RAF Rivet joint and the SU-27s

[ASRAAMTOO]

Whatever the "cause" of this missile release one could argue that it is a minor gain for the Russians. Rivet Joint flights (and possibly ELINT flights by other countries) were suspended for a while, reducing the intelligence gathered. In addition if the RAF are to provide a fighter escort for the entire time a RJ is on task it is likely to suck up more Typhoon resources than we actually have and a significant chunk of our AAR.

Perhaps whilst going cap in hand to our NATO partners for assistance with pilot training we will also need to request some assistance with fighter escorts?

[NIREP reader]

Squeaky bum time for the boys and girls. I caught this on sky news and looked on here for clarity.

https://theaviationist.com/2022/10/2...f-rivet-joint/

[Background Noise]

An interesting functionality of prune, is that If you delete your initial post, as the thread starter, the whole thread will be deleted. Then you could add the link to the existing thread? (Even though that thread could have a more informative title).

Edit: this post only made sense when it was in a standalone thread started by NIREP. Solution maybe for us to delete the posts below - and this one!

[ORAC]

Interestingly, even though I’m the first poster, I didn’t start the thread. I posted in the Ukraine war thread, the Mods decided the various associated posts needed its own and opened this one and moved mine across. Just happens to be first because I posted there first.

Does that make me the thread opener or them?

Not going to delete the thread just to find out….

[Ripton]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Interestingly, even though I’m the first poster, I didn’t start the thread. I posted in the Ukraine war thread, the Mods decided the various associated posts needed its own and opened this one and moved mine across. Just happens to be first because I posted there first.

Does that make me the thread opener or them?

Not going to delete the thread just to find out….

You missed the bit when this thread was called the "Sorry" thread. I wasn't sure who was doing the apologising, the Russians for firing/dropping a missile or the RJ for being in the vicinity of the Russian unintended release.

I suppose it would have been terribly British to apologise for someone else's mistakes or aggression.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Interestingly, even though I’m the first poster, I didn’t start the thread. I posted in the Ukraine war thread, the Mods decided the various associated posts needed its own and opened this one and moved mine across. Just happens to be first because I posted there first.

Does that make me the thread opener or them?

Not going to delete the thread just to find out….

I started the thread headlined 'Sorry' at 1321 on 20 Oct and added a note for the Mods to merge it if what I posted had already been covered.
I was being sarcastic about the Su27 pilot apologising.
Maybe I should have added

[Low average]

I think this was probably their usual use of intimidation and bullying to annex territory. This time it's the international airspace over the Black Sea.

[SASless]

Lots of dithering about what happened....as in the past and no mention of what our reaction has and should be in response.

Should the Rivet Joint flights be escorted by FJ's and upon any threat to the RV.....FJ's terminate the threat?

Or...do we send a Diplomatic Note denouncing what happened and laying out the seriousness of such things to the Russians?

Or just keep on whistling as the RV's cruise on by that graveyard in the dark?

[pulse1]

Should the Rivet Joint flights be escorted by FJ's and upon any threat to the RV.....FJ's terminate the threat?

I see that there are Typhoons and a Voyager in the area today. I assume that, as they are displaying their presence in FR24 they are hoping that there will be no threat to terminate. For all I know they may have been there all along but with their ADSB switched off.

[gevans35]

Sean Bell is implying, on Sky News, that it was a deliberate release, the RC-135 was the target, and that it was blocked by countermeasures.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by gevans35

Sean Bell is implying, on Sky News, that it was a deliberate release, the RC-135 was the target, and that it was blocked by countermeasures.

I did suggest this at #16.

[Ohrly]

Originally Posted by gevans35

Sean Bell is implying, on Sky News, that it was a deliberate release, the RC-135 was the target, and that it was blocked by countermeasures.

Well then:

Article 6 1

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any otherarea in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Is that the get out clause? Is the Black Sea included or not?

[NormaStitz]

I think everyone needs to look through the media guff and calculated 'Wallace waffle' to see exactly what a release means...an incorrectly loaded piece of live/dummy ordnance (possibly an AAM), i.e. not 'fired' and therefore no rocket plume, falling from or deliberately jettisoned by the pilot to intimidate the RJ crew seems likely here, especially if the RJ crew saw it themselves and therefore the FLANKER would've been alongside and not in a firing position

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by NormaStitz

I think everyone needs to look through the media guff and calculated 'Wallace waffle' to see exactly what a release means...an incorrectly loaded piece of live/dummy ordnance (possibly an AAM), i.e. not 'fired' and therefore no rocket plume, falling from or deliberately jettisoned by the pilot to intimidate the RJ crew seems likely here, especially if the RJ crew saw it themselves and therefore the FLANKER would've been alongside and not in a firing position

The narrative said the missile was released when it was 'out of sight' of the RJ

[langleybaston]

Originally Posted by chevvron

The narrative said the missile was released when it was 'out of sight' of the RJ

How about "careless talk costs lives" and OPSEC. The crews over the Black Sea and their families and friends don't need this. Wallace kept it vague, and lets leave it at that please.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Having checked with someone "in the know", it is clear that the Sukhoi sub-contractor that makes the hard-point locking pins is the same one that is employed by Putin to make the safety catches on tower block windows.
FACT. ;-)

[ACW342]

In reply to Langley Baston

Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst

Deleted post removed. {Mod}

If the Op Order required every aircraft to be “Quiet” there would be an instruction reading “ADSB to OFF” as opposed to yesterdays (21/10/22)operation where the tanker and the two Typhoons were noisy all the way up from Akrotiri to the Constanta are where the the RC 135 was then escorted out over the Black Sea and back. Great PR for the RAF amongst other, more important, considerations.

A342

[Timmy Tomkins]

The Turks resolved Russian abuse of airspace limits by shooting down one of the aircraft invovled; it seems to have worked for them; they are good friends now.

[gevans35]

Russia on brink of sparking war with UK with attempt to down RAF jet | World | News | Express.co.uk

Retired air Vice-Marshall Sean Bell said the incident was "intentional" by Russia and could have sparked a NATO response. Speaking to Sky News, Mr Bell said: "The incident that occured on September 29, and it was only announced by Ben Wallace yesterday. The Su-27, one of the Russian aircraft, fired a missile in close proximity to an RAF plane.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins

The Turks resolved Russian abuse of airspace limits by shooting down one of the aircraft invovled; it seems to have worked for them; they are good friends now.

I think that was referring to the Su24 in Syria several years ago.