Raf Rivet Joint

[MRAF]

Just seen a actual copy of the SDSR. Page 6!
RIVET JOINT is safe! Factoid!

[Squirrel 41]

BINGO! Some sanity at last..... :D

S41

[EmeraldToilet]

Hello Rivet Joint, goodbye Sentinel!

[NURSE]

will Sentry's be providing the airframes for the rivet joints?

[HaveQuick2]

will Sentry's be providing the airframes for the rivet joints?

No, ex USAF decades old frames, first one already being converted.

[Squirrel 41]

SDSR page 28

"withdraw the Sentinel airborne ground surveillance aircraft once it is no longer required to support operations in Afghanistan."

Don't understand this one at all.

Nurse

Will Sentry's be providing the airframes for the rivet joints?

Almost certainly not - the Sentry is a 707 derivative (C-137 series) - rather than Rivet Joint which is a KC-135 derivative, based on the original Boeing 367-80 prototype with it's narrower fuselage.

S41

[4mastacker]

Nurse wrote:

will Sentry's be providing the airframes for the rivet joints?
Surely MOD should have learnt the lesson that 'cut and shut' jobs when converting other airframes always seems to end in tears (and no aeroplane).

[grandfer]

The 2010 edition of the British spotters Bible "Military Aircraft Markings" list the USAF serials for the 3 Jointed Rivets that are due to join the RAF , they are all F.Y.'64 RC-135W models , so all 3 airframes will be well over 45 years old when back in service !
:hmm::hmm::rolleyes:

[Roadster280]

Well there'll be some Comet-type airframes knocking about at Woodford/Warton/Kinloss. New engines & wings available too.

[RAFEngO74to09]

There should be no problem with the Rivet Joint. Although the last C-135 airframe was built in FY 1963/1964, the USAF is anticipating not retiring the last until 2040 ! I can't speak for the mission equipment but at least it will have commonality with US variants and presumably upgrades will be offered from time to time.

The last time we procured surplus, refurbished aircraft from the US, we got the bargain of the 20th century. Qty 15 x F-4J(UK) were bought for only GBP 120 M including GSE and spares. Originally, they were going to be retired when due a Major servicing (after about 3-4 years) but in the end gave good service for 8 years (1984-1992) with 74 Sqn (Tigers).

[Norma Stitz]

Slight correction for you RAFEng, 74 gave up the J at the start of '91 and flew the FGR.2 until the end in Oct '92

[RAFEngO74to09]

I stand corrected - still good value though. Phantoms Phorever !

[PARALLEL TRACK]

MRAF

Stop posting here and get on with your new job!

Regards

One of the original Claws

[billynospares]

Is someone saying we are getting rid of the new sentinel aircraft that we have only recently aquired ? :=

[Norma Stitz]

Er...yes, the government is saying just that

[rolandpull]

So, we turn the Sentinel belly canoe into a baggage pod, throw some leather at the cabin and give the jets to 32 Sqn for gucci jets. Winner!

[glad rag]

Unbelievable waste.

[nav attacking]

You mean like the £ 4.8 Bn already spent on MRA4. However much it will be on 2 carriers, 1 of which will need to be sold straight away and the other won't have any aircraft to fly off it. Oh and if they do decide to sail it anywhere they won't have the long range maritime picture because we have slashed the surface fleet, sub surface fleet and long range MPA.

This isn't a strategic defence review no matter how hard they try to sell it; we all know the capabilities ARE required. This is an immediate survival exercise to prevent the country from going bankrupt. In the meantime forget any claims we had to the Malvinas, North Atlantic trade routes etc etc. We are now about to become a third world nation who for some reason still has a nuclear deterrent.

[The B Word]

Nav Attacking - send one of the returning Bdes from Germant to the FIs then. That kind of makes the islands difficult to take; Nimrod or no Nimrod!

There are many ways to skin a cat...:ok:

BTW, what current threats are there to the North Atlantic Trade Routes?

