A Royal Air Force RC-135 surveillance aircraft was deployed today to monitor Russian forces in occupied Ukraine.

The RC-135W Rivet Joint and its sensors are designed to undertake ‘signals intelligence’ missions. In other words, they ‘soak up’ electronic emissions from communications, radars and other systems.

The RAF said in a release:

“The UK has become the first nation to conduct a full transit of NATO’ eastern border, from its southernmost point in Greece to the most northerly point in Finland. The RAF Rivet Joint completed the flight with support from NATO partners, including the US, Sweden and Finland.

This is a landmark of a moment. While the Rivet Joint conducts routine transits along the borders of individual NATO countries, this is the first complete transit of NATO’s eastern border.”

This isn’t entirely new

Watching the border isn’t new—in fact, it is quite routine, its the duration of the flight that’s new here. The UK has been gathering intelligence about Russian forces since long before the invasion of Ukraine.

It should be noted that these flights are designed to be visible so that the public and Russia know they’re happening. If it were a secret, I would not know. Also, for those remarking, ‘this isn’t new’, that’s right, but people only know this often happens because it is reported often.

What does the RC-135W do?

RC-135-01
An RC-135. Image Airwolfhound, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

According to the Royal Air Force website, the RC-135W Rivet Joint is a dedicated electronic surveillance aircraft that can be employed in all theatres on strategic and tactical missions. Its sensors ‘soak up’ electronic emissions from communications, radar and other systems.

“RC-135W Rivet Joint employs multidiscipline Weapons System Officer (WSO) and Weapons System Operator (WSOp) specialists whose mission is to survey elements of the electromagnetic spectrum in order to derive intelligence for commanders.”

The Royal Air Force say that Rivet Joint has been deployed extensively for Operation Shader and on other operational taskings. It had been formally named Airseeker, but is almost universally known in service as the RC-135W Rivet Joint.

The UK operates three of these aircraft.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

24 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_862005)
15 days ago

And STILL it cannot be refuelled without the assistance of the USAF.
Neither can the P8 or the E7s when they arrive.

Chris
Chris (@guest_862006)
15 days ago

The Air Tanker contract is 100% corruption. People should be in jail over it.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_862053)
15 days ago
Reply to  Chris

I don’t know the background to this but why doesn’t the Defence minister or PM do something about it? Is it strictly a contract of supply issue? Can aircraft have dual probes or a multi-probe to be able to refuel from different types of tankers?

Crabfat
Crabfat (@guest_862102)
15 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Morning D3. Multi engine a/c apart, most (note, I said most) NATO fighter jets have a probe, whilst some can do boom refueling also. So not really a problem there. As Robert said, below, “Allied aircraft from all NATO nations use tankers from other nations all the time”.

Cthulhu Arose
Cthulhu Arose (@guest_862422)
13 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The UK E-3Ds were able to use both boom and probe refuellers

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_862094)
15 days ago
Reply to  Chris

No. Its deliving a very capable tanker/transport service with very high aircraft availability and operational flexibility. Way better than anything we could do with the VC10/Tristar fleet.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_862093)
15 days ago

Thing is mate. Operationally. Its not a big deal. Allied aircraft from all NATO nations use tankers from other nations all the time. The US Navy is heavily reliant on Voyagers and VC10’s/Tristars before them in the Gulf regions and anyway else the RAF and US Navy are operating alongside each other. At large exercises like Red Flags. All participants use US, RAF, French, Canadian tankers ect all the time. These are NATO/Allied agreements. All part of the same team. Especially when we have a bunch of USAF tankers residing in the UK at Mildenhall. It would be nice if… Read more »

Adrian
Adrian (@guest_862100)
15 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Whilst true it does mean we cannot use these aircraft in combat without the Americans (unless they land for fuel) but that might now be an academic point because we probably don’t have the armed forces to go it alone now anyway

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_862112)
15 days ago
Reply to  Adrian

I think 99% of operations would always be with allies.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_862212)
14 days ago
Reply to  Adrian

I don’t think we would be involved in any conflicts on our own. Every single one since since 90/91 has been as part of a allied force.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_862105)
15 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Morning mate. And if we had a national operation like the Falklands again those assets would be limited.
Sure, I know the USN use Probe and Drogue like we do, very handy if your there with allies.
The US also have countless other assets. We don’t.
Just seems daft to me that our large aircraft are not compatible with the AAR system we use.
Other higher priorities I’m sure.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_862114)
15 days ago

I think the powers that be are willing to take that risk. And i think we both know the chances of a 2nd Falklands war is very, very slim.

Adrian
Adrian (@guest_862130)
15 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I’m not sure we could operate a second Falklands anyway, with a task force of 4 frigates, 2 destroyers around a carrier.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_862207)
14 days ago
Reply to  Adrian

I think we could. It’s amazing what money and resources are available in a national emergency. Plus we have capabilities we could only of dreamed of back in 82.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_862218)
14 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Agree.

Alabama boy
Alabama boy (@guest_862272)
14 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Agreed and very well put, and don’t forget the NATO MRTT Tanker Force which is growing to become a very powerful capability in similar vein to the NATO AWACS Force.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_862234)
14 days ago

When does the Air Tanker contract expire? Boom capability would seem to be a rational additional requirement for a contract recompete/extension. 🤔

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_862236)
14 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I do not know off hand.

Matty
Matty (@guest_862056)
15 days ago

Not really sure how this is groundbreaking. An aircraft flew from A to B. If we had more…

David Lloyd
David Lloyd (@guest_862104)
15 days ago

It’s not mentioned, but one hopes that a couple of Typhoons were riding shotgun on this sortie so close to the war zone. Especially as the Russians have form for trying to shoot down this sort of asset over the Black Sea

James
James (@guest_862168)
15 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

There’s no need to, as you can see from the ADSB track the jet was over NATO territory for almost the entire sortie, the only exception being for a few miles over the Gulf of Finland, and then presumably over the North Sea on the way back. Not even the Russians are stupid enough to try to shoot a NATO aircraft down over NATO territory. Plus, they generally keep their more competent crews on the border, so less chance of a screwup.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_862233)
14 days ago
Reply to  James

Ummm…not certain Mad Vlad and the Orcs should be credited w/ a nominal IQ assessment. 🤔😉😁

Shakenbake
Shakenbake (@guest_862187)
14 days ago

Does anyone know why all the posts about this flight have now been taken down? Seems a bit odd?

Shakenbake
Shakenbake (@guest_862189)
14 days ago

Does anyone know why all of the RAF’s social media posts on this flight have now been removed? Seems a bit odd.