadron or Det Wing or Det Assigned base Date from Date to Squadron status - most recent MDS I Mission

913rd AREFS 2nd BW Barksdale AFB, LA 1Apr 63 31 Mar 70 mission reassigned to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ACCS - KG-135NB, EC-135NC 'Cover All' (SAC)
1000th ACCS 1001stABW Andrews AFB, MD 1 Jun 62 30 Jun 69 inactivated, mission to 1st ACCS-EC-135C/H/J 'Night Watch' (NEACP) Note 4
1700th AREFS(P) 1700th AREFW(P) Riyadh AB, Saudi Arabia Aug 90 EC-135N/y (CENTCOM) Note 5
4220th AREFS 4252nd SW Ching Chuan Kang AB, Taiwan 2 Feb 68 70 inactivated, mission reassigned to 307th SW - KC-135A-VIlI 'Combat Lightning' (PACAF)
6486th ACCS 6486th ABW Hickam AFB, HI 5 Apr 65 14 Oct 69 inactivated, mission to 9th ACCS - EC-135NP 'Blue Eagle' (USCINCPAC)
7120th ACCS 7513th TG RAIF Mildenhall, England 65 Apr 66 wing redesignated
7120th ACCS 7120th SG RAF Mildenhall, England Apr 88 30 Jun 66 wing redesignated
7120th ACCS 513th TAW RAF Mildenhall, England 1 Jul66 31 Dec 69 inactivated, mission to 10th ACCS - EG-135NH 'Silk Purse' (USCINCEUR)
307th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, Thai land 70 23 Feb 71 mission reassigned to 376th SW
307th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, Thailand 8 Jun 71 8Apr 72 mission reassigned to 376th SW
307th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, Thailand 2 Feb 73 Jun 73 mission inactivated - KC-135A-VIlI 'Combat Lightning' (PACAF)
376th SW Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan 23 Feb 71 8 Jun 71 mission reassigned to 307th SW
376th SW Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan 8 Apr 72 2 Feb 73 mission reassigned to 307th SW - KC-135A-VIII 'Combat Lightning' (PACAF)
1703rd AREFW(P) King Khalid lAP, Saudi Arabia Jan 91 91 EC-135L 'Desert Storm' radio relay
4258th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, Thailand 20 Sep 88 2 Feb 68 mission reassigned to 4220th AREFS -EC-135L, KC-135A-VIII 'Combat Lightning' (PACAF)

Notes: The first KC-135A airborne command post was assigned to the 28th AREFS in December 1964, but the unit was not declared mission ready until January 1965.
The first KC-135A airborne command post (61-0287) was assigned to the 32nd AREFS on 30th November 1964, but the unit was not mission ready until 3 March 1965.
The first EC-135A was assigned to the 906th AREFS on 8th December 1967, but the unit was not declared mission ready until February 1968.
The 1000th ACCS was established 18th May 1962, but was not activated until 1st June 1962.
The CENTCOM EC-135s were assigned to Detachment One of the 1700th AREFS (P). EC-135Y 55-3125 was replaced by EC-135N 61-0327 in March 1991.

TANKER SQUADRONS

Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status - Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status -
orDet or Det from to latest MDS I Mission or Det orDet from to latest MDS I Mission

6th AREFS 2nd AF Bergstrom AFB, 1)( 1 Nov 57 3 Jan 58 on paper only 46th AREFS 410thWg K.I.Sawyer AFB, Ml 1 Sep91 31 May 92 reassigned as a GSU
6th AREFS 6th BW Walker AFB, NM 3 Jan 58 31 Apr 62 wing redesignated 46th AREFS 305th AlRW K.I.Sawyer AlFB, Ml 1 Jun 92 8 Oct 93 inactivated-KG-135A
6th AREFS 6th SAW Walker AFB, NM 1 May 62 25 Jan 67 inactivated - KC-135A
55th AlREFS 97th AMW Altus AFB, OK 28 Oct 94 current KC-I35R Tanker Flight Training
7th AREFS 7th BW Carswell AlFB, 1)( 1 Apr 58 15Apr60 inactivated Unit
7th AREFS 7th BW Carswell AFB, 1)( 1 Mar 64 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 63rd AREFS 927th AREFG Selfridge ANGB, MI 1 Jun 92 30 Sep 94 group redesignated
7th AREFS 7thWg Carswell AFB, 1)( 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as a GSU 63rd AREFS 927th ARW Selfridge ANGB, MI 1 Oct 94 current KC-135E AlFRES
7th AREFS 19th ARW Carswell AFB, 1)( 1 June 92 1Jan 93 inactivated - KC-135A
65th SS 43rd SW Andersen AFB, Guaml Jul86 2 Oct 91 inactivated; Pacific TIF -
9th AREFS 456th BW Beale AFB, CA 1 Jan 70 30 Sep 75 wing inactivated KG-135NR
9th AREFS 17th BW Beale AFB, CA 1 Oct 75 30 Sep 76 wing inactivated
9th AREFS 100th AREFW Beale AFB, CA 1 Oct 76 28 Jan 82 inactivated - KC-135Q 68th AREFS 305th BW Bunker Hill AFB, IN 1Jul59 25 Mar 65 inactivated - KC-135A

11th AREFS 11th SAW Altus AFB, OK 25 Jun 65 1 Jul68 wing redesignated 70th AREFS 384th BW Little Rock AFB, AR 1 Jul63 31 Aug 64 wing inactivated
l1thAREFS 11th AREFW Altus AFB, OK 2 Jul68 24 Mar 69 wing inactivated 70th AREFS 43rd BW Little Rock AFB, AR 1 Sep 64 13 Dec 69 relocated and reassigned
l1thAREFS 19th AD Altus AlFB, OK 25 Mar 69 30 Jun 77 reassigned 70thAREFS 305thAREFW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Jan 70 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
l1thAREFS 340thAREFG Altus AlFB, OK 1 Jul77 30 Sep 84 group redesignated 70th AREFS 305thARW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Sep91 1 Apr93 inactivated - KC-135R
11thAREFS 340th AREFW Altus AFB, OK 1 Oct 84 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 71st AREfS 397th BW Dow AFB, ME 1Mar 64 15 Apr 69 reassigned
11th AREFS 340th ARW Altus AFB, OK 1 Sep 91 30 Sep 92 wing inactivated 71st AREFS 2nd BW Barksdale AFB, LA 15 Apr 68 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
11th AREFS 97th AMW Altus AFB, OK 1 Oct 92 30 Jun 93 reassigned as 19th ARW GSU 71st AREFS 2ndWg Barksdale AFB, LA 1 Sep 91 30 Sep 93 reassigned as 380th ARW GSU
11th AREFS 457th OG Altus AFB, OK 1 Jul93 1 Oct 94 inactivated - KC-135R 71st AREFS 458th OG Barksdale AFB, LA 1 Oct 93 1 Apr 94 inactivated KC-135NQ
22nd AREFS 92nd BW McChord AFB, WA 15 Jun 60 1'5 Feb 62 wing redesignated 72nd AREFS 931stAREFG Grissom AFB, IN 1 Jul87 group inactivated
22nd AREFS 92nd SAW McChord AFB, WA 16 Feb 62 12 Jun 62 inactivated 72nd AREFS 434th AREFW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Jul87 31 Jan 92 wing redesignated
22nd AREFS 22nd BW March AFB, CA 1 Jul63 30 Sep 82 wing redesignated 72nd AREFS 434th ARW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Feb 92 31 Jul92 wing redesignated
22nd AREFS 22nd AREFW March AFB, CA 1 Oct 82 1Dec 89 inactivated 72nd AREFS 434th Wg Grissom AFB, IN 1Aug 92 30 Sep 94 wing redesignated
22nd AREFS 366th Wg Mountain Home, ID 1 Oct 92 current reactivated - KC-135R 72nd AREFS 434th ARW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Oct 94 current KC-135R AFRES

28th AREFS 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 1 Oct 60 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 74th AREFS 434thWg Grissom AFB, IN 1Aug 92 30 Sep 94 wing redesignated
28th AREFS 28th Wg Ellsworth AFB, SD 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as 43rd ARW GSU 74th AREFS 434th ARW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Oct 94 current KC- 135R AFRES
28th AREFS 43rd ARW Ellsworth AFB, SD 1 Jun 92 15 May 94 inactivated - KC-135R 77th AREFS 916th ARW Seymour-Johnson current KC-135R AFRES
32nd AREFS 301stAREFW Lockbourne AFB,OH 15 Mar 65 30 Sep 78 inactivated - KC-135A AFB, NC
91stAREFS 301st AREFW Lockbourne AFB, OH 15 Jun 64 30 Jun 71 relocated
34th AREFS 340th BW OffuttAFB, NE 1 Oct 58 30 Sep 59 reassigned
91st AREFS 47th AD McConnell AFB, KS 1 Jul71 31 Mar 72 reassigned
34th AREFS 4321st SW OffuttAFB, NE 1 Oct 59 31 Dec 62 reassigned
91stAREFS 14th SAD McConnell AFB, KS 1 Apr 72 31 Jul72 reassigned
34th AREFS 385th SAW OffuttAFB, NE 1 Jan 63 31 Nov 64 wing inactivated
91stAREFS 121hSMD McConnell AFB, KS 1 Aug 72 30 Nov 72 reassigned
34th AREFS 818th SAD OffuttAFB, NE 1 Dec 64 24 Mar 65 reassigned
91stAREFS 384thAREFW McConnell AFB, KS 1Dec 72 30 Jun 87 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 810th SAD OffuttAFB, NE 25 Mar 65 30 Jun 65 reassigned
91stAREFS 384th BW McConnell AFB, KS 1Jul87 30 Sep 87 inactivated
34th AREFS 13th SMD Offutt AFB, NE 1 Jul65 24 Jun 88 reassigned
91st AREFS 301stAREFW Malmstrom AFB, MT 1Oct 88 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 509th BW Pease AFB, NH 25 Jun 88 31 Mar 76 inactivated
91st AlREFS 301st AlRW Malmstrom AFB, MT 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned
34th SS 7th AD zaragoza AB, Spain 1 Aug 78 ? reactivated; Spanish TIF -
91st AlREFS 43rd ARW Malmstrom AFB, MT 1Jun 92 30 Jun 94 wing redesignated
KC-135R
91st AlREFS 43rd ARG Malmstrom AFB, MT 1Jul 94 30 Sep 96 relocated and reassigned
41st AREFS 4039th SW Griffiss AFB, NY 5 Jan 59 31 Jan 63 wing inactivated 91st AREFS 6th ARW MacDil1 AFB, FL 1 Oct 96 current KG-135R
41st AREFS 416th BW Griffiss AFB, NY 1 Feb 63 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
92nd AREFS 2nd AF Bergstrom AFB, 1)( 1Jul57 12 Sep 57 relocated and reassigned
41st AREFS 416th Wg Griffiss AFB, NY 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as 380th AlRW GSU
92nd AREFS 92nd BW Fairchild AFB, WA 13 Sep 57 15 Feb 62 wing redesignated
41st AREFS 3SOthARW Griffiss AFB, NY 1 Jun 92 15 Feb 93 inactivated - KC-135A
92nd AREFS 92nd SAW Fairchild AFB, WA 16 Feb 62 31 Mar 72 wing redesignated
42nd AREFS 42nd BW Loring AFB, ME 1 Jul57 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 92nd AREFS 92nd BW Fairchild AFB, WA 1Apr 72 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
42nd AREFS 42nd Wg Loring AFB, ME 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as 3Both GSU 92nd AREFS 92nd Wg Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Sep91 31 May92 reassigned as 43rd ARW GSU
42nd AREFS 380th ARW Loring AFB, ME 1 Jun 92 30 Apr 94 inactivated - KC-l35R 92nd AlREFS 453rd OG Fairchild AFB, WA 1Jun 92 30 Jun 94 reassigned
92nd AREFS 92nd ARW Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Jul94 current KG-135R/T
43rd AREFS 4170th SW Larson AFB, WA 15NovSO 31 Jan 63 wing inactivated
43rd AREFS 462nd SAW Larson AFB, WA 1 Feb 63 1Apr 66 wing inactivated 93rd AREFS 93rd BW Castle AFB, CA 1Mar 57 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
43rd AREFS 92nd SAW Fairchild AFB, WA 2 Apr 88 31 Mar 72 wing redesignated 93rd AREFS 93rd Wg Castle AFB, CA 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as 340th ARW GSU
43rd AREFS 92nd BW Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Apr 72 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 93rd AREFS 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 1Jun 92 30 Sep 92 reassigned as 97th AMW GSU
43rd AREFS 92nd Wg Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as 453rd OG GSU 93rd AREFS 398th OG Castle AFB, CA 1 Oct 92 30 Jun 93 relocated and reassigned
43rd AREFS 453rd OG Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Jun 92 30 Jun 94 reassigned 93rd AREFS 92nd ARW Fairchild AFB, WA 1Jul93 current KC-135RIT
43rd AREFS 92nd ARW Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Jul94 1 Oct 94 inactivated - KC-135R
96th AREFS 11thBW Altus AFB, OK 8 Mar 58 25 Jun 65 inactivated
46th AREFS 4042nd SW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 1 Apr 61 1 Feb 63 wing inactivated 96th AREFS 453rd OG Fairchild AFB, WA 1Apr 94 30 Jun 94 reactivated as 43rd ARW GSU
46th AREFS 410th BW K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI 1 Feb 63 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 96th AREFS 92nd ARW Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Jul94 current KC-135RIT

197
Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status - Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status -
or Det or Det from to latest MDS / Mission orDet or Det from to latest MDS / Mission

97th AREFS 97th BW Blytheville AFB, AR 23 Oct 64 base renamed 168thAREFS 168thARW Eielson AFB, AK 1Feb 96 current KC·135R Alaska ANG
97th AREFS 97th BW Eaker AFB, AR 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
173rd AREFS 155th ARG Lincoin MAP, NE 1 Jan 94 30 Sep 95 group redesignated
97th AREFS 97th BW Eaker AFB, AR 1 Sep 91 1 Apr 92 inactivated
173rd AREFS 155thARW Lincoln MAP, NE 1 Oct 95 current KC·135R Nebraska ANG
97th AREFS 43rd ARW Malmstrom AFB, MT 1 Oct 92 31 Mar 94 relocated; reassigned as a GSU
97th AREFS 453rd OG Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Apr 94 30 Jun 94 reassigned 191st AREFS 151st AREFG Salt Lake City lAP, Apr 78 15 Mar 92 group redesignated
97th AREFS 92nd ARW Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Jui 94 current KC·135R/T UT
191stAREFS 151st ARG Salt Lake City lAP, 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 95 group redesignated
98th AREFS 453rd OG Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Apr 94 30 Jun 94 activated as 43rd ARW GSU;
UT
reassigned
191st AREFS 151stARW Sail Lake City lAP, 1 Oct 95 current KC·135E Utah ANG
98th AREFS 92nd ARW Fairchiid AFB, WA 1 Jui 94 current KC·135TfT
UT
99th AREFS 40SOth AREFW Tumer AFB, GA 1 Jul57 6 Aug 57 relocated
19Bth AREFS 163rd ARG March AFB, CA 1 Oct 93 30 Sep 95 group redesignated
99th AREFS 4050th AREFW Westover AFB, MA 7 Aug 57 31 Dec 62 wing inactivated
19Bth AREFS 163rd ARW March AFB, CA 1 Oct 95 current KC-135R California ANG
99th AREFS 499th AREFW Westover AFB, MA 1 Jan 63 31 Dec 65 wing inactivated
99th AREFS 99th BW Westover AFB, MA 1 Jan 66 30 Sep 73 wing and squadron inactivated 197th AREFS 161st AREFG Sky Harbor lAP, Oct 77 15 Mar 92 group redesignated
99th AREFS 19th AREFW Robins AFB, GA 31 Oct 83 31 Aug 91 squadron reactivated; wing Phoenix, AZ
redesignated 197th AREFS 161st ARG Sky Harbor lAP, 16Mar92 30 Sep 95 group redesignated
99th AREFS 19th ARW Robins AFB, GA 1 Sep 91 30 Jun 96 wing redesignated Phoenix, AZ
99th AREFS 19thARG Robins AFB, GA 1 Jul96 current KG-135R 197th AREFS 161stARW Sky Harbor lAP, 1 Oct 95 current KC-135E Arizona ANG
Phoenix, AZ
10Bth AREFS 117thARW Birmingham AP, AL 1 Oct 94 current- KC·135R Alabama ANG
203rd AREFS 154th Grp Hickam AFB, HI 16 Jan 93 current KC-135R Hawaii ANG
108th AREFS 126th AREFW O'Hare lAP, 1 Jul76 15 Mar 92 wing redesignated
Chicago,IL 301st AREFS 301stAREFW Lockbourne AFB,OH 30 Sep 73 31 Dec 75 inactivated-KG-135A
108th AREFS 126thARW O'Hare lAP, 16 Mar 92 current KG-135E Illinois ANG 305th AREFS 305th BW Bunker Hill AFB, IN 25 Mar 65 31 Dec 69 wing redesignated
Chicago,IL 305th AREFS 305th AREFW Grissom AFB, iN 1Jan 70 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
116th AREFS 141st AREFW Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Jul76 15 Mar 92 wing redesignated 305th AREFS 305th ARW Grissom AFB, IN 1 Sep 91 20 Aug 93 inactivated - KC·135R
llBth AREFS 141st ARW Fairchild AFB, WA 16 Mar 92 current KC·135E Washington ANG 306th AREFS 4047th SW McCoy AFB, FL 1 Jul62 31 Mar 63 wing inactivated
117th AREFS 190th AREFG Forbes Field, 8 Jul 78 15 Mar 92 group redesignated 306th AREFS 306th BW McCoy AFB, FL 1 Apr 63 30 Sep 73 inactivated
Topeka, KS 306th AREFS 340thAREFW AliusAFB, OK 1 Oct 84 31 Aug 91 squadron reactivated; wing
117th AREFS 190th ARG Forbes Field, 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 95 group redesignated redesignated
Topeka, KS 306th AREFS 340thARW Altus AFB, OK 1 Sep 91 30 Sep 92 reassigned
117th AREFS 190thARW Forbes Field, 1 Oct 95 current KG-135D/E Kansas ANG 306th AREFS 97thAMW Altus AFB, OK 1 Oct 92 30 Jun 93 reassigned as a GSU
Topeka, KS 306th AREFS 457th OG Altus AFB, OK 1 Jul93 1 Aug 94 inactivated· KC-135R
12Bth AREFS 128th AREFG Mitchell Field, Dec 77 15 Mar 92 group redesignated 307th AREFS 410th BW K.l.Sawyer AFB, MI 1 Oct 85 1 Aug 90 inactivated - KC-135A
Milwaukee, WI 310th AREFS 310th BW Schilling AFB, KS 1 Nov 63 25 Jun 65 relocated and reassigned
126th AREFS 128th ARG Mitchell Field, 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 95 group redesignated 310th AREFS 6th SAW .Walker At'B, NM 25 Jun 65 25 Jan 67 relocated and reassigned
Milwaukee, WI 310th AREFS 380th SAW Plattsburgh AFB, NY 25 Jan 67 1 Jul72 wing redesignated
126th AREFS 128th ARW Mitchell Field, 1 Oct 95 current KC·135R Wisconsin ANG 310th AREFS 380th BW Plattsburgh AFB, NY 1Jul 72 30 Jun 91 wing redesignated
Milwaukee, WI 310th AREFS 380thARW Plattsburgh AFB, NY 1Jul 91 1 Oct 94 inactivated - KC-135Q/R
132nd AREFS 101stAREFW Bangor lAP, Apr 76 15 Mar 92 wing redesignated 314th AREFS 940th AREFG Mather AFB, CA 1 Oct 76 31 Jan 92 group redesignated
Bangor, ME 314th AREFS 940th ARG Mather AFB, CA 1 Feb 92 30 Jun 93 group relocated
132nd AREFS 101stARW Bangor lAP, 16 Mar 92 current KC-135E Maine ANG 314th AREFS 940thARG McClellan AFB, CA 1 Jul93 30 Sep 94 group redesignated
Bangor, ME 314th AREFS 940thARW McClellan AFB, CA 1 Oct 94 current KC·135E AFRES
133rdAREFS 157thAREFG Pease AFB, NH 1 Oct 75 15 Mar 92 group redesignated 321st AREFS 301stBW Lockbourne AFB, OH 1 Apr 63 14 Jul64 wing redesignated
133rd AREFS 157thARG Pease ANGB, NH 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 95 group redesignated 321st AREFS 301stAREFW Lockbourne AFB, OH 15 Jul 64 15 Mar 65 inactivated
133rd AREFS 157th ARW Pease ANGB, NH 1 Oct 95 current KC·135R New Hampshire ANG
336th AREFS 452nd AREFW March AFB, CA 31 Jan 92 wing redesignated
136th AREFS 107th ARG Niagara Falls lAP, NY 1 Jul 94 30 Sep 95 group redesignated 336th AREFS 452nd ARW March AFB, CA 1 Feb 92 30 Apr 94 wing redesignated
13Bth AREFS 107th ARW Niagara Falls lAP, NY 1 Oct 95 current KC·135R New York ANG 336th AREFS 452nd AMW March AFB, CA 1 May 94 current KC-135R AFRES
141st AREFS l08th AREFW McGuire AFB, NJ 160ct91 15 Mar 92 wing redesignated 344th AREFS 22nd ARW McConnell AFB, CA 29 Apr 94 current KC-135R/T
141st AREFS loath ARW McGuire AFB, NJ 16 Mar 92 current KC-135E New Jersey ANG
349th AREFS l00thAREFW Beale AFB, CA 30 Sep 76 15 Mar 83 wing inactivated
145th AREFS l60th AREFG Rickenbacker 18 Apr 75 15 Mar 92 group redesignated 349th AREFS 9th SRW Beale AFB, CA 15 Mar 83 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
ANGB,OH 349th AREFS 9thWg BealeAFB, CA 1 Sep 91 1 Jun 92 inactivated .
145th AREFS l60th ARG Rickenbacker 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 93 reassigned 349th AREFS 22nd ARW McConnell AFB, KS 1 Jan 94 current reactivated; KC-135R
ANGB,OH
145th AREFS 121st ARW Rickenbacker 1 Oct 93 current KC·135R Ohio ANG 350th AREFS l00th AREFW Beale AFB, CA 28 Jan 82 15 Mar 83 wing inactivated
ANGB,OH 350th AREFS 9th SRW Beale AFB, CA 15 Mar 83 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
350th AREFS 9thWg Beale AFB, CA 1 Sep 91 30 Sep 93 reassigned as 43rd ARW GSU
146th AREFS 112th AREFG Greater Pittsburgh 16 Oct 91 15 Mar 92 group redesignated 350th AREFS 43rd ARW Beale AFB, CA 1 Oct 93 30 Jun 94 reassigned and relocated
lAP, PA 350th AREFS 22nd ARW McConnell AFB, KS 1 Jul94 current KC-135R
14BthAREFS 112th ARG Greater Pittsburgh 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 93 reassigned
lAP, PA 351st AREFS l00th ARW RAF Mildenhall, 31 Mar 92 current KC-135R
146th AREFS 171st ARW Greater Pittsburgh 1 Oct 93 current KG-135E PennsylvaniaANG England
lAP, PA 380th AREFS 497th AREFW Plattsburgh AFB, NY 1Jul 64 15Sep64 wing inactivated
360th AREFS 380th SAW Plattsburgh AFB, NY 15 Sep 64 1 Jul72 wing redesignated
147th AREFS 171stAREFW Greater Pittsburgh Jul77 15 Mar 92 wing redesignated 360th AREFS 380th BW Plattsburgh AFB, NY 1Jul 72 30 Jun 91 wing redesignated
lAP, PA 380th AREFS 380th ARW Plattsburgh AFB, NY 1 Jul 91 1 Oct 94 inactivated - KC-135QIR/T
147th AREFS 171st ARW Greater Pittsburgh 16 Mar 92 current KC·135E Pennsylvania ANG
lAP, PA 384th AREFS 384th AREFW McConnell AFB, KS 30 Sep 73 1 Jul87 wing redesignated
384th AREFS 384th BW McConnell AFB, KS 1 Jul87 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
150th AREFS 170th AREFG McGuire AFB, NJ 1 Apr 77 15 Mar 92 group redesignated 384th AREFS 384th Wg McConnell AFB, KS 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as a GSU
150th AREFS 170th ARG McGuire AFB, NJ 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 93 reassigned 384th AREFS 19thARW McConnell AFB, KS 1Jun 92 31 Dec 93 reassigned
150th AREFS 108thARW McGuire AFB, NJ 1 Oct 93 current KC·135E New Jersey ANG 384th AREFS 22nd ARW McConnell AFB, KS 1Jan 94 current KG-135R
151st AREFS 134thAREFG McGhee-Tyson 1 Jul76 15 Mar92 group redesignated 407th AREFS 19thBW Homestead AFB, FL 1 Apr 62 2 Jul 68 relocated and reassigned
ANGB, TN 407th AREFS 42nd BW Loring AFB, ME 2 Jul 68 1 Oct 90 inactivated - KC-135R
151st AREFS 134th ARG McGhee-Tyson 16 Mar 92 30 Sep 95 group redesignated
ANGB, TN 465th AREFS 507th ARG Tinker AFB, OK 1Apr 94 30 Sep 94 wing redesignated
151st AREFS 134th ARW McGhee-Tyson 1 Oct 95 current KC·l35E Tennessee ANG 465th AREFS 507thARW Tinker AFB, OK 1 Oct 94 14 Mar 96 wing redesignated
ANGB, TN 465th AREFS 507thWg Tinkers AFB, OK 15 Mar 96 31 Jul97 wing redesignated
465th AREFS 507th ARW Tinker AFB, OK 1Aug 97 current KC-135R AFRES
153rd AREFS 186th ARG Key Field, Meridian, 1 Apr 92 30 Sep 95 group redesignated 509th AREFS 509th BW Pease AFB, NH 2 Oct 66 30 Jun 90 relocated and reassigned
MS 509th AREFS 416th BW Griffiss AFB, NY 1Jul90 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
153rd AREFS 186th ARW Key Field, Meridian, 1 Oct 95 current KC·135R Mississippi ANG 509th AREFS 416th Wg Griffiss AFB, NY 1 Sep91 31 May 92 reassigned as a GSU
MS 509th AREFS 380thARW Griffiss AFB, NY 1 Jun 92 1 Jun 94 inactivated - KC-135R
154th AREFS 189th ARG Little Rock AFB, AR 1 Jan 76 1 Oct 86 converted to C-130E Arkansas 712th AREFS 19th ARW Robins AFB, GA 1 Apr 94 1 Jul96 inactivated
ANG
801 st AREFS(P) Moron AB, Spain Aug 90 Jan 91 KC·135A/E1R
168th AREFS 121stARW Rickenbacker 16 Jan 93 current KG-135R Ohio ANG
ANGB,OH 802nd AREFS(P) Lajes AB, Azores 90/91 KG-135NE/R
168th AREFS 17Bth COMPG Eielson AFB, AK 1 Oct 86 Jul90 reassigned 803rd 17th AD(P) Hellenikon AB, 90/91 Mar91 KC-135NR
168th AREFS 168th AREFG Eielson AFB, AK Jul90 15 Mar 92 group redesignated AREFS(P) Greece
168th AREFS 168th ARG Eielson AFB, AK 16 Mar 92 31 Jan 96 group redesignated

198
 Assigned base Date Date Status - Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status -
from to latest MDS I Mission or Det or Det from to latest MDS / Mission
804th 804th Incirlik, Turkey 90/91 KC-135A 919th AREFS 484th BW Turner AFB, GA 1Feb 63 25 Mar 67 relocated and reassigned
AREFS(P) AREFW(P) 919th AREFS 306th BW McCoy AFB, FL 26 Mar 67 30 Jun 71 inactivated - KC-135A
805th 17th AD(P) RAF Mildenhall, 90/91 KC-135E 920th AREFS 7th BW Carswell AFB, TX 15 Apr 60 30 Jun 60 relocated and reassigned
AREFS(P) England 920th AREFS 4026th SW Wurtsmith AFB, MI 1Jul60 8 Jan 61 wing inactivated
920th AREFS 379th BW Wurtsmith AFB, MI 9 Jan 61 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
807th 17th AD (P) BA Mont de Marsan 7 Feb 91 Mar 91 KC-135R
920th AREFS 379th Wg Wurtsmith AFB, MI 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as a GSU
AREFS(P)
920th AREFS 305th AREFW Wurtsmith AFB, MI 1Jun 92 30 Sep 92 inactivated - KC-135A
809th 17th AD (P) AraJ<Os, Greece Feb 91 Apr 91 KC-135NE/R
921st AREFS 11thBW Altus AFB, OK 1 Oct 60 15 Dec 60 inactivated - KC-135A
AREFS(P)
922nd AREFS 4043rd SW Wright-Patterson 1 Dec 59 1 Feb 63 wing inactivated
900th AREFS 4245th SW Sheppard AFB, TX 1 Oct 62 1 Feb 63 wing inactivated
AFB,OH
900th AREFS 494th BW Sheppard AFB, TX 1 Feb 63 2 Apr 66 relocated and reassigned
922nd AREFS 17th BW Wright-Patterson 1 Feb 63 30 Sep 75 inactivated
900th AREFS 509th BW Pease AFB, NH 2 Apr 66 25 Jun 66 inactivated - KC-135A
AFB,OH
901st AREFS 4228th SW Columbus AFB, MS 1Aug 58 1 Feb 63 wing inactivated 922nd SS 7th AD Hellenikon AB, 1 Jul78 current redesignated and reassigned
901st AREFS 454th BW Columbus AFB, MS 1 Feb 63 2 Jul 69 inactivated Greece
901st AREFS 310th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, 1 Jun 72 1 Jul74 wing inactivated 922nd RS 55th Wg RAF Mildenhall, RC-135 detachment
Thailand England
901st AREFS Det 1, U-Tapao RTNAB, 1 Jul74 20 Mar 76 inactivated - KC-135A
923rd AREFS 4042nd SW K.I.Sawyer AFB, MI 1 May 60 1 Apr 61 inactivated - KC-135A
43rd SW Thailand
924th AREFS 93rd BW Castle AFB, CA 1Jul59 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
902nd AREFS 2nd AF Clinton-Sherman 1 Dec 58 1 Mar 59 reassigned
924th AREFS 93rd Wg Castle AFB, CA 1 Sep 91 1 Apr 92 inactivated - KC-135A
AFB, OK
902nd AREFS 4123rd SW Clinton-Sherman 1 Mar 59 1 Feb 63 wing inactivated 928th AREFS 28th BW Ellsworth AFB, SD 1 Feb 59 1 Oct 60 inactivated - KC-135A
AFB, OK
1700th 1700th Riyadh AB, Aug 90 KC-135NQ/R
902nd AREFS 70th BW Clinton-Sherman 1 Feb 63 31 Dec 69 inactivated
AREFS(P) AREFW(P) Saudi Arabia, (SA)
AFB, OK
902nd AREFS 310th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, 1 Jun 72 1 Jul74 inactivated - KC-135A 1701st 1701st King Abdul Aziz lAP, Aug 90 Jan 91 wing redesignated
Thailand AREFS(P) AREFW(P) Jeddah, SA
1701st 1701st SW(P) King Abdul Aziz lAP, Jan 91 current KC-135NE/R
903rd AREFS 4126th SW Beale AFB, CA 1 Apr 59 1 Feb 63 wing inactivated
AREFS(P) Jeddah, SA
903rd AREFS 456th BW Beale AFB, CA 1 Feb 63 30 Sep 75 wing inactivated
903rd AREFS 17th BW Beale AFB, CA 30 Sep 75 30 Sep 76 inactivated - KC-135NQ 1702nd 1702nd AREFW Seeb lAP, Muscat, Aug 90 KC-135R
AFRES (P) Oman
904th AREFS 4134th SW Mather AFB, CA 1 Mar 59 1 Feb 63 wing inactivated
904th AREFS 320th BW Mather AFB, CA 1 Feb 63 1 Oct 86 inactivated - KC-135A 1703rd 1703rd King Khalid lAP, Aug 90 KC-135NR
AFRES (P) AREFW(P) Riyadh, SA
905th AREFS 4133rd SW Grand Forks AFB, ND 1 Feb 60 31 Jan 63 wing inactivated
905th AREFS 319th BW Grand Forks AFB, ND 1 Feb 63 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 1705th 1702nd AI Dhafra AP, Aug 90 KC-135R
905th AREFS 319th Wg Grand Forks AFB, NO 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as a GSU AREFS(P) AREFW(P) Abu Dhabi
905th AREFS 305th ARW Grand Forks AFB, NO 1 Jun 92 30 Jun 93 reassigned as a GSU
1706th 1706th Cairo West AB, 27 Sep 90 KC-135E
905th AREFS 43rd ARW Grand Forks AFB, ND 1 Jul 93 30 Sep 93 reassigned
AREFS(P) AREFW(P) Egypt
905th AREFS 319th ARW Grand Forks AFB, ND 1 Oct 93 current KC-135Rrr
1707th 1702nd Masirah AP, Oman Aug 90 KC-135R
906th AREFS 4136th SW Minot AFB, ND 1 Jun 59 31 Jan 63 wing inactivated
AREFS(P) AREFW(P)
906th AREFS 450th BW Minot AFB, ND 1 Feb 63 24 Jul 68 wing inactivated
906th AREFS 5th BW Minot AFB, ND 25 Jul 68 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated 1709th 1709th King Abdul Aziz lAP, Jan 91 KC-135NQ
906th AREFS 5th Wg Minot AFB, ND 1 Sep 91 31 May 92 reassigned as a GSU AREFS(P) AREFW(P) Jeddah, SA
906th AREFS 43rd ARW Minot AFB, ND 1 Jun 92 29 Jan 94 reassigned and relocated
1711th 1709th King Abdul Aziz lAP, Jan 91 KC-135E ANG/AFRES
906th AREFS 319th ARW Grand Forks AFB, ND 30 Jan 94 current KC-135Rrr
AREFS(P) AREFW(P) Jeddah, SA
907th AREFS 91 st BW Glasgow AFB, MT 1 Jul 63 25 Jun 68 inactivated - KC-135A
1712th 1712th Abu Dhabi lAP, Dec 90 KC-135E
908th AREFS 449th BW Kincheloe AFB, MI 1 Jul 63 30 Sep 77 inactivated - KC-135A AREFS(P) AREFW(P) Abu Dhabi
909th AREFS 461 st BW Amarillo AFB, TX 1 Apr 63 24 Jun 66 relocated and reassigned 1713th 1713th Dubai lAP, Jan 91 KC-135E
909th AREFS 22nd BW March AFB, CA 25 Jun 66 31 May 71 relocated and reassigned AREFS(Pj AREFW(P) United Arab Emirates
909th AREFS 376th SW Kadena AB, Okinawa 1 Jun 71 30 Sep 91 wing inactivated; reassigned
4101st 310th SW(P) Takhli RTAFB, 5 Jun 72 15 Feb 73 inactivated - KC-135A
909th AREFS 18thWg Kadena AB, Okinawa 1 Oct 91 current KC-135R
AREFS(P) Thailand
910th AREFS 4130th SW Bergstrom AFB, TX 15 Oct 58 31 Aug 63 wing inactivated
4102nd 310th SW(P) ClarkAB, 5 Jun 72 8 Nov 72 inactivated
910th AREFS 340th BW Bergstrom AFB, TX 1 Sep 63 2 Oct 66 inactivated - KC-135A
AFRES(P) Philippines
911th AREFS 4241 st SW Seymour Johnson 15 Dec 58 14 Apr 63 wing inactivated 4102nd 310th SW(P) ClarkAB, 18 Dec 72 22 Jan 73 inactivated - KC-135A
AFB, NC AFRES(P) Philippines
911th AREFS 68th BW Seymour Johnson 15 Apr 63 29 Sep 82 wing redesignated
4103rd 310th SW(P) Don Muang lAP, 1 Jul72 8 Oct 72 inactivated - KC-135A
AFB, NC
AFRES(P) Thailand
911th AREFS 68th AREFW Seymour Johnson 30 Sep 82 wing redesignated
AFB, NC 4104th 310th SW(P) Korat RTAFB, 9 Jun 72 8 Nov 72 inactivated - KC-135A
911th AREFS 68th AREFG Seymour Johnson 4 Oct 85 converted to KC-10A AFRES(P) Thailand
AFB, NC KC-135R
4300th 4300th SW(P) Diego Garcia NSF, Aug 90
911th AREFS 319th ARW Grand Forks 29 Apr 94 current relocated, reassigned, and
AFRES(P) Indian Ocean
AFB, ND re-equipped KC-135Rrr
4302nd 4300th SW(P) Diego Garcia NSF, Aug 90 KC-135R
912th AREFS 4137th SW Robins AFB, GA 1 Dec 61 31 Jan 63 wing inactivated
AFRES(P) Indian Ocean
912th AREFS 465th BW Robins AFB, GA 1 Feb 63 24 Jul 68 wing inactivated
912th AREFS 19th BW Robins AFB, GA 25 Jul 68 30 Oct 83 wing redesignated 4220th 4252nd SW Ching Chuan Kang 2 Feb 68 1 Apr 70 inactivated
912th AREFS 19th AREFW Robins AFB, GA 31 Oct 83 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated AFRES AB, Taiwan
912th AREFS 19th ARW Robins AFB, GA 1 Sep 91 31 Mar 94 relocated and reassigned 4220th 376th SW Ching Chuan Kang 1Apr 70 15 Nov 70 inactive 15 Nov 70 -
912th AREFS 319th ARW Grand Forks AFB, ND 1 Apr 94 current KC-135Rrr AFRES AB, Taiwan 31 Jan 71
913th AREFS 4238th SW Barksdale AFB, LA 1 Jun 58 1Apr 63 wing inactivated 4408th 4404th King Khalid lAP, current KC-135Rrr
913th AREFS 2nd BW Barksdale AFB, LA 1 Apr 63 1 Nov 81 inactivated - KC-135A AFRES(P) COMBW(P) Riyadh, SA
914th AREFS 97th BW Blytheville AFB, AR 1 Oct 61 23 Oct 64 inactivated - KC-135A 6th SW Eielson AFB, Alaska 31 Mar 88 wing redesignated
6th SRW Eielson AFB, Alaska 1Apr 88 1 Sep 92 Alaska TTF -
915th AREFS 72nd BW Ramey AFB, PR 1 Sep 58 30 Jun 71 inactivated - KC-135A
KC-135NQ/R
916th AREFS 5th BW Travis AFB, CA 1 Sep 59 24 Jul 68 reassigned
11th SG RAF Fairtord, Oct 90 European TTF - KC-135NR
916th AREFS 14th SAD Travis AFB, CA 25 Jul 68 30 Mar 70 reassigned
England
916th AREFS 47th AD Travis AFB, CA 31 Mar 70 31 Mar 72 reassigned
916th AREFS 14th AD Travis AFB, CA 1 Apr 72 1 Jul77 reassigned 16th AEW Istres, France 1Jun 97 current 'Deny Flight' TTF KC-135R.
916th AREFS 307th AREFG Travis AFB, CA 1 Jul 77 31 Oct 83 inactivated - KC-135A AEW = Air Expeditionary Wg
917th AREFS 95th BW Biggs AFB, TX 1 May 59 14 Jan 65 relocated and reassigned Det 1 305th AREFW Howard AB, Panama Howard TTF
917th AREFS 96th BW Dyess AFB, TX 15 Jan 65 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
Det 1, 909th 18th OG Andersen AFB, 3 Oct 91 current
917th AREFS 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX 1 Sep 91 30 Sep 93 reassigned as 43rd ARW GSU
AFRES Guam
917th AREFS 43rd ARW Dyess AFB, TX 1 Oct 93 1 Jul94 inactivated-KC-135A
OL-? 100th ARW Istres, France Feb 94 31 May 97 'Deny Flight' TTF - KC-135R
918th AREFS 11th BW Altus AFB, OK 1 Oct 60 15 Dec 60 inactivated-KC-135A
OL-? 100th ARW Sigonella, Italy 93/94 current- 'Deny Flight' TTF - KC-135R
919th AREFS 7th BW Carswell AFB, TX 15 Apr 60 14 Jun 60 relocated and reassigned
919th AREFS 4138th SW Turner AFB, GA 15 Jun 60 31 Jan 63 wing inactivated OL-? 100th ARW Pisa, Italy 93/94 current- 'Deny Flight' TTF - KC-135R

199
Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status - Squadron Assigned base Date Date Status -
or Det orDet from to latest MDS I Mission or Det from to latest MDS I Mission