[ORAC]

Defense News: Tanker Arrives for Conversion to Intel Role for RAF (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5261023&c=EUR&s=AIR)

LONDON - The first of three Boeing KC-135 tankers scheduled to be converted to Rivet Joint signals intelligence-gathering aircraft for the Royal Air Force has arrived at prime contractor L3 Communications' U.S. factory.

This will kick off what British officials have termed an unparalleled cooperation agreement, allowing RAF crews to co-man U.S. Air Force Rivet Joint RC-135W aircraft in combined operations until the new aircraft are delivered. An agreement to include the British machines in a joint capability upgrade, support and maintenance program with their U.S. counterparts until at least 2025 was ground-breaking, according to Ministry of Defence program leader Bill Chrispin, quoted in an in-house magazine.

The British are scheduled to withdraw the remaining two Nimrod R1's that have been providing signals intelligence in places like Afghanistan sometime next year, leaving a three-year break until the first of the new U.S.-provided aircraft enters service in 2014. The final aircraft will not be delivered until 2018, an RAF spokesman said.

Analysts reckon U.S. Rivet Joint's partly crewed by British personnel will be tasked to fill a key capability gap in Britain's defenses until the fleet of Boeing aircraft arrives. The spokesman declined to comment on how the British will plug the hole in its intelligence-gathering capability. Four RAF crews are due to start training at Offutt Air Base, Neb., next year. Airborne mission operators, pilots, ground exploitation operators and support personnel will be involved.

The British program, known as Airseeker, is expected to cost 700 million pounds ($1.1 billion) in procurement and a further 500 million pounds in support costs, including co-manning, up to 2025. Although the Airseeker aircraft will be British-owned and -operated, the aircraft will become part of a combined fleet of 20 U.K./U.S. machines and associated systems managed by a team based at L3's Greenville, Texas, factory.

Under terms of the deal, the British aircraft will be refurbished and the mission systems upgraded every four years, according to the Desider magazine.

[BEagle]

The British are scheduled to withdraw the remaining two Nimrod R1's that have been providing signals intelligence in places like Afghanistan sometime next year, leaving a three-year break until the first of the new U.S.-provided aircraft enters service in 2014.

The final aircraft will not be delivered until 2018, an RAF spokesman said.

Analysts reckon U.S. Rivet Joint's partly crewed by British personnel will be tasked to fill a key capability gap in Britain's defenses until the fleet of Boeing aircraft arrives. The spokesman declined to comment on how the British will plug the hole in its intelligence-gathering capability.

Yet another 'capability holiday'? How can it take 3+ years just to modify an almost 60 year old Boeing design?

[Squirrel 41]

Buying into the Rivet Joint programme in a manner that ensures continuous spiral development of the UK's jets is the deal of the 21st century. And if you doubt the importance of the spiral development track that is factored in and apparently paid for, go and ask your friendly E-3D mate how having a UK configuration that will not go to the US Block 40/45 is working out for them. Hmm. :ugh:

Yes, the deal should've been signed two years ago, minimising the gap, but we are very fortunate that the US are allowing us to do this, presumably in recognition of the quality of 51 Sqn / RAF Ashby-de-la-Lawn's capability and contribution over the years. If so, good for them! :cool:

So, some good news for a change. :) We could do with it! :sad:

S41

[tucumseh]

mission systems upgraded every four years

I'm probably way out of date, but does that mean we lose the flexibility that EWAD used to provide? Surely placing a firm periodicity on upgrading (keeping up with the oppo) negates one of the great historical strengths of the R1?

[Sandy Parts]

never mind that tuc, there is the small matter of finding someone at MAA willing to sign-off the Safety Case on this aircraft before it enter service. All it will need is for the manufacturer to provide evidence of all the current regs being implemented during the aircraft production - what could go wrong there?

