4
$\begingroup$

Apparently, the KC-135 has no ejection seats (they used to have parachutes to allow the crew to manually bail out, but those were removed in 2008 to save money), and, according to this Quora discussion, that's the case for all tankers (presumably excluding the ones converted from bombers), not just the KC-135.

This seems somewhat illogical to me, as tankers act as potent force multipliers; to quote the linked post:

It is quite possible that a sophisticated opponent will go after the tankers, as an easy way to disable a lot of aircraft without actually having to shoot them down. Doesn't really matter if they go down from a missile hit or lack of fuel. The math on that one looks very good - shoot down a tanker, and you have probably shot down four or five smaller, agile, hard to hit strike aircraft.

Not only that, but tankers are big, slow (for military aircraft), and generally devoid of any defensive armour or armament, making them easy targets relative to combat aircraft.

Even in peacetime, the role of a tanker aircraft inherently places it at a much greater risk of a midair collision than most aircraft are ever exposed to (example) - and, with most MACs, the only way to survive is to abandon aircraft.

So why don't tanker aircraft have ejection seats for their crew?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Tankers are big, slow, and devoid of defensive measures because they don't need any of that. They're used from a very safe distance, and if there is a risk of enemy air power, friendly air power runs interference. Great question though! $\endgroup$ – M28 Nov 1 '18 at 16:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ crew of KA-6D tankers, EA-6B and F/A-18 aircraft etc. etc. relegated to tanker roles had ejection seats. So your statement is not universally true. $\endgroup$ – jwenting May 1 at 5:30
4
$\begingroup$

Primarily because tankers and transports are being operated in non-combat environments or safely benhind the front lines of a battlefield so ejection seats are not absolutely necessary for crew survival. The redundant capabilities of large multi-engines aircraft are such that there are minimal risks of ending up in situation where escapes systems are necessary.

People have commented that taker or transport aircraft cannot incorporate ejection seats because of the design features of large aircraft. This is false as large combat aircraft such as the B-2 and B-1 bombers are fitted with ejection seats at all crew stations with jettisonable or frangible hatches above the seats to facilitate ejection.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Firstly, any bail out above 20,000 feet has a low chance of survival without supplemental oxygen and tankers usually fly above that height. Also, bailing out of a plane going 450 MPH is an extremely dangerous activity with a high risk of death.

The bigger issue is that providing complex, oxygen bearing systems for the full crew would be expensive. Tankers are not supposed to be flying in any area where they would be taking enemy fire, so an evacuation situation would essentially be a freak event. Most of the scenarios where a tanker would be attacked have a low survivability anyway.

The only really serious situation where a parachute would be useful would be a case of mechanical failure or fuel exhaustion where the aircraft can make a controlled descent. Even in this situation, evacuation is problematical for several reasons:

(1) putting on a parachute properly takes a long time, unless you are already wearing it, there are very few situations where the crew would have enough time to strap into a parachute

(2) if you wear parachutes, it impairs your functionality; you are essentially gimping your performance every day for a 1 in a million event

(3) jets flight at high speeds, even if the crew slows them down for evacuation, so any jump will be highly dangerous to begin with, especially since you will jumping out a side door and can hit the aircraft after you jump

Basically, the probability of a parachute being useful is so low that it is not worth the logistical problems of providing them.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Points 1 and 2 of your answer are not entirely accurate. Your typical parachutes for skydiving, yes, they take a minute to put on (Instructors seem to slip into them in about 10 seconds though, so training could help), but emergency parachutes take much less time to put on. They've actually been proven that you can put them on in the air, which for anyone else that has skydived, knows that is an incredible feat. They're similar to a hiking backpack, with straps across the chest. You can put that bag on like a schoolbag, and jump, in a few seconds. $\endgroup$ – M28 Nov 1 '18 at 15:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Matt I am talking about the average person, not expert skydivers. I have helped people put on emergency chutes many times and it is not a process that would go well in the middle of an accident in a plane that is out of control. $\endgroup$ – Tyler Durden Nov 1 '18 at 15:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Matt can gree with you but that is if the plane is in level flight or manovering really gentle. Of course if it's spinning in a wildly way it will hinder impossible to the crew to run for an exit, defeating any scape procedure anyway. $\endgroup$ – jean Nov 1 '18 at 16:20
2
$\begingroup$

So first - let's talk about what has ejection seats: Fighter Aircraft.

When are ejection seats used?

Fighter jets have a glass/polymer dome above them for visibility. The area directly above their head is all one piece, and can thus be "ejected", providing space for a clean exit. There's not a ton of room, which is why pilots are limited to a certain height range, else they risk getting parts cut off when they eject. Ejections in general are pretty dangerous, and if the pilot lives, they often have serious injuries, like broken ribs, brain trauma, and so forth.