OL-? 100th ARW Milan/Malpensa, Italy 93/94 94 'Deny Flight' TIF - KC-135R Det 2 435th TAW Ramstein AB, 27 Mar 77 1 Sep 77 redesignated - C-135B
Germany
306th SW RAF Mildenhall, 15 Aug 76 1Feb 92 European TIF - KC-135NElQ/R
England 8thTOCS 552nd AW&CW Tinker AFB, OK 26 Oct 83 28 Feb 86 reassigned Note 3
8th TOCS 28th AD Tinker AFB, OK 1Mar 86 31 Oct 91 redesignated
307th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, 1 Apr 70 31 May 72 KC-135s reassigned to the
8thADCS 28th AD Tinker AFB, OK 1Nov 91 28 May 92 reassigned
Thailand 310th SW(P)
8thADCS 552nd ACW Tinker AFB, OK 29 May 92 30 Jun 94 redesignated
376th SW Kadena AB, 1 Apr 70 30 Oct 91 'Giant Bear' TIF - KC-135NQ 8th ACCS 552nd ACW Tinker AFB, OK 1 Jul94 15 May 96 inactivated. C-135E (SPACECOMj
Okinawa, Japan
18th ATS 1611th ATW McGuire AFB, NJ 9 Jun 61 8 Jan 66 wing inactivated Note 4
931st ARW McConnell AFB, KS 31 Jan 95 current KC-135R Associate 18th MAS 438th MAW McGuire AFB, NJ 8 Jan 66 31 Jan 66 inactivated-C-135B NoteS
Wing (crews only)
40th ATS 1611thATW McGuireAFB, NJ 8 Jan 62 8 Jan 66 wing inactivated
1713th Dubai lAP, Dubai Aug 90 KC-135E 40th MAS 438th MAW McGuire AFB, NJ 8 Jan 66 30 Nov 67 inactivated - C-135B Note 6
AREFW(P)
44th ATS 1501st ATW Travis AFB, CA 1 Mar 62 8 Jan 66 redesignated and converted to
4252nd SW Kadena AB, 12 Jan 65 1Apr 70 inactivated C-141A-C-135B
Okinawa, Japan
58th MAS 435th TAW Ramstein AB, 1 Sep 77 reassigned
4258th SW U-Tapao RTNAB, 2 Jun 66 1Apr 70 redesignated 307th SW Germany
Thailand 58th MAS 322nd ALD Ramstein AB, 31 Jul 83 redesignated and reassigned
Germany
Incirlik, Turkey 19 Jun 94 relocated
58th ALS 608th MAG Ramstein AB, 1Aug 83 31 May 92 reassigned
Antalya, Turkey 20 Jun 94 current 'Provide Comfort' TIF - KC-135R Germany
58th ALS 86th Wg Ramstein AB, 1 Jun 92 no longer operates C-135B
Notes: 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm' bases, units, equipment, and dates are subject to verification. Germany sin 62-4125
Tanker types deployed to a given base changed over time. This list excludes US KC-135Rs
65th ALS 15th ABW Hickam AFB, HI 10 Mar 92 current replaced Det.1, 89th AW
deployed to Avord and Mont-de-Marsan ABs in France. French C-135FRs were deployed to
- C-135B/E/K
King Khalid lAP, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during Operation 'Daguet'. French unit descriptions are
listed in Chapter Six. 98th MAS 89th MAW Andrews AFB, MD 8 Jan 66 1 Sep 77 inactivated - C-135B
141st AREFS 108th AREFW McGuire AFB, NJ 93 current 21st AF special mission aircraft
TEST AND INSTRUCTIONAL SQUADRONS 7111th SF 322nd TAW Rhein-Main AB, 1 Feb 72 redesignated; VIP
Germany
Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status - 7111thOF 322nd TAW Rhein-Main AB, 1 Feb 75 inactivated; VIP Note 7
or Det orDet from to latest MDS I Mission
Germany
Det 1 1st CompW Andrews AFB, MD 1Nov 75 KC-135NC-135C CSA 55th SRW Offutt AFB, NE 31 Aug 91 wing redesignated
'Speckled Trout' CSA 55th Wg Offutt A~B, NE 1 Sep 91 93 inactivated - C-135N
C-135B/NKC-135A
82nd TW Sheppard AFB 1 Jul 93 current GNKC-135N
GEC-135H/GKC-135A 7101st ABW Rhein-Main AB, 68 69 'Creek Falcon'
Germany KC-135A sin 63-8020
396th TIG Sheppard AFB, TX 1 Jul 92 30 Jun 93 GNKC-135NGEC-135H
7407th CSW Rhein-Main AB, 69 72 'Creek Falcon'
3245th ABW Hanscom Field, MA 1 Apr 60 redesignated 6520th ABG
Germany KC-135A sin 63-8020
3700th TTW Sheppard AFB, TX 7 Mar 91 30 Jun 92 GNKC-135N
GEC-135H/GKC-135A Notes The first C-135B was delivered to the 1st MAS on 5th April 1966.
89th MAG assigned to 76th MAW on 30th September 1977 (established 12th September
4949th TW Kirtland AFB, NM AFSWC NKC-135A
1977), through 15th December 1980.
Det 1 4950th TW Andrews AFB, MD 30 Sep 92 3 This date is based upon the arrival of C-135E 60-0376.
Det 1 4950th TW Edwards AFB, CA 1 Oct 92 31 Dec 93 C-135C 'Speclded Trout' (HQ AF); 4 This date is based upon the arrival of C-135As 60-{)356 and 60-0357.
inactivated 5 Not operational from 1st Febnuary 1966, through 15th June 1966.
6 Not operational from 1st December 1967, through 4th March 1966.
Det 2 4950th TW Kirtland AFB, NM
7 KC-135A -1973; C-135B -1974; and C-135C - 1975
412th FLTS 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA 1 Jan 94 current C-135C 'Speckled Trout'
445th TESTS 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA 2 Oct 92 30 Sep 93 former 4950th TW & 6510th TW
test-bed KC-135 assets RECONNAISSANCE UNITS
452nd TESTS 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA 1 Oct 93 28 Feb 94 redesignated Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status -
452nd FLTS 412th TW Edwards AFB, CA 1 Mar 94 current NKC-135E, EC-135E orDet or Det from to latest MDS I Mission
1001st OMS 1001st ABW Andrews AFB, MD Dec 61 KC-135A 'Speckled Trout'
1st ACGSq ACGS Forbes AFB, KS 1 Oct 68 72 inactivated - RC-135A
4952nd TS 4950th TW Wright-Patterson 70 30 Jun 94 inactivated
Det1 6th SW Shemya AFB, AK 25 Mar 67 31 Mar 88 wing redesignated
AFB,OH
Det 1 6th SRW Shemya AFB, AK 1Apr 88 6 Jul 92 redesignated and reassigned -
6512th TESTS 6510th TW Edwards AFB, CA 1 Oct 92 inactivated RC-135SIX OL
6520th ABG Hanscom Field, MA 1 Apr 60 wing redesignated Det 1 55th Wg Shemya AFB, AK 7 Jul 92 93 base renamed
6520th TG Edwards AFB, CA Det 1 55th Wg Eareckson AFB, AK 93 30 Aug 94 inactivated - RC-135SIX OL
6549th TS 6550th ABW Patrick AFB, FL 65 Jul75 AFETR EC-135N Det 1, 24th RS 55th Wg McClellan AFB, CA 1 Oct 93 inactivated - WC-135B
CFESG NAS Norfolk, VA NKC-135A (ComFIl Det 1, 95th RS 55th Wg Souda Bay, Crete current RC-135UN/W OL
EWServGnu); Redes.
Det2 645th MatS Majors Field, 92 current WC-135W; E-Systems facility
FEWSG NAS Norfolk, VA 75 NKC-135A - mission assigned Greenville, TX
to civilian contractor
24th SRS 6th SW Eielson AFB, AK 25 Mar 67 31 Mar 88 wing redesignated
FEWSG Oklahoma City, OK 75 89 NKC-135A - McDonnell Douglas 24th SRS 6th SRW Eielson AFB, AK 1 Apr 88 6 Jul 92 redesignated and reassigned
contract 24th RS 55th Wg OffuttAFB, NE 7 Jul 92 30 Jun 94 inactivated - RC-135S, OC-13SBI
OC-135W, WC-135B, TC-13SB/S
FEWSG Waco/TSTI AP, TX 89 NKC-135A - CTAS contract
34th AREFS 385th SAW OffuttAFB, NE 14 Jun 63 30 Nov 64 wing redesignated
FTRG Waco/TSTI AP, TX 20 Feb 96 NKC-135A - CTAS contract.
34th AREFS 818th AD OffuttAFB, NE 1 Dec 64 24 Mar 65 wing redesignated
Nc retired. 34th AREFS 810th SAD OffuttAFB, NE 25 Mar 65 30 Jun 65 wing redesignated
34th AREFS 13th SMD OffuttAFB, NE 1Jul65 25 Jun 66 mission reassigned - KC-135A
TRANSPORT SQUADRONS 38th SRS 55th SRW OffuttAFB, NE 16Aug66 1 Apr 70 inactivated
38th SRS 55th SRW OffuffAFB, NE 1 Apr 79 31 Aug 91 wing and squadron
Squadron Wing Assigned base Date Date Status - redesignated
or Det or Det from to latest MDS I Mission
38th RS 55thWg Offutt AFB, NE 1 Sep 91 current RC-135UN/W, TC-135W
1st MAS 89th MAW Andrews AFB, MD 8 Jan 66 30 Sep 77 wing redesignated Note 1 45th RS 55th Wg Offutt AFB, NE 1 Jul94 current RC-135S,OC-135B/W,
1st MAS WC-135B, TC-135B/S
89th MAG Andrews AFB, MD 30 Sep 77 15 Dec 60 group redesignated Note 2
55th WRS 9th WRW McClellan AFB, CA Nov 65 31 Aug 75 wing inactivated
1st MAS 89th MAW Andrews AFB, MD 15Dec80 11 Jul91 wing and squadron redesignated
55thWRS 41st R&WRW McClellan AFB, CA 1 Sep 75 31 Jul 89 reassigned
lstALS 89thAW Andrews AFB, MD 12 Jul91 Oct 92 no longer operates C-135Bs 55th WRS Air Rescue McClellan AFB, CA 1Aug 89 31 May 92 reassigned
Service
Det 1 89th MAW Hickam AFB, HI 1 Jul75 1 Oct 75 inactivated
55th WRS AMC McClellan AFB, CA 1Jun 92 31 Dec 92 reassigned
Det 1 89th MAW Hickam AFB, HI 1 Jan 81 11 Jul91 wing redesignated
55th WRS 60th AW McClellan AFB, CA 1 Jan 93 1 Oct 93 inactivated - WC-135B, OC-135B
Det 1 89th AW Hickam AFB, HI 12 Jul91 9 Mar 92 inactivated - C-135C

200
Squadron
orDet ~imt Assigned base Date
from
Date
to
Status -
latest MDS I Mission
Squadron
or Det ~imt Assigned base Date
from
Date
to
Status -
latest MDS I Mission

56th WRS 9thWRW Yokota AB, Japan Nov 65 15 Jan 72 wing and squadron inactivated 922nd SS 7th AD Hellenikon AB, 1Jul78 redesignated and reassigned
Greece
82nd SRS 3rdAD Kadena AB,Okinawa 25 Aug 67 1 Jan 68 reassigned
922nd RS 55th Wg RAF Mildenhall, 30 Jun 94 inactivated - RC-I35UNIW OL
82nd SRS 4252nd SW Kadena AB,Okinawa 2 Jan 68 30 Mar 70 wing inactivated
England
82nd SRS 376th SW Kadena AB, Okinawa 1 Apr 70 11 Sep 76 not operational 11-30 Sep 76
82nd RS 55th Wg Kadena AB, Okinawa 30 Sep 91 current RC-135UNIW OL 1371st MCS 1370th PMW Turner AFB, GA 14 Sep 65 Aug 67 relocated
1371st MCS 1370th PMW Forbes AFB, KS Aug 67 1 Oct 68 inactivated - RC-135A
95th RS 55th Wg RAF Mildenhall, 1 Jul94 current RC-135UNIW OL
England 1700th 1700th Riyadh AB, Riyadh, 11 Aug 90 RC-135VIW OL
RS(P) AREFW(P) SA
338th SRS 55th SRW Offutt AFB, NE 25 Mar 67 25 Dec 67 inactivated - RC-135
conversion unit 4407th RS (P) - Riyadh AB, Riyadh, current RC-135VIW OL
SA
343rd SRS 55th SRW OffuttAFB, NE 16 Aug 66 30 Mar 70 inactivated
343rd SRS 55th SRW OffuttAFB, NE 1 Apr 70 31 Aug 91 redesignated 4157th SW Eielson AFB, AK 19 Dec 62 25 Mar 67 inactivated - KC-135A-II,
343rd RS 55th Wg OffuttAFB, NE 1 Sep 91 current RG-135 'backenders' RC-135D/E/S
913th AREFS 2nd BW Barksdale AFB, LA 62 27 May 63 'Speed Light-Delta' KC-135A

KC-135 Tail Codes

Beginning in September 1991 with the EC-135Ps

assigned to the 6th ACCS, 1st TFW at Langley AFB,
tail codes have been applied to KC-135s and their
variants. Although this was the first approved use of
tail codes on KC-135s, the first reported application
of letter identifiers to KC-135 tails took place during
the 1980s, when a KC-135A from the 380th BW at
Plattsburgh AFB visited Offutt AFB while wearing the
letters 'PBG' on the vertical stabilizer above the rud-
der. SAC's senior officers were so unimpressed that
the letters were removed immediately, and heads
reportedly rolled. With the 1st June 1992 restructur-
ing of the Air Force, tail codes were applied to air-
craft assigned to ACC and PACAF.

Tail Code Unit Base

BB 350th AREFS, 9th Wg Beale AFB, CA (ACC)
D 351st AREFS, 1OOth AREFW RAF Miidenhall, England
(USAFE) (not official)
DY 917th AREFS, 96th Wg Dyess AFB, TX (ACC)
FF 6th ACCS, 1stTFW Langley AFB, VA (TAC)
LA 71 st AREFS, 2nd Wg Barksdale AFB, LA (ACC)
MF Del. 2, 645th MatS Majors Field, Greenville, TX
(not official)
MO 22nd AREFS, 366th Wg Mountain Home AFB, ID
(ACC)
NJ 141 st AREFS, 108th AREFW McGuire AFB, NJ (NJ ANG)
OF 55thWg Offutt AFB, NE(ACC)
OK 8th ADCS, 552nd ACW Tinker AFB, OK (ACC)
72 909th AREFS, 18th Wg Kadena AB, Okinawa
(PACAF)

Top: EC·135L 61-0279, 70th AREFS, 305th Above: KC-135A 61-0325, 42nd BW, Loring AFB, Below: NC-135A 60-0371, 4950th TW, Wright-
AREFW, Grissom AFB, 1986. Author 1987. Brian C 'Buck' Rogers Patterson AFB, 1989. Robert J Archer

201

Records and Special Achievements
In an age where world records are made by aircraft
flying around the world non-stop and unrefueled, by
aircraft flying to the edge of space, and by aircraft
streaking across the United States in nearly an hour,
it may be surprising that KC-135s have set compara-
ble records. When it first entered service the KC-135
was faster than all types but supersonic jets, and
given the KC-135's fuel capaci1y, was a natural can-
didate for long distance speed records. The KC-135
could also carry heavier cargo aloft than could exist-
ing piston-powered transports, and, when empty of
cargo and equipped with high-bypass turbofan
engines, could reach altitudes faster than even
some smaller aircraft, including a few fighters.
To the proponents of record setting flights, they
accomplish many goals. Foremost among these is
their effect on national pride, in the past accentuat-
ed by the 'Cold War' rivalry between the US and the
Soviet Union. In a classic variation of 'whose dad
has the most credit cards', American and Soviet air-
men boasted of whose aircraft could fly the farthest,
ttie fastest, and the highest. When US aircraft held
the records, it was testimony to the superiority of
American aerospace know-how and military skill.
When the Soviets held the record, it was a gauntlet
to be picked up, a challenge with not only national
pride at stake but with national security in the bal-
ance as well. If Soviet aircraft outperformed those of
the US, then Soviet military superiority loomed omi-
nously over American security. If US types flew cir-
cles around their Soviet counterparts, then
Americans could rest easier in their daily 'Cold War'
struggle (although that made the Soviets worry a bit
more ...).
To critics of record setting flights, they were little
more than 'fly boy grandstanding'. Excessive and
unnecessary risks were taken. The first KC-135 to
crash did so while taking off on a trans-Atlantic
speed run, killing all aboard including a SAC gener-
al and civilian newsmen. To others, record flights
were public relations gimmicks and the rewards
incommensurate with the risk. After members of one
crew received the Distinguished Flying Cross or the
Air Medal for their record setting flight, the Air Force
Chief of Staff received a letter from a bitter parent
saying that his son, killed at his waist gun station
defending his B-17 Flying Fortress from attacking
fighters while on a bombing raid over Nazi Ger-
many, was denied a decoration for his heroism. If
Distinguished Flying Crosses and Air Medals were
doled out for mundane events such as flying an air-
craft from New York to Argentina, the parent contin-
ued, then it rendered meaningless the efforts of
those who received such decorations for valor,
often at the expense of their lives.
Despite the merit in some of the criticism, record
setting flights have been an integral part of the histo-
ry of civil and military aviation. They demonstrate the
limits of man, his machines, and his weapons, and
send a clear signal of what they are capable of doing
if need be, perhaps causing a potential adversary to
think twice before provoking their use. To show the
performance of military aircraft in peacetime may
preclude demonstrating their performance in
wartime. If record setting flights act in some small
way as deterrents to warfare, then neither apologist
nor critic has properly recognised their ultimate
value.
202
AppendixE
KC-135A 55-3126 Operation 'Long Legs'
11-13th November 1957
Flown by Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Curtis
LeMay, this aircraft set two world records as part of
Operation 'Long Legs', America's contribution to
Argentina's Annual Aeronautics Week. On the
southbound unrefueled flight on 11-12th November,
General LeMay and crew established a world record
non-stop distance (including the addition of nearly
1,000 miles - 1,609km - induced by flying around
the 'hump' of Brazil) of 6,322.85 miles (10,175km)
from Westover AFB to Ezeiza Airport at Buenos
Aires, Argentina. The flight lasted 13 hours, two min-
utes, 51 seconds.
For this flight, hailed as a 'critical test of the new
jet Stratotanker in its utility role as a jet speed high
altitude global transport,' General LeMay was
awarded the Harmon Trophy.' LeMay and three
other crewmembers, including Captains Charles L
Gandy (pilot, who was also the Phase II Test and
Evaluation project pilot), Captain Howard Dries and
Lieutenant L E Carter (navigators), received the Dis-
tinguished Flying Cross. The 18 others in the crew
received the Air Medal.
During the northbound unrefueled flight on 13th
November, General LeMay and crew set a speed
record over a recognised course from Buenos Aires
to Washington DC, averaging 471.45mph (758.7
km/h) over a distance of 5,204 miles (8,374km) in a
total time of eleven hours, three minutes, 57.38 sec-
onds. This record remains unbroken.'
'Long Legs' captured America's attention in late
1957 as a major national event. A little over a month
earlier, on 4th October, the USSR orbited 'Sputnik',
the world's first artificial satellite. Pundits around the
world announced the death of air power and the pre-
eminence of ballistic missiles and satellite weapons.
Bombers were dead, and with their demise came
the end of the American strategic deterrent. The US
was, in the eyes of the doomsayers, now horribly
vulnerable to Soviet strategic missile power. 3
LeMay responded to these critics as he always
had, with actions rather than words. By 2nd Novem-
ber the flight had been approved by the Air Staff,
including a waiver to the Air Force regulation which
required 'that aircraft be in the operational inventory
for a period of six months prior to record attempts'.
Another waiver came from the CAA to enable the jet-
powered KC-135 to land at Washington's National
Airport rather than the original landing site at Balti-
more. Yet another waiver came in approving the
proposed 269,0001b (122,018kg) gross weight for
the flight, heavier than the 250,OOOIb (113,400kg)
limit then in use by the Air Force.'
The flight did what it was intended to do. The Stra-
totanker's circuitous route from Westover AFB to
Buenos Aires covered a distance in excess of that
from New York to Moscow, with a clear message to
the Kremlin: the Soviet Union could talk about satel-
lites and ballistic missiles as the strategic weapons
of the future, but the USA could show that manned
aircraft were capable then of accomplishing their
strategic mission.
Americans of all walks of life responded enthusi-
astically to the flight. One housewife wrote that
'Long Legs' 'was like [Jimmy] Doolittle over Tokyo'.
Another was so impressed by LeMay and 55-3126
that she sent a telegram reading 'Congratulations to
you and KC-135. Have taken up cigar chewing'.
Boeing President Bill Allen, anxious to sell more air-
craft, added 'We are grateful to you and your crew
for your able demonstration of the capabilities of the
[KC-135]'. The Nashville Banner concluded that
'Long Legs' 'should reassure any who might have
gotten their thinking out of focus in the blowing pro·
paganda wind about the significance of 'Sputnik','
As another part of Operation 'Long Legs', seven
KC-135As from the 93rd BW at Castle AFB, operat·
ing from Homestead AFB, Florida, refueled six 42nd
BW B-52s that flew non-stop from Homestead AFB
to Buenos Aires and back to Plattsburgh AFB on 16·
17th November. This epic flight required three aerial
refuelings, two by KC-97s and one by KC-135As.'
KC-135A 56-3601 Operation 'Jet Stream'
7-8th April 1958
This KC-135A, assigned to the 93rd AREFS, 93rd
BW at Castle AFB and commanded by Brigadier
General William E Eubank, Jr, 93rd BW Comman·
der, established two Class C Group 1 (aircraft with
jet· engines or mixed powerplants) world records.
The first of these was distance in a straight line with·
out refueling of 10,229.3 miles (16,462.5km) from
Tokyo to Lajes, the Azores (in 18 hours, 48 minutes);
the second was speed of 492.262mph 795.4km/h)
in 13 hours. 45 minutes, 46.5 seconds, on the Tokyo
to Washington DC portion of the flight.'
Other crewmembers included Lieutenant Colonel
Kenneth R Rea and Major Cecil Wells (co-pilots),
Captains George Henriet and James S A O'Shea
(navigators), and MSgt James W Bridges and Sgt
Clifton E Pfleger (boom operators). Bertrand Rhind
of the National Aeronautics Association (NAA) was
the observer·
As planned, the mission was scheduled to fly
11,487 miles (18,486km) non-stop from Tokyo to
'Madrid, Spain, and in so doing break the existing
non-stop unrefueled distance record held since
1946 by the Truculent Turtle, a US Navy Lockheed
P2V Neptune that flew 11,236 miles (18,082km)
from Perth, Australia, to Columbus, Ohio. According
to an Air Force spokesman, however, 'capricious jet
stream winds failed to give the plane the necessary
'power push' to carry it' to Madrid.' Eubank and
crew held out hope that they could reach Torrejon
AB, near Madrid, until some two hours prior to land-
ing at Lajes, when Eubank radioed that they lacked
the fuel to go on and would land in the Azores."
Meanwhile, back at Yokota AB, a second uniden-
tified KC-135A (named The KiWI) under the com·
mand of Major Jack N Fancher, took off on 13th April
to try again for the record. In an effort to reduce
drag,.the air refueling boom had been removed. As
before, the lack of favorable tail winds cut the mis·
sian short. Canrying fuel for 10,000 miles (16,093km),
the KC-135 needed the wintertime jet stream winds,
often well in excess of 100kts (185km/h), to push it
the extra 1,500 miles (2,413km). Some 660 miles
(1,062km) out over the Atlantic Ocean, Fancher and
crew 'called it quits' and turned around, landing at
0735 on 13th April at Westover AFB."
Four months later, aided by the winter jet stream,
General LeMay set an unofficial speed record (in
KC-135A 55-3126) on the Tokyo-Washington DC
route of 12 hours, 28 minutes, 75 minutes beller
than Eubank's flight. Still, the Truculent Turtle's
record remained unbeaten until 10-11 th January
1962, when B-52H 60-0040 from the 4136th SWat
Minot AFB flew 12,532 miles (20,167km) unrefueled
from Kadena AB to Torrejon AB."
KC-135A (serial number not known)
13thJune1958
An unidentified KC-135A from the 99th AREFS,
4050th AREFW at Westover AFB, claimed a record
for the fastest flight between Los Angeles and New
York. It did so in three hours, 42 minutes, 45 sec-
onds, just beating the previous record of three
hours, 44 minutes established in 1955 by an
Northrop F-89 Scorpion.'3
KC-135A 56-3630 Operation 'Top Sail'
27th and 29th June 1958
Four KC-135As from the 99th AREFS, 4050th
AREFW at Westover AFB, attempted to set world
speed records for New York to London flights as
part of Operation Top Sail', originally known as
'Sure Thing'. The first aircraft, known as 'Top
Sail-Alpha' and commanded by Major Burl B Dav-
enport, set records of New York to London of five
hours, 29 minutes, 14.64 seconds for an average
speed of 630.223mph (l,014.248km/h), and Lon-
don to New York of five hours, 53 minutes, 12.77
seconds at an average speed of 587.457mph
(945.423km/h). The aircraft departed Westover
AFB, passed over the 'entry gate' above New York
City's Idlewild lAP, flew to the 'exit gate' over Lon-
don, and landed at RAF Brize Norton. The west-
bound flight reversed this route, landing at Floyd
Bennett Naval Air Station, New York.
Additional crewmembers on the flight included Lt
James J Jones (co-pilot), Lt Eugene A Miller (navi-
gator), and SSgt William M Minchew (boom opera-
tor), Col Harry R Burrell (air commander) plus ten
observers and passengers.
The second aircraft ('Top Sail-Bravo', KC-135A
56-3637) provided support and back up for the
record-setting aircraft. The crew under the com-
mand of Maj Quentin W Raaz, included 1st Lt Frank
Kemahele (co-pilot), Capt Cecil B Smith, Jr (naviga-
tor), and TSgt Jimmy H. Ruiz (bOOn1 operator). This
aircraft returned to Westover AFB on 29th June.'4
The third KC-135A ('Top Sail-Cocoa' KC-135A
56-3599) crashed on take-off from Westover AFB,
killing all 15 on board. Among these were Lt Col
George M Broutsas, 99th AREFS Commander, and
Brigadier General Donald W Saunders, 57th Air Divi-
sion Commander, after whom the Saunders Trophy
is named. The last aircraft (Top Sail-Delta', serial
number unknown) did not take-off.
KC-135A (serial number not known)
11th July 1958
An unidentified KC-135A (possibly 55-3126) set an
unofficial record of eleven hours, eight minutes in a
non-stop flight from Andrews AFB to Hickam AFB.
Secretary of Defense Neil McElroy was on board the
flight, which later carried McElroy to observe a US
H-bomb test in the South Pacific."
KC-135A 55-3126
13th September 1958
General LeMay established an unofficial speed
record in this aircraft while returning from Yokota AB
to Andrews AFB. The KC-135A flew 7,100 miles
(11,426km) unrefueled in 12 hours, 28 minutes for
an average speed of 570mph (917km/h). The time
was not recognised as a record because the flight
was not made under contest timing rules. Interest-
ingly, the aircraft landed on 13th September at 0724
Eastern time, 32 rninutes 'on the clock' before it took
off on 13th September at 0756 Japanese time."
Other crewmembers included navigator Major
Lawrence J Tacker and Major Ernest Campbell,
Capt Edward Schickling and Lt Meredith Sutton.'7
LeMay set other unofficial records or 'notable
firsts' in 55-3126 on other occasions, most well pub-
Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Curtis
LeMay walks down the boarding stairs at Ezeiza
lAP, Argentina, after the southbound portion of
Operation 'Long Legs' in KC-135A 55-3126 on
11th November 1957. Far more than just a
speed and distance record, the flight demon-
strated that American air power, especially
SAC's manned bomber and tanker force, was
still a legitimate global threat in an age of
Soviet ballistic missile bluster and 'Sputnik'.
USAF, via Joe Bruch collection
licized. For example, on 27th March 1958, he flew
some 6,000 miles (9,655km) non-stop from Castle
AFB to Ohakea Airfield, New Zealand, in 15 hours.
On his 3rd April return from the Pacific, he flew non-
stop from Hickam AFB to Andrews AFB. In June
1958 LeMay took his KC-135 to NATO Headquar-
ters. These flights were heady accomplishments in
the days of 'island hopping' and slow piston-pow-
ered airliners, and underscored not only US military
air power but the future of jet air travel."
KC-135A 56-3613
17th September 1958
Captain Charles E Gibbs (aircraft commander), 1st
Lt Dale E Shartzer (co-pilot), 1st Lt Cornelius A
Hayes (navigator), and TSgt Fred H Quinn (boom
operator), Colonel D E Hillman (92nd BW Comman-
der and air commander during the flight), and two
NAA observers - FA W Stiefler and Ted Carpenter-
flew this 92nd AREFS, 92nd BW, KC-135A from
Fairchild AFB to establish four Class C Group 1
world records. The aircraft, named Queen of the
Inland Empire, was the first KC-135A delivered to the
92nd BW. The aircraft flew five continuous round
203

trips over a course from Spokane to Hoquiam,
Washington. The flight toppled two records held by
a Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 'Camel'. Payload for the
KC-135's record-setting flight was 22,0461b (exactly
1O,OOOkg) of lawn fertiliser.
Records include: (1) Distance in a closed circuit
without refueling 3,125.56 st miles (5,026.9km); (2)
speed over a 1,242 mile (2,000km) closed circuit
with 2,204.6, 4,409.2, 11,023.0, and 22,046.0Ib
(10,000, 2,000, 5,000 and 10,000kg) payloads
589.278mph (948.354km/h); (3) speed over a 3,106
mile (5,000km) closed circuit 587.136mph
(944.907km/h); and (4) speed over a 3,106 mile
(5,000km) closed circuit with 2,204.6, 4,409.2,
11,023.0, and 22,046.0Ib (10,000, 2,000, 5,000 and
10,000kg) payloads 587.136mph (944.907km/h)."
KC-135A (serial number not known)
24th September 1958
This aircraft, piloted by Captain William H Howell
(aircraft commander), and crewed by Lt James E
204
Freel (co-pilot), an unidentified navigator, boom
operator and an observer, established a world
weight-lifting record by lifting a payload of
78,089.5Ib (35,421 kg) of nails, concrete blocks, and
steel plate to an altitude of 6,561ft (2,000m). The
previous record (44,214Ib - 20,055kg)) was set on
6th September 1958, by a Soviet Tu-1 04A 'Camel'.
The KC-135A was assigned to the 99th AREFS,
4050th AREFW at Westover AFB.20
C-135A (serial number not known)
11th January 1962
During exercise 'Long Thrust II', a MATS C-135A
flew non-stop from Fort Lewis, Washington, to
Rhine-Main AB, West Germany, a distance of 5,100
miles, (8,207km) in ten hours, ten minutes to set
unofficial time and distance records. On board were
73 members of the 4th Infantry Division. The flight
was commanded by Captain Harold L Neff, along
with other crewmembers Captain Veryl I Coulter
(first pilot), Major George C Schwessinger (second
Brigadier General William Eubank prepares to
shut down KC·135A 56-3601 on the ramp at
Lajes Field on 8th April 1958. The aircraft had
flown 10,229.3 miles (16,462.0km) in 18 hours,
48 minutes, landing some 1,258 miles short of
its intended destination of Madrid. Operation
'Jet Stream' sought to wrest the record from a
US Navy P2V Neptune, which stood until broken
by a B-52H in 1962. USAF via Joe Bruch collection
The crew of the 'Queen of the Inland Empire',
KC-135A 56-3613, reviewing their routing prior
to setting four world records on 17th
September 1963. This was the first KC-135A
delivered to the 92nd AREFS, 92nd BW at
Fairchild AFB, and for this special flight hauled
22,0461b (10,000kg) of lawn fertiliser. From left
to right: 1st Lt Dale Shartzer (co-pilot), Captain
Charles Gibbs (aircraft commander), 1st Lt
Cornelius Hayes (navigator), and Tech Sgt Fred
Quinn (boom operator). USAF via Fred Quinn
pilot), Captain Spencer L Nichols and 1st Lt John T
Steves (navigators), SSgt James H Biggie (flight
engineer), and A1 C Hugh F Carey (Ioadmaster)."
C~ 135861-2666 Operation 'Swift Lift'
17th April 1962
To demonstrate the newly acquired jet-transport
capability of the C-135B and its impact on MATS'
operational effectiveness, as well as 'contribute to
public confidence in the Armed Forces', MATS
planned two flights to topple seven existing world
records and establish three new ones. Nicknamed
Operation 'SwiftLlift', the two flights enabled a top
crew from both Travis AFB (WESTAF) and McGuire
AFB (EASTAF) to set the records. The 1501stATW
atTravis AFB provided two aircraft, 61-2664 and 61-
2666, for the attempts, which were conducted at
Edwards AFB. During a trial run, 61-2664 suffered
'stringer and skin damage', eliminating it from the
record setting efforts.
C-135B 61-2666 made two flights on 17th April.
The first of these established a payload-to-height
record of 66,1391b (30,000kg) taken to 47,171ft
(14,378m), as well as records for the 33,068, 44,091
and 55,1141b (15,000, 20,000, and 25,000kg) cate-
gories. The 44th ATS, 1501st ATW crew, under the
command of Major David W Craw, included Captain
Max L Richardson (co-pilot), SMSgt Patrick F
Murtha (flight engineer), and TSgt Robert J Sutton
(Ioadmaster, who did not fly on the record-setting
sortie).
The second flight set a record for carrying a
66,1371b (30,000kg) payload around a 1,243 mile
(2,000km) closed circuit at an average speed of
615.79mph (991.01km/h). This flight also set
records for 11,022, 22,045, 33,068, 44,091 and
55,1141b (5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and
25,000kg) payload classes. Crew for this flight was
Major Vernon W Hamann (aircraft commander),
Captain Donald R Bachelder (co-pilot), TSgt Dean
W Wilson (flight engineer), and TSgt Victor Fredlund
(load master) from the 18th ATS, 1611th ATW at
McGuire AFB, set a record. Both aircraft comman-
ders received the Distinguished Flying Cross; the
remaining crewmembers received the Air Medal."
C-135B (serial number not known)
1st May 1962
The first C-135B medical evacuation (medevac)
flight from Yokota AB to Travis AFB set a new 'jet air
ambulance' record of 5,148 miles (8,284km) in nine
hours, seven minutes. The aircraft carried 38 military
patients, including 16 on litters. C-135B flights
saved 27 hours flying time between the Orient and
US hospitals for American military personnel and
their dependent patients. Although this first flight
was non-stop, subsequent flights landed en route at
Hickam AFB to discharge or pick up patients from
Hawaiian hospitals.
In addition to the passengers, the C-135B carried
senior Air Force, Army, and Navy surgeons general.
The flight was commanded by Major General Glen R
Birchard, WESTAF commander, assisted by first
pilot Lt Col William L Brinson, squadron commander
of the 44th ATS, 1501 stATW atTravisAFB.23
C-135B (serial number not known)
October 1962
Returning from Operation 'New Tape', the deploy-
ment of Swedish United Nations peacekeeping
troops to the Congo, a C-135B set an unofficial
record for its 6,900 mile (11,1 04km) non-stop flight
from Leopoldville, Republic of Congo, to McGuire
AFB in 12 hours, 54 minutes. The aircraft carried no
cargo or troops.
Lieutenant Colonel Wallace G Matthews, com-
mander of the 40th ATS, 1611th ATW at McGuire
AFB was the aircraft commander. His crew included
Captain Gary Weitzel (first pilot), 1st Lt Anthony J
Burshnick (second pilot), Captain Seymour Freid-
man and 2nd Lt David C Nelson (navigators), MSgt
Walter E Stewart (flight engineer), and SSgt Robert
E Briles and TSgt Charles S Smith (loadmasters).24
C-135B (serial number not known)
20th-21 st February 1963
MATS added an unofficial record for the 'longest
non-stop flight ever made by a transport aircraft'
when a C-135B flew from Clark AB in the Philippines
to McGuire AFB, a distance of 9,868 miles
(15,880km) in 15 hours, 22 minutes." Although this
distance was less than that set in Operation 'Jet
Stream', that record was made in a 'jet tanker' rather
than a 'transport aircraft', a subtle distinction lost on
more than a few observers. The C-135B benefitted
from tail winds as high as 228mph (366km/h), allow-
ing it to overfly its normal stopping point at Travis
AFB." MATS officials 'hailed the flight as evidence of
US ability to swiftly airlift [sic] troops or defense
materials anytime, anyplace'."
The aircraft, assigned to the 1611th ATW at
McGuire AFB, was under the command of Captain
Joseph A Yovin. Other crewmembers included Cap-
tain Robert L Lapenta (first pilot), 1st Lt Robert S
Cheney, Jr (second pilot), 1st Lt Paul Mankowich
and 1st Lt Thomas W Connell (navigators), TSgt
James W Tobias and TSgt Henry W Harrison (flight
engineers), TSgt Donald W Smith (Ioadmaster), and
SSgt Howard R Lau (flight traffic specialist).
C-135C 61-2669
3-4th October 1985
Lieutenant Colonel Royce Grones and Major Robyn
Read set a record for speed over a recognised
course from Tokyo to Beijing of four hours, ten min-
utes, averaging 318.55mph (512.64km/h). They
also set a record for speed over a recognised
course for the portion of their flight from Yokota AB
to Beijing of four hours, averaging 318.63mph
(512. 77km/h). This record remains unbroken."
KC-135R 62-3554
19th October 1988
This KC-135R set time-to-c1imb records to five differ-
tent altitudes in four different groups (dependent
upon aircraft weight). One aircraft from the 19th
AREFW at Robins AFB was used for all four record
flights. KC-135R 62-3554 was named Cherokee
Rose in honour of the Georgia state flower. All four
flights took place at Robins AFB (with 19th AREFW
KC-135R 62-3530 was the back up for the record
attempts).
The KC-135R's engines were uprated to their full
design thrust of 24,0001b (106.7kN) per engine for
the attempt, and Boeing provided flight planning
technical data for the higher thrust settings. The
results were impressive: on its last of four flights, for
example, the aircraft was airborne five seconds after
brake release, it climbed out at 325 KIAS (until
reaching and then maintaining Mach 0.78) and 27'
nose up, was cleared by air traffic control for an
unrestricted climb to the block altitude of FL450
B510, and used only 4,0001b (1 ,814kg) offuel for the
24-minute flight to FL499, performance unimagined
in the mid-1950s for the KC-135A 'water wagons'."
In Class C-1.M (99,206 to 132,2751b - 45,000 to
60,000kg), Captain David Glisson (aircraft comman-
der), 1st Lt Scott Neumann (pilot), Captain M\3rc
Moss (navigator) and SSgt Randy Seip (boom oper-
ator) from the 19th AREFW demolished records set
in 1981 by a Soviet Yakovlev Yak-42 (listed in brack-
ets) of 1:39.22 [3:50.9] to 3,000m, 2:56.97 [6:26.9]
to 6,000m, 4:23.51 [11 :48.2] to 9,000m, 5:50.94 to
12,000m, and 8:15.20to 15,000m.
In Class C-1.N (132,275 to 176,3661b - 60,000 to
80,000kg), Major Stan Yarbough (aircraft comman-
der), 1st Lt Don Colbacchini (pilot), 1st Lt Dave
Wesinand (navigator), and SSgt Dave Passey
(boom operator) from the 340th AREFW at Altus
AFB set records of 1:42.52 to 3,000m, 2:58.21 to
6,000m, 4:29.28 to 9,000m, and 5:43.71 to 12,000m.
In Class C-1.0 (80,000 to 100,000kg), Captain
Robert Locke (aircraft commander), Captain Steve
Wabrowetz (pilot), Captain Mike Cloyd (navigator),
and SSgt Jim Hackworth (boom operator) from the
319th BW from Grand Forks AFB set records of
2:12.10 to 3,000m, 3:46.41 to 6,000m, 5:40.33 to
9,000m, and 7:49.19 to 12,000m.
In Class C-1.P (220,458 to 330,6871b -1 00,000 to
150,000kg), Major Rod Bell (aircraft commander),
Captain Jim Melancon (pilot), Captain Julie Keck
(navigator), and MSgt Stan Sears (boom operator)
from the 384th BW at McConnell AFB set records of
2:48.34 to 3,000m, 7:13.62 to 9,000m, and 10:14.80
to 12,000m. 30
KC-135R 58-0001
19th December 1992
A KC-135R assigned to the 11th AREFS, 97th AMW
at Altus AFB set a record for Class C-1.P (220,458 to
330,6871b - 100,000 to 150,000kg) aircraft for non-
stop, unrefueled flight from Kadena AB to McGuire
AFB while returning from the Pacific Tanker Task
Force. The flight covered 10,151 miles (16,336km)
in 17 hours, 31 minutes, but still did not beat the Tru-
culent Turtle's record set in 1946 and challenged by
two KC-135s in 1958.
The KC-135R's flight crew included Captains Jeff
Kennedy (instructor pilot), Robert Kilgore (aircraft
commander), and Mark Hostetter (instructor navi-
gator), 1st Lt John Isakson (pilot), 2nd Lt Robert Fis-
cher (navigator), SMSgt Daniel Deloy and MSgt
Temur Ablay (instructor boom operators) and crew
chiefs Sgt Steven Rowland, SrA Andrew Haynes,
and A1C Jason Houk. Raymond Lutz was the NAA
observer."
THE MACKAY TROPHY
The Mackay Trophy is the oldest aerial achievement
award intended exclusively for members of the Unit-
ed States Air Force. It was established in 1912 by
Clarence H Mackay, a wealthy industrialist, philan-
thropist, communications pioneer and aviation
enthusiast. In 1922 the National Aeronautic Associa-
tion began sponsoring the award, which is awarded
annually for the 'most meritorious flight of the year'
by an Air Force person, persons, or organisation,
with preference given to individuals.
1967 -A 902nd AREFS, 70th BW, Clinton-Sherman
AFB KC-135A crew commanded by Major John H
Casteel (including Capt Dean L Hoar, [co-pilot] Capt
Richard L. Trail [navigator], and MSgt Nathan C
Campbell, boom operator) was the first KC-135
crew to receive the Mackay Trophy.32
Their drogue-equipped KC-135 refueled two
USAF F-1 04 Starfighters and six Navy aircraft during
the sortie. At one point the KC-135A refueled a Navy
KA-3 Skywarrior tanker that was simultaneously
refueling a Navy F-8 Crusader fighter."
1983 - On 5th September 1983, a KC-135A from the
42nd BW at Loring AFB participated in a 'Crested
Cap j' F-4E trans-Atlantic deployment. One of the
Phantoms suffered reduced power in one engine
and diverted to Gander International Airport, New-
foundland, Canada, a distance of over 500 miles
(804km). Accompanied by the KC-135, the F-4E
soon had to shut down the bad engine and reduce
power on the remaining engine, causing the F-4E to
lose nearly 20,000ft (6,096m) of altitude and consid-
erable airspeed. Through four air refuelings, the KC-
135 gave the F-4E enough fuel to get it to Gander,
despite descending to altitudes as low as 2,000ft
(609m) above the ocean. At times the KC-135 actu-
ally towed the F-4E with the air refueling boom, a dif-
ficult and dangerous procedure.
For meritorious action, crew E-115, commanded
by Captain Robert' J Goodman (including Capt
Michael R Clover, copilot; 1st Lt Karol R Wojcikoski,
navigator; and SSgt Douglas D Simmons, boom
operator), was awarded the 1983 Mackay Trophy.3<
1985 - KC-135A 61-0266 from the 97th BW at
Blytheville AFB was unable to lower its nose landing
gear. Following numerous unsuccessful attempts to
extend the nose gear, the tanker reverse air refueled
from an EC-135 flown by a crew assigned to the 1st
Combat Evaluation Group based at Barksdale AFB.
Fuel onload for the KC-135 was limited to approxi-
mately 8,0001b due to centre-of-gravity restrictions,
requiring an air refueling nearly every 20 minutes.
The EC-135 was relieved by a KC-1 0, which itself ran
low on fuel. The 97th BW strip alert KC-135A
launched to refuel the KC-10, which continued to
reverse refuel the emergency KC-135. After nearly
13 hours airborne and with no success in lowering
the stuck nose gear, the crew completed a nose
gear up landing with minimal damage to the aircraft.
For his superior performance, aircraft comman-
der Lt Colonel David E Faught was named the recip-
ient of the 1985 Mackay Trophy. Faught and pilot
Captain Robert M Sauers were nominated for the
Distinguished Flying Cross, while the other
crewmembers (Captains Stephen Wolborsky, Wai-
ter Price, and Russell S Cochran, 1st Lt Darrell J
Pratt, and MSgts Larry B Burrus and Jay Wilson), as
well as the crew of the strip alert tanker, received the
Air Medal. 35
KC-135 TANKER SUPPORT
for other Mackay Trophy recipients
1961 - On 26th May 1961, en route from Carswell
AFB to the Paris Airshow, 43rd BW B-58A 59-2451
The Firefly established the New York-to-Paris speed
record and the Washington DC-to-Paris speed
record (beating an unofficial record set by a Boeing
707).36 Regrettably, the aircraft crashed on 3rd June
while performing at the airshow, killing all three of
the record-setting crewmembers.
1962 - On 5th March 1962, 43rd BW B-58A 59-2458
Cowtown Hustler established three transcontinental
speed records for Los Angeles-to-New York, New
York-to-Los Angeles, and round trip." Operation
'Heat Rise', which won the 1962 Bendix Trophy,
required three in-flight refuelings from KC-135As.38
1969 - The 49th TFW received the Mackay Trophy
for its deployment of 72 F-4D Phantom lis from
Spangdahlem AB, West Germany, to Holloman
AFB, New Mexico, without a single abort. KC-135As
provided 504 successful air-to··air refuelings on the
5,000 mile (8,046km) trip.
1971 - On 26th April 1971, SR-71 A 64-17968 com-
pleted a 10.5 hour flight, covering 15,000 miles
(9,320km) at speeds over Mach 3 and altitudes
above 80,000ft (24,384m). The flight required 'sev-
eraI' refuelings by KC-135Qs· 39
1980 -In the third such flight conducted by a SAC
aircraft, two B-52Hs from the 644th BS, 41 oth BW, K
I Sawyer AFB, Michigan, flew non-stop around the
world on 12-14th March 1980, in 42.5 hours. The
objective of the flight was to locate and photograph
elements of the Soviet Navy in the Arabian Gulf.
Each B-52 refueled five times taking on 600,0001b
(272, 160kg) offuel from nine KC-135As.'o
205
Bombing and Navigation Competition Awards
In addition to the Holloway and Saunders Trophies,
other awards have been presented to Boeing
KC-135 units and crews participating in 'Bomb
Camp'. Following the 1st June 1992, absorption of
some KC-135 tanker units into AMC, some former
SAC competitions and awards have been incorpo-
rated into 'Airlift Rodeo'.
Best Tanker Crew - Navigation and Air Refueling
1961 Crew J-20, 911 th AREFS, 4241 st SW, Seymour Johnson AFB,
NC- KC-135A
Best KC·135 Unit
1961 915th AREFS, 72nd BW, Ramey AFB, PR-KC-135A
1960 96th AREFS, 11 th BW, Altus AFB, OK-KC-135A
1959 917th AREFS, 95th BW, Biggs AFB, TX-KC-135A
Best KC-135 Crew in Airlift Rodeo
1993 305th AREFS, 305th AREFW, Grissom AFB, IN-KC-135R
Best KC·135 Crew
1991 Competition not held due to 'Desert Storm'
1990 Competition not held due to 'Desert Shield'
1989 Crew R-019, 38th SRS, 55th SRW, Offutt AFB, NE - RC-135
1988 Crew IT-05, 93rd AREFS, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, GA - KG-135
1987 Crew R-015, 336th AREFS, 452nd AREFW (AFRES) March AFB,
CA- KC-135E
1986 Crew S-152, 92nd BW, Fairchild AFB, WA - KC-135A
1985 Crew S-102, 92nd BW, Fairchild AFB, WA - KG-135A
1984 Grew E-118, 906th AREFS, 5th BW, Minot AFB, ND - KC-135A
1983 Grew E-125, 9th SRW, Beale AFB, CA- KC-135Q
1982 Crew S-121, 509th AREFS, 509th BW, Pease AFB, NH - KC-135A
1981 Crew S-101, 904th AREFS, 320th BW, Mather AFB, CA- KC-135A
1980 Crew E-l08, 384th AREFW, McGonnell AFB, KS - KG-135A
1979 Crew S-152, 380th BW, Plattsburgh AFB, NY - KG-135A
1978 Crew R-113, 924th AREFS, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA - KC-135A
1977 Crew E-l08, 384th AREFW, McConnell AFB, KS - KC-135A
1976 Crew R-162, 92nd BW, Fairchild AFB, WA - KC-135A
Best KC-135 Crew-Single Mission
1974 Crew E-113, 911th AREFS, 68th BW, Seymour Johnson AFB, NC
KC-135A
Best Tanker Wing in Airlift Rodeo
1993 305th AREFW, Grissom AFB, IN~KC-135R
Best KC-135 Navigation in Airlift Rodeo
1993 917th AREFS, 96th Wg. Dyess AFB, TX-KC-135A
Best KC-135 Aerial Refueling Crew In Airlift Rodeo
1993 305th AREFS, 305th AREFW, Grissom AFB, IN~KC-135R
The John CMeyer Trophy
Established in 1976 and named after aformerCINCSAC. The MeyerTrophy
was originally awarded to the 'best F/FB-lllA unit in low altitude bombing'
during 'Bomb Comp'. Beginning in 1992. the award has been reassigned to
honor an outstanding air refueling unit.
1993 9th Wg, BealeAFB, GA- KC-135Q
1992 132nd AREFS, 101stAREFW, MaineANG, Bangor lAP, MA-
KC-135E
The Cullen Trophy
The Paul TCullen Trophy, which was inactive from 1957through 1970, is in
memory of a leading photo-reconnaissance authority killed in a 1951 crash
of aDouglas C-124 Globemaster II. The award is presented to the unit that
contributes the most to the Air Force's PHOTINT and SIGINT efforts. Units
awarded the Cullen trophy operate or support RC-135s or KC-135Qs in
support of Lockheed SR-71 missions.
206
1991 9th Wg, Beale AFB, CA - KG-135Q support for U-2Rs
1990 Awarded to a unit which did not operate or support RC-135s or
SR-71/KG-135Qs
1989 Awarded to a unit which did not operate or support RC-135s or
SR-71/KC-135Qs
1988 55th SRW, Offutt AFB, NE - RC-135
1987 9th SRW, Beale AFB, CA- SR-71jKC-135Q
1986 9th SRW, Beale AFB, CA - SR-71jKC-135Q
1985 9th SRW, Beale AFB, CA- SR-71jKC-135Q
1984 55th SRW, Offutt AFB, NE - RC-135
1983 6th SW, Eielson AFB, AK - RC-135
1982 306th SW, RAF Mildenhall, England - SR-71jKC-135Q and
RC-135 support
1981 922nd SS, Hellenikon AB, Greece - RC-135 support
1980 9th SRW, Beale AFB, CA- SR-71jKC-135Q
1979 55th SRW, Offutt AFB, NE - RG-135
1978 6th SW, Eielson AFB, AK - RG-135
1977 9th SRW, Beale AFB, CA- SR-71jKC-135Q
1976 306th SW, Ramstein AB, FRG - SR-71j KC-135Q and RC-135
support
1975 55th SRW, Offutt AFB, NE - RG-135
1974 9th SRW, Beale AFB, CA - SR-71/KC-135Q
1973 6th SW, Eielson AFB, AK - RC-135
1972 Awarded to a unit which did not operate or support RC-135s or
SR-71jKC-135Qs
1971 55th SRW, Offutt AFB, NE - RC-135
1970 82nd SRS, 376th SW, Kadena AB, Okinawa - RC-135
The Holloway Trophy
The Bruce K Holloway Trophy, named after a former CINCSAC. Prior to
1976 it was known as the 'Navigation Trophy'. After 1976 it was awarded to
the tanker unit that compiled the most points during the navigation phase of
SAC's 'Proud Shield' competition (formerly 'Bomb Gomp').
1991 Competition not held dueto 'Desert Storm'
1990 Competition not held due to 'Desert Shield'
1989 91stAREFS, 301 stAREFW, Malmstrom AFB, MT - KC-135R
1988 42nd BW, LoringAFB, ME- KC-135A
1987 ANG 'White Team' (191stAREFS, 151stAREFG, Utah ANG, Salt
Lake City lAP, UT, and 197th AREFS, 161 st AREFG, Arizona ANG,
Phoenix lAP, AZ) - KC-135E
1986 7thAREFS, 7th BW, Carswell AFB, TX- KC-135A
1985 336th AREFS, 452nd AREFW (AFRES), March AFB, CA - KC-135E
1984 9th SRW, Beale"AFB, GA - KG-135Q
1983 336th AREFS, 452nd AREFW (AREFS), March AFB, CA - KC-135E
1982 509thAREFS, 509th BW, PeaseAFB, NH- KC-135A
1981 92nd BW, Fairchild AFB, WA - KC-135A
1980 305th AREFW, Grissom AFB, IN -KG-135A, KC-135D, EG-135G
and EG-135L
1979 133rd AREFS, 157th AREFG, (New Hampshire AN G) Pease AFB,
NH-KC-135A
1978 924th AREFS, 93rd BW, Castle AFB, CA - KG-135A
1977 380th BW, Plattsburgh AFB, NY - KC-135A
The Spaatz Trophy
in appreciation of SAC's tanker support ofTAC's fighters, TAC created the
General Garl 'Tooey' Spaatz Award on 4th September 1975. The award
honors the first Air Force Chief of Staff and pioneer in aerial refueling, and
was presented to the best air refueling unit in SAC.
1991 133rd AREFS, 157th AREFG, New Hampshire ANG, Pease AFB,
NH-KC-135E
1990 91 stAREFS, 301 stAREFW, Malmstrom AFB, MT - KC-135R
1989 Awarded to a unit which did not operate KC-135s
1988 909th AREFS, 376th SW, KadenaAB, Okinawa - KC-135A,
KC-135Q
1987 Awarded to aunit which did not operate KC-135s
1986 43rd AREFS, 92nd BW, FairchildAFB, WA- KC-135A
1985 906thAREFS, 5th BW, MinotAFB, ND-KC-135A
1984 906thAREFS, 5th BW, MinotAFB, ND-KG-135A
1983 42nd BW, Loring AFB, ME - KC-135A
1982 46thAREFS, 410th BW, KISawyer AFB, MI- KC-135A
1981 305th AREFS, 305thAREFW, GrissomAFB, iN - KC-135A, KC-135D
1980 336th AREFS, 452nd AREFW, (AFRES) March AFB, CA - KC-135A
1979 916th AREFS, 307th AREFG, Travis AFB, CA - KG-135A
1978 912thAREFS, 19th BW, RobinsAFB, GA-KC-135A
1977 306th SW, Ramstein AB, FRG - KG-135A
1976 41stAREFS, 416th BW, GriffissAFB, NY - KC-135A
1975 22ndAREFS, 22nd BW, MarchAFB, CA- KC-135A, and 11th
AREFS, 19th AD, Altus AFB, OK - KC-135A
(The Spaatz Trophy was awarded twice in 1975: Firstto the 11th
AREFS for its pertormance during January-June 1975, and then to
the 22nd AREFS for its pertormance during July-December 19751
The Saunders Trophy
First presented in 1960, the Donald WSaunders award is given to the best
air refueling squadron participating in SAC's 'Proud Shield' competition.
The award honors the 57th Air Division commander killed during the 1958
'Top Sail' transatlantic speed record attempt. From 1963 through 1966 and
in 1969, tanker squadrons did not participate in a formal competition.
Award of the trophy in these years was based upon the unit's pertormance
inthe preceding year.
1993 305th AREFW, Grissom AFB, IN - KC-135R
1992 Recipient not identified
1991 Competition not held due to 'Desert Storm'
1990 Competition not held due to 'Desert Shield'
1989 384th AREFS, 384th BW. McConnell AFB, KS - KC-135R
1988 42nd BW, Loring AFB, ME - KC-135A
1987 314th AREFS, 940th AREFG (AFRES), Mather AFB, CA - KC-135E
1986 92nd BW, Fairchild AFB, WA - KC-135A
1985 336th AREFS, 452nd AREFW (AFRES), March AFB, CA - KC-135E
1984 380th BW, PlattsburghAFB, NY - KC-135A
1983 117th AREFS, 190th AREFG (Kansas ANG), Topeka, KS - KC-135E
1982 509thAREFS, 509th BW, PeaseAFB, NH- KC-135A
1981 92OthAREFS, 379th BW, WurtsmithAFB, MI-KC-135A
1980 384th AREFW, McConnell AFB, KS - KC-135A
1979 380th BW, Plattsburgh AFB, NY - KC-135A
1978 28th AREFS, 28th BW, ElisworthAFB, SD-KC-135A
1977 384th AREFW, McConnell AFB, KS - KC-135A
1976 92nd BW, Fairchild AFB, WA - KC-135A
1975 Not awarded
1974 911thAREFS, 68th BW, Seymour Johnson AFB, NC -KG-135A
1973 Not awarded ~
1972 Not awarded
1971 llthAREFS(19thAD),AltusAF OK-KC-135A
1970 11th AREFS (19th AD), AltusAFB:0K- KC-135A
1969 919th AFRES, 306th BW, McCoy AF~L - KG-135A
1968 Not awarded
1967 Not awarded
1966 906th AREFS, 450th BW, MinotAFB. ND-KC-135A
1965 922nd AREFS, 17th BW, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH - KG-135A
1964 42ndAREFS, 42nd BW, LoringAFB, ME-KC-135A
1963 46th AREFS, 41 Oth BW, Ki Sawyer AFB, MI- KC-135A
1962 Not awarded
1961 915th AREFS, 72nd BW, Ramey AB, PR - KG-135A
1960 Established; awarded to aunit which did not operate KC-135s
In addition to its test-bed role, C·135C 61·2669
also serves as a VIP transport. In this capacity
it established two speed records between
Japan and China. Joe Bruch collection