[TheSmiter]

Come come, Sandy, no need to be pessimistic, the baby MAA has a good track record in signing off legacy conversions ..............:ooh:

I really hope my Waddo mates get their 'new' toys. I won't, however, be holding my breath. Neither shall I be holding it for R Trident or R Carrier (1 or 2)

Remember, a Capability Holiday can turn into a Capability Retirement in the blink of an eye.

[MyRIVETisJOINT]

S41 - are you involved in the programme or the decision to buy it? That's a ringing endorsement if ever I heard one?

[chopper2004]

Royal Air Force aircrew members to train at Offutt (http://www.offutt.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123236800)

Royal Air Force aircrew members to train at Offutt

Posted 1/4/2011 Updated 1/4/2011 http://www.offutt.af.mil/shared/AFImages/transparent.gif Email story (http://www.offutt.af.mil/news/story_email.asp?id=123236800) Print story (http://www.offutt.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123236800)

http://s9.addthis.com/button1-share.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php)

by Ryan Hansen
55th Wing Public Affairs

1/4/2011 - OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. -- Whether it's performing strategic bombing missions in World War II, defending Europe during the Cold War, monitoring Iraqi no-fly zones, or battling the Taliban in Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force and the U.K. Royal Air Force have been close allies for many years.

Recently, this partnership was bolstered once again when an agreement was reached between the Department of Defense and the U.K. Ministry of Defense that allows the RAF to purchase three RC-135V/W Rivet Joint aircraft over the next seven years.

As part of this new agreement, the 55th Wing has been tasked to train the initial cadre of RAF aircrews. The Fightin' Fifty-Fifth has the Air Force's only operational RC-135 wing and is the sole provider of Rivet Joint initial qualification training.

Once trained the RAF crews will be allowed to fly on U.S. Rivet Joint aircraft, called co-manning, until the U.K.'s RC-135 fleet reaches full operational capability.

The first group of Brits are scheduled to arrive Jan. 11, and the members of Team Offutt are looking forward to hosting their friends from across the pond.

"We are truly excited about this unique opportunity to have members of the RAF training with us here," said Brig. Gen. John N.T. Shanahan, 55th Wing commander. "The U.K.-U.S. special relationship has been the cornerstone of relations between the two countries and we look forward to strengthening our intelligence ties through this cooperative arrangement."

Pilots, navigators, electronic warfare officers and a whole host of intelligence operators and airborne maintenance technicians from 51 Squadron at RAF Waddington are all scheduled to attend the training.

"The RAF is delighted to be joining the RJ component in a new era of joint training and operations," said RAF Wing Commander Garry Crosby, who is in the initial training group and will assume command of 51 Squadron in June.

"We look forward to sharing some peculiar British customs with our U.S. colleagues and competing with the (Airmen) of Offutt in a variety of sporting challenges," he continued. "Most of all, we are looking forward to our first training missions on a Rivet Joint and then setting our sights on future operational success together."

The visiting RAF personnel will be assigned to the 338th Combat Training Squadron while at Offutt. They'll participate in course work that is standard curriculum for anyone in the Air Force assigned to the RC-135V/W Rivet Joint.

"The first group of 51 Squadron personnel in course number one are the pioneers," said Wing Commander Crosby, "and they face a demanding period of training."

Personnel taking part in this cooperative program are RAF aircrew members who are mostly from the retiring RAF Nimrod R1 aircraft. Like the RJ, the Nimrod includes a sophisticated and sensitive suite of systems used for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering.

"Almost everyone who joins the co-manning program will have Nimrod R1 experience," said Wing Commander Crosby, who has two tours on the Nimrod R1 himself and almost 5,000 flying hours. "Some have been with the fleet only a year or so, but have operational experience from tours of duty in the Middle East."

The remaining RAF crew members participating in the program have backgrounds with either the E-3 Sentry or the Nimrod MR2 reconnaissance and maritime patrol aircraft.

Training will take between three and five months depending on specific crew positions. Once complete, the RAF aircrew members will be attached to the 55th Wing's 343rd Reconnaissance Squadron and return to the U.K.

