KC-135 Down in Iraq: May Have Collided With Another KC-135, Six Dead (Updated)

A U.S. Air Force KC-135 has crashed in western Iraq, and the Pentagon confirmed Friday all six crew members died in the crash. Details are scant but the mishap may be the result of a midair collision with another KC-135. A photo credited to Air Force amn/nco/snco showed an aircraft that landed in Tel Aviv was missing the top of its vertical stabilizer. The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed a second KC-135 was “involved” in the incident but landed safely in Israel.

“The incident occurred in friendly airspace during Operation Epic Fury, and rescue efforts are ongoing,” CENTCOM said in an earlier statement. “Two aircraft were involved in the incident. One of the aircraft went down in western Iraq, and the second landed safely. This was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire.” Rescue crews were on their way to the crash scene.

Russ Niles
Russ Niles
Russ Niles is Editor-in-Chief of AvBrief.com. He has been a pilot for 30 years and an aviation journalist since 2003. He and his wife Marni live in southern British Columbia where they also operate a small winery.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Latest
00:06:37
Related

14 COMMENTS

Subscribe to this comment thread
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Graeme J.W. Smith
Member
1 month ago

I think your picture is possibly of the surviving tanker. Washington Post is reporting the other tanker crashed with 4 KIA and 2 missing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/12/kc-135-crash-iraq-iran

Jay
Jay
Reply to  Graeme J W Smith
1 month ago

The other tanker supposedly landed at Tel-Aviv, but that doesn’t quite add up either because it was supposedly blown up by Iranian missiles last week.

History 101
History 101
1 month ago

Picture of surviving tanker is KC-135R. Downed tanker is KC-135RT which was being refueled by tanker in picture. All six crewmen air confirmed dead now by several news agencies. Iraqi airspace has been closed to all military and civilian traffic since first week of March. Why were they refueling in hostile airspace?

Gary W
Gary W
Reply to  History 101
1 month ago

What’s the difference between a R and a RT?

History 101
History 101
Reply to  Gary W
1 month ago

RT is version that can be aerial refueled. R model cannot recieve fuel, just dispense it. Not many RT’s in service.

Phil
Phil
Reply to  History 101
1 month ago

FWIW, Google claims a KC-135R can be aerial refueled.

History 101
History 101
Reply to  Phil
1 month ago

The primary difference is that the KC-135RT (formerly KC-135Q) is a specialized variant capable of being refueled in flight, featuring a unique boom receptacle above the cockpit for long-range missions, whereas the standard KC-135Rcannot. RT models are equipped for special ops (SOAR) with enhanced communication gear. Reddit

Key Differences and Usage Examples:

  • Refueling Capability (Receiver Capability):The KC-135RT can receive fuel, allowing it to stay on station longer, while the KC-135R is only a tanker.
  • Origin: KC-135RTs were modified from KC-135Qs, which were specialized for carrying JP-7 fuel for the SR-71 Blackbird program.
  • Operational Role: KC-135RTs are mainly used for specialized, often covert, operations (SOAR) and are much rarer, with few in operation compared to the 390+ KC-135R models.
  • External Differences: A minor difference includes a specialized window on the underside of the tail of the KC-135T (often interchangeable with T designation in this context). Reddit
Justin P Hull
Justin P Hull
Reply to  History 101
1 month ago

First I read that the Airforce fuels tankers in air. Kind of like topping off a gas tanker with another as they are going down the highway.

Given what you said, how could the vertical stabilizer get damaged from the top (top torn off) if it was ahead and above which would seem to be the logical position (which you typically see in photos of refueling). And what action would the following plane need to take to not just case that damage, but cause the plane to crash. I know the official version is there was no enemy engagement (though a group claims responsibility), but what else would cause a plane to, I guess, pull into the back of another?

Most likely not going to be an NTSB like investigation and as this is military in a conflict, I doubt we’ll ever really know.

My heart goes out to the families of the service members who died serving their country.

Phil
Phil
Reply to  Justin P Hull
1 month ago

One possible scenario is if the surviving tanker was being refueled by the crashed tanker. In that case the surviving tanker would be below and behind the crashed aircraft. If things went south the tanker being refueled could strike the tail of the supplying aircraft with it’s vertical stablizer. The resulting tail damage to the supplying aircraft could have caused it to crash. This is sheer speculation. I’m just laying out a possible scenario.

Larry S
Larry S
1 month ago

The KC-135RT variant has an in-flight refueling receptacle, allowing it to be refueled by other tankers, effectively extending its range and operational time. There were eight “RT” airplanes built. Most KC-135R’s cannot be refueled in flight.