Notes on Sources
The original intent in preparing this bibliography
was to list all the works consulted in the prepara-
tion of this book, both as an aid to researchers and
to provide the many sources for my information,
especially when it might be considered sensitive.
As the bibliography reached 80 pages and was still
growing, the author felt this exhaustive approach
would be counterproductive as pages that could
be devoted to text and photos would instead be
filled with redundant references. To that end, I have
elected to let the citations in Appendix H stand by
themselves. Rather than offer a laundry list of arti-
cles, books, and documents, I have chosen
instead to include a bibliographic essay on the
sources available in researching the KC-135 and its
variants, and offer comments as to the value of ref-
erences that I found helpful and those which I did
not.
Primary Sources: Archives, manuscript collec-
tions, and historical centers
Aerofax Archives and Library; Air Force Museum;
Air Force Special Weapons Center History Office
(AFSWC/HO); Air Force Systems Command
History Office (AFSC/HO); Boeing Company
Archives; Department of Defense; Department of
Energy; Department of State; John F Kennedy
Library; Curtis E LeMay Papers; Library of
Congress; Military Airlift Command History Office
(MAC/HO); Museum of Flight Archives; National
Air & Space Association History Office; National
Air & Space Museum; Presidential Papers;
Strategic Air Command History Office (SAC/HO);
Albert F Simpson USAF Historical Research
Center (AFSHRC); US Congress; US Air Force
Wing History Offices.
Secondary Sources: Journals, magazines, and
newspapers. Each is given an abbreviation used
to key references within AppendiX H, page 209.
Aero Digest - AD; Aeronautical Engineering
Review - AER; Aeroplane - AO; Aerospace
Historian - AH; Aeroplane Monthly - AL; Air
Combat - AC; Air Enthusiast - AE; Air Enthusiast
Quarterly - AEQ; Air Extra - /V(; Air Fan - AF; Air
Force Magazine - AFM; Air Forces Monthly - AM;
Air Force Times - AFT; Air Internationa/- AI; Air
Pictorial- AT; Air Progress Aviation Review-
APAR; Air Pulse (Offutt AFB, NE) - AF; Air &
Space/Smithsonian - AS; Aircraft Illustrated - AU;
Airman Magazine - AZ.; Airpower - AR; American
Legion Monthly - ALM; Approach - AA; Armed
Forces & Society - AFS; Associated Press - AP;
Atlantic Monthly - AY; Aviation - AV; Aviation News
- AN; Aviation Quarterly - AQ; Aviation Week-
AW; Aviation Week & Space Technology -
AW&ST; Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME) - BDN;
Bedford Minuteman (Bedford, MA) - BDM; Boeing
Magazine - BM; Boeing News - BN; Boeing
Service News - BSN; British Aviation Review-
BAR; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - BAS;
Burlington County Times (Burlington, VT) - BCT;
C-135 Fleet Report (1993) - FR; Camden Courier-
Post (Camden, NJ) - CCP; Chicago Tribune - CT;
Christian Science Monitor - CSM; Cold War
International History Project Bulletin - CWIHPB;
Combat Crew - CC; Cooperation and Conflict-
CX; Dcedalus Flyer - DF; Daily Oklahoman
(Oklahoma City, OK) - DO; Declassified
Document Reference System - DDRS; Defense
AppendixG
Attache - DA; Defense Electronics - DE; Defense
News - DN; Defense Systems Review - DSR;
Diplomatic History - DH; Eielson Times (Eielson
AFB, AK) - ET; Electronics - EL; Fairbanks Daily
News - Miner (Fairbanks, AK)- FDNM; Fairchild
Times (Fairchild AFB, WA) - FT; Flight
International- FI; Flying Review International -
FRI; Flying Safety - FS; Forbes - FO; Foreign
Affairs - FA; Foreign Relations ofthe United States
- FRUS; Fortune - FT; Galaxy (Altus AFB, OK) -
GY; Goldpanner (Eielson AFB, AK) - GP; The
Hook- TH; Independent News Service -INS;
IPMS Quarterly - IPMSQ; International Defence
Review - IDR; International Herald Tribune - IHT;
International Journal of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence ~ IJIC; International
Organization - 10; International Security - IS;
Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society
- JAAHS; Journal of American History - JAH;
Journal of Military Aviation - JMA; Jane's Defence
Weekly - JDW; Kanto Plainsman (Tachikawa AB,
Japan) - KP; Kokomo Tribune (Kokomo, IN) - KT;
Koku-Fan - KF; Le Monde - LM; Lexington
Minuteman (Lexington, MA) - LXM; Lincoln
Journal- Star (Lincoln, NE) - LJS; MAC Flyer-
MF; Midway Magazine - MM; Military Affairs - MA;
Military Communications/Electronics - MCE;
Military Engineer - ME; National Geographic -
NGeo; National Guard - NG; Naval Aviation News
- NaNews; Navigator - NAV; New York Times -
NYT; News Leader (Dade County, FL) - NL;
Okinawa Morning Star - OMS; Okinawa Times -
OT; Omaha World - Herald - OWH; Orbis - OB;
The Patriot (Forbes AFB, KS) - TP~ Presidential
Studies Quarterly - PSQ; Robins Rev-Up (Robins
AFB, GA) - RR; Roswell Daily Record - RDR;
Science News Letter - SNL; Seattle Post-
Intelligencer - SPI; Signal - SG; Sky Schooner
(Forbes AFB, KS) - FSS; Smithsonian - SM;
Spokane Daily Chronicle - SDC; Spokesman -
Review (Spokane, WA) - SR; Stars and Stripes -
SS; Stratotanker Magazine - ST; Studies in
Intelligence - SI; Survival- SV; Time - TM; US
News & World Report - USN&WR; VFW - VFW;
Virginia Quarterly Review - VQR; Wall Street
Journal - WSJ; Warplane - WA; Washington
Monthly - WM; Washington Post - WP; Western
Aviation - WV; World Air Power Journal- WAPJ
General References: To date, surprisingly few
books have been written on Boeing KC-135s and
their missions. Price's Boeing 707 Profile and
Schiff's Boeing 707 were among the first books to
look at the KC-135, but both focus on the civilian
airliner and only marginally the military airplanes.
Lloyd's two-part article in Air International has
long stood as the sine qua non of KC-135 refer-
ences, although as an early synthesis of material it
suffers from two debilitating weaknesses. First,
Lloyd (a Boeing employee) was constrained by
security limits instituted during the height of the
'Cold War' and was thus compelled to be vague
and in some cases misleading (a kinder word to
use in this case rather than 'mistaken') in reporting
on some of the esoteric variants such as RC-135s
and EC-135s. Second, his synthesis distilled into
one apparently definitive source many of the erro-
neous stories about the KC-135. Whether the result
of security limits or because the modifications were
undertaken by companies other than Boeing,
Lloyd's perpetuation of the report of 'SLARs' on
RC-135s is but one example of the many institu-
tionalized myths about the KC-135.
Dorr's KC-135 Stratotanker was the next single-
volume work to appear, and clearly shows its her-
itage as a derivative of an internal Air Force annual
publication entitled The KC-135 Fleet Report (which
should not be confused with Moseley's privately
produced C-135 Fleet Report). The historical back-
ground contained within Dorr's book relies heavily
upon the Lloyd articles and consequently suffers
from the same shortcomings. Further, Dorr's book
would have benefitted from a stronger editorial
hand as egregious captioning errors (APU exhaust
ports are 'plexiglas observation blisters') and textu-
al gaffes minimize the value of this otherwise inter-
esting and well-intended volume.
As part of Squadron/Signal's formula series,
Reed's Boeing KC-135 in Action contains a lot of
photographs and a little text. Offering a small
improvement in content over Lloyd's articles and
Dorr's book, there are still numerous substantive
errors in captions and text, and many of the pho-
tographs are blurry and poorly cropped, reducing
their value to aviation enthusiasts and modelers
alike. Lloyd's KC-135 in Detail and Scale is an
excellent improvement over the Reed effort, and
offers plenty of detail photographs sure to satisfy
modelers. Don Logan's forthcoming color collec-
tion of KC-135 photos will be a welcome addition.
KC-135 devotees should not miss Moseley's
annual C-135 Fleet Report, which serves as a con-
tinuously updated reference on every one of the
820 airplanes produced. Further, Moseley com-
piles and distributes the Stratotanker Magazine,
although this has been temporarily suspended.
This quarterly offers invaluable updates and dis-
cussion on a wide variety of KC-135-related issues,
past, present, and future. Sources for the material
in this excellent compendium range from the per-
sonal recollections of the many participants in the
KC-135 saga to official Air Force documents to pre-
viously unavailable photos from the private collec-
tions of crewmembers, enthusiasts, and historians
from around the world. The Fleet Report and
Stratotanker Magazine are outstanding compan-
ions to and in many ways functions as an update of
material contained within this book.
Strategic Considerations: The literature on the
'Cold War' and strategic deterrence is both volumi-
nous and diverse in its interpretation. A good gen-
eral survey for the layman is Newhouse's War and
Peace in the Nuclear Age. Two recent works that
should not be overlooked are Leffler's
Preponderance of Power and Holloway's Stalin and
the Bomb. Both serve as excellent introductions to
the subject. Williamson and Rearden's Origins of
US Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953 is equally valu-
able. Rosenberg's pioneering work in quantifying
the nuclear capacity of the US in the early 'Cold
War' years cannot be overestimated, and the often
exaggerated influence of nuclear weapons and
strategic airpower is discussed in Borowski's A
Hollow Threat. Hansen's US Nuclear Weapons is a
superior reference, although it has been supplant-
ed by his microfiche or CD-ROM The Swords of
Armageddon.
Other than Borowski's work, tl:1ere has been little
effort to stUdy SAC as an organization or as an
207
instrument of US policy. SAC historians have made
a small contribution with summaries such as
Longacre's Strategic Air Command: The Formative
Years (1944-1949) and the more extensive
Development of Strategic Air Command 1946-1986
by Hopkins and Goldberg. Moody's Building a.
Strategic Air Force, 1945-1953 is especially helpful.
Borgiasz's recent Strategic Air Command comple-
ments Borowski and Moody. LeMay should not be
ignored and is well considered in his own Mission
With LeMay, Coffey's Iron Eagle, LeMay's AFHRA
Oral Histories, and his papers at the Library of
Congress. Meilinger's Hoyt S Vandenberg: The Life
of a General is equally helpful.
Aerial Refueling: There is no better student of the
history of aerial refueling than Brian Gardner. Begin
with his many excellent articles, and follow up on
his well-researched footnotes. Richard Smith also
has written extensively on the 'range problem' and
early aerial refueling, and is completing an official
Air Force history on this much ignored topic. A
recent addition is Vernon Byrd's Passing Gas: The
History of Inflight Refueling. Mansfield's Vision: A
Saga of the Sky approaches the air refueling prob-
lem from Boeing's perspective, and is both read-
able and informative. Harvey and Giroux's Seventy
Years of Strategic Air Refueling 1918-1988 is an
excellent chronology, although it should not be
taken as a single source reference because of its
parochial allegiance to SAC.
Developmental History: There are few books
devoted to the KC-135's design and development.
Works such as Chant's Boeing 707: Super Profile
and Serling's Legend and Legacy focus primarily
on the 707 but mention the KC-135 only in passing.
The autobiographical Tex Johnston: Jet-age Test
Pilot offers Johnston's personal recollections of
'Dash 80' and early 707 test flights, and is an
absolute must-read. Also worthwhile is Mary Wells
Geer's Boeing's Ed Wells. Pennell's article is equal-
ly valuable and is written from an engineer's point
of view. Aviation Week's series of articles on the
'Dash 80' is an excellent source for the day-to-day
events in the development of the KC-135.
The Air Force and Boeing have significantly dif-
ferent perspectives on the KC-135 and its introduc-
tion into service. Brassell's History of the KC-135A
Airplane: 1953-1958 and the OCAMA Historical
Monograph C/KC-135 Logistics Support - Overall
Logistics and Supply Support (1955-1964) are the
definitive Air Force histories and pUll no punches.
Test reports in official histories of the AFFTC at
Edwards AFB are equally blunt and illuminating.
Boeing's press releases and its in-house publica-
tion - Boeing Magazine - offer the manufacturer's
side of an occasionally difficult period.
Technical Details: In addition to the descriptions
of systems and their operation found in the gener-
al works on KC-135s described above, the venera-
ble 'Dash One' is the definitive source of informa-
tion, however tedious and boring. Readers of the
now-defunct Combat Crew magazine will no doubt
find a treasure trove of tales relating how crews
successfully dealt with (or didn't, in some cases)
emergencies that arose when the airplane failed to
work 'as advertised'. Similarly, technical reports
and press announcements appear regularly in jour-
nals such as Aviation Week & Space Technology,
describing changes to existing KC-135 systems.
Tankers: For early KC-135 operations, see the
works listed above. Narducci's Strategic Air
Command and the Alert Program is a survey of KC-
135 ground alert and support of B-52 airborne alert,
as well as the EC-135 airborne command post mis-
sion. SAC Tanker Operations in Southeast Asia by
Charles Hopkins is the best single source on KC-
135 missions during the war in SEA. Specific
'tanker stories' and 'saves' of fighters can be found
throughout the Vietnam aviation literature. On
French tankers, see the bibliography in The Sale of
208
Boeing KC-135 Jet Tankers to France and the
Development of French Nuclear Autonomy by
Robert Hopkins. A substantial amount of informa-
tion on KC-135Q operations is available in the
many sources associated with the SR-71 , among
them Crickmore's two fine volumes and Shul's Sled
Driver. The Gulf War Air Power Survey (GWAPS),
especially Volume III, Logistics, covers nearly every
aspect of KC-135 operations during Operations
'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm'. See also
Coyne's Airpower in the Gulf as well as Triumph
Without Victory, Morse's Gulf Air War Debrief,
Atkinson's Crusade, and Hallion's Storm Over Iraq.
Transports: Despite the modest literature on mili-
tary 707 transports, little has been written that deals
exclusively with the C-135 in this role. Ulanoff's
MATS: The Story of the Military Air Transport Service
and Burkard's Military Airlift Command: Historical
Handbook 1941-1984 are good accounts of the
major command that used transport C-135s. Early
MATS histories provide helpful material on the ini-
tial operations of these jet transports, but a single
authoritative volume waits to be written.
On the origins of jet-powered airlift and the
acquisition of the C-135 as an interim cargo carrier,
presidential and senior government officials'
papers, congressional hearings, and internal DoD
memoranda are the best sources. The aviation lit-
erature followed this issue closely, especially once
C-135s were in service. Insightful reports appear in
Aviation Week & Space Technology. Unit histories
from those wings operating the C-135 have been
declassified recently and offer interesting accounts
of the daily operations of the new airplane. For VIP
missions, see the entertaining The Flying White
House by terHqrst and Albertazzie.
Test-beds: Begin by consulting Against the Wind
by the Air Force Materiel Command History Office.
More can be learned about test-bed KC-135s by
reading articles on specific test programs.
Technical literature such as Aviation Week & Space
Technology, Air Force Magazine, and Jane's
Defence Weekly all report regularly on the many
projects undertaken by test-bed KC-135s.
Scattered published reports such as NASA's KC-
135 Winglet Program Review, internal documents
and reports of companies that modified the test-
beds (notably E-Systems), and AFSC unit histories
offer otherwise inaccessible information (dates of
flights, mission results, conclusions, etc) on a few
select test programs. Declassified DoD and AEC
documents reveal the previously underestimated
importance of test-bed KC-135s in the develop-
ment and testing of nuclear weapons. See
Hansen's articles, his US Nuclear Weapons and his
newly released Swords of Armageddon on CD-
ROM or microfiche.
Airborne Command Posts: Very few sources are
available on the airborne command post role. On
the rationale and strategy behind the survivable
command post, see Ball's Can Nuclear War Be
Controlled?, Bracken's The Command and Control
of Nuclear Forces and Blair's Strategic Command
and Control. The literature on the 'Missile Gap' is
particularly helpful, as it examines the perceived
American vulnerability to surprise attack and hence
the need for a survivable command post. SAC his-
tories and chronologies offer some insight into
PACCS's daily operations and mission. Internal
publications from E-Systems describe some of the
many EC-135 conversions, capabilities, and mis-
sions.
Reconnaissance Platforms: Donald's Spyplane is
an excellent omnibus compendium of aerial recon-
naissance and serves as a good starting point.
Other worthwhile volumes on reconnaissance, par-
ticularly with the RC-135 in mind, include Bailey's
We See All, a collection of memorabilia by, inter
alia, those who flew RC-135 missions in its early
years. Bailey's SIGINT Over Vietnam is a personal
recollection of RC-135 reconnaissance operations
in Southeast Asia. Donald's Boeing RC-135
Operation Profile, and Peacock's Boeing RC-135
Super Snooper are equally informative. On the role
of RC-135s in ballistic missile reconnaissance, see
'Cobra Ball', 'Cobra Eye': Alaskan Observers' by
Robert Hopkins. A few snippets of RC-135 opera-
tions in Southeast Asia appear in official SAC his-
tories, and brief records of RC-135 missions during
1he Gulf War are in GWAPS. For more on this, see
Ears ofthe Storm, by Robert Hopkins.
For a technical history of SIGINT, with consider-
able attention to the RC-135 and its predecessors,
see Price's extremely useful two-volume series
History of US Electronic Warfare, especially the sec-
ond volume for its excellent analysis of the origins
and early operations of RC-135 operations. Silber's
many fine articles in the Omaha World-Herald are
invaluable.
Serial Numbers: The serial number list and asso-
ciated data derive from several complementary
sources. The best of these is Moseley's C-135 Fleet
Report and his Stratotanker Magazine, along with
Boeing Jet Production List from Kirkwood and
Military Aircraft Serials of North America, 3d ed, by
Eastwood and Mitchell. Others worth examining
are Andrade's US Military Aircraft Designations and
Serials Since 1909, Archer's United States Military
Aviation: The Air Force, Air-Britain's Boeing C-135
Stratotanker [sic], Gilchrist's The Stratotanker
Series, Gunston's Boeing C-135: Tireless Tanker,
and Lynn's Boeing Production 707, 720, 727, 737,
747, and USAF Variants. Monthly reports from
B'ritish Aviation Review are equally valuable.
Internal Boeing documents reflect hitherto ignored
sources for aviation writers, but contain a few
notable omissions and errors.
A few sources should be consulted with caution,
as MDS and serial numbers contained therein are
either incorrect or grossly misleading. Most notable
(and disappointing) are Boeing Aircraft Since 1916
by Bowers, and Strategic Air Command: People,
Aircraft, and Missiles, by Polmar and Laur.
Attrition: Moseley's C-135 Fleet Report and
Stratotanker Magazine, along with British Aviation
Review's regular updates are the best sources of
specific attrition data, especially serial number and
date tie-ups. Official press releases and unit histo-
ries are good primary sources, although they must
be viewed with some skepticism as they are often
vague, incomplete, or do not elaborate the full
story, sometimes because of legitimate safety con-
siderations, sometimes because of the implications
of the accident. Beyond these official reports, the
best sources for attrition data are newspaper and
journal accounts. A good place to start for these is
the New York Times Index for the appropriate years.
Units: In the aftermath of the sweeping changes to
the Air Force during the early 1990s, rapid, often
unannounced, and occasionally rescinded reorga-
nizations have made this a difficult section to com-
pile, Dates of operation derive from official general
orders, official histories, and press announce-
ments. Combat Squadrons of the US Air Force is
equally valuable.
Records: In addition to SAC histories, newspapers
such as the New York Times and the aviation litera-
ture maintain a fairly accurate but not exhaustive
tally of specific records and accomplishments.
Documents from the FAI and NAA offer some assis-
tance, although they do not always contain essen-
tial data such as aircraft serial numbers or com-
plete crew rosters. The LeMay papers include an
entire box of material on Operation 'Long Legs'.

