USMCFLYR

Pilot identified.
Squadron VMFA(AW)-242 ‘Bats’ home stationed out of MCAS Iwakuni.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...still-missing/

galaxy flyer

I’ll bet that was fun, USMCFLYR! Once I got to refuel off a KC-135 around 3,000’ MSL; weird seeing the ground so close while tanking, but much easier.

GF

USMCFLYR

We actually had two other sections later that day not get the gas off the low level so they didn’t have enough for the CAS mission (with FACs on the ground) and the CAS was cancelled. Later our OPSO asked the KC-130 training officer just how low they needed to be for that low altitude tanking qual and he said 5,000’!
So up we went and had no problems at anytime of the day.
Mission success on both ends.

PurpleToolBox

It may be very common. But I can assure you, during every operation I was involved in as a AAR scheduler/execution bubba, the USN and USMC LNOs pleaded ... begged ... to NOT be scheduled with any 130s.

Usually the AOC was never given OPCON of KC-130s so if you were scheduled to AAR with one, it was your own services doing.

Peacock

We greatly preferred KC-130’s because they were only tasked to us. That gave a lot more flexibility compared to an AF tanker that had other places to be before and after our scheduled AR. The big wing tankers were slightly easier at higher altitudes at higher speeds with bigger baskets, but the original comment that implied fighters tanking off KC-130’s risked a mid air was way off base.

USMCFLYR

I remember one time having a problem out of Guam so I was left behind. The plan was to attach to the cell of 6 the next day and continue until the USAF told us that they couldn’t accommodate 7 receivers in a cell. We started discussions with SUMO and asked how many they could take and the answer was as many as we needed.

Unless I’m going A LONG WAY in a straight line, I would prefer a KC-130 over a -135 any day of the week! That hard basket is a tough nut.

PurpleToolBox

I spent a career in AAR operations and nearly ten years in the AOC business. I'm not bragging, just saying this. During my tenure, I've seen the USN/USMC sign off on ****e that would NEVER fly with the USAF.

The six ship limit per tanker is a tried and true policy from decades of AAR data to support it. Why only six? Because drogue AAR is so slow, and prone to receivers having problems getting on the drogue and other operational problems that if you have more than six receivers, the first to air refuel starts to get low on fuel before they can cycle back to the drogue.

I once saw a 18-ship USMC F-18 fighter drag with 3KC-10s where the fighters had lost two abort windows due to no suitable airfields (nor'easter rolling up the coast of Canada). In other words, for two of the scheduled air refuelings during the drag, had there been an emergency in one of the fighters, there wasn't any divert bases available. Depending on the situation the pilot would have been swimming. And considering the weather, I don't see how you survive that. There's no way the USAF would sign off on that unless we were at war, not contingency bull crap.

Yeah, the KC-135 strap-on sucks. Everyone hates it. Scheduling it is a PITA because only the USN will use it now (NATO has pretty much said no). Some of the 135s now have wingtip drogues. Everyone likes KC-10s.

cheap

The search has been called off and the five KC crew members have been declared deceased. A toast...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...rd-lost-c-130/

rickair7777

If it was easy, you wouldn't need the Navy or Marine Corps...

You set yourself up for that...

rickair7777

Fair winds...