Structural

Tankers do not have a glass/polymer dome above them - they just have more of the fuselage. In order to eject safely, there would be have to large hatches above the pilots, copilots, and all crew seats in order to eject safely. This would be a point of failure for the fuselage, and cause extra complications and considerations throughout the engineering process. Even if they were successful in making this, there's a solid chance you would eject and get cut in half by the tail of the aircraft, which can be moving up to 580mph.

Seating

This would also mean that all crew members have to be seated in their ejection seats - which typically they aren't. Think of a refueler as a mobile home - you have a kitchenette, additional seating, and bunks to sleep in. Refuelers spend the majority of their time flying in straight lines waiting to be called upon, so they definitely don't stay seated all the time. You can actually find home cooking videos on Youtube made by Airman that are bored and making pizza during aerial refueling missions!

You also have to remember that there's a boom operator, who is either seated or laying flat at the back of the aircraft - ejecting him up would involve going through the tail, and ejecting backwards gets you stuck in the jet exhaust.

But what if they had ejection seats anyway?

In the case that they did have ejections seats, and every airman runs back to his seat before ejecting, there are decent chances they would either get cut up by the tail, bounce across the fuselage, or get sucked into the engine. All of which are pretty deadly.

But what about parachutes?

I can speculate as to why they wouldn't want parachutes. Jumping from an aircraft in anything but stable flight is dangerous, and nearly impossible. Jumping from a stable aircraft is also dangerous, unless it is built specifically for that. You would jump out the and get hit by the wings, the tail, or worst case scenario, get sucked into the huge jet engines. The KC-135 (or other US refuelers) is not built to be jumped out of like the General Aviation aircraft used by Skydivers.

Costwise, parachutes cost more than they should in the military (like everything else, including their 10,000 USD coffee mugs that they keep breaking), but the cost isn't prohibitive. The larger factor is that they take up space, as you need a parachute for all potential crew, and the canopies can be fairly large even when packed. Space is at a premium in this aircraft, and to add parachute storage would require removing something else. Beyond that, high-altitude jumps from cruising altitude would require additional breathing equipment, which would take up a similar, if not larger, amount of space.

It's not needed

In the end, it's unlikely a refueler will be shot down. Refuelers are generally only flown in areas where we have control of the airspace, or reason to believe that we are well away from enemy fire. Passengers aren't included in commercial jets, and the same reasoning applies to refuelers.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You make some good points, but despite sharing a lot of these challenges, bombers often have ejection seats. $\endgroup$ – fooot Nov 1 '18 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @fooot They add ejection seats because bombers go directly above enemy territory. Refuelers are made to sit behind the "aerial front line" and provide a midway stopping point from home base to the battlefield. $\endgroup$ – M28 Nov 1 '18 at 20:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Right, I think the main point is the difference in operational risk, where your answer seems to focus on the functional challenges, which have been solved before. $\endgroup$ – fooot Nov 1 '18 at 20:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sean A refueler will never be out on it's own. Like I said, they expect aerial supremacy, and have fighters run interference for them. If a fighter is closing on a refueler, full of tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel, they're already gone. $\endgroup$ – M28 Nov 2 '18 at 14:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sean Pretty much. For the United States, the assumption is that we will always be able to have air superiority in some area due to overwhelming firepower and technology (though area that may be further away from the battlefield, making the tanker less effective, though still more efficient than landing.) The tanker would never fly directly over the combat zone unless we had air superiority there, as it's quite simply a sitting duck - they have basic defenses though, as you can never guarantee air superiority.. ask about defenses in a new question and I'll happily answer! $\endgroup$ – M28 Nov 5 '18 at 15:31
1
$\begingroup$

sorry chaps but a lot of rubbish. In RAF every crew member or passenger has a seat those that have to move around aircraft generally have a chest parachute which clips on to the harness which is always worn.Victor tankers have a max complement of 6. 2 (pilots) have ejection seats but other four have to open the door and jump. Same goes for the Vulcan bomber. They would most certainly not get hit by the tail, bounced on the fuselage or sucked into the engines, although the Vulcan intakes are very close to the door.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to Aviation.SE! You answer could be improved by providing sources that could provide people with more information. $\endgroup$ – fooot Apr 30 at 16:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, how up to date is this? The RAF hasn't flown Vulcans since 1984 or Victors since 1993. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Apr 30 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ I seriously doubt everyone who's a passenger on one of the RAF Tristar tanker/transporters wore/wears parachutes. $\endgroup$ – jwenting May 1 at 5:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.