Refer to page 7 for background notes on the use of foot-
notes within this title and to the Notes on Sources
(Appendix G) on page 207 for abbreviations of sources
quoted. A greater degree of abbreviation is used within the
text here than in the main narrative sections.
Chapter One
Determinant of Strategy
1 R Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, Encyclopedia of
Military History From 3500 BC to the Present, 2d rev ed
(New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 1201.
2 Eliot A Cohen, ed, Gulf War Air Power Survey (here-
after GWAPS) (Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office, 1993), Summary Report, by Thomas A. Keaney and
Eliot'A Cohen, 229. Although it can be argued that sea-
based airpower and marine forces are equally, if not more
capable of performing power-projection missions, they suf-
fer from the need to be on location at the beginning of the
crisis. Valuable time can elapse and options disappear just
in getting the carriers and troop transports to the scene, if
it is even reachable by sea. Further, naval-based opera-
tions lack the ability to sustain such operations over
lengthy periods. This rationale explains, in part, the use of
Air Force combat aircraft in addition to US carrier-based
aircraft in the 1986 attack on Libyan terrorist targets.
3 This vulnerability was first highlighted by the US airlift
to Israel during the 1973 October War, when American
flights required en route refueling sites. After NATO refused
to allow US transports to refuel at NATO bases, the US
sought permission from Portugal to refuel at Lajes Field in
the Azores. Portugal stalled, insisting that US refueling priv-
ileges would come as a quid pro quo for increased US
arms supply to Portugal for its colonial wars in Moz-
ambique and Angola. President Richard M Nixon respond-
ed by warning Portugal that the US would not only refuse
to supply Portugal, but would abandon it to a 'hostile'
world. Portuguese permission came the following day. Since
then, an air refueling capability was retrofitted to the C-141
fleet. On the politics of the airlift, see Henry Kissinger, Years
of Upheaval (Boston: Little, Brown, 1982), 520.
4 Msg, COMGENUSSTAF to COMGENAIR (Personal to
Eaker from LeMay), Postwar Atomic Bomb Program,
30/0910Z 8-45, quoted in John T Greenwood, The Atomic
Bomb: Early Air Force Thinking and the Strategic Air Force,
August 1945-March 1946, AH (Fall 1987): 159.
5 Ibidem (in the same piece, ibid hereafter), 159.
6 The 'Silverplate' B-29s had been modified with an H-
frame and hook to handle the 1O,OOOlb (4,536kg) bomb, as
well as special wiring in the bomb bay for weapon fuses
and monitoring equipment. Ibid, 160. See also Amy Fen-
wick, History of 'Silverplate' Project (Wright-Patterson AFB,
OH: Office of the Historian, Air Materiel Command, 6.52);
and idem (article or chapter within that previously cited),
History of the 'Saddletree' Project (Wright-Patterson AFB,
OH: Office of the Historian, Air Materiel Command, 5.53). In
5.47, the code name 'Silverplate' was compromised and
changed to 'Saddletree'.
7 David Alan Rosenberg, US Nuclear Stockpile, 1945 to
1950, BAS, May 1982, 28.
8 Edward G Longacre, Strategic Air Command: The
Formative Years (1944-1949) (Offutt AFB, NE: Office of the
Historian, Strategic Air Command, 1990), 18,30.
9 Quoted in Greenwood, The Atomic Bomb, 161. 10
Ibid, 162-163. 11 Ibid, 164.
12 This decrease was the result of the short half-life of the
polonium initiator (only 138 days) and the inability to meet
the production schedules necessary to support more
bombs. Rosenberg, US Nuclear Stockpile, 26-27.
13 Harry S Truman diary entry, 14.10.46, quoted in
Rosenberg, US Nuclear Stockpile, 27. Emphasis added.
Once Truman became aware of the actual shortage of
weapon components he authorized plans to correct these
deficiencies. By 10.47 the Joint Chiefs of Staff had estab-
lished a vigorous production schedule through 1953.
14 On the effect of the atom bomb on US war planning,
see inter alia (among other things), Anthony Cave Brown,
ed, Dropshot (New York: Dial Press, 1978); Kenneth W.
Condit, The History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: The Joint
Chiefs of Staff and National Policy, vol 2, 1947-1949
(Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1979); Gregg Herken, The
AppendixH
End Notes
Winning Weapon (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1980), 195-
337; David Macisaac, The Air Force and Strategic Thought,
1945-1951, Woodrow Wilson Strategic Studies Program,
Working Paper No.8, Washington, DC, 1979; David Alan
Rosenberg, The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and
American Strategy, in The National Security: Its Theory and
Practice, 1945-1960, ed. Norman A Graebner (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1986), 123-195; Marc Trach-
tenberg, History and Strategy (Princeton: Princeton Univ-
ersity Press, 1991), 101-152; L. Wainstein, et alibi (and
elsewhere, et al henceforth) The Evolution of US Strategic
Command and Control and Warning, 1945-1972, Study S-
467 (Arlington, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis, 6-75), 3-
138; and Samuel R Williamson, Jr, and Steven L Rearden,
The Origins of US Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953 (New York:
St. Martin's Press, 1993).
15 Harry R. Borowski, Air Force Atomic Capability from V-
J Day to the Berlin Blockade - Potential or Real? MA, Oct
1980,109; and idem, A Hollow Threat: Strategic Air Power
and Containment Before Korea (Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 1982), 112-36.
16 J C Hopkins and Sheldon A Goldberg, The Dev-
elopment of Strategic Air Command 1946-1986 (The
Fortieth Anniversary History) (hereafter Development of
SAC) (Offutt AFB, NE: Office of the Historian, Strategic Air
Command, 1986), 6. Emphasis added.
17 Quoted in John Newhouse, War and Peace in the
Nuclear Age (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1989),67. See also
SAC Operations in the United Kingdom, 1948-1956, 7th Air
Division Historical Division, 3.1.56 (Secret - Restricted
Data), Air Force Historical Research Agency (hereafter
AFHRA) K416.04-11, 5-6. The author acquired this docu-
ment directly through a Freedom of Information Act re-
quest; the AFHRA copy remains classified.
18 Rosenberg, US Nuclear Stockpile, 29.
19 The subject of 'atomic diplomacy' has been the focus
of considerable historical inquiry and debate. Although the
first salvo was fired in P M S Blackett, Military and Political
Consequences of Atomic Energy (Londo'n: Turnstile, 1948),
the argument that America used the atom bomb to 'bully'
its way in foreign policy, particularly vis-a-vis the Soviet
Union, is fully articulated in Gar Alperovitz, Atomic
Diplomacy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965). The
definitive study of Soviet reaction to the US atomic bluff
over Berlin appears in David Holloway, Stalin and the
Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956
(New Haven: Yale Univ Press, 1994),261-63, esp note 57.
20 Rosenberg, US Nuclear Stockpile, 30. On LeMay's
reaction to SAC's shortcomings, see Borowski, A Hollow
Threat, 137-216; Thomas M Coffey, Iron Eagle: The
Turbulent Life of General Curtis LeMay (New York: Avon
Books, 1986), 268-288; and Curtis LeMay with MacKinlay
Kantor, Mission With LeMay (Garden City, NY: Doubleday
& Company, 1965). On the budget battles, see Phillip S
Meilinger, Hoyt S Vandenberg: The Life of a General
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986).
Chapter Two
Birth of Aerial Refueling
1 The author is deeply indebted to Brian Gardner for his
substantial contributions and constructive criticisms.
2 Brian Gardner, Skytanker: The Story of Air-to-Air
Refuelling, AX 49 (1985): np.
3 ALM, 11-29, 24.
4 Alexander P de Seversky, Air Power: Key To Survival
(London: Herbert Jenkins, 1952), np.
5 US Patent NO.1 ,728,449, 17.9.29.
6 W David Lewis and William F Trimble, The Airway to
Everywhere: A History of All American Aviation 1937-1953
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989), np.
7 The date of this event is recorded as both '12th
November' and '21 st November', most certainly the result
of a typographical error.
8 Henry H Arnold, Practical Value of Refueling Airplanes
in Flight, AV, 14th Ju11923, np.
9 AO, 9.1.24, 26.
10 By this time the Federation Aeronautique Inter-
nationale had discontinued the record class of endurance
with refueling. A new form of endurance flight continued in
the US for many years, however. This was the retueling of
light planes by means of passing cans of fuel from a speed-
ing automobile. The unofficial record for this type of
endurance flight reached 1,558 hours in 1959. This
remained the longest time man had remained aloft until
surpassed in 1974 by US astronauts aboard Skylab 4.
11 Cobham was a Royal Flying Corps pilot, barnstormer,
and air taxi pilot during the 1920s, and had made survey
flights to Africa and Australia. In 1926 he was knighted for
services to aviation.
12 Quoted in Development of SAC, 2.
13 M KJacobsen, B-36 Production, Part 2, JAAHS 18: np.
14 Norman Pol mar, Aircraft Carriers (London: Mac-
donald, 1969), 501. For an excellent discussion of the
'Gallery Memorandum', see Michael T Isenberg, Shield of
the Republic (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993), 151,
142-62. See also Jeffrey G Barlow, Revolt of the Admirals:
The Fight for Naval Aviation, 1945-1950 (Washington, DC:
Naval History Center, 1994).
15 Chuck Hansen, Nuclear Neptunes, JAAHS 24: np.
16 Walter Millis and E S Duffield, The Forrestal Diaries
(New York. The Viking Press, 1951),390; and Isenberg,
Shield olthe Republic, 113-14, 146.
17 Ibid, and Hansen, Nuclear Neptunes, np.
18 Harold Mansfield, Vision: A Saga of the Sky (New York:
Duell, Sloan, & Pearce, 1956), 293. 19 Ibid, 294.
20 Following a series of trials carried out by FRL over the
English Channel during 1946-47 (using the Lancasters
modified for 'Tiger Force'), approval was given for a series
of trials to assess the practicability of flight-refueled com-
mercial services across the Atlantic. Between May and
August 1947 FRL co-operated with British South American
Airways (BSAA) in a non-stop service from the UK to
Bermuda, with BSAA Lancasters refueled by Lancaster
tankers based in the Azores. Between 2.48 and 5.48 BOAC
carried out an experimental service across the Atlantic with
a converted Liberator refueled by Lancastrian tankers.
21 AW, 17.1.49, 15.
22 Fenwick, History of the 'Saddletree' Project, 42.
23 Longacre, Strategic Air Command, 42.
24 Nathaniel F Silsbee, To Any Spot on Earth: Flight of the
'Lucky Lady 11', AD, Apr 1949, np. See also Harold
Bourgeois, 'Lucky Lady's' Flight, AQ6 (1980): 180-191.
Despite the eventual success of the Lucky Lady II, SAC
leaders estimated the chances for completing the flight at
no better than 1 in 4. The first aircraft in the flight, the Global
Queen, was forced to land at Lajes due to technical prob-
lems. Further, the 43rd AREFS tanker crews had among
them only one previous successful air refueling contact
prior to the global mission!
25 In 4.49 an additional 39 B-36s were ordered. Because
of budget limitations and the perceived duplication of the
Air Force strategic mission, the Navy's new carrier USS
United States was canceled. This led to another bitter inter-
service row and a Congressional investigation into the B-36
program. Congress subsequently confirmed both the Air
Force's primary responsibility for the strategic mission and
the value of the B-36 program. Isenberg, Shield of the
Republic, 157-59; and Barlow, Revolt of the Admirals.
26 Air Force planners were sufficiently concerned about
this cold weather limitation that they sought to 'winterize'
the tankers for Arctic duty. Operational plans would then be
predicated on the proportional availability of winterized and
non-winterized tankers. Planning memorandum, no date,
Curtis E LeMay Papers (hereafter LeMay Papers), Box 206;
and Fenwick, History of the 'Saddletree' Project, 34-38.
27 Mansfield, Vision, 297.
28 Longacre, Strategic Air Command, 40. 29 Ibid, 43.
30 At the time, FRL was struggling to survive. With little
interest shown by the RAF or civil operators in adopting in-
flight refueling and only a limited contract for further devel-
opment, the company relied on contracts for maintenance
conversion and training, SAC's order for B-29 air refueling
equipment virtually rescued the company from oblivion.
31 By late 1948, when Boeing began considering turbo-
jets instead of propeller turbines for the B-52, the boom
system was being tested and promised a practical means
for refueling. Walter Boyne, Boeing B-52: A Documentary
History (London: Jane's Publishing, 1981), np.
32 Robert P Person, Aerial Refueling with the Boeing
Flying Boom, Paper given to the American Society of
209
Mechanical Engineers, 18.4.55, np. Transport Design, AER (8.54): 33. 3 Ibid.
33 Harold W Zipp, Conference to Discuss In-Flight 4 For example, a four-engine piston-powered airplane
Refueling Methods, 17.9.48, 1. Air Force Museum Archives. has - in addition to its four throttles - four mixture controls,
34 Brian Gardner, Development of Probe and Drogue four propeller pitch controls, four cowl flap controls, four oil
Refuelling, forthcoming. cooler controls, and in some cases four supercharger and
35 Fighter/Atlantic/Four, the fourth fighter transit of the four intercooler controls. Turbojet engines have only four
Atlantic Ocean. Earlier fighter deployments across the throttles. Turbofan engines used on some KC-135s and
Atlantic had been in stages, with refueling stops in 707s have - in addition to four throttles - four start levers
Scotland, Iceland, Greenland and Labrador. See Albert and, on some airplanes, four thrust reverse levers.
W.Schinz, 'Ho-Hum' Fighter In-flight Refueling - Not So! 5 First Details on US Jet Transport Plans, AW, 18.6.51,
AH, September 1984, 175. . 19-24; and Pennell, Evolution, 33. This design evolved into
36 David W Harvey and Vincent A Giroux Jr, Seventy the Model 473-28, which closely resembled its bomber pre-
Years of Strategic Air Refueling 1918-1988: A Chronology decessor, including its large underwing fuel tanks. This
(hereafter Air Refueling Chronology) (Offutt AFB, NE: Office was further developed into the 473-30, which lacked the
of the Historian, Strategic Air Command, 1990), 16. external tanks but had a longer fuselage. One interesting
37 Mansfield, Vision, 297. Boeing proposal was the 1949 473-19A, a delta-shaped fly-
38 Boeing News Bureau release S-1688, 10.9.50, 2-3. ing wing with a passenger capacity of 60 persons.
39 Aircraft Year Book: 1952, Official Publication of the 6 Stratoliner Shows its Pedigree (hereafter Stratoliner),
Aircraft Industries Association Inc., 390. AW, 24.5.54, 38.
40 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 16. 7 Letter from John E Steiner, Bellevue, Washington, to
41 Although the F-80 may have been refueled in flight, the author, 9.10.89, 1.
one is hard-pressed to believe that it could have delivered 8 Stratoliner. Designated the Model 367-64, little serious
more than a token weapon load on each target without consideration was given to this proposal as it lacked the
landing and being rearmed. fuel capacity necessary for its voracious jet engines on
42 William R Dooner, Hightide at High Altitude, AR 18: np; long distance flights. A new wing with a thicker chord and
and Rene J Francillon, High Tide: The ANG Pioneers Wing- greater fuel capacity was designed to replace the thin
strength Combat Air Refuelling, AI, 11.95,302-304. wing; this proposal was designated the Model 367-70-5.
43 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 17. 9 Letter from Vaughn Blumenthal, Bellevue,
44 Provision was made in the original design of both the Washington, to the author, 20.9.89. Emphasis added. The
boom and the probe/drogue to tow small receiver aircraft influence of Boeing's successful development of the boom
by increasing the pressure on the locking toggles once in aerial refueling system upon these changes in the B-52's
contact. Still used in emergencies and has saved several development has not been fully examined.
fighters and their crews (see Appendix F). 10 John C Brassell, History of the KC-135A Airplane:
45 Fighter/Pacific/One, the first fighter transit of the 1953-1958, vol. 1, Text (hereafter KC-135A History), USAF
Pacific Ocean. These same airplanes were then fitted with Historical Study NO.320 (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air
the probed tip tanks for use in Project 'Hightide' in August. Materiel Command Historical Division, 1959), 1; and H B
46 These were the same F-84Gs that later flew to the Far Moulton and E R Caywood, The B-52: Background and
East as part of Phase 3 of Project 'Hightide', refueling with Early Development, 1946-1954, SAC Historical Study
the probe and drogue system. They were therefore the first No.60, Top Secret- RD/FRD (Offutt AFB, NE: Office of the
dual-system receivers. The North American F-86 Sabre Historian, Strategic Air Command, nd), 7-8, 12-13, 21.
was tested with both twin underwing probed tanks and a 11 Mansfield, Vision, 332. Further, the Air Force was not
boom receptacle installed above the engine intake. Neither interested in the Boeing proposal as a jet transport
was adopted, although the US Navy FJ-3/4 derivatives because it lackecj the 'new look' in cargo planes - a
were fitted with an air refueling probe. truckbed-high cargo floor, a high wing, and body-mounted
47 Colonel Cy Wilson, Report on Familiarization Flights - gear. John E Steiner, Jet Aviation Development: A
Probe and Drogue Refueling System, 7.2.52, 3-4. SAC/HO. Company Perspective, in Walt J Boyne and Donald S
48 Captain Benjamin F Starr Jr, Report on In-Flight Lopez, eds, The Jet Age - Forty Years of Jet Aviation
Refueling of Bombers, 8.2.52,1-2. SAC/HO. (Washington, DC: National Air & Space Museum, 1979),
49 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 18. 150. This new look was the product of the Reed Report,
50 Maj Gen John B Montgomery Jr, Deputy Commander submitted to Congress on 4.4.60. Reed Committee on
of Operations, HQ Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB, NE, Military Air Transport Service (hereafter 'Reed Report'),
to Brig Genl W M Garland, Assistant for Production, 4.4.60, in Congress, House, Committee on Government
Directorate of Intelligence, HQ USAF, Washington DC, Operations, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the
6.5.52, 1. SAC/HO. 51 and 52 Ibid. Committee on Government Operations (hereafter
53 Letter from Col Ernest N Ljunggren, Director of Government Operations), 86th Cong, 2nd sess, 9.5.60,
Aeronautics and Propulsion, HQ, Air Research and appendix III, 208.
Development Command, Baltimore, MD, to the 12 Steiner letter, 9.10.89, 1. 'Most of these designs had
Commanding General [Deputy Commander for Materiel], lower sweep wings than the B47 and B-52, and [Boeing]
SAC, Offutt AFB, NE, 9.10.52, 1-2. SAC/HO. offered both turbo-prop and turbo-jet designs. We did a lot
54 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 16. of wind tunnel work on a 25° swept wing (not 35° , as in the
55 Alfred Goldberg, ed, A History of the United States Air B-47 and B-52)'.
Force (New York: Arno Press, 1974), np. 13 Stratoliner, 38.
56 The B-47s and KC-97s all landed at Limestone AFB, 14 One advantage of the separate jet engine pod config-
Maine, staying overnight. The B-47s then deployed non- uration was the protection gained against an engine fire
stop to RAF Fairford, while the KC-97s again spent the burning into the wing or fuselage. Should fire engulf the
night at Harmon AFB, Newfoundland. The B-47s returned pod, the supporting pylon could burn through and the
to MacDill AFB nonstop. entire flaming structure could then drop from the airplane.
57 Although both the B-47 and the B-36 were tested as If both engines on one wing were in a single pod and were
probe and drogue tankers, neither saw production. lost in this fashion, adequate control of the airplane during
58 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 25. a go-around or missed approach could not be guaranteed.
59 AW, 13.4.59, 32. Placing each engine pod on a separate pylon on the Model
60 Marek R Cobb, Aerial Refueling: The Need for a 367-80 provided an added measure of safety. There is an
Multipoint, Dual-System Capability (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air adage among KC-135 crewmembers attesting to their con-
University Press, 1987),7. fidence in the design: 'If Boeing had meant the KC-135 to
61 Statement of USAF Policy Regarding In-Flight fly with four engines they would have built it with five'.
Refueling Systems, General Curtis E LeMay, USAF Vice 15 Mansfield, Vision, 339.
Chief of Staff, to CINCSAC, 24.2.59, quoted in Harvey and 16 Boeing had run out of its then-current 400-series des-
Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 25. 62 Ibid, 26. ignations, and the 500- and 600-series were reserved for
63 USAF Tanker Policy, General Curtis E. LeMay, to SAC, 'pilotless aircraft' - missiles. It merits reemphasizing that
9.5.60, quoted Air Refueling Chronology, 27. the 367-80 was neither a 707 nor a 717 (KC-135) prototype,
64 History of the Tactical Air Command, 1 January 1964 to but a proof-of-concept prototype for a multi-engine jet air-
30 June 1964 (Langley AFB, VA: Office of the Historian, craft from which both the 707 and KC-135 evolved.
TAC, 1964), 29, quoted in Cobb, Aerial Refueling, 8. 17 William Allen, quoted in Boeing Plans Jet Transport in
65 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 119. 1954, AW, 8.9.52, 7.
66 Brian Gardner, When You Need a Buddy: The 18 Peter Gilchrist, The Stratotanker Series, AX 27 (nd): 26.
Development of Air Refueling in the United States Navy, TH 19 William Allen, quoted in Gilchrist, Stratotanker Series,
(Fall 1983): np. 27. On 4.2.53, Boeing completed the design of the Model
67 British Patent 676,430, first application date 1.4.49. 367-80-111 which was equipped with a British FRL Mk.14
68 Brian Gardner, Air Refuelling in the RAF, Royal Air hose drum in place of the standard air refueling boom. SAC
Force Yearbook, 1981, np. rejected this design, insisting instead on the boom. See
Chapter Two, above.
Chapter Three 20 The Pay-off: Security, BM, 3/4.54, 7. See also A M 'Tex'
Developmental History Johnston and Charles Barton, Tex Johnston: Jet-age Test
1 Bill Gunston, The Illustrated International Aircraft Pilot (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1991).
Guide: Early Jetliners (London: Phoebus, 1980), np. 21 Steiner letter, 9.10.89, 2.
2 Maynard L Pennell, Evolution of the Boeing Jet Tanker- 22 To many, the KC-135 is seen as the military version of
210
the 707. Given Allen's priorities, it may be more appropri-
ate to say that the 707 is the derivative of the KC-135.
23 Boeing Displays First Jet Liner, NYT, 15.5.54, 4;
Boeing 707 Rolls Out; First Flight Near, AW, 24.5.54, 16-17;
and News Digest, AW, 12.4.54,7.
24 Brassell, KC-135A History, 2. 25 Ibid, 3.
26 The same year that SAC accepted its first KC-135A
(1957), TAC introduced the first of 136 Boeing KB-50J and
KB-50K tankers into service.
27 Little is known of these proposals. Douglas' XC-132
was a' swept-wing turboprop transport. Why this was
included in the jet tanker competition is unclear, but it may
have been considered only as an interim tanker pending a
more complete evaluation and tes1ing of the proposed jet
tankers. Douglas Reveals C-132 Details, WV, 9.56, 29; and
Douglas C-132 Revealed; AF 'Stretchout' Rumored, WV,
3.57,16.
28 Brassell, KC-135A History, 3-5. These pages were sub-
sequently removed by order of the USAF Inspector
General, in a letter dated 14.12.81. The pages cited here
were found in an unexpurgated copy of the report. 29, Ibid,
3. 30 Ibid, 4. 31 Ibid, 5.
32 Industry Observer, AW, 17.5.54, 10; Industry Observer,
AW, 7.6.54, 11; and Industry Observer, AW, 26.7.54,9.
Martin declined to participate. Interestingly, Convair's pro-
posal was for a tanker approximately the same size as the
KC-135 but with a delta wing and conventional empen-
nage. Claude Witze, Boeing Wins $700 Million Tanker
Award, AW, 7.3.55, 13-14.
33 SAC Commander's Journal, DORQ Deputy/
Operations, 3.5.54, Jet Tanker, LeMay Papers, box B104;
Long Distance Call from Mr Allen re Jet Tankers, Memo for
Gen LeMay from Maj Gen J P McConnell, 12.5.54,
Commander's Diary No.6, 1954, LeMay Papers, box B104;
and Industry Observer, AW, 5.7.54, 11.
34 707 Flight Test Log, AW, 2.8.54, 64. On this flight the
'Dash 80' lacked an air refueling boom and any means by
which to transfer fuel, but these were later installed for flight
evaluations.
35 Steiner letter to the author, 9.10.89, 2.
36 Brassell, KC-135A History, 8-9.
37 707 Pays Off, Winds Up in Ditch, AW, 16.8.54,377-78.
38 Tanker Competition, AW, 9.8.54, 9.
39 Robert Hotz, Boeing Gets Order for 88 Jet Tankers,
AW, 23.8.54, 13-14.
40 Jet Tanker Review, AW, 20.12.54, 9.
41 During 12.54 Maj Gen P W Timberlake, Commander
of the USAF Air Proving Grounds at Eglin AFB, Florida, and
Brig Gen J S Holtoner, Commander of the Air Force Flight
Test Center at Edwards AFB, California, flew the 'Dash 80'.
These officers would direct the operational test and evalu-
ation of whatever tanker was selected, and their first-hand
observations of the 'Dash 80's' performance unquestion-
ably influenced the eventual outcome. Air Force Generals
Take Hop in Boeing 707, AW, 3.1.55, 72.
42 Witze, Boeing Wins, 13-14. According to an official Air
Force history, this decision was reached on 10.11.54. It is
surprising that this information was kept secret until 2.55.
Brassell, KC-135A History, 10.
43 This airplane, similar to Lockheed's proposed L-193
jet airliner, was about the same size as the KC-135A but
with its engines mounted at the rear of the fuselage much
like the Vickers VC-1 O.
44 Buildup of Jet Tanker Fleet Ordered by US, AP, 2.3.55.
45 Congress, House, Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations, Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations (hereafter Department of
Defense Appropriations 1956), 84th Cong, 1st sess,
17.2.55,300; and Tanker Rejection, AW, 16.5.55, 13.
46 Congress, House, Survey and Investigative Staff, A
Report to the Committee on Appropriations, United States
House of Representatives, on Procurement Policies and
Practices, Department of Defense, January 1956 (hereafter
Procurement Policies and Practices), Department of
Defense Appropriations for 1957. Procurement Policies
and Practices of the DoD: Hearings Before the
Subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations, 84th
Cong, 2d sess, 21.2.56, 13. 47 Ibid, 384. Emphasis added.
48 Ibid. 49 Ibid, 385. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid, 361-62.
52 Brassell, KC-135A History, 15-16. 53 Ibid, 16. 54 Ibid,
18. 55 Ibid, 23. 56 Ibid, 25. In this sense, the term 'without
reset' means unchangeable throughout the length of the
contract.
57 Procurement Authorization 57-81 (dated 22.8.56) pro-
vided for 118 additional KC-135s. On 4.4.57, Procurement
Authorization 58-1 funded 157 new KC-135s, although this
figure was eventually reduced to 130 airplanes. On 15.4.58,
Procurement Authorization 59-3 provided for 81 tankers.
58 Russeil Hawkes, Boeing Offers Multi-Mission C-135,
AW&ST, 18.7.60, 127-129.
59 Logistics Support, 9.
60 Other organizations which ordered and received the
KC-135 included the Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC)
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Several
were also loaned to the National Advisory Committee on
Aeronautics' (NACA, the precursor to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA) Dryden
High Speed Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB.
61 Long after KC-135 production ended, Iran sought five
KC-135s as part of the modernizatiDn of its Air Force. Israel
also asked for an undetermined number of KC-135s as part
of its order for General Dynamics F-16s. The USAF refused
to part with any KC-135s to fulfil these orders, forcing both
Iran and Israel to buy or convert Boeing 707s for tankers.
On the Canadian request, see Robert S Hopkins III,
Canada's Husky Boeings, AI, 1.89, 18. For the Iranian
request, see Airscene, AI, 9.72, 114; and for Israel's inter-
est in the KC-135 see Russell W Howe, Weapons (London:
Abacus/Sphere Books, 1981), 541; and Robert S Hopkins,
III, Heyl Ha'avir 707s, JMA 2 (1-2.93): 25-32.
62 Witze, Boeing Wins, 13-14.
63 William Coughlin, Boeing Reasserts Ability to Deliver
Jet Liner in '58, AW, 2.5.55, 85.
64 Quoted in Jet Tanker, AW, 9.5.55, 11.
65 Brassell, KC-135A History, 27; and Boeing Gets
Commercial Jet Go-Ahead, AW, 18.7.55, 14.
66 Ibid, 26. Cash values for items 6-10 were not specified
within this document. A total of 37 supplemental agree-
rnents was added to this original contract by 2.59.
67 C/KC-135 Logistics Support, vol I, Overall Logistics
and Supply Support (1955-1964) (hereafter Logistics
Support), OCAMA Historical Monograph ND.30 (Oklahoma
City: Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area, Air Force Logistics
Command, November 1971), 18; and Paul Kirkwood,
Boeing Jet Production List (Bedfordshire, England: Single
Digit Computing, 1987),9.
68 KC-135 Series ECP Status Report, Boeing Document
06-1411, (np: Boeing Military Airplane Co, 1.12.80), 16-33.
69 Steiner, in Boyne and Lopez, Jet Age, 155-56.
70 Setting the Record Straight, Boeing Cornpany, npd.
71 Brassell, KC-135A History, 30.
72 Specifically, 80% of all nonrecurring costs common to
both programs would be charged to the KC-135 program
and the remainder tD the 707 program. Ibid, 33. 73 Ibid, 34.
74 Reginald Turnill and Arthur Reed, Farnborough: The
Story of RAE (London: Robert Hale, 1980), np.
75 Seabrook HUll, UK's Best Bet Becomes its Big
Liability, AW, 10.5.54, 15.
76 Industry Observer, AW, 31.1.55, 11.
77 Wallace Umphrey, Underwater Flight, BM, 8.57, 7.
78 Logistics Support, 21.
79 Brassell, KC-135A History, 81. 80 Ibid, 82. The fate of
the hydrostatic test article is not known, but is believed to
have been disassembled and scrapped.
81 This procedure should not be confused with a similar
test in 1970 using KC-135A 62-3535.
82 Logistics Support, 21-22; & Wallace Umphrey, KC-135
Torture Rack, BM, 1/2.58, 14-15.
83 Letter from Cap Ainsley, 28th Air Division Public Affairs
Officer, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, to the author, 22.10.86; and
KC-135 Rollout Opens Jet Tanker Era: 40-Year Piston-
Engine Age Ends for Boeing Wednesday, BN, 20.7.56, 1-2.
84 End of Piston Era Comes for Boeing with KC-135A
Rollout, AW, 23.7.56, 34. The new airplane, unlike the B-47
and B-52 before it, did not have either an 'X' or 'Y' prefix as
protDtype flight test work for the KC-135A had been under-
taken by the 'Dash 80', including initial air refueling tests;
hence there was no need for a prDtDtype KC-135A.
85 Brassell, KC-135A HistDry, 76.
86 Logistics Support, 15.
87 General LeMay's remarks to the SAC cDmmander's
conference, 9.7.56, 14. LeMay Papers, BDx B101.
88 The History Df the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1
January - 30 June 1957, vDI. 1 (hereafter History 1957)
(Edwards AFB, California: Air Research and DevelDpment
CDmmand, 1957),46. The Air FDrce accepted KC-135A 55-
3118 from BDeing Dn 24.1.57, and flew it tD Edwards AFB
for cDntinuatiDn Df Phase II DperatiDnal acceptance testing.
89 Logistics Support, 15-16.
90 History 1957, 48. 91 Ibid, 50. 92 Ibid, 52. 93 Ibid, 50.
94 In the clean cDnfiguration the DsciliatiDns were pDDrly
damped but cDuld be cDntrDlled, while at IDw speeds in the
approach cDnfiguratiDn the DscillatiDns were divergent and
cDuld lead tD IDss Df airplane cDntrol.
95 History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 January-
30 June 1958, vol. 1 (hereafter History 1958) (Edwards
AFB, CA: Air Research & Development Comm, 1958), 143.
96 History 1957, 52. 97 Ibid, 53.
98 History 1958, 143.
99 Jet Launcher Proposed to SAC, AW, 3.2.58, 87-88.
100 Congressman Errett P Scrivener of Kansas raised the
question of barrier arrested landings as early as 1948, but,
as he recalled in 1955, Air Force officers 'just looked at me
and I heard nothing more about it'. Donald A Quarles, the
assistant secretary of defense for research and develop-
ment, responded to Scrivener's remarks by saying, 'The Air
Force still feels that the installation of equipment of that
kind Dn fields or airports would not be a preferred solutiDn
to the problem .. .' Department Df Defense ApprDpriatiDns
for 1956,17.2.55,281-82.
101 ArnDld Sherman, FAA Pushes Arresting Gear
DevelDpment, AW&ST, 9.7.62, 59-63.
102 COO Model 727, FRI 20 (1964): 5.
103 XJ99 Boosters for KC-135A, revised ed. (Indianapolis:
Allison Division of General Motors, 1970).
104 Brassell, KC-135A History, 77.
105 History 1958, 144-45. 106 Ibid, 138. 107 Ibid, 139.
108 Ibid, 140. 109 Ibid, 141. 110 Ibid, 140. This is not tD
say that the KC-135A is incapable Df supersonic flight. On
2.11.82 KC-135A 57-1476 suffered an autopilot malfunction
and rolled inverted to 210' of bank and 70' 'nose IDW. It
descended from FL330 tD apprDximately 7,600ft (2,316m)
in just under 30 secDnds, with an average descent rate Df
Dver 50,000fpm (15,240m/min), briefly exceeding the
speed Df sDund. The pilDt recDvered the airplane without
further mishap, and it remained in service until retired tD
AMARC Dn 13.8.92. Interview with Lt Col Larry Balash (the
pilDt on bDard), 3.86, GrissDm AFB, Indiana; interview with
Capt Gregg DDtter (the copilot Dn bDard and later a U-2
piIDt), 28.4.89, Beale AFB, CalifDrnia; and Gregg DDtter,
Mach 1 Over Michigan, CC, 3.88, 8-10. AnDther repDrted
supersDnic flight was that of C-135B 61-2662 during an
inadvertent 455 KIAS dive from FL310 to 16,0000 (4,876m)
Dver the NDrth Atlantic in 1977.
111 Logistics Support, 22.
112 History 1958, 141. 113 Ibid, 143.
114 Frank J Passarello, Phase V (Adverse Weather) Flight
Tests of the KC-135A Aircraft, Wright Air Development
Center Technical NDte 57-303 (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH:
Air Research & DevelDpment CDmmand, August 1957),1.
115 This was alsD the first KC-135 delivered directly tD a
'user agency' rather than undergDing testing cDnducted by
BDeing. The Air FDrce accepted it from BDeing Dn 30.4.57.
AF Gets 4th, 5th Boeing Jet Tanker, SPI, 1.5.57, p3. 116
Ibid,21 and 117 Ibid, 30.
118 William C Dale, Lewis E Kesterson, & Reed SNelson,
Extreme Temperature' Arctic Evaluation of the KC-135A
Aircraft, Wright Air Development Center Technical Note 58-
48 (Wright-PattersDn AFB, OH: Air Research and
DevelDpment Command, 3.58), 1; and New SAC Tanker
Starts Climatic Testing at Eglin, AP, 6.7.57. 119 Ibid, 4. 120
Ibid, 74-76. 121 fbid, ii.
122 History 1958,145.
123 The 42nd Bombardment Wing at Loring AFB was the
first operatiDnal unit tD receive the KC-135. See Logistics
Support, 10; Loring to Get Jet Tankers, AP, 18.5.57; and Jet
Tankers Due, INS, 22.11.56.
124 History 1958, 145. 125 Ibid, 148.
126 Brassell, KC-135A History, 51. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid, 52-54.
129 KC-135 Autopilot, AW, 18.7.55,23.
130 Brassell, KC-135A History, 55.
131 Logistics Support, 8.
132 Brassell, KC-135A History, 60. 133 Ibid, 61; and J-57:
Key to Jet Supremacy, USN&WR, 16.3.51, 22.
134 Brassell, KC-135A History, 63.
135 Logistics Support, 17. 1 25 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 125.
136 The bDttle was 35in (89cm) IDng, had a 13 ;2in (34cm)
diameter, and added 841b (38kg) tD the airplane's basic
weight. Starter Air Bottle fDr KC-135, AW, 28.4.58, 91.
137 Brassell, KC-135A History, 77.
138 Kenneth L Patchin and Bill B Stacy, The -135
Structural Integrity Program: Project 'Pacer Fin' (hereafter
Pacer Fin), OCAMA HistDrical MDnDgraph ND.25
(OklahDma City: OklahDma City Air Materiel Area, Air FDrce
Logistics CDmmand, 9.68), 5. 139 Ibid, 13.
140 KC-135 Rudders Receive Modification; Will Improve
Operational Capabilities, ET, 8.5.63, 1.
141 Letter from Joseph Sutter, Seattle, Washington, to the
author, 1989.
142 Although these were first noted during an accident
investigation Df a Boeing 707, the similarity in structure
between the 707 and KC-135 at the vertical stabilizer
attachment points made this a seriDus CDncern for the Air
Force as well as airlines.
143 Patchin and Stacy, Pacer Fin, 32-33. 144 Ibid, 83.
145 Katherine Johnsen, USAF Asks Increase in KC-135
Output, AW, 20.8.56, 29; and News Digest, AW, 3.9.56, 34.
146 General LeMay's remarks from the SAC cDmmander's
cDnference Dn 12.2.57. LeMay papers, bDx B101. See alsD
his remarks befDre the Senate Armed Services CDmmittee
Dn 30.4.56 and 2.5.56, in Can SDviets Take the Air Lead?
What LeMay, Wilson, Ike Say, USN&WR, 11.5.56, 112.
147 Logistics Support, 13. 148 Ibid, 19.
149 Serials, BAR, 1.87, 56.
150 R L Loesch, Flying the Boeing KC-135, News Bureau,
Boeing Airplane Co, Seattle, Washington, 25.10.57.
Chapter Four
Airframe, Powerplant and Systems
No endnotes.
Chapter Five
Tankers
1 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 66.
2 Letter from Karl Johnson, Texas, to the author, nd, 1-2.
3 Secretary of Defense Neil McElroy and Air Force Vice
Chief of Staff LeMay had flown in a KC-135A on 11.9.57.
4 ARS Boast Record of Joint Chiefs of Staff Flight In KC-
135, [Castle AFB newspaper], nd, 1.
5 John G Hubbell, New Muscle for the Long Arm of SAC,
AFM, 7.57, 48.
6 History of the Strategic Air Command, Historical Study
No. 73A, SAC Targeting Concepts (Offutt AFB, NE:
Historical Division, Office of Information, (1959)),9-10. This
Top Secret document was declassified under a FOIA
request by the author and the National Security Archives.
7 For a s~mri1ary of this report an'd its effects, see Fred
Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1991), 117-24.
8 Weapons System Evaluation Group, The Feasibility,
Cost and Effectiveness of Dual Runways at SAC Bomber
Bases, Staff Study No.77, 20.7.59, DDRS, 1983, No.161,
34; and Peter J Roman, American Strategic Nuclear Force
Planning, 1957-1960: The Interaction of Politics and Military
Planning (PhD. diss, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
1989), 242-43, 396-97.
9 Henry M Narducci, Strategic Air Command and the
Alert Program: A Brief History (hereafter SAC Alert) (Offutt
AFB, NE: Office of the Historian, SAC, 1.4.88), 4. 10 Ibid, 6.
For more on B-52 'Chrome Dome' missiDns, see Robert F
Dorr and Lindsay Peacock, B-52 Stratofortress: Boeing's
Cold War Warrior (London: Osprey, 1995), 164-67.
11 Narducci, SAC Alef/, 16. For a detailed study of the
risks inherent in 'ChrDme Dome' operations, see Scott 0
Sagan, The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and
Nuclear Weapons (Princeton: Princeton Univ Press, 1993).
12 Castle KC Crews Add To Stride of 'Long Legs' Mission,
[Castle AFB newspaper], 22.11.57, 1.
13 A New World Record, NYT, 13.11.57, 34.
14 Ibid Khrushchev Invites US to Missile Shooting Match,
NYT, 16.11.57, 1,3; McElroy Picks 'Weapon' For 'Duel' With
Soviets, NYT, 20.11.57,14.
15 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 26.
16 Quoted, Hopkins & Goldberg, Development of SAC, 105.
17 Quoted in Richard H Kohn and Joseph P Harahan,
eds, US Strategic Air Power, 1948-1962, IS 12, No.4
(1988): 88; and letter from Gen Curtis E LeMay, CINCSAC,
to Gen Nathan F Twining, Air Force Chief of Staff, 26.11.55,
SAC Position on Missiles, [Secret], 1,2, Folder-1955
Command-SAC, Nathan F Twining Papers, box 76, Library
of Congress.
18 Kohn and Harahan, US Strategic Air Power, 88, 89.
19 Johnson letter, 3-4.
20 Letter from CINCSAC Thomas Power to Vice Chief of
Staff Curtis LeMay, 29.6.61. LeMay Papers, box 143.
21 Air Refueling Chronology, 28. 22 Ibid, 29.
23 Rene J Francillon, Vietnam: The War in the Air (New
York: Arch Cape Press, 1987), 42.
24 Charles K Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations in the
Southeast Asia War (Offutt AFB, NA: Office of the Historian,
Strategic Air Command, 1979), 2.
26 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 2. 27 Ibid, 4.
28 Hopkins & Goldberg, Development of SAC, 126. 29 Ibid.
30 Oral History, Lt Gen Alvan C Gillem II, 22.8.69, Secret-
NOFORN, 126. AFHRA K239.0512-232; and Hopkins, SAC
Tanker Operations, 6-7. 31 Ibid, 12.
32 On 1.12.64, a SAC team evaluated Don Muang lAP
and Takhli AB, also in Thailand, as potential tanker bases
and selected Don Muang lAP. Ibid 33 Ibid, 5.
34 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 30.
35 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 126.
36 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 9.
37 Initial plans for conventional bombing in Southeast
Asia included B-47 operations, but this was dropped liter-
ally at the last minute.
38 On 1.3.65, the 'Foreign Legion' at Clark AB ceased
operations and relocated at Don Muang lAP as the 'Tiger
Cub' TIF with four KC-135s. 39 Ibid, 15. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid,45.
42 Don Muang lAP was the only port of entry to Thailand
through which all visitDrs had to pass; the visible presence
of US military forces was politically awkward to the Thais.
KC-135 bases in South Vietnam were out of the question
due to the demonstrated presence of hostile action. 43 Ibid
15; and Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 131.
44 Air Refueling Chronology, 32. 45 Ibid, 33.
46 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 59. 47 Ibid, 57-64.
48 Quoted in Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 64. See
also Gillem Oral History, 128.
49 Quoted in Sgt Dave Cole, Time of the Tiger, AZ, 10.72,
8. For a number of specific cases of 'saves', see Vernon
Byrd, Passin' Gas: The History of Inflight Refueling (Chico,
CA: Byrd Publishing, 1994).
50 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 145.
This incorrectly cites 1.1 million pounds of fuel. The correct
and more realistic 1.1 billion is cited in Hopkins, SAC
Tanker Operations, 115.
51 KC-X development and its influence on KC-135 evolu-
tion are considered in the sections on the KC-135E and
KC-135R, below.
52 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 74. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid,
74-75. 55 Ibid, 67. 56 Ibid, 67-68.
57 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 35-36.
58 Narducci, SAC Alert, 16.
211
59 Development 01 SAC, 154. 60 Ibid, 157.
61 Harvey and Giroux, Air Relueling Chronology, 37.
62 On 1.9.69, the 4252nd SW became the single organi-
zational manager for all tanker operations in SEA. Hopkins,
SAC Tanker Operations, 78. 63 Ibid, 81.
64 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 39.
65 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 81.
66 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 40.
67 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 84. 68 Ibid.
69 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 85.
70 The increase in SAC airplanes was so great that one
runway at Andersen AB was closed and used as a parking
ramp. Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 87. 71 Ibid 90.
72 The 4102nd AREFS (P) relocated to CCK in August
1972 as a consequence of severe rainstorms and an acute
shortage of fuel at Clark AB. This unit did not return to Clark
AB prior to deactivation on 8.11.72. It was reactivated on
18.12.72, at Clark AB as part of 'Linebacker 11'. 73 Ibid, 90.
74 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 41.
75 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 185.
76 Air Refueling Chronology, 42. 77 Ibid, 36-37, 39. 78
Ibid, 43. 79 Quoted in ibid, 44. 80 Ibid, 44. 81 Ibid, 45. 82
Ibid, 46-47. There had been some discussion that the
ATCA buy would be split between the Boeing 747 and the
McDD DC-1O. See Industry Observer, AW&ST, 21.6.76,11.
83 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling Chronology, 48. 84
Ibid, 48-49; and Industry Observer, AW&ST, 21.6.76, 11.
85 Official Says Engine Plans Are Incorrect, OWH,
27.11.78, np. Source of Aspin's information was 'Air Force
officials'. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid.
88 General Electric Company, Aircraft Engine Group,
CFM56 Engine for KC-135 Re-engining (1.77).
89 Howard Silber, 'Powerful Evidence' See at Offutt,
OWH, 9.5.80, np.
90 The KC-10 had no effective SlOP role in a 'bolt from
the blue' scenario. No KC-10s were maintained on alert
and SlOP sortie generatiDn times are in excess of the 15-
20 minutes expected 10 be available to launch the tanker
fleet prior to the arrival of enemy nuclear weapons. In a
generated scenario, KC-10s did play an important role in
the SlOP, particularly in trans- and post-SlOP operations.
91 Based on '...cumulative continuation ra1es (CCR) for
USAF pilots with between six and 11 years of service. The
CCR percentage is regarded as the best index of retention.
To maintain the pilot force, USAF needs a CCR of abDut
60%... " Air Force Military Personnel Center data quoted in
The Slide in Pilot Retention, AFM, 2.88, 15. During the last
six months of 1975, on average tanker pilots flew 21.1
hDurs per month, copilots flew 20.5, navigators logged
22.7, and boom operators flew 21.6. The average aircraft
commander had only mio hours KC-135 time. Warren C
Wetmore, World Picture Spurs New Priorilies, AW&ST,
10.5.76,143.
92 News Breaks, AW&ST, 24.5.93,19.
93 The first woman to perform Titan missile alert duty was
A1C Tina M Ponzer, on 18.8.78. Hopkins and Goldberg,
Development of SAC, 222.
94 SAC and the Air Force have been equally successful
on the issue of racial integration in the cockpit.
95 The flight earned the 11th Mackay Trophy. KC-135s
provided each B-52 with over a half-million pounds of fuel
during the 42.5 hour flight. The nexf nonstop aerial global
circumnavigation was unrefueled in the Rutan Voyager.
96 Quoted in Development Df SAC, 232. 97 Ibid.
98 David A Fulghum, Key '80s Decision Credited For
Tanker Operation Success, AW&ST, [1991], np.
99 Harvey and Giroux, Air Refueling ChrDnology, 54; and
Wetmore, World Picture, 144.
100 Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf
War ([Washington, DC]: US DoD, 1992),384. The two KC-
135Rs were TDY to RAF Mildenhall and deployed to AI
Dhafra AB. GWAPS, vol. III, Logistics, 187. For a comple1e
summary of 'Desert Shield' and 'Desert Storm' tanker oper-
ations, see GWAPS, vol. III, Logistics, 177-219.
101 GWAPS, Kearney and Cohen, Summary Report, 190;
and GWAPS, vol. III, Logistics, 189.
102 James P Coyne, Airpower in the Gulf (Arlington, VA:
Air Force Association, 1992), 149; and GWAPS, vol. III,
Logistics, 178-79, 189.
103 Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 172; and Robert S
Hopkins III, Ears of the Storm, AFM, 2.92, 38-42.
104 GWAPS, Kearney and Cohen, Summary Report, 187;
GWAPS, vol. III, Logistics, 178; and Conduct of the Persian
Gulf War, 413.
105 Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 416.
106 GWAPS, Kearney and Cohen, Summary Report, 228.
107 Coyne, Airpower in the Gulf, 137.
108 Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 111.
109 GWAPS, vol. III, Logistics, 193; and USAF Tankers
Operate from French Bases, FI, 13-19.2.91, 9.
110 Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 414.111 Ibid,713.
112 GWAPS, Kearney and Cohen, Summary Report, 183.
113 US Navy, Marine, and Coalition forces tankers flew
more than 4,000 sorties, while USAF KC-135s, KC-10s and
HC-130s flew more than 15,000 air refueling sDrties.
Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 170.
212
114 GWAPS, vol. IV, Weapons, Tactics, and Training, 361.
115 Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 713; and Michael A
Dornheim, F-117A Uses Conventional Refueling Tech-
niques for Mideast Deployment, AW&ST, 27.8.90, 24.
116 Among the many sources available on the 'end' of the
'Cold War' and the collapse of the Soviet Union, see inter
alia, James A Baker, The Politics of Diplomacy (New York:
Putnam, 1995); Raymond Garthoff, The Great Transition:
American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War
(Washington, DC: Brookings, 1994); Don Oberdorfer, The
Turn: From the Cold War to a New Era: The United States &
the Soviet Union, 1983-1990 (New York: Touchstone,
1992); and Michael R Beschloss and Strobe Talbott, At the
Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War
(Boston: Little, Brown, 1993).
117 David A Fulghum, USAF Chief Favors C-17s as C-141s
Retire Early, AW&ST, npd.
118 'Unnecessary' Mixed Wings may be Halted, JDW,
12.6.93, 20.
119 Five Pilots Begin Navigator School, AFM, 2.94, 18; and
1st Lt Kristin Lowney, Third Pilot Enters Cockpit as Answer
to Surpluses and Shortages, RR, 16.6.95, 19.
120 KC-135 Training Going Private, AW&ST, 20.7.92, 13;
and FlightSafety Starts up KC-135 Training, FI, 24-30.3.93, 27.
121 Filter Center, AW&ST, 13.11.95, 47; and David A
Fulghum, New Intelligence Link Speeds Mobile 'Scud'
Hunt, AW&ST, 1.5.95, 23.
122 Tankers Upgraded, FI, 11-17.9.91, 14; IAI/Chrysler
Team Up on USAF Tanker, FI, 23-29.9.92, 18; Ramon L
Lopez, Industry's New 'High-Low Mix', AFM, 11.92, 52-53;
KC-135 Tanker Uprate Halted, JDW, 15.1.94, np; JDhn
Boatman, Multi-point Tanker Plan Revived by PentagDn,
JDW, 24.9.94, 12; idem, Companies Line Up for Multi-refu-
elling Award, JDW, 13.5.95, 13; and Tanker Conversions,
AW&ST, 22.5.95, 13.
123 Stanley W Kandebo, Fuel Tanks May Cut Weapon
Costs, AW&ST, 19.9.94, 67; William B Scott, AEL Offers
Fuselage Pod Refueling, AW&ST, 6.11.95, 69; and idem,
Leased Tankers to Help Solve Military Shortage, AW&ST,
~d. . 165 Miller, Lockheed U-2, 96.
124 One need only look at the politics of the C-17 to see
this situation translated to any proposed KC-X. Boeing
Pushes 767 as Replacement for Military 707s, FI, 23-
29.9.92, 21; Delaying Tactics, AW&ST, 2.1.95, 19; and T J
Gibson, Consider Surplus DC-lOs, letter to the ed, AW&ST,
17.1.94,6; and ibid, D B Eckstein, KC-X Would Pay for Itself.
125 The Boeing C-135, BAR, 2.81,78.
126 This airplane - 58-0124 - is often erroneously referred
to as one of the KC-135A and KC-135R reconnaissance air-
craft because of this capability.
127 Use of this 'nonstandard' sobriquet is to avoid lending
an air of authority to any of these other 'standard' nick-
names. As far as SAC was concerned, the airplanes were
simply 'KC-135As' and had no special designation to
denote their ARR capability.
128 As IFR-equipped turbojet-powered EC-135s were
removed from service, they might well have become excel-
lent candidates for re-engining and conversion into refue-
labIe tankers. This has yet to happen.
129 Aircraft Modification and Maintenance Service
Capabilities (hereafter Service Capabilities), E-Systems
Greenville Division, GEP 80-169, Report No.G4005.01.37,
15.3.80, 5-2. 130 Ibid.
131 Shaw RF-4Cs Help Make SAC History, AC, 5.79, 11.
132 Paul B Ryan, The Iranian Rescue Mission: Why it
Failed (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1985), 67.
133 Susan Fisher, Eielson Due to Get Four Overhauled
135s, FDNM, 22-23.9.89, 7.
134 BAR, 9.95, S890.
135 Beginning in 1991, ANG units received KC-135Rs.
136 One recent proposal suggests a new nacelle for the
TF33-PW-102, enabling the engine to meet FAA Stage 3
noise regulations. Given the austerity of current military
budgets, this proposal is unlikely tD see acceptance by the
ANG or AFRES. Nacelle May Allow 707s to Meet Stage 3
Regulations, AW&ST, 16.11.92,45.
137 Congress Directs USAF To Buy 707s for Spares,
AW&ST, 10.9.84, 132.
138 Capt James L Malenke, letter to the ed, AW&ST,
18.4.83, 212.
139 John D Morrocco, Cheney Urges Senate to Preserve
Funding for F-22, C-17 Programs, AW&ST, 20.7.92, 22;
Tanker Conversions, AW&ST, 22.5.95,13.
140 For a thorough history of the Lockheed A-12 and its
successors, see Paul F Crickmore, Lockheed SR-71
Blackbird (hereafter Blackbird) (London: Osprey, 1986); as
well as the interesting Clarence L ['Kelly'] Johnson,
Development of the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, SI
(Summer 1982): 3-14. On the Lockheed U-2, see the defin-
itive Jay Miller, The Lockheed U-2 (Austin, TX: Aerofax,
1983); and Chris Pocock, The Dragon Lady (Shrewsbury,
England: Airlife Publishing, 1989).
141 JP-7, a hydrocarbDn fuel of low vapor pressure, was
specifically designed for the Lockheed YF-12 by Shell Oil
Company, Ashland Oil Company, and Monsanto Chemical
Company. Crickmore, Blackbird, 93. See also William H
Brown, J581SR-71 Propulsion Integration, SI (Summer
1982): 15-23.
142 ASD SECRET Msg ASZBE 25206, dtd 16 June 66, np.
No copy of this message has been made available, and the
ASD historian denies having a copy.
143 The MDS 'KC-135B' had already been allocated tD the
airborne command post then under development.
144 Diana G Cornelisse, Historian, HQ Aeronautical
Systems Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, to the
author, 11.6.90, 1. Since the A-12/SR-71 program was
highly classified, it is possible that the motivation for this
unusual designation was recorded but not forwarded to the
ASD history office.
145 Crickmore, Blackbird, 23.
146 Paul F Crickmore, SR-71 Blackbird: Lockheed's Mach
3 Hot Shot (hereafter SR-71), (London: Osprey, 1987),89.
147 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 72, 98.
148 Crickmore, Blackbird, 36. 149 Ibid, 169.
150 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 118.
151 David E Brown, Rendezvous in the 'Q', Nav 25 (1978): 22.
152 Crickmore, Blackbird, 141.
153 Crickmore, SR-71, 20; and Erik Simonsen, US
Spyplanes, Warbirds Illustrated No.24, (London: Arms &
Armour Press, 1985), 39.
154 Crickmore, SR-71, 35. 155 Ibid, 13.
156 AnthDny M Thornborough and Peter E Davies, Lockheed
Blackbirds (Shepperton, England: Ian Allan, 1988),95.
157 Crickmore, Blackbird, 153. 158 Ibid, 144.
159 Crickmore, SR-71, 57.
160 Thornborough and Davies, Lockheed Blackbirds, 97.
161 Crickmore, Blackbird, 144.
162 Michael A Dornheim, US Reconnaissance Weakened
By SR-71 Program Termination (hereafter US Recon),
AW&ST, 22.1.90, 38.
163 Jeffery P Rhodes, Aerospace World, AFM, 2.90,20.
164 This would be the second use Df this MDS, as recon-
naissance KC-135R 55-3121 was designated a KC-135T
from approximately 1968 through 1972. Boeing Poised to
Ta!<e Re-engine Work on KC-135, FI, 7-13.7.93,13.
166 GWAPS, vol. III, Logistics, 296; and ibid, vol. V,
Chronology, 78, 102.
167 Dornheim, US Recon, 24.
168 Possible 'Black' Aircraft Seen Flying in Formation With
F-117s, KC-135s, AW&ST, 9.3.92, 66.
169 William B Scott, Cutbacks Foster Novel Military Space
Concepts, AW&ST, 5.9.94,102.
170 Bruce A Smith, Budget Cuts to Impact Edwards Flight
Tests, AW&ST, 18.4.94, 44; John D Morrocco, Showdown
Looms on Bomber Force, AW&ST, 25; David A Fulghum,
US Military to Boost Tactical Recon in '95, AW&ST, 9.1.95,
23; Michael A Dornheim, SR-71 to Fill Intelligence Gap,
AW&ST, 10.4.95, 22; SR-71A Flies Again, AW&ST, 1.5.95,
18; Frank B Mormillo, Back to Blackbird, AU, 10.95, 16-19.
171 It is not known if KC-135Q 58-0039 was a 'full' or 'par-
tial Q' when it crashed.
172 Tanker Conversions, AW&ST, 22.5.95,13.
173 Turkish Tankers, FI, 2-8.12.92, 18; David Silverberg,
Turkey Makes Aerial Refueling a Procurement Priority, DN,
1-7.2.93,8; David A Fulghum, Surplus Sales Seen Funding
New Buys, AW&ST, 14.2.94, 21; Lale Sariibrahimoglu,
Cash Shortage Kills US Offer of 'Free' A-lOs, JDW, 2.4.94,
6; Turkey Seeks Tankers, JDW, 25.6.94, 13; News Breaks,
AW&ST, 20.6.94, 17; Lale Sariibrahimoglu, Turkey
Hesitates Over 'Free' Tanker Transfer, JDW, 3.9.94, 3; idem,
Turkey Agrees to Take Surplus US KC-135s, JDW, 21.1.95,
15; and Turkey's Tanker Choice Defended by Ministry,
JDW, 28.1.95, 8.
174 BAR, 7.95, JY650.
175 Laundry List, AW&ST, 22.4.96, 21.
Chapter Six
Les Ravitailleurs
1 For a detailed summary and analysis of the sale, see
Robert S Hopkins III, The Sale of Boeing KC-135 Jet
Tankers to France and the Development of French Nuclear
Autonomy, Creighton University, 1992.
2 Paul JacksDn, Penetration Augmentation, AI, 4.87,
164-165.
3 France briefly considered the Transall C-160, a twin-
engine turboprop transport as a tanker for the Mirage IV,
but rejected it because it did not satisfy these minimum
operational requirements. Wilfrid L Kohl, French Nuclear
Diplomacy (Princeton: Princeton Univ Press, 1971), 101.
4 Michael M Harrison, Reluctant Ally: France and Atlantic
Security (Baltimore: JDhns Hopkins Press, 1981), 121.
5 For a summary discussion of these policies, see
Newhouse, War and Peace in the Nuclear Age.
6 France to Organize Strategic Air Group, AW&ST,
15.1.62, 33.
7 Newhouse, War and Peace in the Nuclear Age, 187.
Kohl suggests that the topic of tankers was discussed.
Kohl, French Nuclear Diplomacy, 222-23; but Newhouse
asserts that they were not part Df this list. John Newhouse,
De Gaulle and the Anglo-Saxons (New York: Alfred A Knopf,
1970),163.
8 Max Frankel, US Holds to ban on Paris Atom Aid, NYT,
7.6.62, 13; Paris is Reported Trying to Buy Nuclear
Armament From US, NYT, 18.4.62,3; US President, Public
Papers of the Presidents of the US (Washington, DC: Office
of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records
Service, 1963), John F Kennedy, 1962,461; and Kennedy
Rules Out Nuclear Aid, NYT, 8.6.62, 7.
9 Department of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Letter to Pierre Messmer, French Minister of Defense, by
Roswell L Gilpatric, 7.6.62, 1-6733/62. A copy of this letter
was acquired by the author directly from the DoD under a
Freedom of Information Act request.
10 Kohl, French Nuclear Diplomacy, 223.
11 Quoted from the tex1 of the speech in Robert S
McNamara, Defense Arrangements of the North Atlantic
Community, Department of State Bulletin 48, No.1202,
9.7.62,65-66.
12 French KC-135 Buy, AW&ST, 23.7.62, 17. In 1990
Secretary McNamara was unable to recall these events of
28 years earlier. Letter from Robert S McNamara,
Washington DC, to the author, 9.7.90.
13 Henry A Kissinger, Strains on the Alliance, FA 41, No.2
(1.63): 262; and Eliot R Goudman, The Fate of the Atlantic
Community (New York: Praeger, 1975),50-134, & 241-96.
14 Jack Raymond, Three Allies Consent to Buy US Arms,
NYT, 22.9.62, 1,6.
15 Letter from Walt W Rostow, Austin, TX, to the author,
9.10.91.
16 Telephone interview with Paul H Nitze, 1.11.91.
17 DoD, Assistant Secretary of Defense-International
Security Affairs, Memorandum for the Record, by F A
Gerardi, 7.6.62. A copy of this memorandum was acquired
by the author directly from the DoD under a Freedom of
Information Act request.
18 Telephone interview with Adam Yarmolinsky, 23.9.91.
Yarmolinsky was the Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense, and a principal author of the Ann Arbor address.
19 Telephone interview with McGeorge Bundy, 15.6.92.
20 Letter from McGeorge Bundy, NY, to author, 1.10.91.
21 Robert F Dorr, Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker {London:
Ian Allan, 1987),85.
22 Jackson, Penetration Augmentation, 171.
23 French to Modify C-135FR Tankers, JDW, 24.9.86,
696; Airscene, AI, 11.88,222; Manufacturers, BAR, 12.90,
1023-1024; and Eleven French C-135 Tankers to Get Fuel
Drogue Pods, BN, 6.9.91, 1.
24 French Air Force Begins C-135FR Modification,
AW&ST, 7.6.93,137; [Ramon Lopez], French Tanker Work,
FI, 16-22.6.93, 32; Pauletta Duden, Tanker Modification
Moves Right Along, BN, 22.10.93, 1; and French Tankers
Get Drogue Refueling System, AW&ST, 1.11.93, 31.
25 NATO Members Study Need for Individual Tanker
Fleets (hereafter NATO Study), AW&ST, 5.9.88, 114.
26 The first camouflaged US KC-135A was 59-1496,
painted from 20-25 April 1987, at the Oklahoma City Air
Logistics Center (OCALC), and nicknamed Flipper.
27 Drew Middleton, Twelve US Planes Aid French Atom
Unit, NYT, 11.10.64, 10.
28 Airscene, AI, 10.76, 154.
29 Dupuy & Dupuy, Encyclopedia of Military History,
1262. 30 Ibid, 1258.
30 Jackson, Penetration Augmentation, 170.
31 French Force Withdrawals, JDW, 3.3.90, 376.
32 Paul Jackson, Gulf War - Part Two: The Non-American
Forces (hereafter Gulf War), AI, 4.91, 181; and Joris
Janssen Lok, Defence of Saudi Arabia , JDW, 20.10.90,357.
33 Jeffrey M Lenorovitz, France Uses C. 160G Aircraft to
Perform Elint, ESM Missions, AW&ST, 21.1.91, 62; and
Jackson Gulf War, 181.
34 Jackson, Gulf War, 181.
35 Dorr, Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, 87.
36 Industry Observer, AW&ST, 16.2.87, 11; and NATO
Study, 113.
37 Aerospatiale Proposes Modifying A300B4s for
Strategic Support, AW&ST, 23.2.87, 30; French Mirages in
Overseas Exercise, JDW, 15.7.89, 68; and Airbus Tanker
Trials, AU, 10.95, 9.
38 France Hires Three Tankers from US, FI, 20-26.1.93,
12; BAR, 11.92, N966; and BAR, 1.95,47.
39 Anglo-French Tanking Entente, FI, 23.9.89, 32.
40 More Apaches Wanted, JDW, 22.10.94, 17.
Chapter Seven
Transports
1 Who would fly these new jets was the subject of con-
siderable controversy. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General
LeMay felt that since MATS had no highly-experienced jet
pilots, the C-137A pilots should come from the bomber and
tanker crews in SAC. MATS' commander, Lt Gen William H
Tunner, felt otherwise, confident that his pilots were as
capable of flying heavy jets as were LeMay's pilots. Air
Force Chief of Staff General Thomas D White sided with
Tunner, arguing that MATS pilots, although not skilled in jet
operations, were better trained for the 'delicate mission' of
dealing with government VIP passengers. J F terHorst and
Colonel Ralph D Albertazzie, The Flying White House: The
Story of 'Air Force One' (hereafter Flying White House) (New
York: Coward, McCann, & Geoghegan, 1979), 185.
2 US, President, Public Papers of the Presidents of the
United States (Washington, DC: Office of the Federal
Register, National Archives and Records Service, 1962),
John F Kennedy, 1961, 24. Italics in original.
3 Carl Berger, ed, The United States Air Force in
Southeast Asia: 1961-1973 (hereafter USAF in SEA)
(Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1977), 187.
4 Big Lift Shows Jet Advantages, AW&ST, 11.11.63,59.
5 Reed Report, [3]. See also Robert Charles Owen,
Creating Global Airlift in the United States Air Force
1945-1977: The Relationship of Power, Doctrine and Policy
(PhD diss, Duke University, 1992).
6 Air Force Program of Implementation of the
Presidentially-Approved Courses of Action Contained in
the Department of Defense Report Role of the Military Air
Transport Service in Peace and War 1.5.60, in Government
Operations, Appendix II, 175.
7 David H Hoffman, 'Big Slam' Tests MATS Airlift
Concepts, AW, 4.4.60, 50.
8 Russell Hawkes, Boeing Report Analyzes Air Cargo
Needs, AW, 20.6.60, 319.
9 Hoffman, 'Big Slam', 51.
10 House Group Backs MATS' Bid for Cargo Fleet
Modernization, AW, 4.4.60, 42. 11 Ibid.
12 Hawkes, Boeing Report, 321; & Hoffman, Big Slam, 51.
13 Congress, House, Committee on Armed Services,
Special Subcommittee on National Military Airlift, Hearings
Before the Special Subcommittee on National Military
Aircraft, 86th Cong, 2nd sess, 28.3.60, 4410. Quesada was
one of the crewmembers when it made its epic air refueled
flight.
14 C-135, C-130B Asked for MATS, AW, 9.5.60, 37.
Douglas did not give up trying to sell the DC-8F freighter to
the Air Force. In late 1962 a DC-8F conducted cargo load-
ing demonstrations and VIP flights for senior USAF and
DoD officials. Three one-hour flights took place on
15.11 .62, and guests were treated to a sumptuous lun-
cheon. Letter from Douglas Aircraft Co to Air Force Chief of
Staff Curtis E. LeMay, 6.11.62. LeMay Papers, Box B135.
15 C-135, C-130B Asked for MATS, AW, 9.5.60, 37.
16 Government Operations, 9.5.60, 28.
17 L E Shuman and J T Youngblood, Technical Data -
Model 738-13J, Boeing Airplane Co Transport Division
Document No. D6-5380, 1960, 1.1. 18 Ibid, 2.1.
19 KC-135 Series ECP Status Report, 78.
20 James D Hendricks, 463L System Integrates Cargo
Handling, AW&ST, 11.6.62, 56.
21 Shuman and Youngblood, Technical Data - Model
738-13J,5.1-5.2
22 Boeing News Bureau Press Release S-6375, 8.6.61.
23 Lockheed's Stretched Starlifter, AI, 3.83, 145.
24 Lockheed Starlifter: You Call, We Haul, WA 3 No.25
(1986): 486. • An Illustrated History (Scott AFB, IL: Air Force
25 Robert S McNamara, Memorandum for the Secretary
of the Air Force, Use of MATS C-135s, 5.2.63, Confidential,
LeMay Papers, Box B128. There was little doubt that the
usefulness of the C-135 as a transport was limited, and that
its lifetime in MATS would be short. Secretary of Defense
McNamara, citing the C-135's decreasing worth and
increasing disadvantages when compared with the C-141,
directed the Secretary of the Air Force on 5.2.63, to con-
sider using the MATS aircraft in other roles.
26 Berger, USAF in SEA, 187.
27 Big Lift, ibid.
28 Cecil Brownlow, Long Thrust 2 Shows Jet Airlift Need,
AW&ST, 19.3.62,87.
29 Congress, House, Comm on Armed Services, Hear-
ings on Military Posture and H R 9751 to Authorize
Appropriations During FY 1963 for Aircraft, Missiles, and
Naval Vessels for the Armed Forces, and for Other
Purposes Before the Committee on Armed Services, 87th
Cong, 2nd Ses, 26.1.62, 3272; & David H Hoffman, Airlift
Shows Reliance on Foreign Bases, AW&ST, 5.2.62, 63.
30 Helen C Russell, History of 1611 Air Transport Wing,
Heavy 1.1-30.6.62, (McGuire AFB, NJ: Information Office,
1962), [29].
31 Helen C Russell, History: 1611 Air Transport Wing
Heavy 1.7-31.12.62, (McGuire AFB, New Jersey:
Information Office, 1963), [30]. 32 Ibid, [31J. It is sad to
note that this official history mentions only that the exercise
took place under 'adverse conditions', and ignores the
even1 itself, saying that 'very little information is available on
Exercise "Rapid Road"'.
33 C-135Bs to Provide Airlift For UN Forces in Congo,
AFT, 31.1062, np.
34 Cecil Brownlow, Big Lift Completed Without Major
Hitch, AW&ST, 11.11.63, 58. KC-135s and KC-97s provid-
ed air refueling for fighters accompanying these troops.
35 terHorst and Albertazzie, Flying White House, 185-186.
'Ike' became the first president to travel by jet, in VC-137A
58-6970 on 26.8.59, en route to a meeting in Germany with
Konrad Adenauer. History of Special Air Missions (Andrews
AFB, MD: 89th MAW Office of History, 2.10.89), 21.
36 Yu-fang Lin, An Unequal Alliance: Exploring ROC - US
Relations with a Special Emphasis on the 1950s (PhD diss,
University of Virginia, 1989), 287; and Leonard Moseley,
Dulles: A Biography of Eleanor, Allen, and John Foster
Dulles and Their Family Network (New York: Dial Press,
1978),440.
37 Paul H Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost: At the
Center of Decision, A Memoir (New York: Grove
Weidenfeld, 1989), 240, 242.
38 Secretary of the Air Force [Eugene Zuckert], Memo for
the Secretary of Defense: Command and Control Aircraft,
[May 1962], Confidential, LeMay Papers, Box B128.
39 Logistics Support, 9.
40 Boeing Pushes 767 as Replacement for Military 707s,
FI, 23-29.9.92, 21.
41 Jim B Moseley, C-135 Fleet Update, ST, 1 (7.93): 7;
and idem, C-135 Fleet Update, ST, 1 (11.93): 7.
42 Flying White House, 201. 'He [Loewy] designed Air
Force One for Pres John F Kennedy, the two men becom-
ing close friends in the process'. Encyclopredia Britannica,
15th ed, sv 'Loewy, Raymond'. This scheme is often and
incorrectly attributed to President Kennedy's wife; for
example, 'Jacqueline Kennedy designed the exterior mark-
ings, the interior appointments, and color scheme'
[emphasis added], or the C-135B's 'distinctive blue-and-
white colour scheme [is] based on that designed by
Jacqueline Kennedy for the first VC-137C' [emphasis
added]. Alwyn T Lloyd, Boeing 707 & AWACS (Blue Ridge
Summit, PA: TAB Books, 1987), 2, 56; and Peter M Bowers,
Boeing Aircraft Since 1916 (London: Putnam Aeronautical
Books, 1989), 472.
43 Donald E Draper and Grace M Grant, History RCS: AU-
D5 of the 1611 Air Transport Wing, Heavy, McGuire Air
Force Base, New Jersey (McGuire AFB, NJ: Office of the
Historian, 1966), 10-11.
44 History of 1611 Air Transport Wing, Medium 1.1 -
30.6.61 (McGuire AFB, NJ: Office of the Historian, 1961),
31-32,65-67.
45 Controllable delay rate is the percentage of delays
which could be prevented by better maintenance and
improved operational factors. Excluded are weather delays
and air traffic control delays. Herbert R Manchester and
Lorraine M Delisi, History of 1611 Air Transport Wing,
Medium 1.7 - 31.12.61 (McGuire AFB, NJ: Office of the
Historian, 1962),24,33-34.
46 Draper and Grant, History RCS, 37-50, 94.
47 Plane Refitting Hit, WP, 7.5.73, 9; Air Force Denies
Report Of General's Luxury Plane, NYT, 8.5.73, 12.
48 Letter to the author, 12.11.92. Writer requested
anonymity.
49 C-135E Aircraft 60-0376, United States Air Force Fact
Sheet, 28th Air Division, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, Office of
Public Affairs, 12.85, [28]-30.
50 Thomas S Snyder, ed, The Air Force Communications
Command: Providing the Reins of Command, 1938-1981,
Communications Command Office of History, 1981), 158.
Despite this reference to AFSC's 'NKC-135A', the aircraft's
AF Form 95 does not show this change in MDS.
51 William S Reed, C-135B Extends MATS Range
Capability, AW&ST, 9.4.62, 98-100.
52 MATS History, 1.1 - 30.6.62, vol. 1, Narrative, AFHRA
K300.01 Jan-Jun 62 v 1, 34-35.
53 History of the 1501st ATW, 1-6.62, vol. 1, Narrative,
AFHRA K318.7-1501, Jan-Jun 62, v 1, 61-62.
54 MATS History, 1.1-30.6.62,38,39.55 Ibid, 40-45.
56 Craig Covault, Presidential Wing Expands Capability,
AW&ST, 30.7.73, 40; and VC-135B: An Interior
Configuration by Lockheed Aircraft Service Co, np, 1964.
57 The message directing this change is dated 4.10.77.
58 Tech Sgt Raymond D Baker, 89th MAW historian, to
William R Peake (hereafter Baker Letter), 23.2.88, 2.
59 Peter Blanchard, Philip Chinnery, and Martyn Swann,
MASDC: Military Storage and Disposition Center, Davis-
Monthan AFB, Arizona (London: Aviation Press, 1983), np.
60 Ibid.
61 Baker Letter. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid.
65 David Morris, Variations on a Tanker Theme, AN, 7.74, np.
66 Coffey, Iron Eagle, 349. LeMay went on to establish
several distance and airspeed records in this airplane when
it was assigned to Air Force HQ (see Appendix F).
67 Department of the Air Force, Nicknames, AF Pamphlet
11-6, 1975, np.
Chapter Eight
Test-Beds
1 See Robert A Divine, The Sputnik Challenge:
Eisenhower's Response to the Soviet Satellite (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993).
2 For a complete history of AFSC and ARDC, see
Michael H Gorn, Vulcan's Forge: The Making of An Air
Force Command For Weapons Acquisition (1950-1985), vol
1, Narrative (Andrews AFB, MD: Air Force Systems
Command, Office olthe Historian, 1986).
3 Against the Wind: 90 Years of Flight Test in the Miami
Valley (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Materiel
Command,Office of the Historian, 1994),28.
213
 4 Merging Test Units, AW&ST, 6.5.91, 11; and USAF
Begins Transfers, FI, 28.4 - 4.5.93, 14.
5 Boeing EC-135: To See, Hear and Talk (EC-135 here-
after), WAS No.100 (1987): 1986-94.
6 ARIA was renamed 'Advanced Range Instrumented
Aircraft' after the Apollo program ended. Many sources
(including some Air Force documents) use the term
'Instrumentation' .
7 Againstthe Wind, 108-113.
8 What's Happening in Electronics at ESD: A Checklist of
Major Electronics Projects, AFM, 6.87, 54; and Jeffrey
Richelson, American Espionage and the Soviet Target
(hereafter American Espionage) (NY: Morrow, 1987), 232.
9 US Air Force to Modify C-135E for Laser
Communications Development, JDW, 8.11.86, 1075; and
Aerospace World, AFM, 12.86, 40.
10 Leonard Famiglietti, Laser Communications to be
Tested on C-135, AFT, 3.11.86, 51.
11 A Checklist of Major ASD Systems, (hereafter Check-
list), AFM, 1.89,63. The 4950lh TW converted C-18A 81-
0898 (former airline 707) into a C-18B by installing a navi-
gator's station and modifying the cockpit to look like that
on the existing EC-18Bs.
12 The 'Blink Jammer' program may be associated with
a 'Big Safari' program known only as Beacon Link [=
BLINK?] Jammer. No other details of 'Blink Jammer' have
been made available.
13 L F E Coombs, Identification in NATO, JDW, 25.7.87,
150-151.
14 Non Flam Hydraulic Fluid for Aircraft Brakes, JDW,
4.1086,751.
15 Checklist, 58.
16 Phillips Lab Studies Antimissile Laser, AW&ST,
7.12.92, 51, 53; and Against the Wind, 120. This source
incorrectly identifies the 'Argus 2' airplane as an 'EC-135E'.
It remains a C-135E.
17 Wiiliam B Scott, USAF Airborne Laser to Show Missile
Kill, AW&ST, 22.3.93, 5&-57.
18 William B Scott, Tests Support Airborne Laser as
Viable Missile Killer, AW&ST, 12/19.12.94,54-55.
19 News Breaks, AW&ST, 13.3.95, 23.
20 Reader's Reports, KF, nd, 118.
21 Historical Report from 1.1.65 to 30.6.65 (hereafter
Historical Report 1965) (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH:
Headquarters, Aeronautical Systems Division, Air Force
Systems Command, 28.7.65), 3.
22 B-1 Radar Contender Tested on KC-135, (hereafter B-1
Radar), AW&ST, February 1971, 51.
23 William G Holder, A Strange Fleet: The Story of the
4950th Air Base Wing, AC, 1.83, 73.
24 Steven L Thompson, LASERCOM: The Green Dragon
Awakens, AFM, 7.81, 51-52.
25 Quoted in John D Morrocco, Bipartisan Opposition to
B-2 Grows Despite Release of New Information, AW&ST,
17.7.89,23.
26 William B Scott, Air Force, Northrop Open B-2
Production Facility to Journalists, AW&ST, 25.6.90, 21; and
William B Scott, B-2 Radar Designed to Match Bomber's
Stealth Characteristics, AW&ST, 11.3.91,55.
27 B-2 Test Program to Meet Fiscal 1993 Milestones,
AW&ST, 15.2.93, 67.
28 GPS-Aided Munition for B-2 Begins Tests, AW&ST,
5.12.94, 63.
29 William F Arkin and Richard Fieldhouse, Nuclear
Battlefield: Global Links in the Arms Race (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1985), 309.
30 James E Webb, NASA Administrator, to Robert S
McNamara, Secretary of Defense, 10.12.64 (hereafter
Webb letter).
31 Arkin and Fieldhouse, Nuclear Battlefield, 288.
32 There was also a smaller version of the 'Speckled
Trout'. Originally the 'Speckied Minnow' was North
American T-39 Sabreliner 62-4478, and was used from
1974 until 11.84, when it was replaced by Gates C-21A
Learjet 84-0098. Like the 'Speckled Trout', it had several
test items and systems on board. The 'Speckled Minnow'
C-21 A was retired from use in 8.91. Against the Wind, 123.
33 James R Asker, Global Flight Demonstrates Potential
of Space-Based Communications (hereafter Global Flight),
AW&ST, 8.1.90, 59.
34 Against the Wind, 122.
35 Asker, Global Flight, 59. 36 Ibid, 60.
37 David Hughes, USAF Tests Alternative SATCOM,
AW&ST, 4.4.94, 66; and idem, USAF, GEC-Marconi Test
ILS/MLS/GPS Receiver, AW&ST, 4.12.95, 96-97.
38 Hawkes, Boeing Offers Multi-Mission C-135, 127-129.
39 Webb letter.
40 Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft, (hereafter
ARIA) (Patrick AFB, FL: Air Force Eastern Test Range, nd),
2. Another source puts the per-airplane cost at $4.5 million.
Against the Wind, 66.
41 Kenneth W Gatland, Missiles and Rocketry, FRi,
December 1966, 257.
42 Flying Duckbill Platypuses, AU, 6.69, 230-231. For
more on ARIS, see Floating Atlantic Range Stations
Readied, AW&ST, 11.6.62, 10-11.
214
43 ARIA, 3, 7.
44 Antenna for Apollo/Range C-135 Shown, AW&ST,
25.7.66,133.
45 ARIA,8.
46 Against the Wind, 84-85.
47 ESI in 707 - CMMCA Modification Contract, JDW,
19.11.88, 1291; and Holder, A Strange Fleet, 26-31, 68-72.
48 Although this airplane's mission and electronics suite
changed to the same as CENTCOM's other airborne com-
mand post (EC-135Y 55-3125), 61-0327's airframe
remained unchanged and is closer akin in configuration to
the EC-135N ARIAs than to the EC-135Y, hence the unusu-
al EC-135N designation. BMAC installed turbofan engines
on 61-0327 after it became a CENTCOM command post.
49 Tab 11, Appendix 1, Annex D, TG 8.4 OPORDER 4-62,
8.6.62. I am indebted to Chuck Hansen for providing
copies of this previously unavailable material, declassified
through his efforts.
50 Appendix 2, Annex A, SAC OPORD 17-62, 30.3.62, 6-7.
51 ST, 5.93, 5; ST, 11.93, 7; and BAR, 2.95, 152-53.
52 Richard P Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research at
Dryden, 1946-1981 (Washington DC: NASA, 1984), 89, 283.
53 Ibid.
54 Lt Col Chris Divich, 'Speckled Trout' project comman-
der, quoted in Nothing Fishy, AW&ST, 26.8.74, 46; and
Against the Wind, 121.
55 Phillip J Klass, KC-135 Tests Advanced Instruments,
AW&ST, 26.8.74, 44. 56 Ibid, 42, 45. 57 Ibid, 44.
58 Letter OPA:BY-644, Dept of Energy, Nevada Op-
erations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, to the author, 1.10.86.
59 Letter from Robert J Hayduk, NASA Langley Research
Center CID director, to the author 29.2.88, 2.
60 S I Akasofu, Aurora Borealis - The Amazing Northern
Lights (Anchorage, AK: Alaska Geographic Soc, 1979), 55.
61 'Blue Straw' is associated with two different programs:
On 2.11.61, 'the Air Force proposed to the AEC a full-scale
missile-warhead weapon systems test, called Project "Blue
Straw", involving a systems test of an ATLAS missile using
a W-49 thermonuclear warhead detonated at 8,400ft
[2,560m], 262 miles [421km]from Taongi Atoll'.
'According to another source, "Blue Straw" was the
name assigned to a USAF program in 1961 to plan for
nuclear testing at Eniwetok atoll. On 1st November 1961,
early test planning conducted under a program named
"Ever Ready" was changed to "Blue Straw" and encom-
passed all USAF support for nuclear testing. A few days
later, "Blue Straw" was expected to occur in March and
June 1962. In early January 1962, "Blue Straw" was
changed by DoD to "Dominic", the name under which the
1962 Pacific and Nevada test series finally was conducted.'
Chuck Hansen, Sunnyvale, California, letter to the author,
30.6.90.
62 Amendment 1, SAC OPORD 17-62, 13.4.62, 7.
63 Tab 6, App 1, Annex D, JTG 8.4 OPORD 4-62, 8.6.62.
64 This airplane appears in the refueling scene during the
opening credits of Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strange/ove:
Or How I Learned to Love the Bomb and Stop Worrying.
65 These same records show that 59-1481 was stored at
MASDC, but no MASDC records support this. Most likely
the SAC records incorrectly assumed that because the air-
plane was in storage it must have been at MAS DC, not at
Tinker AFB.
66 Weightless Wonder Ready for SAC Post (hereafter
Weightless Wonder), AFT, 18.1.83, np.
67 Letter from Brig Gen Abbott Greenleaf, Deputy Chief
of Staff/Operations, HQ Air Force Systems Command, to
Gen Jacob E Smart, NASA Assistant Administrator for DoD
and Interagency Affairs, [1] April 1972.
68 Letter from [Christopher C Kraft, Jr Director, Manned
Spacecraft Center], to Dale D Myers, NASA Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight, 12.5.72.
69 Memorandum of Record, Trip Report, OCAMA-NASA
KC-135, 'O-g' Aircraft, Joseph S Algranti, Manned
Spacecraft Center, 26.6.72.
70 Letter from Joseph S Algranti, NASA Johnson Space
Center Chief of Aircraft Operations, to author, 9.11.87.
71 Weightless Wonder, ibid.
72 See, for example, KC-135 Provides Microgravity
Testbed, AW&ST, 23.2.87, 61; CMSgt V M Graham, 'Roller
Coaster' Research, AZ., 7.92, 38-40; and L T Ward Carroll,
What I Did During My Summer Vacation, AA, 10.89, 2-7.
73 Jeffrey Kluger, The Apollo Adventure: The Making of
the Apollo Space Program and the Movie 'Apollo 13', with a
Foreword by Ron Howard (New York: Pocket Books,
1995),56-69; and Loved the Movie... AW&ST, 24.7.95,19.
74 Letter from E S Groo, NASA Associate Administrator
for Center Operations, to the Associate Administrator for
Space Flight, 12.5.77.
75 Terry Morgan, Space Shuttle Weathers Storm at
Robins, RR, 19.5.89, 1; and Marilyn Teal, The Shuttle Has
Landed... at RAFB, RR, 16.5.89, 1.
76 C/KC-135 Complete Airframe Cyclic Test Loads,
Instrumentation, and Inspections, Revision A, Boeing
Document D3-8278, 16.11.70,5.
77 Statement of Work (SOW) for Additional Work to be
Accomplished on NASA KC-135A SIN 63-7998 for the Zero
G Mission During PDM, SOW Number LACRA 94-038,
21.11.94,1-3.
78 Loved the Movie ... AW&ST, 24.7.95,19.
79 Colonel Jerry E Knotts and Colonel Patrick R
O'Malley, The 'Big Safari' Program: ... as told by the 'Big
Safari' people (npd), Part 3,17-18.
80 Nuclear Detection Fleet, AW&ST, 18.5.64, 32. On the
Test Ban Treaty, see Robert A Divine, Blowing on the Wind:
The Nuclear Test Ban Debate, 1954--1960 (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1978); and James Hubert
McBride, The Test Ban Treaty: Military, Technological, and
Political Implications (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company,
1967). On the origins of the aerial nuclear detection fleet
see Charles A Ziegler and David Jacobson, Spying Without
Spies: Origins of America's Secret Nuclear Surveillance
System (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995).
81 Memorandum for [AEC] Chairman [Glenn T] Seaborg,
Subject: Diagnostic Aircraft, United States AEC document
137930, (SECRET), 29.7.65. Declassified 17.10.89, 1, and
Attachment 1 Current NC-135 Modification Program. US
DoE Archives, RG 326 US Atomic Energy Commission,
OGM collection, Box 5530, General Manager's Reading
File, 16-31.7.65 Folder. Documents courtesy Chuck
Hansen. 82 Ibid, Attachment 2, 1. Inexpensive KC-135E
conversions did not begin until 1982, 17 years later. 83
Ibid, 81--82. 84 Ibid, 82.
85 Preliminary Report of Operation 'Roundup', US DOE
Archives, 326 US Atomic Energy Commission, OGM
Collection, Box 5567, Commissioner Tape Memos Folder,
1-2. Declassified 177.789, copy courtesy Chuck Hansen.
86 Ibid, 3. 87 Ibid, 5.
88 Knotts and O'Malley, 'Big Safari', Part 3, 18.
89 History of the Air Force Special Weapons Center: FY
1973, 1.7.72-30.6.73 (hereafter History 1973) (Kirtland
AFB, NM: Air Force Special Weapons Center, 1973), 180
90 Ibid. 91 Ibid, 178.
92 History of the Air Force Special Weapons Center,
1.7.71~30.6.72 (Kirtland AFB, NM: Air Force Special
Weapons Center, 1972) 138-140. F-4D 65-0670 replaced
NRF-4C 63-7743 in 5.71 as the fighter test platform.
93 History 1973, 178.
94 Holder, Strange Fleet, 26.
95 Laser CommunicaUon Experiments, JDW, 21.6.86, 1171.
96 William B Scott, Special Mission Aircraft Aid SOl
Sensor System Development, AW&ST, 3.10.88, 34. 97 Ibid,
35. 98 Ibid, 37.
99 Against the Wind, 119-20.
100 The letter authorizing this change is dated 7.5.62, but
the aircraft record (DoD Form 829) shows the change as
effective 14.5.62.
101 JTIDS is a 'high-capacity, jam-resistant, secure digital
information system that will permit the distribution of intelli-
gence data among fighter aircraft, surveillance aircraft,
ground air defense units, and naval vessels'. A Checklist of
Major ESD Systems: Work in Progress at the Electronic
Systems Division, AFM, 6.89, 67.
102 Michael L Yaffee, AF Research Aircraft Zero in on
Tracking System Noise (hereafter AF Research Aircraft),
AW&ST, 11.11.63, 84, 87; and Nuclear Detection Fleet, 32.
For more on 'Fish Bowl' and other US atmospheric tests
see Chuck Hansen, US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret
History (Arlington, TX: Aerofax, 1988),42, 82.
103 Yaffee, AF Research Aircraft, 87. 104 Ibid, 91-92; and
Arkin and Fieldhouse, Nuclear Battlefields, 21.
105 Ruth P Liebowitz, Chronology: From the Cambridge
Field Station to the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, 1945-
1985 (hereafter Cambridge Chronology) (Hanscom AFB,
MA: Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, 1985), 45. 106 Ibid,
51. 107 Ibid, 53. 108 Ibid, 84.
109 Against the Wind, 99-102; and Electronic Intelligence,
AW&ST, 12.3.90,65.
110 Quoted in Alfred Price, The History of US Electronic
Warfare, vol. 2, The Renaissance Years, 1946-1964 (here-
after History of US EW) ([Alexandria, Virginia]: Association of
'Old Crows', 1989), 238.
111 Againstthe Wind, 116-17.
112 Industry Observer, AW&ST, 20.8.62, 23.
113 Modified C-135s to Aid Apollo Tracking, AW&ST, npd.
114 KC-135 Photographs Titan 3C Separation. AW&ST,
3.1.66,22.
115 Richard McCaffery Robinson, 'Deadly Light':
America's First Laser Warplane, AC, 10.88,20. For a sim-
plified discussion of laser weapon theory and its applica-
tion to aerial platforms see Edgar Ulsamer, The Long Leap
Toward Space Laser Weapons, AFM, 8.81, 58-64; Clarence
Robinson, Beam Weapons Technology Expanding,
AW&ST, 25.5.81, 40-47; and Against the Wind, 102-103.
116 Boeing NKC-135 Modified as Laser Laboratory,
AW&ST, 30.4.73, 22; Converted Tanker Used for Laser
Tests, AW&ST, 30.4.73, 22; The Laser Whammy, Time,
12.1.76,39; and Againstthe Wind,102-107.
117 USAF/Boeing NKC-135 ALL (Airborne Laser
Laboratory), Jane's Aerospace Supp, AFM, 6.81, 63-64.
118 Senate Directs Air Force to Formulate Laser Plans,
AW&ST, 25.5.81, 52-53.
119 Robinson, Deadly Light, 20.120 Ibid, 22.
121 Laser Fails to Destroy Missile, AW&ST, 8.6.81,63; and
USAF Laser Did Not 'Kill' Sidewinder, FI, 6.8.83, 300.
122 Laser Weaponry Technology Advances, AW&ST,
25.5.81,65-71.
123 USAF, Navy Laser Destroys Drone, AW&ST, 5.12.83, 26.
124 Aerospace World, AFM, 7.88, 37-38.
125 Hallion, On the Frontier, 89, 283.
126 G K Bishop, The Tank, IPMSQ 12 No.3, (1977): 142-149.
127 Willis E Day, Meteor Burst Communications Offer a
Vital Alternative, DSR, January 1984, 49-51; Kenneth Gray,
Meteor Burst Communications, SG, 5/6.82, 125-134; Phillip
J Klass, Meteor Trails May Aid Communications, AW&ST,
15.8.83, 166-169; and Robert L Richmond, Meteor Burst
Communications, Part I: MBC Advances Assist C3
Objectives, MCE, 8.82, 68-72.
128 Agriculture Dept Terminals Demonstrate Reliability of
Meteor Burst Communications, AW&ST, 26.1.87, 81; Jay C
Lowndes, GTE Transmits Messages by Bouncing Voice
Signals off Meteor Trails, AW&ST, 26.1.87, 80-81; and
We're Talking Stardust, AZ., 5.87, 7.
129 Arkin and Fieldhouse, Nuclear Battlefields, 33.
130 Hallion, On the Frontier, 89, 283.
131 LeMay Papers, Air Statt Action, Misc. Folder, Box B134.
132 ASD Checklist 1990, 47.
133 Randal E Morger, Tankers for a Thirsty Fleet, AFM,
6.86, 74-80; and idem, The Improved Aerial Refueling
System, AFM, 6.86, 80.
134 Safer Refueling, AFT, 9.5.79, np.
135 KC-135Qs had a fuselage-mounted spotlight intended
to illuminate the SR-71 's refueling receptacle. The TMF
proved far superior and was retrofitted to the KC-135Q.
136 William B Scott, Air Force to Retrofit KC-10s with Air
Refueling Pods, AW&ST, 13.11.89, 37.
137 Bob Archer, Wing Tip Pods for KC-135s, AN, 5-
18.7.91,180.
138 Againstthe Wind, 91.
139 Linda Shiner, Come to Aruba When the Barium
Blooms, AS, 2/3.92, 56-65.
140 William B Scott, Icing Tankers Aid Aircraft Certification,
AW&ST, 11.4.83, 59-61. On the background of the icing
test-bed program, see Against the Wind, 35-38.
141 B-1 Radar, 51.
142 Pierre Sparaco, Aerospatia/e's Recovery Slips,
AW&ST, 23.1.95, 47; Stephen J Hedges, Peter Cary, and
Richard J Newman, Fear of Flying: One Plane's Story,
USN&WR, 6.3.95, 40-46; Edward H Phillips, US Approves
New ATR Deicer, AW&ST, 27.3.95, 35; idem, FAA Urges
Retention of NKC-135A for Icing Tests, AW&ST, 15.5.95,41;
and Ice Formation, AW&ST, 19.6.95, 17.
143 GE Tests CFM56 Water Ingestion, FI, 25.2.89, 3. The
accompanying photo in this article shows 58-0027 in mark-
ings of the 97th BW spraying water on General Electric's
707 test-bed.
144 David Brown, Home of the Right Stuff, AI, 10.85, 201.
145 Weightless Wonder Returns to SAC. SACNS, 012RDM,
5; and Against the Wind, 108-113.
146 Whitcomb, a brilliant and prolific aerodynamicist, can
certainly be said to have left his mark on aviation. In the
1950s he demonstrated and developed the 'area rule' or
'coke bottle' theory of fuselage shape which facilitated
supersonic flight. In the 1960s he theorized, designed, and
developed the 'supercritical wing', now standard on
advanced jetliners around the world. In the 1970s he pro-
duced the winglets, effectively converting unwanted drag
into lift.
147 KC-135 Winglets AFT, 7.4.77, np; and KC-135 Winglet
Program Review, NASA Conference Publication 2211, 1982, 2.
148 Airline Observer, AW&ST, 20.1075, 29.
149 KC-135 Winglet Program Review, 3.
150 The intended delivery date to NASA was 'on or about
1 December 1977'. AFSC/NASA Loan Agreement for NKC-
135A Aircraft, Serial Number 55-003129, contained in a let-
ter from Joseph P Allen, NASA Director for Legislative
Affairs, to Warren G Magnuson, Chairman, Comm on
Commerce, Science, & Transportation, US Senate, 20.1.78.
151 Robert 0 Dodson Jr, Comparison of Flight Measured,
Predicted and Wind Tunnel Measured Winglet
Characteristics on a KC-135 Aircraft, 157, in KC-135 Winglet
Program Review.
152 Weightless Wonder Returns to SAC, 5.
153 Liebowitz, Cambridge Chronology, 31.
154 Hansen, US Nuclear Weapons, 42, 82.
155 Yaffee, Air Force Research Aircraft, 87, 91.
156 Cambridge Laboratories KC-135 Equipped to Study
the Ionosphere, AW&ST, 10.1.66, 99. 157 Ibid.
158 Liebowitz, Cambridge Chronology, 48. 159 Ibid, 54
160 Ibid, 61. 161 Ibid, 64.
162 John W Briggs, The Aurora Patrol, AS, 3.89, 60-66.
163 Historical Report from 1.1.63 to 30.6.63 (hereafter
Historical Report 1963) (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: HQ,
Aeronautical Systems Division, Air Force Systems
Command, 12.7.63),3.
164 Historical Report from 1.7.64 to 31.12.64 (Wright-
Patterson AFB, OH: HQ, Aeronautical Systems Division, Air
Force Systems Command, 13.1.65), 3; and Historical
Report 1965, 3.
165 David Fulghum, AF-Army Plane Tests Three Services'
Defenses, AFT, 21.9.87, 40; and Against the Wind, 93-96.
166 Martin Streetly, Big Boeings Augment 'Smart Crow'
(hereafter Big Boeings) , JDW, 19.11.88, 1291; and Marc
Liebman, C' For the Good Guys Playing the Bad Guys, DE,
1.88, 68-80.
167 UK Rethinks EW Training, FI, 30.9-6.10.92,15.
168 Streetly, Big Boeings, 40.
169 Tab 12, App 1, Annex 0, TG 8.4 OPORDER 4--62,8.6.62.
170 Historical Report 1963, 4.
171 Historical Report from 1.7.3 to 31.12.63 (hereafter
Historical Report 1963, Part II), (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH:
HQ, Aeronautical Systems Division, Air Force Systems
Command, 31.1.64), 3.
172 Aircraft Maintenance and Modification Experience
(hereafter Modification Experience), GEP 73-138, E-
Systems Report No.G4004-01-23-3, 1.11.78, 18-19,28-29.
173 The nickname 'Navy King Crow' derives as much from
the airplane's 'NKC' mission identifier as it does from the
airplane's status as the Navy's largest airborne electronic
warfare platform, operated by personnel popularly known
as 'ravens', or, more colloquially, 'crows'. In addition,
although 553134 became a 'Navy King Crow' platform after
sister ship 563596, it was reportedly named 'NKC-I' by
virtue of its lower BuNo, making 563596 'NKC-II'. NANews,
4.78,23.
174 The EC-24A is a Douglas DC-8-54 (construction num-
ber 45881) converted in 1988 by ESI.
175 Big Boeings, ibid.
176 Historical Report 1965, 3; and AFHRA, K146.0014-2,
Secret/Restricted Data, 1962, 62/11.
177 Historical Report 1963, Part II, 4.
178 William B Scott, Navy EW Training Suffers Cuts,
AW&ST, 11.9.95, 60-61.
179 The 'n' stood for 'Tell Two' and should not be con-
fused with the 'Tee Town' ECM pod. Robert S Hopkins III,
The 'Tell Two' Stratojets, AEQ 41 (1990): 18-21.
Chapter Nine
Airborne Command Posts
1 For more on the bomber gap, see US Congress,
Senate, Subcommittee on the Air Force, Committee on
Armed Services, Study of Airpower, 84th Cong, 2nd sess
(1956), 104-105; Howard Moon, Soviet SST: The
Technopolitics of the Tupolev Tu-144 (New York: Orion,
1989); Charles J V Murphy, The Embattled Mr McElroy, FT,
4.59, 244; Charles A Cannon, The Politics of Ideology: The
Senate Airpower Hearings of 1956, AFS 3 (8.77): 598; and
Colin S Gray, 'Gap' Prediction and America's Defense:
Arms Race Behavior in the Eisenhower Years, Orbis 16
(1972): 258. On the missile gap, begin with Edgar M
Bottome, The Missile Gap: A Study of the Formulation of
Military and Political Policy (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 1971); Lawrence Friedman, US
Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat (London:
Macmillan Press, 1977); and Peter J Roman, Eisenhower
and the Missile Gap (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
·1995).
2 Based on JCS studies in 1945 and 1946, there was no
fear of Soviet military prowess. 'Military officials and civil-
ian policymakers might fret about the [eventual] specter of
another Pearl Harbor, but the truth of the matter was that in
the early postwar years the only conceivable adversary of
the United States had no capacity to attack American terri-
tory and had no ability to inflict damage on the American
economy'. Melvyn P Leffler, A Preponderance of Power:
National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold
War (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992),5-6, 133-
34,136,441-42; Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb, 154, 169,
231-52, 271-72; and Matthew A Evangelista, Stalin's
PostwarArmyReappraised,lS 7 (Winter 1982-1983): 110-38.
3 Moon, Soviet SST, 42.
4 Meeting the Threat of Surprise Attack, 14.2.55, in
FRUS, 1955-1957, vol XIX; Marc Trachtenberg, ed, The
Development of American Strategic Thought: Basic
Documents from the Eisenhower and Kennedy Periods,
Including the Basic National Security Policy Papers from
1953 to 1959 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1988); and
Moon, Soviet SST, 41.
5 For a summary of the origins and development of
Soviet ballistic missiles, see Steven J Zaloga, The First
ICBM: Early Soviet Strategic Ballistic Missile Development,
AH, 12.88,268-73.
6 MIDAS was part of WS117L, which included the
Discoverer satellite. Today, satellites bear primary respon-
sibility for the detection of ballistic missile launches, and
were used during the 1991 Gulf War to detect iraqi 'Scud'
theater ballistic missile launches. Jeffrey T Richelson,
America's Secret Eyes in Space: The U.S. Keyhole Spy
Satellite Program (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 29.
7 Paul Bracken, The Command and Control of Nuclear
Forces (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983) 189.
See also Daniel Ford, The Button: The Pentagon's Strategic
Command and Control System (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1985); and and L Wainstein et ai, The Evolution of
US Strategic Command and Control and Warning, 1945-
1972, Study S-467 (Arlington, VA: Institute for Defense
Analysis, 6.75).
8 Bracken, Command and Control of Nuclear Forces,
189-90. On the increase in civilian participation in prewar
planning, see Desmond Ball and Jeffrey Richelson,
Strategic Nuclear Targeting (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1986), as well the large body of scholarly literature
now appearing on SIOP-62, including Desmond Ball and
Robert C Toth, Revising the SlOP: War-Fighting to
Dangerous Extremes, IS 14 (Spring 1990): 65-92.
9 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 92.
10 At the time, there were no dedicated airborne com-
mand and control squadrons in SAC, so the airplanes and
crews were assigned to air refueling squadrons. 11 Ibid. At
least one assertion has been made that the EC-135 air-
borne command posts could 'provide a measure of eaves-
dropping capability to augment strategic reconnaissance
assets, although no details are available of this or any oper-
ation where this has been practised'. EC-135, 1988.
'Details' of such operations are unavailable because this
augmentation of reconnaissance assets was never under-
taken. EC-135s, especially those assigned to SAC, did not
operate close enough to any potential areas of interest to
'eavesdrop' on anyone other than Kansas City country-
western radio stations.
12 General Thomas S Power, CINCSAC, quoted in
Development of SAC, 100.
13 Throughout his campaign, Kennedy assailed the
Eisenhower administration for doing little about the missile
gap. Even after 'Ike' briefed 'JFK' using CIA U-2 data on the
fiction behind the gap, Kennedy publicly maintained his
campaign rhetoric, striking a responsive chord in the
American voters. After 'JFK' was elected, his new Secretary
of Defense, Robert S McNamara, accidentally repudiated
the missile gap in public, creating a considerable row.
Michael R Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and
Khrushchev, 1960-1963 (New York: Edward Burlingame
Books, 1991), 83-66.
14 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 98.
15 History and Facts on the SAC Airborne Command Post
and the 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron, Tab
2, npd.
16 Brig Gen Ken Keller announced on 27.2.92, the exis-
tence of a classified fleet of truck convoys, called the
'Secure Enduring Command Center' system. These SAC
'18-wheelers' were designed for communications, war
planning, battle management, and intelligence analysis.
Neil Munro, Air Force to Retire Remaining EC-135 Aircraft
(hereafter Air Force to Retire EC-135), ON, 9.3.92, 6.
17 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 111;
and Lindsay Peacock, Boeing B-47 Stratojet (London:
Osprey PUblishing, 1987), 80. I am indebted to Mike
Habermehl for providing otherwise unavailable information
about the EB-47L PACCS mission.
18 Highlights of NEACP Program, Memorandum from
AFOOP-CP to AFCCS, 1.3.62, LeMay Papers, Box 140,
ABNCP 1962 folder.
19 KC-135A 55-3126 is believed to have served as a pro-
tean 'Night Watch' airborne command post through 1964.
It was used primarily by Air Force Vice Chief of Staff
General LeMay for official travel beginning in 1957, and
could well have been tested informally as an airborne com-
mand post. KC-135 Aerial Command Post Evaluated at
Andrews for SAC, AW, 11.11.57, 34-35.
20 Redesignation of K/R/C-135 Aircraft (hereafter
Redesignation Letter), Letter from SAC/OM to CINCSAC,
Offutt AFB, Nebraska, 23.12.64.
21 On 14.8.63, Air Force Chief of Staff General LeMay
approved an Air Force request for Boeing VC-137Cs as the
new NEACP rather than the KC-135B. Despite this
approval, the VC-137C NEACPs were not purchased. Joint
Chiefs at Staff Memorandum 130/63, LeMay Papers, Box
135, Folder 8-1, Aircraft 1983.
22 Bracken, Command and Control, 97. These fears were
addressed in congressional testimony aimed at acquiring
more capable replacements. See, for example, Congress,
House, Committee on Appropriations, Department of
Defense Appropriations for 1966: Hearings before the
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations:
Part 2, 89th Cong, 1st ses., 1965, 372. Despite these early
warnings of vulnerability to EMP, communications up-
grades intended to counter the effects of EMP were not
undertaken until the 'Pacer Link' I and 'Pacer Link' II modi-
fications in the mid 1980s.
23 Bruce Blair, Strategic Command and Control:
Redefining the Nuclear Threat (Washington, DC:
Brookings, 1985), 124.
24 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 134.
25 Bracken, Command and Control, 203.
26 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 148.
27 On 2.2.65, the USAF announced that the Minuteman II
could be 'launched via radio signals from an airborne com-
mand post'. February Anniversaries, AFM, 2.90, 23.
28 This lack of codes was intentional, as SAC viewed its
Minutemen as private turf not to be trod upon by other
commanders. The Minuteman was a SAC asset, and only
215
 SAC would be able to 'turn the key'.
29 Post Attack Command Control System, Fact Sheet 88-
1·1 (hereafter PACCS). (Offutt AFB, Nebraska: Office of
Public Affairs, Strategic Air Command, 1988). 1. For missile
combat crews, assignment as ACLS officers was a choice
plum. For many years, only crews from the missile wing at
Ellsworth AFB were chosen, leading to grumblings among
the rest of SAC's missileers about the 'EPA'- the 'Ellsworth
Protection Agency'.
30 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 163.
31 1st ACCS was transferred to Offutt AFB on 1.11.75.
32 Ibid, 197.
33 Blair, Strategic Command and Control, 137.
34 Melvin Laird, Department of Defense Appropriations
for 1973, quoted in Strategic Command and Control, 137.
For an extremely critical assessment of the entire NEACP
concept, see Mary Meehan, The Flying Fiihrerbunker, WM,
4.74, 22-28. She quotes Senator William Fulbright's 1972
remarks about the leadership issues not normally
addressed in the NEACP debate: 'I can imagine now how
it would affect the country if there were an alert, and the
next thing they heard was that danger was threatening the
country, that the President and all his staff had boarded a
plane and taken off and left the United States to whatever
fate it may suffer.... 1 am sure that in England, during World
War II, when [British Prime Minister Winston] Churchill was
standing there, trying to encourage his people to resist, it
would have been a strange sight if he had taken off in a
plane instead'. Meehan adds that after a nuclear exchange
kills 80% of the American population, '... your Commander-
in-Chief will be flying around above the wreckage, getting
even with the Russians and making plans for the next gen-
eration of peace'. Ibid, 27-28.
35 PACCS, 2.
36 There were many variations on this plan tailored to
events such as advanced warning that allowed the gener-
ation of additional sorties rather than a 'bolt from the blue'
scenario described here. Additional PACCS sorties would
operate in backup orbits to provide a higher degree of
redundancy for 'the Link', or might establish links to the
numbered air force headquarters for improved communi-
cations during the time of crisis.
37 Doug Gillert, Through the Looking Glass, AZ., 10.87, 13.
38 Ibid, 14-15; and 'Looking Glass' Capabilities
Improved, AW&ST, 10.5.76, 52-57. The 'Looking Glass'
battle staff earned a false measure of infamy after one
crewmember wrote a fictitious letter to Penthouse maga-
zine describing 'sexual hijinxs at high altitude' during a
'Looking Glass' sortie. 39 Ibid, 57. The 'Looking Glass'
could also launch the Emergency Rocket Communications
System (ERCS). These were Minuteman missiles equipped
not with warheads but with a recording of the EAM that
could be broadcast from 'extremely high altitudes',
enabling SAC forces to receive the EAM unhindered by
line-of-sight UHF restrictions. tbid.
40 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 278.
41 Jeff Gauger, 'Looking Glass' Trims Won't Cut Offutt
Rolls, OWH, 27.7.90, 8. 42 Ibid, and WOWT-TV Newscast,
27.7.90. In another major change, in 1995 Brig Gen Tilu
Kera, STRATCOM's Director of Intelligence, became the
first woman AEAO to command the 'Looking Glass'. Jason
Gertzen, General Flying High: Woman to Command
'Looking Glass', OWH, 10.11.95, 1-2.
43 Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memo, Transfer of Airborne
Command Post Mission to TACAMO Aircraft, 17.12.92, 1.
44 TACAMO stands for Take Charge And Move Out. It
has also been reported as 'Take Command And Move
Out'. For more on this and the TACAMO mission, see John
Bailey, TACAMO: E-6 Takes Charge, FI, 29.10.88, 29-31;
and Boeing Will Assemble First E-6A While Congress
Reviews Funding, AW&ST, 9.12.85, 77, 80. On the end of
the EC-135 fleet, see Kieran Daly, Powell Plan Leaves US
Defence Queries Open, FI, 24.2-2.3.93, 16; Air Force to
Retire EC-135, 6; FifterCenter, AW&ST, 27.2.95, 43; John D
Morrocco, JCS to Back1rack Decision in Rofes, Missions
Study (hereafter JCS Back1rack). AW&ST, 18.1.93, 58; BAR,
3.95, 262, 264; and William B Scott, Navy E-6 TACAMOs to
Assume 'Looking Glass' Mission, AW&ST, npd.
45 SAC records show a total of 14 KC-135As redesignat-
ed as EC-135As, probably including those already so des-
ignated during the end of 1964, such as 61-0282 and 62-
3579. Redesignation Letter.
46 Bunker Hill AFB was renamed Grissom AFB in 1968 in
honor of native son Virgil I 'Gus' Grissom, one of three
astronauts killed in the Apollo 204 fire on 27.1.67.
47 Redesignation Letter.
48 Gillert, Through the 'Looking Glass', 14.
49 Redesignation Letter.
50 EC-135,1986.
51 'Silk Purse' Airborne Command Post, Service
Capabilities, 3-4.
52 'Silk Purse' Control Group, Air Fete 81, np, 1981, 35;
and EC-135, 1993.
53 Silk Purse Airborne Command Post, Command,
Control, and Communication Systems Experience (here-
after Systems Experience) E-Systems, Greenville Division,
216
GEP 77-052. Report No.G4004.03.29, 3.77, 8. 54 Ibid.
55 M J F Bowyer, Winged Jubilee 1934-84, np, 1984, 39.
56 Bob Archer, US Military Aviation, AN, 22.12.89-4.1.90,
737; 'Silk Purse' to Stand Down, JDW, 6.7.91,8; and Sean
C Kelly, Airborne Command Post Units to Close, AFM, npd.
57 This airplane reportedly operated as a VIP-configured
KC-135A and was known unofficially as a 'VKC-135A'. As it
was assigned until November 1965 to the 100ath ACCS at
Andrews AFB, also home of the VIP C-135 fleet, this appel-
lation is understandable if incorrect.
58 Systems Experience, 6.
59 Modification Experience, 18.
60 History of the 1001st ABW, 1.1-30.6.62, AFHRA,
K280.29-31, 90.
61 History of the 1001st ABW, 1.7-31.12.62, AFHRA,
K280.29-31,83.
62 Some sources suggest that the call signs were tied to
specific serial numbers. See, for example, Boeing C-135,
BAR, 2.81, 77.
63 CSM, 15.5.69, 14.
64 Service Capabilities, 3-4.
65 The EC-135Ps were destined for the 6th ACCS, 1st
TFW at Langley AFB as CINCLANT 'Scope Light' airborne
command posts.
66 Bracken, Command and Control, 54-55.
67 8th Tactical Deployment Control Squadron (hereafter
8th TOCS) , Fact Sheet, (Tinker AFB, Oklahoma: 28th Air
Division, 1986), [29].
68 EC-135KAircraft55-3118, Fact Sheet (TinkerAFB, OK:
28th Air Division, 1986), [28-29].
69 8th TOCS, 30.
70 terHorst and Albertazzie, Flying White House, 302-306.
71 James Johnson, Tinker Officials Honor Tanker's Long
Service, DO, 3.9.86, 4; and K-C 135 [sic] Celebrates 30th
Anniversary, The News, 11.9.86, 7.
72 EC-135KAircraft 59-1518, Fact Sheet (Tinker AFB, OK:
28th Air Division, 1985), [29].
73 Martin Streetly, World Electronic Warfare Aircraft
(London: Jane's, 1983). 35.
74 EC-135,1986.
75 PACCS, 1.
76 Official records do not show which airplanes were
deployed.
77 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 100.
78 Alan D Campen, Information Systems and Air Warfare,
in The First Information War, ed Alan D Campen (Fairfax,
VA: AFCEA International Press, 1992). 28; and idem,
Communications Support to Intelligence, in ibid, 57.
79 BAR, 2.91, 103; and BAR, 4.91, 283-284.
80 BAR, 12.94, 212.
81 Joyce Bailey, 19th AREFW Makes Sure Planes Are
Ready for Central Command Commander (hereafter
Centcom Planes), RR, npd.
82 These five were the original KC-135A airborne com-
mand posts modified for SAC.
83 Streetly, World Electronic Warfare Aircraft, 35. EC-135H
61-0274 also served in this capacity until it was converted
into an EC-135P on 23.5.88.
84 'Blue Eagle', BM, nd, 15; and EC-135, 1988.
85 'Weightless Wonder'; and 'Weightless Wonder'
Returns to SAC. The use of the abbreviation 'SAC' in these
articles is misleading. Both wrongly assume that because it
was an EC-135 alert airborne command post that it must
have been a SAC mission instead USCINCLANT.
86 Centcom Planes.
87 Flora Lewis, One of Our H-Bombs is Missing (New
York: Bantam, 1986), 48.
88 Nicknames, np.
89 Thule BMEWS Surveillance, History of the 819th SAD,
1-31.63, AFHRA, K-DIV-819-HI 3.63, 11.
90 Tab 8, App 1, Annex D, TG 8.4 OPORDER 4-62,
8.6.62; Tab 10, App, Annex D, TG 8.4 OPORDER 4-62,
8.6.62; App 2 Annex 'A' SAC OPORD 17-62, 30.3.62, 2-4;
Amend 1, App 2, Annex 'A', SAC OPORD ·17-62,13.4.62.
91 'Blue Eagle', 15.
92 Command, Control, and Communications Systems
Capabilities (hereafter Systems Capabilities), GEP 77-140,
Report No.G4004.03.30, 3.3.80, E-Systems Greenville
Division, 16.
93 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 100.
94 Program Directive 66-002, Subject: CY 67 'Combat
Lightning', 25.11.66, Secret, 5. AFH RA K416.9062-1
25.11.6; and Gillem Oral History, 128-29.
95 Systems Capabilities, 16; and Streetly, World
Electronic Warfare Aircraft, 76.
96 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 98.
97 Systems Capabifities, 16.
98 The latter name suggests operations from the
Philippines, but no documentation confirming such opera-
tions has been found.
99 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 100. 100 Ibid. 101
Ibid. 102 Ibid, 115. 103. Ibid, 100-101. 104 Ibid, 115.
105 First KC-135B Delivered to SAC, AW&ST, 13.7.64, 14.
106 Ibid. 107 Ibid.
108 Pat Cooper, USAF Prototype Aircraft is DATA
Command Post, DN, 16-22.10.95,90.
Chapter Ten
Reconnaissance Platforms
1 Although the losses of RC-135 predecessors have
been broadly recorded in aviation literature such as David
Donald, Spyplane: The Secret World of Aerial Intelligence-
gathering (London: Aerospace Publishing, 1987). it was not
until an expose appeared on BBC television and in a week-
ly news magazine that these events received widespread
popular attention. Subsequent announcements by Russian
President Boris Yeltsin acknowledged these losses to
Soviet defenses, prompting the Pentagon to release at last
an official tally of 'Cold War' aerial reconnaissance losses.
This list was first published in Paul Lashmar, Shootdowns,
AL, 8.94, 10. For early official histories of these losses, see
A L George, Case Studies of Actual and Alleged Overflights,
1930-1953, RAND Research Memorandum RM-1349,
15.8.55 (Secret); idem, Case Studies of Actual and Alleged
Overflights, 1930-1953-Supplement, RAND Research
memorandum RM-1349 (S), 15.8.55, (Top Secret). See
also the series of articles appearing in USN&WR, 15.3.93,
30-56; John M Carroll, The Silent War: Electronic Spying,
EL, 20.4.64, 77; and John T Farquhar, A Cold War in
Flames: The Impact of Aerial Reconnaissance on US-Soviet
Relations, 1948-1960, (MA thesis, Creighton Univ, 1986).
2 George F Kennan, The Nuclear Delusion (New York:
Pantheon, 1983), 111-12. In a 1952 dispatch from Moscow,
where he served as US Ambassador, Kennan warned that
American reconnaissance flights were a likely cause of
accidental war between the US and the Soviet Union. Idem,
The Soviet Union and the Atlantic Pact, 8.9.52, reprinted in
idem, Memoirs, 1950-1963 (New York: Pantheon, 1972),
347-48, 351. Criticism of U-2 flights and their 'destructive'
nature can be found in David Wise and Thomas BRoss,
The U-2 Affair (New York: Random House, 1962), 262-65.
On the danger of intelligence flights in general, see the
arguments in the discredited and flawed polemic by Oliver
Clubb, KAL Flight 007: The Hidden Story (Sag Harbor, NY:
Permanent Press, 1985), 148-50.
3 Women were approved as RC-135 crewmembers in
1986. Women are now eligible for all tlying duties, includ-
ing combat missions. See, for example, USAF Opens More
Flying Jobs to Women, JDW, 16.7.88, 75; and News
Breaks, AW&ST, 24.5.93, 19.
4 Bill Gunston, An Illustrated Guide to Spy Planes and
Electronic Warfare Aircraft (New York: Area Pub, 1983), 7.
5 President Eisenhower prohibited further overflights of
the Soviet Union after Gary Powers was shot down in 1960.
During his pioneering visit to China in 1972, President
Richard Nixon announced that all SR-71 overflights of
China would be halted. SR-71 overflights of other nations
such as the Democratic Republic of Korea and Libya con-
tinued throughout that airplane's operational lifetime. On
early overflights and border incursions, see Paul Lashmar,
Stranger than 'Strangelove': A General's Foray into the
Nuclear Zone, WP, 3.7.94, C9; and Harold Austin, A Cold
War Overflight of the USSR, DF 35 (Spring 1995): 15. On
SR-71 overflights, see Paul Crickmore, Lockheed SR-71:
The Secret Missions Explained (London: Osprey, 1993);
and Brian Shu I and Walter Watson, The Untouchables
(Chico, CA: Mach One, 1993).
6 The GPS and stellar-inertial doppler system, coupled
with dual navigators, is so precise that an RC-135 'Rivet
Joint', participating for the first time in SAC's bombing and
navigation competition overflew each checkpoint with zero
positional deviation and within three seconds of its sched-
uled time, winning the competition (see Appendix F). The
precision and accuracy of this equipment was so good
SAC decreed that in future competitions, GPS-equipped
airplanes could not use the system because it placed all
unequipped airplanes at a significant disadvantage. J W
Canan, Space Gets Down to Earth, AFM, 8.90, 33. Although
there has been some discussion of eliminating one naviga-
tor position in the RC-135s, this has not happened.
7 For other examples of the positive relationship ot
strategic aerial intelligence gathering to US national securi-
ty policy, see Walter Laqueur, A World of Secrets: The Uses
and Limits of Intelligence (New York: Basic Books, 1985),
139-70; Michael R Beschloss, Mayday: Eisenhower, Khru-
shchev and the U-2 Affair (New York: Harper & Row, 1986);
and Christopher Andrew, For the President's Eyes Only:
Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from
Washington to Bush (New York: Harper Collins, 1995).
8 Sarajevo Relief Flights Resume, FI, 14-20.92, 5.
9 These open source references are, to the best of the
author's knowledge, unclassified at the time of publication.
These include government documents, magazine and jour-
nal articles, books, unclassified and declassified oral, wing
and unit histories, and personal correspondence between
the author and the companies and people involved in the
hazy past of the RC-135. It is not possible to determine if
any material contained within these sources is itself classi-
fied. To do so requires an a priori knowledge of the mater-
ial beyond the expertise of the author. Further, much of the
material contained within these open sources was made
available by other researchers through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), which officially declassified the
material prior to its release to the public. Every effort has
been made to ensure that this book does not compromise
the RC-135s and their missions or the safety of the
crewmembers who fly them.
10 Throughout this book, the term 'RC-135' is used to
describe all recce versions of the KC-135 (eg, KC-135A-II,
RC-135C, WC-135B) unless otherwise specified.
11 John Boatman, DARO Aims to Get the Most Out of US
Reconnaissance Assets, JDW, 22.10.94,19; idem, 'Cobra
Ball' Returns to 'National' Intelligence, JDW, 104.95,4; and
Kenneth W Womack and Douglas H Dearth, Command and
Control of Limited Airborne Reconnaissance Assets: An
Individual Study Project, US Army War College Military
Studies Program Paper, 1.3.93, US Army War College,
Cariisle Barracks, PA, 1993. DEFSMAC reportedly provides
warning of foreign missile and space launches to ensure
that intelligence assets are in place to collect desired mate-
rial. This same system could also be used to warn the US
of an impending missile attack. James Bamford, The
Puzzle Palace (New York: Penguin Books, 1983), 246-47.
12 Bob Archer and Joe Bruch, Offutt's White Tops, WAPJ
17 (Summer 1994): 138-40; Hugh Lucas, Hellenikon Base
Goes in US/Greek Talks, JDW, 23.7.88, 120; Gillian
Whittaker, Greece Confirms US Base Closure, JDW,
13.8.88, 241. Reports that RC-135 peacetime reconnais-
sance missions would be conducted from Turkey were
denied yet persisted. Turkey Denies US Aircraft Plans, JDW,
3.9.88, 433; and Gillian Whittaker, Greek/US Bases Talks
Stalled, JDW, 1.7.89, 1357.
13 Craig Covault, Alaskan Tanker, Reconnaissance
Mission Expanded, AW&ST, 6.6.88, 70-72; Adrian English,
Lafin American Air Wars, WM NoA6 (1986): 901-905;
[David Donald], Boeing RC-135 Operational Profile (here-
after RC-135 Profile), WAS No.87 (1987): 1721-25; Bill
Gunston, Patrolling the Baltic Barrier, WA3 NO.26 (1986):
501-505; & Nicaraguan Airspace Violations, JDW, 12.9.87, np.
14 Neil Henrikson, 55th Wing Plays Key Role in Pacific
Rescue, AP, 1604.93, 1-2; Rough Air Slams China Eastern
MD-11 , AW&ST, 1204.93,36; Turbulence Kills 1,Injures 150
Aboard Chinese Airliner, AP, nd; Jason Gertzen, Offutt
Unit's Island Air Base Succumbs to Costs, Weather, OWH,
30.8.94, 1-2; and John Boatman, 000 Shifts Anti-drug
Focus to Producers, JDW, 13.11.93, 18.
15 Bamford, Puzzle Palace, 620.
16 Jeffrey T Richelson, The US Intelligence Community
(Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1985), 118. 17 Ibid.
18 Boatman, 'Cobra Ball', 4.
19 Knotts and O'Malley, 'Big Safari', 17.
20 There was a photographic-reconnaissance variant of
the B-52, designated the RB-52B, which, like the RB-47s,
carried a large reconnaissance pod in the bomb bay. One
such pod was intended to hold two operators and a large
number of cameras, and a similar pod was designed to
carry six electronic warfare officers and their equipment.
Industry Observer, AW, 18.10.54, 11. In addition, all of the
50 B-52B and all 35 6-52C 'Multi-Purpose Bombardment
and Reconnaissance Airplanes' could carry the capsule.
Historical Note: RB-52, BSN 1-6.90, 14-15; and Price,
History of US EW, 225.
21 The Soviet Union claimed that it fired on RB-47s
because they could not be distinguished from nuclear
bomb-laden B-47s. Since the KC-135 carried no weapons
(including defensive armament), US force planners argued
that it should therefore not be fired upon by 'confused'
fighter pilots.
22 Two types of IFR systems are in use on RC-135s.
Those with an IFR system installed prior to delivery to the
Air Force (such as the RC-135C, RC-135U, and RC-135V)
have the Boeing system, while those modified after accep-
tance by the Air Force (such as the KC-135A-II, RC-135D,
RC-135E, RC-135M, and RC-135S, among others) have the
LTV system. Although the two systems have some differ-
ences in capability, their basic functions are identical.
23 [Donald], RC-135 Profile, 1725.
24 Alfred Price, Ferrets & Finders, AFM, 11.90, 54; and
Archer and Bruch, Offutt's White Tops, 138.
25 For a summary of the development of the AN/ASD-1
suite used in the RC-135C, see Price, History of US EW,
225-29.
26 See, for example, each monthly issue of British
Aviation Review, particularly the daily call sign, tail number,
and (often) mission destination reports for RAF Mildenhall.
27 KF, 3-80, 42; and KF, 5.86, 55.
28 Crickmore, Blackbird, 14-16. Serial numbers 64-14850
and 64-14851 were allocated to Hiller H-23Fs sold to an
unidentified customer as part of Foreign Military Sales.
Serials, 56; and Bob Archer, US Military Aviation, AN 22
No.5, 221. In late 1989 KC-135A 60-0318 was pho-
tographed marked as '80318'. These nonstandard mark-
ings have not been restricted to serial numbers. An RC-135
returned in February 1993 from a deployment to Riyadh AB
and carried the standard 'OF' tail code on one side and
wore 'ON' on the other side, suggesting a tongue-in-cheek
motivation for at least some of these aberrations.
29 Hopkins, Heyl Ha'avir 707s, 25-32. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid;
South Africa's Secref Boeings, AT, 12.94, np; and Angola
Taught Hard Lessons, AW&ST, 3.7.95, 66. Two of the South
African 'RC-707s' can also function as 'KC-70T tankers.
32 'Rivet Joint' Flies 1,000th Southem Watch, AFM, 5.95, 22.
33 William B Scott, Space Warfare Center Supports
'Warfighters', AW&ST, 28.3.94, 64-65. The 'Cobra Ball's'
role in theater ballistic missile defense is discussed below.
34 John D Marrocco, Senate Panel Calls for Reassessment
of Roles and Missions, Aircraft Plans, AW&ST, 3.8.92, 26;
Kieran Daly, USA Heads for Stormy Budget Talks, FI, 5-
11.8.92, 4; and Marrocco, JCS to Backtrack, 58.
35 Recce Reversal, AW&ST, 30.1.95, 21; David A
Fulghum, Air Force Faces Aging Inventory, AW&ST,
13.2.95, 26; idem, Secret Flying Wing Slated for Rollout,
AW&ST, 19.9.94, 27; Rich Tuttle, Airborne Sensors Draw
New Interest, AW&ST, 10.1.94, 61-62; and David A
Fulghum, USAF Pursues Stealthy UAV to Improve
Reconnaissance, AW&ST, 17.1.94, 46.
36 David A Fulghum, Sensor Package Could Allow B-2
Bomber to Find, Attack Targets Independently, AW&ST,
16.3.92,19.
37 John D Morrocco, US Military Eyes Revolutionary
Changes, AW&ST, 1.5.95, 22.
38 Memorandum for the Secretary of the Air Force, from
Gen Graves B Erskine, Support of Special Collection
Project, 'Nancy Rae', [10) 2.61, Top Secret, NARA, RG330,
OSD Office of Special Operations, OSO Chronological File,
1.1-30.6.61.
39 History, 2nd Bombardment Wing (Heavy) and
Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, 1-31.8.63, AFHRA K-WG-2-HI
8.63, 23; and Knotts and O'Malley, 'Big Safari', part 3, 7.
40 Ibid; and Viktor Adamsky and Yuri Smirnov, Moscow's
Biggest Bomb: The 50-Megaton Test of October 1961,
CWIHPB,4 (Fall 1994): 3, 19-21.
41 Knotts and O'Malley, 'Big Safari', part 3, 9; and letter
from Robert A Dibbell, 'Tucson, AZ., to the author, 1989, 1.
42 History, 2nd Bombardment Wing, 23.
43 Dibbell letter.
44 Donald, Spyplane, 46; Tab 5, App 1, Annex D, JTG 804
OPORD 4-62, 8.6.62; and Tab 7, ibid.
45 History, 2nd Bombardment Wing, 23. 'Texas Star' is
associated with operations between Eielson AFB and
Shemya AFB, although whether as a support mission or as
an operational mission is not known.
46 MSgt Forrest M Ginn, 6th SRW Historian, interview
with the author, 1988 (hereafter Ginn Interview). 47 fbid. 48
Ibid. 49 Ibid.
50 See, for example, The Boeing C-135, 79.
51 History of the 55th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing -
1975, AFHRA, np.
52 Bruce Bailey, SIGINT Over Vietnam, WA 3 NO.27
(1986): 245.
53 Curtis Peebles, Guardians: Strategic Reconnaissance
Satellites (London: Ian Allen, 1987) 336; and Lindsay
Peacock, Boeing RC-135 Super Snooper (hereafter Super
Snooper) WA 5 No.53 (1986); 1046. A similar structure was
installed on NKC-135A 55-3125.
54 Private communication to the author, 24th June 1996.
55 Aircraft Record History, Air Force Historical Research
Center (hereafter AFHRC) , Reference Division, Maxwell
AFB. Lynn Gamma to the author, 2.6.87, 3.
56 Air Force records show that the designation changed
to RC-135T in April 1972 but the RC-135T flight manual
dates from 5.71. Gamma letter, 3. LTV records show the
5.71 date.
57 On Open Skies and its origins, see Walt W Rostow,
Open Skies (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1982);
Sherman Adams, Firsthand Report: The Story of the
Eisenhower Administration (New York: Harper & Bros.,
1961), 87, 91; Beschloss, Mayday, 98-100; Stephen E
Ambrose, Eisenhower, vol 1/: The President (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1984),257-59. Adams and Beschloss
argue that Open Skies was the product of the Quantico
Panel convened by Eisenhower, while Ambrose claims that
Open Skies was 'Ike's' own idea. Even without the U-2 the
US clearly had the capability to conduct the Open Skies
flights, as touted by Air Force Colonel Richard S Leghorn,
an authority of aerial reconnaissance. See USAF Oral
History with Colonel Richard Leghorn, Oral History
K239.0512 1015, nd., AFHRA; Richard SLeghorn, How
Aerial Inspection Would Work, USN&WR, 29.7.55, 83; and
idem, US Can Photograph Russia From the Air Now,
USN&WR, 5.8.55, 70-75.
58 Robert S Hopkins, III, Weather Report: Open Skies,
ST,1 (3.93): 7-8; ST, 1 (9.93): 6; and Against the Wind, 143.
59 Open Skies Treaty, On-Site Inspection Agency Public
Affairs Office, Fact Sheet, 3.4.92, 1.
60 Work Starts on 'Open Skies' Boeing, FI, 3-9.2.93,16.
61 Jason Gertzen, The Russians Are Coming, OWH,
30.11.93, 8; Eugene Curtin, 'Open Skies' Gives Offutt New
Prestige, [AF], 24.11.93, 1, 17; and Michael Duhe, Multi-
Missioned: Diversity Defines 45th RS, AF, nd, 8-9.
62 East-West Settor Open Skies, FI, 17-23.1.90, 10.
63 Response from Secretary of the Air Force Office of
Public Affairs, Media Relations Division, to the author's
inquiry, 1.6.93.
64 First US Open Skies Aircraft Takes Off, JDW, 9.10.93,
24; and Open Skies Aircraft Upgraded, AFM, 7.94, 21.
65 Jeffrey M Lenorovitz, Flight Tests, Training Begin fot
Open Skies Treaty, AW&ST, 22.2.93, 57-58.
66 Stanley W Kandebo, USAF to Modify Second 'Open
Skies' WC-135 in 1994, AW&ST, 25.1093, 60; and 'Open
Skies' go Quiet, AU, 10.95, 11.
67 Opening Skies, IDR, 10.94, 5.
68 See, for example, Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet
Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin (New York: Viking,
1994),233-86. Kolyma survivors tell their tales in Magadan
by Michael Solomon (Princeton: np, 1971); Elinor Lipper,
Eleven Years in Soviet Prison Camps (Chicago: np, 1951);
Thomas Sgorio, Dear America! Why I Turned Against
Communism (npd); Nadezhda Mandlestam, Journey Into
the Whirlwind (New York, np, 1967); idem, Within the
Whirlwind (New York, np, 1981); and the compelling two
volumes by Varian Shalamov, Kolyma Tales, trans John
Glad (New York: W W Norton, 1980); and idem, Graphite
(New York: np, 1981). Historian Robert Conquest adds two
worthwhile sources with Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps
(New York: np, 1978); and idem, The Great Terror: A
Reassessment (New York: np, 1990).
69 Lenorovitz, Flight Tests, 58.
70 Ramon Lopez, KC-135 Variant Watches the Open
Skies, FI, 14-20.7.93, 16.
71 MATS History 1.1-30.6.62, vol 1, Narrative, AFHRA,
K300.01 1-6.62 v 1,74-75. The designation 'RC-135A' was
introduced in the 1962 edition of DoD Directive 4505.6,
Designation, Redesignation and Naming of Mifitary Aircraft
as a result of the purchase of these nine photo mapping
airplanes. This designation has been occasionally and
incorrectly applied to the three KC-135A-11 'Office Boy'
reconnaissance airplanes.
72 Specific Operational Requirement (SOR) 205-1
(Amendment One), 7.5.64, cited in Alton E Chamberlin, A
Mapping and Survey System Developmental Analysis (here-
after Developmental Analysis), Professional Study NoA093
(Maxwell AFB, AL: Air War College, 1970), 81; Ray E
Stratton, Curtain Calls for the Stratolifter. Second Encore:
The RC-135A, MF, 5.66,12; Gene Smith, The Positive Way
to Fight a War, MM, 1.2.70, np; Paul Kirkwood, Boeing Jet
Airliner Production List (Bedfordshire, England: privately
printed, 1987), 22.
73 Developmental Analysis, 82-83; and Alton E
Chamberlin, Supporting the One-of-a-Kind Weapon System
Professional Study NoA306 (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air War
College, 1971), passim.
74 This proficiency trainer may be the source of the occa-
sional reports suggesting the existence of five RC-135As.
KC-135As so used were 57-1483 and 57-1514 from Altus
AFB, Oklahoma, and 56-3639 from Dyess AFB, Texas.
75 RC-135A/USQ-28 Operational Test and Evaluation (Cat
'" Follow-On), MAC OTPLAN 10.1.69 (Forbes AFB, KS:
Aerial Cartographic & Geodetic Service, 1.6.70), 2 76 Ibid, 84.
77 Colonel T P Tatum, Twentieth Century Aerial Survey
System, npd. Col Tatum was the first operational comman-
der of the RC-135A squadron.
78 AN/USQ-28 Aerial Electro-Photo Mapping System
(Syosset, NY: Kollman Instrument Corporation, 1967), 3.
79 Larry Correia, 1371st Personnel in Step with the Times,
FSS, 13.10.67,6.
80 Robert G Livingston, A Modern System for Aerial
Mapping, ME, 5-6.67,172. 81 Ibid, 173. 82 Ibid, 172.
83 Fisher, Eielson Due to Get Four Overhauled 135s, 22-23.
84 Stratton, Curtain Calls for the Stratolifter. Second
Encore: The RC-135A, 12.
85 Donald, Spyplane, 47. The contract number for this
modification was AF33(657)-12648.
86 Howard Silber, Offutt's 55th SRW Gets First RC-135C,
OWH, 26.3.67, 6B.
87 Bruce M Bailey, We See All: Pictorial History of the 55th
Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (Privately printed: 1982), 244.
88 Ginn interview.
89 Nicknames, 2-3.
90 This mod was not incorporated on the RC-135S and
RC-135X.
91 Streetly, World Electronic Warfare Aircraft, 39. 92 Ibid.
93 Bailey, SIGINT, 244. 94 Ibid.
95 'Ten RC-135B Electronic Intelligence (ELI NT) Aircraft
for SAC Are Being Procured to Replace the 30 Obsolescent
RB-47Hs and ERB-47Hs Currently Performing the ELiNT
Portion of the Global Peacetime Airborne Reconnaissance
Program,' DoD, 704.64, Secret, DDRS, 1982, 1583.
96 Ginn interview. 'Office Boy' missions were originally
flown by KC-135A-lls from which the RC-135Ds were con-
verted.
97 Redesignation of K/R/C-135 Aircraft, ibid.
98 See, for example, Peacock, Super Snooper, 1046-56
passim; and Martin Streetly, US Airborne ELiNT Systems.
Part 3: The Boeing RC-135 Family, (hereafter RC-135
Family), JDW, 16.3.85,460-61. Even SAC fell prey to this
error, it directed that 59-1491 be designated an RC-135D
aimost two years after it officially became an RC-135S. This
errant change never took place. Redesignation of KIR/C-
135 Aircraft, ibid.
99 Ginn interview.
217
 100 Bailey, SIGINT, 242. 101 Ibid.
102 Uncredited comment in a review copy of the original
manuscript of this work.
103 Bailey, SIGINT, 242.
104 Ginn interview. 105 Ibid.
106 Cf Alwyn T Lloyd, Versatility Unlimited - The Boeing
KC-135 Story, AI, 12.80, 274-76, 291, with Jay Miller,
Stratotanker Special, AI, 3.81, 148.
107 Cf The Boeing C-135, 80; with Streetly, World
Electronic War/are Aircraft, 40.
108 Modification Experience, 18-19; & Service Capabilities, 2-3.
109 Letter from Bruce M Bailey, Tucson, Arizona, to the
author, 1988. 110 Ibid.
111 Peacock, Super Snooper, 1054.
112 Service Capabilities, 2-5 - 2-6.
113 Peacock, Super Snooper, 1047. 114 Ibid.
115 These airplanes have also been associated incorrect-
ly with the 'Rivet Quick' program. Streetly, World Electronic
War/are Aircraft, 41.
116 Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 97, passim. 117
Ibid, 98,108. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid, 106. The Israeli Air Force
employed these tactics with great effect in the 1982 'Peace
for Galilee' operation, using 'RC-707s' to monitor Syrian
pilot-to-ground communications. The 'RC-707s' then
directed Israeli fighters into position to attack the Syrian
MiGs even as they became airborne, accounting for, in
part, the Israelis' impressive 82-to-0 air-to-air kill ratio dur-
ing that conflict.
120 Bailey, SIGINT, 243.
121 For a brief discussion of the controversy surrounding
the efficacy of these substitutions, see ibid, 246; and the
section on the RC-135D, above.
122 376th Strategic Wing, Fact Sheet, 376th SW, Kadena
AB, Okinawa, nd.
123 'Cobra Ball' Close-up, JDW, 30.3.91, 501; William
Burrows, Deep Black: Space Espionage and National
Security (New York: Random House, 1986) 172; and
Howard Silber, Soviet Missile Testing Tied to KAL Tragedy,
OWH, 27.11.83, 1A. For a complete history of the 'Cobra
Ball' and 'Cobra Eye' programs and unit lineage, see
Robert S Hopkins III, 'Cobra Ball' and 'Cobra Eye', Alaskan
Observers, WAPJ 8 (1992): 128-39. Known 'Cobra' pro-
grams are aerial 'Cobra Jaws', 'Cobra Eye', 'Cobra Talon',
sea-based 'Cobra Judy', and ground-based 'Cobra Shoe',
'Cobra Mist', 'Cobra Dane', and 'Cobra Spot'.
124 Howard Silber, Two Major Powers Monitor Missile
Tests Closely, OWH, 20.5.84, 1A, 8A; Arkin and Fieldhouse,
Nuclear Battlefields, 256; and Bryan Hodgson, Hard
Harvest on the Bering Sea, NGeo, 10.92, 89.
125 Howard Silber, Tiny Isle Keeps Big Eye on Soviets,
OWH, 28.9.86, 1A, 10A; Arkin and Fieldhouse, Nuclear
Battlefields, 73,174; and Covault, Alaskan Tanker, 70-72.
126 On 1.4.88, the 6th SW was redesignated the 6th SRW.
The 6th SRW was inactivated on 6.6.92, and the 24th SRS
relocated to the 55th Wg at Offutt AFB and redesignated
the 24th RS. On 30.6.94, the 24th RS was inactivated and
replaced by the 45th RS.
127 New Missile Snifter, AW, 23.8.54, 41.
128 Hopkins, The 'Tell Two' Stratojets:' 18-21.
129 The 'Tell Two' serial numbers were 53-2315, 53-2316,
and 53-2320. Donald, Spyplane, 36.
130 Support of Special Collection Project, 'Nancy Rae, ibid.
131 Ginn interview.
132 The 747 was cjno 20559, registered HL7442.
133 Examples of active Soviet dezinformatsia regarding
the shoot-down include M Kalanasundaram, Flight 007
(Delhi: New Literature, 1983); Akio Takahashi, President's
Crime: Who Ordered the Espionage Flight of KAL DOl?
(Tokyo: Ninegasha, 1984); and the infamous 'P Q Mann'
essay appearing in issue No.3 (1984) of Defence Attache,
exposed by James E Oberg in Sakhalin: Sense and
Nonsense, Defence Attache, NO.1 (1985), 37-47; and
Oberg's The Sky's No Limit on Disinformation, AFM, 3-86,
52-56. For a reasonably balanced and technically accurate
analysis, see Seymour M Hersh, The Target is Destroyed
(New York: Random House, 1986).
134 Black Box Mystery, USN&WR, 24.12.90, 22; Keith
Crowden, The Korean Airliner Shootdown - New Evidence,
AN, 19.7-1.8.91, 209; MiQhael Dobbs, Soviet Journalists
Attack KAL Story, WP, 26 May 1991, pp1, 42-43; Glasnost
Gets the Story, USN&WR, 14.1.91, 19; and James Oberg,
Soviets Report: Moscow Lied About KAL 007, WSJ,
23.4.91, np. Despite these revelations, there remain a num-
ber of discrepancies regarding the official conclusions
about the events surrounding the last hours of KE007. See,
for example, the unpersuasive but nonetheless highly
provocative James Gollin, Stirring Up the Past: KAL Flight
007, IJIC 7 (Winter 1994): 445-62. I am indebted to Richard
Witkin of the New York Times for his thoughts on Gollin and
his findings.
135 USA/Soviets Test Intruder 'Hotline' (hereafter Hotline),
FI, 20.12.89-2.1.90, 8.
136 News Briefs, AW&ST, 18.12.89, 116.
137 Hotline, 8.
138 Streetly, RC-135 Family, 461. 139 Ibid, and Arkin and
Fieldhouse, Nuclear Battlefields, 74.
218
140 Richelson, American Espionage, 213-16.
141 Burrows, Deep Black, 172.
142 Archer and Bruch, Offutt's White Tops, 140.
143 David A Fulghum, 'Talon Lance' Gives Aircrews Timely
Intelligence from Space, AW&ST, 23.8.93, 70.
144 Covault, Alaskan Tanker, 70; and Archer and Bruch,
Offutt's White Tops, 140.
145 Robert S Hopkins III, Ears of the Storm, AFM, 2.92, 43.
146 David A Fulghum, Cold War Spy Aircraft Eyed for
Tactical Role, AW&ST, 11.1093, 53-54; idem, Congress to
Fight FEWS Cancellation, AW&ST, 22.11.1993, 32; idem,
'Scud' Hunting May Drop Under 10-minute Mark, AW&ST,
21.2.94, 90; idem; Pentagon Divided Over Defeating
'Scuds', AW&ST, 20.6.94, 23-24; idem, Defense Bill Raises
Future Force Concerns, AW&ST, 15.11.93, 24; Barbara
Starr, Winning the 'Scud' Wars, JDW, 19.2.94, 40; System
Upgrades for TMD Aircraft, JDW, 18.3.95, 82; and David
Fulghum & Michael Mecham, Chinese Tests Stun
Neighbors, AW&ST, 31.7.95, 23.
147 Knotts and O'Malley, 'Big Safari', 17.
148 Historical Record for Aeronautical Equipment, JKC-135A
BN-80 Boeing Airplane Company, 59-1491. There is also
some confusion over when the name 'Wanda Belle' was
introduced. Some Air Force records say that it was applied
in 1964, other Air Force records indicate between 1964 and
1966, and E-Systems records show 1966.
149 On 25.3.67, the 4157th was inactivated and replaced
by the 6th SW. The 4157th's assets, including the RC-135S,
were absorbed in situ by the 6th SW.
150 Although 6th SRW historical records show that the air-
plane was assigned to the 6th SW on 28.10.69, the air-
plane's maintenance records indicate that 61-2663 was still
undergoing test and evaluation flights by E-Systems until
11.1.70.
151 Det 1, 6th SW End of Tour Report, Col [?] Eldridge to
HQ SAC/DOR, nd, 1, 6th SRW HO.
152 Closer Look at RC-135, KF, 12.83,51.
153 Several sources refer to 'Combat Pink' as a second
name associated with the RC-135U. No public record
exists of this program, and it is believed to be the product
of an overimaginative aviation enthusiast who noted a large
pink panther painted on the nose of an RC-135U. See, for
example, references in Peacock, Super Snooper, 1047; or
Streetly, RC-135 Family, 462.
154 Jay Miller, The Convair B-58 Hust/(3r (Arlington, TX:
Aerofax, 1985), 103-105.
155 Richelson, American Espionage, 215; and Reader's
Report, KF, 2.89, 55.
156 Chernobyl's Choker, AN, 30.5-12.6.86, 43.
157 Streetly, ELiNT Elite or Outcasts? FI, 11-17.4.90, 50.
158 Crickmore, Blackbird, 14-16.
159 Bailey, SIGINT, 246.
160 Electronic Opposition Sampled Regularly, AW&ST,
10.5.76,90; Covault, Alaskan Tanker, 70-72; [Donald], RC-
135 Profile, 1721-25; and Archer and Bruch, Offutt's White
Tops, 138-39.
161 Close-up on 'Flanker' Collision over Barents Sea, JDW,
26.9.87, 659.
162 Howard Silber, SAC Spy Plane Escaped 'Kidnap',
OWH, 1.10.80, 1, 4. Whether or not the RC-135 was actu-
ally fired upon remains unverified.
163 Howard Silber, SAC's 'Big Ear' Listens in on Libyan Jet
Movements, OWH, 10.10.83, 27; and following a separate
but similar incident, George C Wilson, Despite New Details,
Libyan MiG Incident is Still Puzzling, WP, 26.3.89, A16.
164 F-14s Use Latest Electronics in EgyptAir Intercept,
AW&ST, 21.10.85, 28.
165 Howard Silber, Offutt Plane Played a Role in Jet
Intercept, OWH, 18.10.85, 1; and Wilson, Despite New
Details, Libyan MiG Incident Is Still Puzzling, A16.
166 Allies Flying Over Iraq to Enforce UN Sanctions,
AW&ST, 31.8.92, 26; Iraqi MiG Provides First AMRAAM Kill,
FI, 6-12.1.93, 10.
167 BAR, 11.94, 1098.
168 BAR,11.93, 1044; BAR, 12.94,1186.
169 Bob Archer, Operation 'EI Dorado Canyon': The United
States Attack on Libya (hereafter 'EI Dorado Canyon'), AN,
16-29.5.86, 1322-25. For a complete unclassified summary
of individual airplane operations during the attack, see
Operation 'EI Dorado Canyon', BAR, 5.86, 336-39; and
David A Fulghum, Controllers Over Haiti Ease Occupation
Chaos, AW&ST, 26.9.94, 18-19.'
170 A variety of literature, both popular and scholarly, has
begun appearing on the 1991 Gulf War. For background
reading, begin with Robert A Divine, Historians and the Gulf
War, DH 19 (Winter 1995): 117-34, a critique of the major
books written early after the end of the war. In addition to
those listed in Divine's essay, Triumph Without Victory (New
York: Random House, 1992) is useful but premature. Rick
Atkinson's Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gull
War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993) is well written and
insightful, but has its critics. Countless articles and books
have since been written on the military conduct of the war,
but the definitive source remains the Gulf War Air Power
Survey (GWAPS).
171 GWAPS, V, A Statistical Compendium, 4, 56, 58; ibid,
Chronology, 10, 16-17, 19,64,122,132,144.
172 Michael Russell Rip and David P Lusch, The Precision
ReVOlution: The Navstar Global Positioning System in the
Second Gulf War, INS 9 (April 1994): 203; Conduct of the
Persian Gulf War, 117; and GWAPS, IV, Weapons, Tactics,
and Training, 181-82.
173 Desert Storm. BAR, July 1991, 478; Hopkins, Ears of
the Storm, 38-42; GWAPS, I, Command and Control, 328;
ibid, V, Chronology, 156; and letter from Captain Richard P
Schwing, ST, 9.93, 12.
174 GWAPS, IV, Weapons, Tactics, & Training, 98. 175 Ibid,
II, Operations, 109. 176 Ibid, 233; and ibid, III, Logistics,
206. 177 Ibid, V, A Statistical Compendium, 364, 614; and
letter from Captain Richard P Schwing, ST, 7.93, 6.
178 Congress, House, Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Intelligence Successes and Failures in Operations 'Desert
Shield/Storm', 103rd Cong, 1st sess, 1993, Committee Print
5, pp4, 28.
179 Archer and Bruch, Offutt's White Tops, 138.
180 The 'Ten High' contract was NO.F33600-85-G-5007.
181 Although 63-9792 was converted into an RC-135V
after 64-14841 , the former was converted from an RC-135U .
while the latter was the last to be converted directly from an
RC-135C.
182 Archer, 'EI Dorado Canyon', 1324.
183 BAR, 12.88, 896.
184 Landing Gear Injures Two Flight Inspectors at Offutt,
LJS, 26.2.93, np.
185 Archer, 'EI Dorado Canyon', 1324; and Operation 'EI
Dorado Canyon', 336-339.
186 Archer, 'EI Dorado Canyon', 1324.
187 Brent Doyle, 6th SRW Crew Earns Accolades (here-
after Accolades), GP, 23.2.90, 4.
188 Covault, Alaskan Tanker, 70-72.
189 A Boeing 767 was in use with the SDIO as the Army's
Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA) , a corollary program and
should not be confused with the proposed OAMP 767.
190 Peacock, Super Snooper, 1046-56.
19~ 'Cobra Eye', AW&ST, 2.1.89, 23.
192 Covault, Alaskan Tanker, 70; 'Cobra Eye', ibid; and
Arkin and Fieldhouse, Nuclear Battlefields, 256.
193 Doyle, Accolades, 4. 194 Ibid. 195 Ibid.
196 SOl Sensor Delivered, FI, 10.9.88, 57.
197 Covault, Alaskan Tanker, 70.
198 Optical Aircraft Measurement Program, Ball
Aerospace Systems Group, Electro-Optics/Cryogenics
Division, Boulder, Colorado. Fact Sheet No.690, nd.
199 Flight Projects, Discrimination Tests Support Sensor
Development in 1988, AW&ST, 1.2.88, 44.
200 Covault, Alaskan Tanker, 70.
201 Theresa M Foley, Scientists Urge New Stance on SOl
Testing in US-Soviet Arms Talks, AW&ST, 14.9.87, 30-31;
and ABM Treaty Question Raised by Tracking Device, WP,
13.5.90, pA7.
202 'Cobra Bal/' Returns to 'National' Intelligence, JDW,
1.4.95,4.
203 The Boeing C-135, 81.
204 William M Holden, Along the Ptarmigan Track, BM, npd, 7.
205 Chernobyl's Choker, 43.
206 For example, WC-135Bs participate in 'Constant Fish',
a special operation flown against foreign atmospheric and
underground nuclear tests. Aerial Sampling Operations, Air
Force Technical Applications Center Regulation 55-3, 22
10.82; quoted in Richelson, US Intelligence Community, 159.
207 Stephen E Behr, Air Rescue Service, MF, 12.89, 18.
208 John Boatman, C-135 'Sniffer' May Have Charted
Nuclear Test, JDW, [Oct?] 1993, np.
209 Holden, Along the Ptarmigan Track, 6-7.
210 Dick J Burkard, Military Airlift Command: Historical
Handbook 1941-1984 (ScottAFB, IL: Office of the Historian,
Military Airlift Command, 1984),15.
211 While conducting operations during Soviet ballistic
missile test launches into the Pacific Ocean in 1987, the
crew of a WC-135 'reported being affected by what
appeared to be a laser beam and the co-pilot was exam-
ined for eye damage - this was later found to be inconse-
quential.' The laser involved is believed to have been part of
a ship-based air defense system. Hugh Lucas, Soviet Anti-
armour Laser in Operation, Says USA, JDW: 31.10.87, 983.
212 Michael Yaffee, Bendix Begins Work on Weather
System, AW, 6.10.58, 80-87.
213 ASD's modification center at Wright-Patterson AFB
conducted the 'Star Cast' modification. See Reader's
Report, KF, 3.89, 57.
214 Behr, Air Rescue Service, 18.
215 Jim Dunn, Nouvelle Mission Pour Ie 55th WRS, AF,
6.89,40. 216 Ibid; and KF, 3.89, ibid.
217 Lloyd, Versatility Unlimited, 276. Two Boeing 707 in-
flight trainers were subsequently used in lieu of 61-2667.
218 BAR, 5.89, 381.
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Mission-Design-Series (MDS) List
No endnotes.
 Appendix B
Attrition
1 Crew, Aircraft Missing, Coastai Search Underway, GP,
1.3.85, 1; FR, 5-3-5-4; and MLS Proves its Worth, FI, 3.3.84,
567.
2 FR, 5-6; and Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 125.
3 FR, 5-8; and Hopkins, SAC Tankw Operations, 125.
4 FR, 5-9. 5 Ibid, 5-10; LXM, 9.8.62, 1; and BDM, 9.8.62, 1.
6 FR, 5-11; Three Killed in Crash of Air Force Tanker,
FDNM, 4.10.89,13; Dean Rhodes and Debra Sund, Loring
Tanker Explodes in Air: KC-135 Crash Kills Three Crewmen;
One Still Missing, BDN, 5.10.89, 1, 3; Debra Sund and
Dean Rhodes, Probe of Tanker Explosion Intensifies: Body
of Fourth Crewman Found; Crash Theory Taking Shape,
BDN, 6.10.89, 1-2; KC-135s Grounded for Inspections,
FDNM, 6-7.10.89, 1, 8; Julian Moxon, USAF Hit By New KC-
135 Explosion, FI, 14.10.89, 12; USAF KC-135 Tanker
Crashes, JDW, 14.10.89, 765; Steve Weber, Four Crewmen
Killed in KC-135 Explosion, AFT, 16.10.89, 12; Aerospace
World, AFM, 12.89, 32; and Fuel Pump Cited in KC-135
Crash, AFT, 26.3.90, 69.
7 FR, 5-12; Stephen M Morisette, Lest We Forget, FS,
9.87,10-11.
8 FR,5-12.
9 Ibid, 5-13-5-14; Jet Tanker on Speed Test Crashes; 15
Reported Dead, NYT, 27.6.58, 1, 14; Retired General in
Tanker Crash: Ginsbergh was on Staffs of Four Defense -
Air Leader Aboard, NYT, 27.6.58, 14; Crashed After Take-
Off, NYT, 28.6.58, 3; Kenneth Love, Two Jet Tankers Set
Atlantic Mark After 15 Die in Crash of a Third, NYT, 28.6.58,
1,3; Six Newsmen Dead in Tanker Crash: Victims Also
Include Chief of SAC Unit, Air Expert and Retired General,
NYT, 28.6.58, 3; Wreckage of US Jet That Fell After Take-
Off; Victims of Crash, NYT, 28.6.58, 3; Hard to Fix Crash
Cause, NYT, 30.6.58, 6; Memorial Services Held, NYT,
30.6.58, 6; 45 Seconds to Death, TM, 7.7.58, 13; Crash
Report is Issued: Board Rules Out Malfunction in Fall of Jet
With 15, NYT, 1.10.58, 27; Possible Pilot Error Suggested in
KC-135 Record-Attempt Crash, AW, 6.10.58, 33; and
Complications of Airplane Handling Led to Airplane Crash,
AW, 13.10.58, 111, 113.
10 FR, 5-14.11 Ibid, 5-15. 12 Ibid.
13 FR,5-17.
14 Ibid; 5-19; Jack Pearce, Jet Tanker Smashes Two
Others: Five Figured Dead in Fire, RDR, 3.2.60, 1, 2; Air
Force Crash Kills Five: Jet Stratotanker Goes Out of Control
at New Mexico Field, NYT, 4.2.60, 11; Grim Search
Continues in Base Hangar's Debris: Six Men Known Dead;
At Least Two Missing, RDR, 4.2.60, 1,2; and Base Tragedy
Toll Mounts as Two Found Dead, RDR, 5.2.60, 1.
15 FR, 5-20; and Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 125.
16 FR, 5-23; and 'Pacer Fin', 32.
17 FR, 5-24. 18 Ibid, 5-25-5-26.
19 Ibid, 5-27-5-28; McConnell AFB: A Historical
Perspective (McConnell AFB, KS: Office of the Historian,
n.d.), 7, 37-38; Air Force Jet Crashes into Wichita Homes,
Killing 30, NYT, 17.1.65, 1, 30; Inquiries Started in Wichita
Crash: Pilot May Have Attempted to Land in Vacant Field,
NYT, 18.1.65, 72; and Cord is Found in Jet Plane's Engine
in Wichita Crash, NYT, 20.1.65,17.
20 FR, 5-28-5-29; Jet Crashes on Car, OT, 19.5.66, np;
John R Keel, Jet Tanker Crashes at Kadena, SS, 19.5.66,
np; Kadena Airplane Crash Starts Political Protest, OT,
20.5.66, np; KC-135 Crash at Kadena, SS, 21.5.66, np;
Villagers Protest Crash, OMS, 30.5.66, 2; and SAC Names
Nine Men in Kadena Crash, aT, nd, np.
21 FR, 5-29; Fire at Walker, RDR, 22.6.59, 1; and Walker
Is Baffled About Jet Tanker Explosion Yesterday, RDR,
23.6.59, np.
22 FR, 5-30; Pearce, ibid; Air Force Crash, ibid; Grim
Search, ibid; 'Base Tragedy', ibid. 23 Ibid.
24 FR,5-31-5-32.
25 Six Killed as Military Tanker Explodes in Milwaukee,
NYT, 11.12.93,8; BAR, 11.93, 1097; BAR, 12.93, 1202; ST,
5.93,5; ST, 7.93, 8; and ST, 9.93, 8, 15.
26 FR, 5-33; In the Inferno, FDNM, 21.9.89, 1; Two Killed
as Blasts Rip Eielson Plane: KC-135 Was Parked on
Taxiway, FDNM, 21.9.89, 1; Two Killed in Tanker Explosion,
GP, 22.9.89, 1; Susan Fischer, Eielson Due to Get Four
Overhauled 135s, FDNM, 22-23.9.89, 7; Brian O'Donoghue,
North Pole Guardsman Mourned as Family Man, FDNM, 22-
23.9.89, 7; Numerous Explosions Shook KC-135,
Commander Says, FDNM, 22-23.9.89, 1; and News Briefs,
AW&ST, 25.9.89, 32; Julian Moxon, USAF Hit By New KC-
135 Explosion, FI, 14.10.89, 12; and Aerospace World,
AFM, 12.89,32.
27 FR, 5-34-5-35; Midair Collision Kills Six, CCP, 14.3.82,
1A, 2A; and Military Flight Safety: 1982 Reviewed, FI,
29.1.83, 269.
28 FR,5-36.
29 Ibid, 5-37; and KC-135 Falls; Pilot is Dead, OWH,
5.3.74, np; McConnell AFB: A Historical Perspective, 9.
30 FR, 5-39; B-52, With Atom Bomb, Crashes in Kentucky,
NYT, 16.10.58, 13; Two Nuclear Weapons Recovered After
Air Collision, NYT, 17.10.58, 48; and Hansen, US Nuclear
Weapons, 228.
/'
31 FR,5-43.
32 The Boeing C-135, 78; and FR, 5-44.
33 Ibid, 5-47-5-48; and Fifteenth Air Force History (March
AFB, CA: Office olthe Historian, 15th Air Force, 1968), 145-46.
34 FR, 5-48-5-50; James Litke, Jet Crash Site Yields 27
Bodies: Military Aircraft Exploded in Midair, CCP, 21.3.82,
3A, 5A; and Military Flight Safety: 1982 Reviewed, FI,
29.1.83, 269.
35 FR, 5-51. 36 Ibid, 5-52.
37 FR,5-57.
38 Ibid, 5-59; AP, Jet Tanker Crash Kills Five of Crew, 20
9/79.
39 FR,5-61.
40 Ibid, 5-63-5-64; Kenneth Zimmerman, Air Force In-
quirers Checking Plane Crash, OWH, 18.7.67, 1; and Smoke,
Flames Mark Scene After Jet Crash, OWH, 18.7.67, 8m.
41 FR,5-66-5-67.
42 Ibid, 5-67; Tanker Plane Explodes, FDNM, 11.1.90, 1;
KC-135 Explodes, JDW, 20.1.90, 91; KC-135E Explodes at
Pease, AFT, 22.1.90, 2; Casualties, FI, 24-30.1.90, 12;
Aerospace News, AFM, 3.90, 27; Write Offs, AM, 4.90, 52;
and Aerospace News, AFM, 5.90, 28.
43 FR, 5-71; Air Force Plane Crash Kills Six Crewmen,
FDNM, 12.10.88, np; Six Die in Air Force Crash, BCT,
12.10.88, np; and Military Casualties - 1988, FI, 13.5.89, 42.
44 FR, 5-72-5-74; Michael J Breslin, KC-135 Accident
Injures Seven, GY, 20.2.87, 1; and Military Flight Safety -
1987 Reviewed, FI, 14.5.88, 41.
45 FR,5-74-5-75.
46 Ibid, 5-75; and News Digest, AW&ST, 13.7.64,26.
47 All 44 Feared Dead In SAC Jet Crash Outside of
Spokane, NYT, 11.9.62, 1, 23; 44 Found Dead in US Jet
Crash, NYT, 12.9.62,79; and FR, 5-75. 48 Ibid, 5-76.
49 Ibid, 5-77; KC-135 Crash Claims Six Lives, KT, 14.3.87,
1; SAC Could Continue Aerial Demonstrations, FT, 20.5.87,
1, 6; Jim Camden, Aerial Team Formed After Budget
Crunch, SR, 21.5.87, 1, A7; Military Flight Safety- 1987, 41;
AP, Report Says KC-135 Flying Too Low, Slow, npd; AP, Six
Killed in Tanker Plane Crash, npd; and AP, Tanker Flew Too
Low, Inquiry on Crash Finds, npd.
50 Gladwin Hill, 84 in Military Jet Die in Coast Crash:
Transport Hits Mountain - 72 Marines Aboard Were Bound
for Vietnam Duty, NYT, 26.6.65, 1,6; Tape May Provide
Plane Crash Clue: Pilot May Have Prevented Plunge Into
Orange, NYT, 27.6.65, 55; FR, 5-79; and History RCS, 63-68.
51 FR,5-81.
52 Ibid; Hansen, US Nuclear Weapons, 224, 226, 229;
and Lewis, One of Our H-Bombs is Missing, 1-14.
53 FR, 5-85; Seven Empty Chairs at Offutt Tell Story of
Crash, OWH, 27.9.76, np; and Crash Study to Take [?],
OWH, 28.9.76, np.
54 FR, 5-86; Hopkins, SAC Tanker Operations, 125.
55 FR,5-87.
56 Ibid, 5-88; Bill Bloss, Two Air 7;ankers Missing, NL,
29.8.63, 1,2; Debris Studied; Search Goes On, NL, 3.9.63,
1; Interminable Waiting, NL, 3.9.63,1; and Debris From Two
Planes is Returned, NL, 5.9.63, 1. 57 Ibid.
58 FR, 5-89; Chip Brown and Neil Henry, A Red and
Orange Ball Just Hanging in the Fog, WP, 7.5.81, C1-C2;
Douglas B Feaver and Sandra G Boodman, Tracking Jet
Explodes Over Md; 21 Killed, WP, 7.5.81, 1-2; Chip Brown
and Neil Henry, Remains of 21 Victims of AF Crash Found;
Identification Starts, WP, 8.5.81, B1-B2; Douglas B Feaver,
Investigators Rule Out Sabotage, Collision in Md Plane
Crash, WP, 10.5.81, C1, C6; Boeing EC-135NA [sic]
Crashes, AW&ST, 11.5.81, 29; EC-135N Aircraft Returned
to Operations, AW&ST, 18.5.81,20; Pitch Trim Cited in EC-
135N Crash, AW&ST, 22.6.81,30; Air Force EC-135N Crash
Investigated, AW&ST, 3.8.81, 57-59; Air Force EC-135N
Crash Analyzed by Readers, AW&ST, 28.9.81, 96; Military
Flight Safety: 1981 Reviewed, FI, 9.1.82, 80; Way, Way Off in
the Wild Blue Yonder, TM, 29.5.95, 33; and Against the
Wind,73.
59 FR, 5-89; AP, C-135 Carrying 24 Missing in Pacific,
14.6.71 ; Jet Transport Missing In Flight Over Pacific, NYT,
14.6.71, 13; Pacific Search Plane Spots Debris, NYT,
15.6.71, 85; AP, Missing C135 [sic] Hunt Abandoned,
18.6.71; AP, Jury Grants $20 Million to Crash Victims'
Families, 26.5.80; Wrongful Death Found in 1971 Spy Plane
Crash, NYT, 29.5.80, np; Cambridge Chronology, 54; and
Against the Wind, 61 .
60 74 Die as US Military Jet Crashes in Philippines, NYT,
12.5.64, 1, 75; Toll in Air Force Crash in Philippines Rises to
77, NYT, 13.5.64, 94; Philippine Air Toll Now 78, NYT,
18.5.64, 8; and FR, 5-89.
61 Ibid; Three From Eielson Plane Die in Crash in
Aleutians, FDNM, 16.3.81, 1; Bill Crampton, Five Men Killed
in Plane Crash at Shemya, FDNM, 17.5.81, 3; Lorenzo D
Harris, Ordinary Men of Stone, AZ, 12.82, 6-11; and John L
Frisbee, Chivalry at Shemya, AFM, 12.89, 103. 62 Ibid, 5-95.
63 FR,5-96; and 20 Persons Die in Jet Crash in
Albuquerque, RDR, 15.9.77, np.
64 FR, 5-101-5-102; and Plane From Offutt Overshoots
Runway; 14 Hurt, OWH, 30.5.92, np.
65 FR, 5-103; Seven Air Force Crewmen Killed as Jet
Crashes at Guantanamo Naval Base: Craft Took Off For
Cuba From McGuire Field, CCP, 24.10.62, 1; and Stanley M
Ulanoff, MATS: The Story of the Military Air Transport
Service (New York: Franklin Watts, 1964) 41, 120.
66 FR, 5-103; Crew Listed 19 Men, Search Efforts Fail,
npd., 6.6.69; Wide Search for Missing AF Plane; Signal
Detected During the Night, FDNM, 6.6.69, 1; No Trace of
Missing Plane, FDNM, 7.6.69, 1; No Word on Missing
Plane; Crewmembers are Listed, npd, 7.6.69; Search
Continues for Missing SAC Aircraft, ET, 12.6.69, 1; and 6th
SW Remembers Rivet Amber Crew, GP, 12.6.87, 1.
67 FR, 5-105; Grissom KC-135 Crashes in Panama, KT,
17.6.86,1; Board to Probe Crash, KT, [18.6] 1986,1; and
Military Flight Safety - 1986 Reviewed, FI, 16.5.87, 40.
68 FR,5-106.
69 Ibid; SAC Tanker Crashes During Take-off: 2nd Recent
Incident at Texas Base, OWH, 1.2.89, np; 19 on Jet Tanker
Die in Fiery Texas Crash, CT, 1.2.89, 12; SAC Releases
Names of 17 Crash Victims, OWH, 2.2.89, 10; Casualties,
FI, 18.2.89, 9; Joe Brennan, Air Force Finds No Error by
Crew: January Jet Crash Blamed on Several Factors, OWH,
30.6.89,16; Julie Bird, Engine System Suspected in KC-135
Crash: Winds, Weight, Crew Also Cited as Factors in Crash
Killing 19, AFT, 10.7.89, 10; and KC-135 Crash Report,
JDW, 29.7.89,156.
70 FR, 5-111; Roy Carbine, Tanker Explodes Near WAFB;
Five Victims of Crash All 6th ARS Crewmen; Malar Phil
Mahler Crew is Involved, RDR, 4.6.65, 1; and Roy Carbine,
35-Man Team Combs Debris: Investigation of KC-135
Tanker Crash Continues, RDR, 5.6.65, np.
71 FR, 5-114; Un Avian Ravitailleur KC-135 De I'Armee de
I'Air Franqaise s'Abime Dans Ie Pacifique, LM, 2-3.7.72, 8;
Dorr, Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, 87; and Jean-Michel
Guhl, Un Onze de Choc, AF, 12.86,23.
72 Eight Crewmen Lost in Fueling Crash, NYT, 27.2.65, 8;
and FR, 5-115.
Appendix D
Retirements
No end notes.
Appendix E
Units
No end notes.
Appendix F
Records and Special Achievements
1 LeMay Flying Jet Tanker to Argentina Seeking
Nonstop, Nonrefueling Record, NYT, 12.11.57, 33; Edward
R Murrow, LeMay Flies Jet Tanker to Argentina; Three
Bombers Cross Pacific Nonstop, NYT, 13.11.57, 1, 4; KC-
135 Sets Distance Record, AW 18.11.57, 33; and
November Anniversaries, AFM, 11.87, 33.
2 LeMay Papers, box B185.
3 For an interesting assessment of 'Sputnik's' effect on
US policy, culture, and society, see Divine, The Sputnik
Challenge.
4 AFOOP Memo for VCoS, Subject: (Confidential)
Record Attempt Using a KC-135 Aircraft, 2.11.57, LeMay
Papers, box B185; LeMay and Kantor, Mission With LeMay,
517.
5 LeMay Papers, box B185.
6 Castle Crews, 1. Participating 93rd BW KC-135As
were 55-3127, 55-3128, 55-3129, 55-3130, 55-3131 (spare),
55-3132, 55-3138, and 55-3141. This article also lists the
participating crewmembers by airplane. Earlier, on 13.11,
three TAC B-66 Destroyers flew nonstop with air refueling
from the west coast of the US to the Philippines. Again, the
message was clear: American strategic and tactical bomb-
ing capacity was global and was available immediately.
7 H R Gillman, Gen Director, Federation Aeronautique
Internationale, Paris, to C S Logsdon, Executive Secretary,
Nationai Aeronautic Association, Washington, DC, 8.7.58,
certifying the record; and April Anniversaries, AFM, 4.88,
30. The distance record was previously established by
General LeMay in Operation 'Long Legs'.
8 Jet Tanker Takes Off in Japan for Non-Stop Flight to
Madrid, NYT, 8.4.58, 12.
9 Jet Tanker Covers 10,233 Miles From Tokyo to Azores
Non-Stop, NYT, 9.4.58, 5; and Plane Near Albuquerque,
NYT, 8.4.58, 12.
10 Jet Tanker Saluted by its Crew Here for Record Flight,
NYT, 12.4.58, 8.
11 2d US Plane Attempts Tokyo-Madrid Flight, NYT,
13.4.58,27; and Plane Turns Back on Non-Stop Flight, NYT,
14.4.58,6.
12 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 111.
13 Jet Tanker Claims a Record, NYT, 14.6.58,44.
14 H R Gillman, General Dir, Federation Aeronautique
Internationale, Paris, to C S Logsdon, Executive Secretary,
National Aeronautic Association, Washington, DC, 7.8.58,
certifying the record; KC-135 Atlantic Records, npd, 4 .7.58;
Turbojet Tanker, AO, 4.7.58, 4; KC-135 Sets New Record,
AW, 7.7.58, 37; and History of the 4050th AREFW, 1
June-31 July 1958, AFHRA K WG-REF-4050-HI, Jun~Jul
58,18-19.
15 McElroy in Hawaii: Makes Nonstop Flight From Capital
219
in Jet Tanker, NYT, 12.7.58, 34.
16 Gen LeMay Sets Jet Speed Record, FT, 26.9.58, 1.
17 LeMay Seeks Record on Japan-US Flight, NYT,
12.9.58, 3; and LeMay Beats Clock and Calendar, NYT,
13.9.58,2.
18 LeMay Flies Pacific: California-New Zealand Hop
Done Non-Stop in KC-135, NYT, 27.3.58, 3; Tanker in Non-
Stop Flight, NYT, 4.4.58, 42; LeMay Record Recalls Odom's
Trip Jet Sets Record in Hop to Capital, and LeMay Sets Jet
Record in Island-Capital Hop, LeMay Papers, box B185;
and LeMay in Jet to Belgium, NYT, 28.6.58, 3.
19 H R Gillman, Gen Director, Federation Aeronautique
Internationale, Paris, to C S Logsdon, Executive Secretary,
National Aeronautic Association, Washington, DC,
27.11.58, certifying the record; Development of SAC, 75;
Jet Tanker to Seek Record: Fairchild Crew Set for Trial,
SDC, 18.9.58, 1; US Jet Sets Nine Marks: Tanker Breaks
Two Soviet Records in its Flight, NYT, 20.9.58, 38; Fairchild
Jet Tanker Smashes Speed Marks, SDC, nd, 1; FAFB KC-
135 Sets Nine Records Breaking Two World Speed Marks,
FT, 26.9.58, 1, 12; and KC-135 'Queen of Inland Empire'
Sets Nine Speed-Distance Records, AFT, 15.10.58, np.
20 H R Gillman, Gen Director, Federation Aeronautique
Internationale, Paris, to C S Logsdon, Executive Secretary,
National Aeronautic Association, Washington, DC,
By installing a probe and drogue IFR system on
the 'flying boom', the Stratotanker fleet gained
the ability to refuel aircraft from the US Navy
and Marine Corps and allied nations. An ANG
KC·135R is pictured from a US Navy Grumman
EA-6B Prowler during 'hook.up' in August 1992.
220
26.11.58, certifying the record; Hopkins and Goldberg,
Development of SAC, 75; and Plane Lift Record Set: Air
Force Jet Tops Russian Mark with 77,350 Pounds, NYT,
25.9.58,9.
21 C-135 Sets Record in Flight to Germany, SS, 12.1.62, np.
22 History of the 1501st ATW, 1-6.62,70; MATS History,
1.1.--30.6.62, 38; United States Air Force Jet Sets Ten
Records, Press Release R-42-62, 18.4.62, MATS, Scott
AFB, Illinois, 1-4. New Cargo Champ, [AFM], npd; and
Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1963-1964 (London: Jane's
Publishing Co., 1964), 183-184.
23 MATS Jet Ambulance Sets Record, MATS Press
Release R-49-62, 2.5.62, Scott AFB, Illinois, 2.5.62, 1;
MATS Air Evac Flight Flies Pacific Nonstop, MATS News
Service Release 62-18, 3.5.62, 3-4; Air Force to Speed
Hospital Flights, NYT, 29.4.62, 83; and MATS History,
1. 1-30.6.62, 38-39.
24 McGuire C-135B Claims Record, AFT, 31.10.62, np;
and C-135Bs to Provide Airlift For UN Forces in Congo,
AFT, 31.10.62, np.
25 MATS C-135 Sets Transport Distance Record, MATS
Press Release R-20-63, 21.2.63, Scott AFB, Illinois, 1.
26 MATS C-135 Aircraft Sets Cargo Jet Record, KP,
1.3.63, np.
27 MATS C-135 Sets Transport Distance Record, 1.
An occasional by product of the probe and
drogue system was the recipient getting more
than just fuel. US Navy KA-6D Intruder tanker in
September 1984 with a KC-135 'basket' still
attached to Its IFR probe after a 'passin' gas'
exercise went wrong. Both Rick Morgan
28 Jeffrey P Rhodes, Higher, Faster, Farther, AFM, 1.89,89.
29 Marcus T Moss, 16 Records in One Day, CC, 6.89, 5-6.
30 Tim Kurtz, SAC Teams Join Forces to Topple Aviation
Records, RR, 23.11.88, 1-2; Rhodes, Higher, Faster,
Farther, 87-88; and Aerospace World, AFM, 2.89, 25-26.
31 KC-135R Displays Global Reach, AFM, 3.93, 14-15;
and Altus KC-135 Crew Sets World Record, TP, 8.11.93, 8.
32 Hopkins & Goldberg, Development of SAC, 145-146.
33 Although this is the first recorded case of a triple refu-
eling involving a KC-135 in a combat situation, it was not
the first case of multiple simultaneous refuelings, which
were infrequent but not unheard of, particularly in the US
Navy. In 1958, for exam pie, the Navy demonstrated
quadruple aerial refueling: a North American FJ-4B Fury
refueled a McDonnell F3H-2N Phantom that refueled a
Douglas A4D-2 Skyhawk refueling another A4D-2. Chain
Refueling, AW, 18.8.58,99.
34 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 257.
35 Ibid, 271; and Aerospace World, AFM, 9.86, 47-8.
36 Miller, Convair 8-58, 58. 37 Ibid, 59-60.
38 Hopkins and Goldberg, Development of SAC, 111.
39 Ibid, 172.40 Ibid, 231-232, 235.
The Royal International Air Tattoo 97, held 19-2Oth
July at RAF Falrford, included a tribute to the
USAF on Its 50th Anniversary - plus the bi·
annual meeting of world-wide 'tiger' squadrons.
KC-135R 59-1456 of 141st ARS, New Jersey
ANG, was the largest 'Tiger 97' exhibit. MAP
\.
.~
\
"--..;::]

I~I
In 1982, American author Jay Miller
published his first major book, the
AeroGraph on the F-16, since when
there has been aflow of widely
acclaimed books from the Aerofax line.
After many years acting as the Euro-
pean distributors for Aerofax, Midland
Publishing has acquired the rights to
this series, and many new titles are in
preparation, compiled by atalented
team of internationally known authors.
Some continue to be produced for
Midland by Jay Miller in the USA, but
are now augmented by others originat-
ed both in the UK and USA.
These softback volumes are full of
authoritative text, detailed photographs,
plus line drawings. They also contain
some colour and cockpits, control
panels and other interior detail are well
illustrated in most instances.
The previous categories of AeroGraph,
DataGraph, MiniGraph, and Extra are
being dropped; all new titles are simply
pUblishM as 'Aerofax' books. Some of
the other new titles in the series are
outlined alongside and below.
A listing of other titles still in print is
available upon request.
LOCKHEED MARTIN'S
SKUNK WORKS
The First Fifty Years (Revised Edition)
Jay Miller
SKUNK ~
WORKS
Ir-:---:------'=~
LYJJ
An updated edition of the original
t 994 'Lockheed's Skunk Works' -
written with the total co-operation of
Lockheed Martin's Advanced Devel-
opment Company. In a major 'pulling
back' of the veil of secrecy, official
histories of such products as the
U-2, A-12, 0-21, SR-71, and F-117
are finally brought to light.
This is the closest thing yet to a
definitive history of this most enig-
matic aircraft design and production
facility.
Soltback, 305 x 229 mm, 216 pages
479 b/w and 28 colour photos
1 85780 037 0 £19.95/ US $29.95
Aerofax
CONVAIR B-58 HUSTLER
The World's First Supersonic Bomber
Jay Miller
Convair B-58
Hustler
The world's IIrsl Sllpot50111e bomber
J1t'fMUlel
1===~-~====9
Instantly recognisable with its delta
wing and 'Coke bottle' area-ruled fuse-
lage the B-58 was put into production
for the US Air Force in the 1950s.
First published in 1985, this is a
revised edition, which takes a retro-
spective in-depth look at this significant
aircraft, from design studies, through
its development and comparatively
short service life, to and beyond retire-
ment. It includes yet more amazing
material, bringing the story up to date,
and 80 new illustrations.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 152 pages
415 b/w, 14 colour, 100 line iIIusts.
1 857800583 £16.95/ US $27.95
Aerofax
Northrop B-2
SPIRIT (Revised Edition)
...............•...
Jay Miller
Northrop B-2
Spirit
Tho history and teel'lnology 01 tho U.s. Air force's
exlrllordlnllry Stoalth Bomber
1====~=====9
Northrop's unique flying wing B-2
Stealth bomber is a surefire eyecatcher
because of its radical shape, but has
become a political hot potato, with the
enormous development costs now to
be spread across a production run of
only 20 aircraft Instead of the originally
envisaged 133. This book is a much
revised edition of an 'Aerofax Extra' last
published in 1991. ~ reviews all aspects
of the program, includes 3-view draw-
ings, colour illustrations of the B-2's
flight deck and many other close-ups.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 40 pages
100 b/w and 10 col photos, diagrams
1 857800397 £7.95/$12.95
Aerofax
GRUMMAN F-14 TOMCAT
Leading US Navy Fleet Fighter
Dennis RJenkins
Grumman F-14
Tomcat
us Navy FICHlt Ocloense Fighter
DcInnlsR.k)nkms
F=====~====9
Entering US Navy service in 1972, the
Tomcat is one of the classic jet fighters
of all time - and is inescapably linked
with the film 'Top Gun'. It remains a
formidable weapon system and is in
widespread frontline use with America's
carrier air wings. This work describes
all variants, including the so-called
'Bombcat' attack version and the very
capable F-14D. Colour schemes, air-
craft production details, squadrons and
markings, are all covered, also close-
up details of cockpits and weaponry.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 88 pages
151 b/w, 39 colour, 22 line illustrations
1 85780 063 X £12.95 / US $21.95
Aerofax
LOCKHEED Martin F-117
NIGHTHAWK (Revised Edition)
Jay Miller'
Lockheed Martin
F-117 Nighthawk
The history and technology 01 the U.S. Air Force's
tllctraordlnarySlcallhFigtlter
JayMHler
This is a much modified, updated and
improved edition of an 'Aerofax Extra'
last published in 1991. Every element
of this complex Stealth fighter is given
an in-depth study, both in narrative and
in the famed' Aerofax' close-in views.
Scale perspective illustrations are pro-
vided for both the F-117 and the 'Have
Blue' (or XST) predecessor.
Development as a 'Black' project is
dealt with authoritatively, tracing the
programme from its covert days to its
pivotal contribution in Desert Storm.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 48 pages
106 b/w and 23 col photos, diagrams
1 857800389 £7.95/ US $12.95
Aerofax
TUPOLEV Tu-95/Tu-142
'BEAR'
Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant
Tupolev
Tu-95/·142 'Bear'
Russll\'S Intercontlnentat·Range Heavy Somber
V.tlm Gordon and Vladimir Rlgmant
I=====~==='--=i
During the 'Cold War', Tupolev's Tu-95
'Bear' strategic bomber provided an awe-
some spectacle. It was the mainstay of
the USSR's strike force, a reliable and
adaptable weapons platform. Additional
roles included electronic/photographic
reconnaissance and maritime patrol,
AEW and command and control.
The author has had unparalleled
access to the Tupolev OKB archives,
taking the lid off a story previously full
of speculation. Acomprehensive work
on afascinating aircraft.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 128 pages
256 b/w, 28 colour photos, 52 drwgs
1 85780046 X £14.95/US $24.95
We hope you enjoyed
this book ...
Aerofax and Midland Publishing
titles are edited and designed by
an experienced and enthusiastic
trans-Atlantic team of specialists.
Further titles are in preparation but
we always welcome ideas from
authors or readers for books they
would like to see published.
In addition, our associate company,
Midland Counties Publications,
offers an exceptionally wide range
of aviation, spaceflight, astronomy,
military, naval and transport books
and videos for sale by mail-order
around the world. For a copy of the
appropriate catalogue, or to order
further copies of this book, and any
of the titles mentioned elsewhere on
this page, please write, telephone,
fax or e-mail to:
Midland Counties Publications
Unit 3 Maizefield,
Hinckley, Leics, LE10 1YF.
England
Tel: (+44)01455233747
Fax: (+44) 01455 233 737
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
Distribution in the USA by
Specialty Press - see page 2.
221
 /
rr
Index 1
I~

Ablay, Temur 205 123,126-128 B-47 Stratojet 19, 22-23, 26-28, 33, Phase VI testing 35, 37-38

I
Accelerated Copilot Enrichment 63 Airbus 51-52,56,114,187,192 Pilot impressions 41
'Achieve' 116 A300B4 76 Tanker variant 26 Production problems 38-39, 41
Achille Lauro, SS 150 A310 70,76 EB-47E(TT) 108,147,152 Re-engining 40
ADC Blink Jammer 89, 90, 102 CC-150 Polaris 70 EB-47L Radio relay 114-115,119,123 Replacement airframe 66, 76
Advanced Air Refueling Boom 102, 106 'Airlift Rodeo' 206 RB-47 55,136,144,157 Simulator 31, 55, 66
Advanced Avionics System 91 Airspeed Courier 17 B-50 6,17-20,22,28,101 Static test article 31-32
Advanced Cruise Missile 95
Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft 89,
Alert force
Airborne 52-53
B-50D 20
KB-50 23-24, 53, 55-56, 66
Structural fatigue testing 98
'Tall tail' 40
I
91,104 French 75-76 RB-50 23, 142, 157 Testbed suitability 88 I
Advanced Range Instrumented Aircraft Bomber and tanker co-location 52 TB-50 23 Wing reskin 61 I
see Apollo Range Instrumented
Aircraft
Bombers vs ICBMs 53-54
Ended 65
B-52 Stratofortress 18-19, 22-23, 26-28,
33, 38-39, 41, 51-54, 56-58, 60, 64-65,
KC-135A (ARR) 67,124
KC-135A airborne command posts 113, i
Advanced Research Projects Agency 102 Lifestyle 54-55, 63-64 98, 101, 103, 114, 125, 136, 189, 191, 115,121,125-126,131 I,
Advanced Systems Evaluation 102 Origins 5 202,205 KC-135A reconnaissance 55, 135, 139-
Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft 60-63, Satellite 59 C-18 variants 90, 95 140

r
106 Ali American 34-35 C-97 Stratofreighter 22 KC-135A testbeds 95-98
Advanced Technology Fighter 101 Allen, William 'Bill' 26, 202 KC-97 22-3, 24, 26, 28, 33, 51, 53, KC-135A VIP transports 85,191
Aerial Refueling Anderson, Charles 28 55-56, 61, 66 KC-135A-1I 55,83,134,135,139-140,
Boeing 18-20 Anderson, Mrs. Glenn M 83 C-135A Slratolifter 40, 78, 83, 86, 169, 148
British 16-17,19,24 Apollo Range Instrumented Aircraft 83, 190-191 KC-135A-VIII 126-128,132,147
'Buddy' 23-24 87, 89, 90, 92, 93-95, 170, 191 Capabilities 78 KC-135B 40,113,115,116,128
Combat 20-21 'Arc Light' 55-60 'Falsies' 83 KC-135D 67-68,85-86,144
Competing systems 21-23
Cross-over 17
'Arctic Candy' 136
'Argus' 90-91, 98, 103
Limitations 79, 82, 83
Notoriety 83
KC-135E 40,58,62,65-68,69-70,85
Airborne command post 128
I

r-l~·
Ejector see Looped hose Armstrong Whitworth AW.23 16 Operations 79 Differences 67-68
Equipment 46 Armstrong, Neil 87 Replacements 82 Pilot's impressions 68
Flying boom 20-23, 25, 46 Army Air Force 3-5,15-16 Testbeds 90-91, 169 Transports 85, 165
France 73-76 Arneson, R Gordon 6 C-135B 68, 70, 79, 83, 86, 150, 172, 191 KC-135E (ARR) 67, 70
Future operations 66 Arnold, Henry H 'Hap' 4, 5, 15 Capabilities 83 KC-135H 62
Germany 17 Arrested landings 35 Limitations 82-83 KC-135ME 62
Hose drum - see (below), Probe and Aspin, Les 62 C-135B TRIA 83-84, 89-90, 91-93, KC-135P-7 62
drogue Atcherley, Richard 17 191 KC-135Q 60,65,68-71,88,189,190
Limitations of 19, 20-21, 24 Atlantic C-2A 16 C-135C 85,157 'Partial' Qs 68
Looped hose 6, 17-18 Atmospheric Properties Studies 101 C-135E 83 Requirements and conversion 68, 71 I

r
Multi-point refueling 66, 75, 104 Atomic Energy Commission 91 Testbeds 90, 102 KC-135R 58,65,67,69,71-72
Origins 15-16 Atomic weapons 4 C-135F 40,73-76,175,192 Foreign leasing 71, 76
Probe and drogue 19-22, 24 Accidents 53, 96 Differences 75 Requirements and conversion 70
C-135F/FR BDA 75-76 Detection and monitoring 98-102 C-135FR 66, 75-76, 104, 175 KC-135R (ARR) 67,71-72
'Hose Reel,' Project 103, 107 Diplomacy and 6 ECM suite 76 KC-135R reconnaissance 67, 134-135, I+-
KC-135 BDA 24, 46
Records 16, 18
SAC - and early years 17
Spaatz Board 4-5
Testing 95
US inventory 5
C-135K 85,122-123
C-135N 90-91
C-NC-137 77,80,172
139,140-141,143, 145, 190
KC-135T 71
KC-135T reconnaissance 135, 139,
[
requirements for 18-19, 27 'Aurora' 89 E-3 AWACS 64, 75, 90, 151, 157 141,143
Southeast Asia see Southeast Asia Automatic ELiNT Emitter Locator System E-4 Airborne Command Post 90, 92, KC-135X 62
TAC- 137,151 117,122 KC-135Y 62
requirements for 23-24, 27 Auxiliary command posts 115, 117 E-6 Mercury TACAMO 118, 121, 124 KC-X' 58
Southeast Asia see Southeasl Asia Aviation Career Enhancement 63 EC-135A 67,85,114-116,118-120, NC-135A 83,98-99,101,139,168
Worid War Two 17 Avro 125,170 NKC-135A 83,85
Aeronaulicai Systems Division Lancaster 17, 19 EC-135B 90,93 Testbeds 87-89,99-108,137, 161-
Organizalion 88-89 Lancastrian 25 EC-135C 162,163
Aerospatiale ATR 72 105 Lincoln 17,19 Airborne command post 114, 116, Transport 85-86
AFSATCOM 89,90-92,105,108 Vulcan 24 119-120,121-122,128,174 NKC-135B 108,120 I
Ailerons 47 Avro Canada C-l 02 25 Testbed 93, 102 NKC-135E 85,106,120,124
Air Force, US EC-135E ARIA 93-95 OC-135B 84,134,135,141-143, 145
Tanker competition 28
Tanker requirements 27
Bachelder, Donald R 204
Baker, David H 30
EC-135G 116,119,120-121,125,171
EC-135H 116,117,121,126,127
OC-135W 135,141-142
RC-135A 67,85-6,89,101,134-5,
1
Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory Ballistic Missile Early Warning System 114 EC-135J 117,121-122,127,191,192 142-144,146
88,100,102-103 'Baltic Candy' 136 EC-135K 85,118,122-123,128,145, RC-135B 40,135,144-145
Air Force Eastern Test Range 88,91,101, Battle damage repair aircraft 83-84 168,191 RC-135C 89,135,136,144-145,147
108 Barton, Jim 26 EC-135L airborne command post 116, RC-135D 67,135,140,145-146,148 J
Air Force Flight Test Center 108 Baxter, Mrs. Joseph R 33 119,123-124,127-128,132,147,169 RC-135E 84,135,146,149,173,191
Organization 88 Beall, Wellwood 26 EC-135L transport 85, 124 RC-135M 60,84,126-128,134-135,
Air Force Geophysics Laboratory 88, 100 Beechcraft EC-135N ARIA 83,93-95,101-103,131, 141,145-147,150-151
Air Force Materiel Command 88 C-12F 63 170,191-192 RC-135S 84,89,90,91,108,112,134,
Air Force Readiness Command 122 Begich, Nick 135 EC-135N airborne command post 70, 135,145,147-149,151-152,154,167,
Air Force Reserves 61-62, 65, 69 Bell 4 118,124,131 171,190-192
Air Force Special Weapons Center Bell, Rod 205 EC-135P 67,85,117,119,122,124- RC-135T 135,149,152-153,187
Organizalion 88
Air Force Systems Command
Organization 88
Air Force Test Pilot School 88, 105, 108
'Best Ball,' Operation 83
'Big Eye' 127
'Big Crow' 89,106-107,111,163
'Big Lift,' Operation 24, 80
125,131,165,189
EC-135Y 70,118,125,131
JKC-135A 88-89,99-108,135,147
KC-135 Stratotanker
RC-135U 135,137-138,144,149-50,
153,155
RC-135V 133,135,138,144-145,150-
152,175
I
j
Air Force Western Test Range 88 'Big Safari' 98,135,136,139,146,149, Air Force rejection of 26, 28 RC-135W 83,133,135,150,152-154,
Air National Guard 53, 61-62, 65, 67, 69, 150,152 Autopilot problems 33-34, 38 157
72,85 'Big Team' 135, 136, 144 B-58 refueling 36 RC-135X 84,99,135,136,154,172
Air Research and Development Command Biggie, James H 204 Cargo duties 66, 77, 82 'RT-135' 67
Organization 88 Birchard, Glen R 83, 205 Commercial considerations 26-27, TC-135B 135,142,145,154,15&
Airborne Astrographic Camera System 'Black Horse' 69 29,30-31 TC-135S 135,147,149,153
89,91,108 Bliss, E W Company 35 Contract problems 29-30, 39 TC-135W 68,83,135,148,152-153,157
Airborne Command Post 'Blue Bird' 145 Corrosion problems 56 VC-135A 80,83
KC-135 as future platform 30 'Blue Eagle' 89,116,119,122-127,131 Early development 25 VC-135B 83-84
Need for 114-16,125 'Blue Gill' 125 Earlyoperations 51 WC-135B 83,84,134-135,154-58
Airborne Data Automation 119 'Blue Straw' 96 Fonjign sales and operators 30 WC-135W 135,157-158
Airborne Emergency Action Officer 117-118 Blumenthal, Vaughn 26 France 30 Model 367-80 iv, 25-28, 30, 40
Airborne Imagery Transmission 90 Boeing Future improvements 66 Mode1367-138B 28
Airborne Ionospheric Observatory 106 Aerial refueling 18 'Heavyweight' version 27 Model 473-60 26
Airborne Laser 89-90, 93, 102, 108 B-17 Flying Fortress 17 Hydrostatic test article 31-32 Model 707 25, 78, 84, 91, 123, 205
Airborne Laser Lab 89-90,99,101-102, B-29 Superfortress 6,17-18,22,28,147 Leading-edge flaps 38, 41 CC-137 70
161 B-29MR 18 'Lightweight' version 27 Co-production with KC-135 30-31, 39
Airborne Launch Control Center 116-118, KB-29M 18-19,20,23,37 Performance inadequacies 33-38, Donors 68, 83
120,123,125 'Quickie' tankers 21 58,64-65 RC-707s 138
Airborne Launch Control System 116 KB-29P 20-21, 23, 100 Phase I testing 33 707QT Demonstrator 62-63
Airborne Lightweight Optical Tracking YKB-29J 20-21 Phase II testing 33 Model 717 see Boeing KC-135
System 89, 91-92, 95, 101, 161 YKB-29T 18-19 Phase IV testing 35-6 Model 720 35, 96
Airborne Surveillance and Control System RB-29J 20 Phase V testing 35, 36-37 Model735 78

222
 I
Model 738-13J 78 Crawford, Charles C 36 Aircraft 100 Kahn, Herman 114

1 Model 747 60-61, 66, 90, 96, 106,

148,154
Model 767 66, 93, 102, 139, 154
'Creek Falcon' 85-86
'Cross Trak, Project 102
Cruise missiles 61
Ford Aerospace 44
Ford, Gerald R 61, 85
Ford, 'Tennessee' Ernie 85
Keck, Julie 205
Kelly, Fred W 15
Kelly, Joe 78
J Boeing Military Airplane Company 68, 70
Boeing, Mrs. William E 27
Boggs, Hale 135
Cruise Missile Mission Control Aircraft
'Cuban Candy' 136
Cullen, Paul T (Trophy) 206
95 'Foreign Legion' 55-56
Forrestal, James V 18
'Fox Able Four' 19
Kemahele, Frank 203
Kennan, George F 133
Kennedy, Jeff 205

1 'Bomb Comp' 206

'Bomber Gap' 87,113
Boom drogue adapter 24, 46, 75, 76
Curtiss
IN-4 15
Robin 16
'Fox Peter One' 21
France 30
Tanker requirements 73
Kennedy, John F 54, 73-74, 77-78, 87,
115,138
Kenny, George C 6, 17,65

I Bradley, Mark E 78
Brakes 48
'Briar Patch' 135,139,141
Bridges, James W 202
'Daguet', Operation 76,175
Dale, William C 37
Dash 8o-see Boeing Model 367-80
Sale confusion 73-75
Fredlund, Victor 204
Freel, James E 204
Freidman, Seymour 204
Kesterson, Lewis C 37
Key, AI 16
Key, Fred 16
Keystone LB-7 16
'Bright Star' 64 Dassault 'Frequent Wind,' Operation 61, 147 Khrushchev, Nikita S 53-54, 138
Briles, Robert E 205 Mirage III 150 'Fresh News' 145 Kilgore, Robert 205
Brinson, William L 83, 205 Mirage IV 73-76 Fuel Savings Advisory/Cockpit Avionics Killian Report 113-114
British Aerospace Nimrod R.1 138 Mirage F.1 76,151,175 System 106 'King Cobra' 55, 57
Broutsas, George M 203 Davenport, Burl B 203 Fuel system 45-46 Kirsch, George A 37
Brown, Harold 63 Defense Advanced Research Projects Kissinger, Henry 80, 123
Buchart, Stan 96 Agency 101-102 Gallery, Daniel 18
'Bullet Shot' 55, 60 Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office Gallery Memorandum 18 Laird, Melvin 117
Bundy, McGeorge 74 134 Gandy, Charles L 33,37, 202 'Lamartin,' Operation 76
Burke, Arleigh A 52 Defense Intelligence Agency 134 'Garlic Salt' 135, 139-140 Landing gear 47-48
'Burning Candy' 135-136,141,144, Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Gates C-21 Learjet 90,99, 122 Langley Research Center 105
145-146 106 Gebhart, Charles 70 Lapenta, Robert L 205
'Burning Cord' 146 Defense Special Missile and Astronautics General Dynamics Large Aircraft Robotic Paint Stripper 91
'Burning Light' 89, 92, 100, 102, 140-141, Center 134 F-16 Fighting Falcon 66,103,151 Laser communications 90, 91, 99
191 de Gaulle, Charles 65, 73-74 F-l11 '60, 64, 206 Lau, Howard R 205
'Burning Pipe' 135, 144 de Havilland 'Gerboise Bleu,' Operation 73 Leading edge flaps 38,41,45,47
'Burning Star' 135, 146, 147 Comet 25, 31-32 Gerrity, Tom 20 'Leap Frog,' Operation 22, 52
'Burning Vision' 135-136,154 DHAB 15,16 'Ghost Cabin' 125 Leisy, Cliff 18, 20
'Burning Wind' 133,145,150-154 DH-7 187 'Giant Cobra' 55, 57 LeMay, Curtis E 4-6,19,22-24,27-28,30,
Burrell, Harry R 203 DH-9 16 Gibbs, Charles E 203-204 32, 40, 52-55, 85, 125, 161, 202-203
1 Burrus, Larry B 205 Deloy, Daniel 205 Gilpatric, Roswell 74 Leslie, A G 32
j Burshnick, Anthony J 205
Bush, George 65, 141
'Deny Flight' 134
'Desert Shield' 64-65, 69, 71, 104, 123,
Gimballed Electrostatic Aircraft Navigation
System 99
Lewis, Roger E 30
'Lima Mike,' Operation 55
Butler, George L 'Lee' 65 125,151,155,174 'Glass Key' 55, 59 Lincoln Standard 15
'Busy Prairie' 64 'Desert Storm' 64-65,69-71,76, 104, Glisson, David 205 'Linebacker II' 60, 147
123-125,128,134,138,148,151,155, Global Positioning Satellite 91 Ling-Temco-Vought 83-84,136
Cabot, Godfrey L 15 157,174 'Glory Trip' 116 'Lisa Ann' 135-136,146
Camouflage 75 'Desert Strike,' Operation 56 Gloster Meteor 18, 19-20 'Little Crow' 106-107
Campbell, Ernest 203 'Design 1018' 27 Goodman, Robert J 205 Lloyd, Selwyn 80
Campbell, Nathan 205 'Dice Game' 89,140 'Grayson' 117 Locke, Robert 205
Canada 30, 70, 73 Distant Early Warning 113 'Great Bear' 79 Lockheed
Carey, Hugh F 204 'Dominic' 96,106,139 Grones, Royce 205 A-12 68-69,71
Carpenter, Ted 203 'Dominic You' 139 Grumman AC-130 Specter 67
i Carter, Jimmy 61, 82-84, 95
Carter, L E 202
Doolittle, Jimmy 202
Dorris, HW 21
C-20 Gulfstream II 91, 92, 106
F9F-8 Cougar 24
C-5 Galaxy 61, 79, 103, 115
C-121 Constellation 80,93,126-127
Caruana, Pat 64 Douglas F9F-5 Panther 24 C-130 Hercules 23,76,80,88,93,135,
'Casey 01' 81, 85, 165 A3 Skywarrior 205 F-14A Tomcat 150 136,139
'Cast Glance' 99, 155 A4D Skyhawk 24 KA-6D Intruder 174 C-141 Starlifter 66,69,78-9,83,88, 104
Casteel, John H 205 AD-6 Skyraider 24 Grumman-American AA-1 Yankee 188 EC-121T 126-127
Catapult take-offs 35 B-66 Destroyer 23, 24 EC-130Q 124
Catton, Jack J 54, 83 C-1 16 Hackworth, Jim 205 F-80 Shooting Star 21
Central Command 95,103,118,124-125, EC-24A 108, 111 Hamann, Vernon W 204 RF-80 20-21
131 C-47 Skytrain 6 Handley Page F-104 Starfighter 23, 205
f Central Intelligence Agency 68 C-54 116 Harrow 17 F-117A Nighthawk 65,69,100
Cessna T-37 63 C-118 Liftmaster 80,83, 121 Victor 24 GV-1 24

J !
CFM International
CFM56 or Fl08-CF-100 44,62,69-70,
75
Description and operation 45
C-124 Globemaster 77,80,206
XC-132 transport 27
C-133 Cargomaster 77,80
D-704 refueling pack 24
Harrison, Henry W 205
'Have Car' 88-89, 93, 99-100, 106
'Have Dark' 90
'Have LACE' 89-91, 99
Jet tanker proposal 28
L-300 Airborne Observatory 148
MC-130 'CombatTalon' 67
NT-33A Shooting Star 96,102-103
Chain, John T 'Jack' 117-118,138 DC-8 airliner 27, 30-31, 39, 75, 78 'Have Shaver' 100 P2V Neptune 18, 202
j Chase XCG-20 25 DC-10 airliner 66 'Have Siren' 151,155 P-3 Orion 135, 138, 150
'Check Mate,' Operation 79, 83 Modification Division 91, 93 Hayes, Cornelius A 203-204 SR-71 64,68-70,72,187,205,206
Cheney, Dick 65 Dougherty, Russell E 61 Hayes Aircraft Corporation 23 U-2 55,64,68,100,114,138,141,151,
Cheney, Robert S 205 Dries, Howard 202 Haynes, Andrew 205 154
Cherokee Rose 205 'Drip,' Operation 18, 19 'Head Dancer' 118, 122 Loesch, 'Dix' 33-34, 41
1 'Christine' tankers 67
'Chrome Dome' 52-53, 76, 125, 187, 191
Dryden Flight Research Center 95, 106
Dulles, John Foster 80
'Heat Rise' 205
Helmore, W 17
Loewy, Raymond 82
'Long Legs,' Operation 53, 202, 203
I Chrysler Technologies Airborne Systems
108,111 E-Systems 67, 136
Henriet, George 202
'Hi Camp' 100
'Long Thrust' 79, 80, 204
'Looking Glass' 113-114,115,119-21,
Civil Aeronautics Administration 96 'Eagle Pull,' Operation 61,147 High Energy Laser 89, 93, 101-102, 108 125,126,127,128,131
Clinton, Bill 62 Eaker, Ira C 4,16 'Hightide,' Project 21 Battlestaff 113,115-18,121,125,128
Clover, Michael R 205 Eisenhower, Dwight D 80, 113, 141 Hillman, D E 203 (Looped hose see Aerial refueling)
Cloyd, Mike 205 'EI Dorado Canyon' 64, 151 Hoar, Dean L 205 Los Alamos Laboratory 83, 96
Cobham, Alan J 17, 19 Electrical system 46-47 Hobart, Frank L 20 Lucky Lady 19
J Cobham, Ltd see Flight Refuelling, Ltd
'Cobra Ball' 91,134,138,147-149,151,
Electronic countermeasures
Test-bed operations 91, 100-101, 102,
Holloway, Bruce K (Trophy) 206
'Homecoming,' Operation 128
Lutz, Raymond 205
'Luzon Birds' 127
171,191 104,105,106-107 'Hose Reel,' Project 103, 107
'Cobra Dane' 147 Electronic Reconnaissance System 106, Hostetter, Mark 205 Mackay Trophy 205
'Cobra Eye' 99,136,154,172 111 Houk, Jason 205 MacReady, John 15
'Cobra Jaws' 135, 141, 143 Elevator 47 Howell, William H 203 Mankowich, Paul 205
'Cobra Judy' 147 Elliott, Mack 20 'Hula Hoop' 89, 100, 140 'Manta,' Operation 76
Cochran, Russell S 205 Ellis, Richard H 64 Hydraulic system 45 Marine Corps, US
Colbacchini, Don 205 i;mergency Air Refueling Tanker 128 Refueling developments 24
'Combat Apple' 141,145,146-147,151 'Epervier,' Operation 76 Icing test-bed 89,95,100,103-105,108 Martin
'Combat Fox' 58 Eubank, William E 202, 204 Identification, Friend or Foe 89-90, 92, 104 RB-57 139
'Combat Sent' 135,144,149-150,153-155 Improved Aerial Refueling Systems 103-104 Martin, Reese S 35
'Combat Lightning' 58, 59, 60, 116, 123, 'Fall Airglow' 99 Integrated Communication Navigation Massachusetts Institute of Technology
126-128,132,147 Fancher, Jack 202 Identification Avionics 90 102,103
Combined Release and Radiation Effects 'Falsies' 83 International Geophysical Year 96 Matthews, Wallace G 205
Satellite 89,104,106,108 'Fast Move,' Operation 53 IR Properties 100 May, Wesley 15
Command Support Aircraft 67,81,83,86, Faught, David E 205 'Iron Lung' 139 Mayaguez, USS 61, 147
169 FD-109 100 Isakson, John 205 McConnell, John P 28
'Commando Hunt' 60 Federal Aviation Administration 89, 95, 'Ivory Justice' 65 McDonnell
j 'Commando Royal' 58-59 96-8,105,122-123 'IWATCH' 91 F2H Banshee 24
I Composite Air Strike Force 23 Felices, Salvador 52 XF-85 Goblin 6
~ Compton, Curtis W 20
Connell, Thomas W 205
Firefly 205
Fischer, Robert 205
Jacobson, AI 26
'Jet Stream' 202, 204-205
F-101 Voodoo 23-24, 105
McDonnell Douglas
Consolidated B-24 Liberator 17 'Fish Bowl' 100,104,106 Jiang, Jieshi 80 Astronautics 90
'Constant Guard' 55, 60 Fisher, William P 5 'Jig Time' 140 C-17A Globemaster III 103,106
'Constant Phoenix' 135 Flaps 47 Johnson, Clarence 'Kelly' 68 F-4 Phantom II 60, 67, 76, 99, 205
Contrail Suppression System 101 Fleet Electronic Warfare Support Group Johnson, Lyndon B 59 F-15 Eagle 65, 148
Convair 89,108 Johnston, A M 'Tex' 33-34 KC-10A Exfender 58, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67,
B-36 Peacemaker 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19 Fleet Tactical Readiness Group see Fleet Joint Tactical Information Distribution 69-70,102-103,107,205
B-58 Hustler 27, 36, 53, 114, 136, 205 Electronic Warfare Support Group System 100 RF-1 01 C Voodoo 55
R3Y Tradewind 24 Flight control system 47 'Jolly Polly' 148 MD-11 135
'Cotton Candy' 135-136,140,145-146 Flight Refueling, Inc 19 Jones, David C 61-62 McElroy, Neil H 53, 203
Coulter, Veryl I 204 Flight Refuelling, Ltd 16-17,19,20,24 Jones, James J 203 McNamara, Robert S 24, 53-54, 73-74, 79
'Cover All' 116 Flying boom see Aerial Refueling, Flying 'Jumping Jack' 55, 58 McPeak, Merrill 155
Cowtown Hustler 205 boom 'Just Cause' 134,151 'Mediterranean Candy' 136
Craw, David W 204 Flying Infrared Signatures and Technology Melancon, Jim 205

223
 'Merla' 89, 106, 111 Post Attack Command and Control System 'Sleigh Ride' 108, 112 Tet Offensive 58-59
'Meteor Burst' 89-90, 102 89,115-17 Smith, Cecil B 203 Thailand, bases 56-61
Meyer, John C (Trophy) 206 Power, Thomas S 28, 52, 55, 115 Smith, Charles E 205 'Third Pilot' Program 66
MiG Powers, F Gary 68, 141 Smith, Donald 205 Thrust reversers 44-45,47,68
MiG-15 'Fagot' 6 Pratt, Darrell J 205 Smith, Lowell H 16 'Thule Monitor' 125
MiG-17 'Fresco' 6 Pratt and Whitney South Korea 70 Thurman, W T 31
MiG-21 'Fishbed' 128 J47 engine 23 Southeast Asia 'Tiger Cub' 55, 57
MiG-23 'Flogger' 150-151,157 J57 engine 26, 28-29, 35, 38-39, 78, 83 Consequences 60 Tobias, James W 205
MiG-29 'Fulcrum' 123,151 Description and operation 43-44 Early years 55-56 'Top Sail' 188, 203
'Mighty Express' 65 Inadequacies 32, 34, 36 Force buildup 56-59 Traffic Control and Landing System 91
Military Air Command 40 Steel vs. titanium 44 KC-135Q operations 68-69 Trail, Richard L 205
Miiitary Air Transport Service Water injection 38-40, 44-45, 79 Peak years 59-60 Transall C.160 76
KC-135 and future cargo jet 30,78-79 TF33 engine 39-40, 62, 67, 68, 83 Refueling procedures 57 'Tree Horn' 108, 112
Transport shortfalls 77 Description and operation 44, 45 Strain on the SlOP 58-59 'Tree Shark' 108, 112
Miller, Eugene A 203 Pressu rization system 48 'Southern Watch' 138, 150 'Trout 99' 81
'Milstar' 89, 90, 101, 118, 119-120, 122 Price, Walter 205 Spaatz Board 4-5 Truculent Turtle 202, 205
Minchew, William M 203 Probe and drogue see Aerial refueling, Spaatz, Carl A 'Tooey' 4, 16 Truman, Harry S 5, 6
Missiie Defense Alarm System 114 Probe and drogue Spaatz Trophy 206 Tunner, William H 78
'Missiie Gap' 113-114 'Proud Shield' 206 Space Shuttle 97 Tupolev
Mitchell, William E 'Billy' 15 'Proven Force: Joint Taks Force 65, 151 'Speckled Trout' 84-85, 89, 92-93, 96, 125 Tu-4 'Bull' 113
'Mobile Baker: Operation 23 Proxmire, William 83 Speed brakes/spoilers 47 Tu-16 'Badger' 41
Mollet, Guy 73 'Ptarmigan Track' 155 'Speed Light' 87,89,100,105,106,135, Tu-20 'Bear' 41
Momyer, William W 58 Pueblo, USS 58 139-40 TU-95/-142 'Bear' 138,148
Montgomery, John B 22 Sputnik 87 Tu-104 'Camel' 25, 204
Morale 51,54-58,63-64,66,68,71-72 Quesada, Elwood R 78 Standard Electronic Module Radar 92 Turkey 70
Morgan, Earl J 78 'Question Mark' 16 'Star Cast' 144,155,157 Twining, Nathan F 51, 54
Moss, Marc 205 Quick Engine Change 39 'Starfish' 106-107,125
Munves, William 31 'Quick Start' 44 . . 'Stay On: Operations 24 'Uphold Democracy' 151
Murtha, Patrick F 204 'Quick Switch: Project 39 Stehlin, Paul 74 'Urgent Fury' 64, 134, 151
'Music Blue' 135, 146 'Quickie' KB-29M tankers 21 Steiner, John E 26
Myasishchev Mya-4 'Bison' 41, 113 Quinn, Fred H 203-204 'Stepmother' 117 Vela 99
'Mystic Star' 91 Steves, John T 204 Veronica, Daniel J 96
Raaz, Quentin W 203 Stewart, Walter E 205 Vickers
NACA iv, 95-96, 102-103 Radiation Intelligence 92 Stiefler, FA W 203 Valiant 24
'Nancy Rae' 108,112,135,136,139,140, Radiation Monitoring Program 89, 102, Strategic Air Command Warwick 17
147 103,107,161 Early years and aerial refueling 17 'Vigilant Warrior' 138, 151
NASA 90, 93-94, 97, 106 Radio relay airborne command post 117 Ended 65 VI P operations 80-84
National Command Authority 115-116, 118 'Rapid Road: Project 80 Foreign dependence and aerial refueling Vought
National Emergency Airborne Command 'Razorback' 127 19-20 A-7D Corsair II 60-61, 101
Post 115,116,121,123,125,126,127 Rea, Kenneth R 202 Requirement for aerial refueling 18, 19, F-8 Crusader 55, 205
National Foreign Intelligence Program 134 Reagan, Ronald W 63 27
National Nuclear Test Readiness Program 'Realign: Project 88 Single program manager 24 Wabrowetz, Steve 205
89 'Recce Strike' 87,89,106,108,111,137 Strategic Command 128 Wagner, P T 16
National Security Agency 134 Reed, Robyn 205 Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Wallace, Henry 142
Navigation equipment 48-49 Record flights 53, 80-81, 84-85, 202-206 90,99 'Wanda Belle' 108,112,135-136,145-146
'Navy King Crow' 108, 111 Republic Strategic Projection Force 64 Water injection system 38-39, 40, 44-45,
Navy, US F-84 Thunderjet 19, 21 Strategic reconnaissance . 68,70,79
Gallery Memorandum 18 F-105 Thunderchief 23, 24, 60, 191 KC-135 and future platform 30 Weather reconnaissance 83, 154-158
Key West meeting 18 Rhind, Bertrand 202 Strike Command 125-126,131 Weightlessness trainers 89-91, 95, 97-99,
NKC-135A operations 108, 111 Richardson, Max L 204 Sukhoi 100,105,108,123
Refueling developments 24 Richter, John P 16 Su-15 'Flagon' 148 Welch, Larry D 91
'Revolt of the Admirals' 18 Rivers, Mendel 78 Su-27 'Flanker' 134, 148, 150 Wells, Cecil 202
Neff, Harold L 204 'Rivet Amber' 135, 149, 173 'Sun Valley' 139 Weitzel, Gary 205
Nelson, David C 205 'Rivet Ball' 91,108,112,135-36,147-49, 'Superman' 18 Wesinand, Dave 205
Nelson, Reed S 37 151,167,190 'Sure Thing' 203 Weyland, Otto P 23-24
Neumann, Scott 205 'Rivet Brass' 135, 145-46, 148 Surprise attack 52, 113-116 Whitcomb, Richard T 105
'New Tape,' Operation 80, 205 'Rivet Cord' 135,145 Sutter, Joseph 40 White, Thomas D 52
Newbury, Frank 28 'Rivet Dandy' 135 Sutton, Meredith 203 Whittle, Frank iv
'Niagara,' Operation 58 'Rivet Digger' 98-99,101-104,139,168 Sutton,Robert 204 Winglets 105-106,162
'Nice Dog' 140 'Rivet Jaws' 140-41, 149 'Swiftlift' 204 Wilson, Charles E 28
Nichols, Spencer L 204 'Rivet Joint' 133, 135, 138, 150-154, 175 Symington, Stuart K 18-19 Wilson, Dean W 204
Nielsen, Douglas 37 'Rivet Quick' 135, 141 Wilson, Jay 205
'Night Watch' 85,96,116-117,119,120, 'Rivet Stand' 135,139-41,142-143 Tacker, Lawrence J 203 'Wing Fix: Project 40
121-122,125,127 Rockwell Tactical Air Command Wojcikoski, Karol R 205
Nitze, Paul H 74, 80 B-1 Lancer 61 , 64, 95, 99 and aerial refueling 23-24, 27 Wolborsky, Stephen 205
Nixon, Richard M 122 Rolls Royce Tail-mounted floodlight 46, 69, 103 Wood, Lysle 26
North American Allison XJ99 engine pods 35 Taiwan, bases 58-60 Wohlstetter, Albert 52
AJ Savage 18,24 Nene engine 25, 26 Talbott, Harold E 28, 30, 32 Women crewmembers 64
F-100 Super Sabre 23-24, 55 Rome Air Development Center 88,103 'Talon lance' 148 Wright, Frank L 37
FJ-3 Fury 24 'Round Up,' Operation 98 'Tamale Pete' 55-56
RB-45C Tornado 20 Rowland, Steven 205 Tan Anchor 128 Yakovlev
T-39 Sabreliner 90, 104, 106-107 Rudder 40, 47 Taylor, Maxwell 74 Yak-42 205
Northrop Ruiz, Jimmy H 203 'Teal Ruby' 100 Yancey, Marion H 35
B-2 Spirit 64,91,101,139,169 Rumsfeld, Donald 61 Technical Capabili1ies Panel 113-114 'Yankee Team' 55-56
T-38A Talon 63 'Ruralist' 18 Telemetry Range Instrumented Aircraft Yarborough, Stan 205
Rusk, Dean 73 see Boeing C-135B TRIA Yeasting, John 26, 83
Observation Island, USNS 147 Ryan, John D 58 'Ten High' 151-152 'Young Tiger' 55-56, 58-61, 65, 82
'Office Boy' 135, 140, 145-46, 148 Terminal Radiation Program 89,102-103, Yovin, Joseph A 205
On-Site Inspection Agency 84, 141-142 Sargent-Fletcher 76 107-108, 111, 147
Open Skies 135-136,141-42,144 Sauers, Robert M 205
Optical Airborne Measurement Program Saunders, Donald W 203
135-136,154 Saunders Trophy 206
O'Rear, FE 134-35 Schairer, George 26
'ORSEP' 89, 91, 108, 112 Schickling, Edward 203
Ostland, A I 32 Schlesinger, James R 61
O'Malley, Jerome F 'Jerry' 69 Schofield, B Lyle 33
O'Shea, James S A 202 Schwarzkopf, H Norman 125
'Outing,' Project 19,23 Schwessinger, George C 204
'Oxeye Daisy' 95,122,128 'Scope Light' 121, 124, 131
Sears, Stan 205
'Pacer Clerk' 96-98 'Seek Straw' 96 Tailpiece ...
'Pacer Crag' 66, 93 Seip, Randy 205 KC-135R 61-0312 of the
'Pacer Daisy' 122 SEPECAT
'Pacer Fin' 40-41 Jaguar 76 351st AREFS (100th ARW)
'Pacer Journey' 83, 91 de Seversky, Alexander 15 shows off its celebratory
'Pacer Liner' 93, 94 SEX 99 markings acknowledging
'Pacer Link' 117-118,121,142 Sharp, Dudley C 78
'Pacer Swan' 135 Shartzer, Dale 203-204 the USAF 50th Anniversary,
Panavia Tornado F.3 76 Shepard, Horace 18 as it basks in the morning
'Parkway,' Operation 4 Short sun at its home base of
Passarello, Frank J 37 'C' Class flying boat 16
Passey, Dave 205 Empire 17 RAF Mildenhall, England,
Pate, Randolph McP 52 Siegler, Jones P 36 during the Air Fete open
'Pave Onyx' 103, 104, 107 'Siik Purse' 89,116,120-121,126 house held' over 27-28th
Payne, Edward 69 'Silver Dawn' 127
Pennell, Maynard 26 'Silverplate' 4 May 1997. The unofficial
Pfleger, Clifton E 202 Silverston, Nate 31 tall-code reflects the
'Pica Poste' 99 'Silver Dollar' 121
'Pilot Control Factors' 100 Simmons, Douglas D 205 style worn by 100th 8G
'Pinetree' 113 Simulator 31, 55, 66 8·17s that operated out of
'Pipe Stem: Operation 55 Singapore 70 England during the
Pius XII, Pope 80 Single Axis Jammer 91
'Port Bow,' Operation 58 'Skyscraper' 89, 102, 103 Second World War.
'Polo: Operation 123 'Skytop' 121 Chris Salter

224
 I
i

/
I
-~ .......

Made in England Front cover illustration:

A KC-135A refuels a RC-135U en route to an ISBN 1-85780-069-9-·
operational reconnaissance mission. Jeffrey Harper •

911~]lll~~II[~~mt
Back cover illustrations:
Top: The KC-135 and the 8-52 look set to soldier
on for another 20 years. Jim Benson
Above: NKC-135A Airborne Laser Lab test-bed.
USA $39.95 UK £24.95
Joe Bruch collection