The fully mission capable RAF personnel will have the ability to deploy from their home station alongside crews from the Fightin' Fifty-Fifth starting as early as mid-2011.

"Our aircrews have flown alongside the United States Air Force for many years in a variety of conflicts," Wing Commander Crosby said. "Now to fly in the same aircraft brings the best of both fleets together to support operations."

"Through this new agreement, we'll have a unique opportunity for mission integration and information interoperability, which will be advantageous to both countries," General Shanahan said. "The RAF Nimrod crews are some of the most capable ISR experts in the world and we look forward to taking advantage of their wealth of experience as part of the Rivet Joint team."

Although training of maintenance and other support personnel is covered under this agreement, it is not currently part of the co-manning memorandum of understanding. However, the DOD and MOD are working on an additional training plan that will be synchronized with planned RC-135 deliveries to the U.K. in late 2013.

"The U.K. will be able to fly their own global ISR missions, as well as offer relief to 55th Wing aircrews by shouldering some portion of 55th WG-tasked ISR missions," General Shanahan said. "As part of this agreement, 55th Wing aircrews will also be permitted to fly on RAF RC-135 aircraft."

All told, nearly 100 RAF personnel are scheduled to train at Offutt throughout 2011.

[Squirrel 41]

MRIJ- No, just a spectator.

Some good news to start 2011, then.

Good!

S41

[PotentialPilot]

I was going to post this up earlyer;

RAF - News by Date (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=8DA83408-5056-A318-A85664CBC7A6AEFE)

No sense as to why needed :/

Sentinel and E-3 still in op, close down of Kinloss.

[Hammer Head Too]

Anyone know what the maintenance policy is going to be?

HH2

[Squirrel 41]

Does someone need to point out to RAF media that their photoshop removal of US Air Force from the fuselage doesn't remove it from the reflection in the water that is in front of it?

Just sayin'...

S41

[JTIDS]

Am guessing as they've left the Stars and Stripes flying as well it's a photo which is meant to show its a joint effort!

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Squirrel 41,
For once, RAF media have nothing to do with that. The original is from an L3 presentation dating to at least two years ago, and posted on another thread on this forum about the middle of last year.

Edit: Found it (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/402072-adious-nimrod-r1-all-welcome-older-rivet-joint-2.html)

HH2, yes.

[manccowboy]

The 2010 edition of the British spotters Bible "Military Aircraft Markings" list the USAF serials for the 3 Jointed Rivets that are due to join the RAF , they are all F.Y.'64 RC-135W models , so all 3 airframes will be well over 45 years old when back in service !

This beggars belief :confused:
We are scrapping 9 brand new paid for MRA4 airframes that could be converted for this role with some US 45 year old scrap :eek:

Is there anyone in MOD procurements with an ounce of sense :ugh:

[Lima Juliet]

Is there anyone in MOD procurements with an ounce of sense

Thankfully "yes" and that is why we are buying RIVET JOINT and not Nimrod R5...:ok:

[ShortFatOne]

From a Continued Airworthiness and Regulatory point of view, I think I'd rather have an airframe that I understood and had had sight of from start to finish (warts an' all), than an unknown entity, the corporate knowledge of which lies with another State's manufacturer and maintenance organisation. What oversight has the MAA/Boscombe Down had? Very little I suspect.

Perhaps some of you don't care about that sort of thing but I can tell you for nothing, in this post Haddon-Cave world, this is exactly what worries the bejesus out of Senior Management. They are being asked to underwrite something over which they have no control, authority or input.

So maybe we should have gone for the R5 option in the first place.

[MOA]

SFO

Exactly.

2 Gp were so concerned with the 'airworthiness' of the MRA4 that they prevented 2 Gp personnel from flying on the aircraft.

What knowledge of the RJ 'airworthiness' does 2 Gp currently have?

What assessment of the USAF airworthiness, initial and continued, processes and procedures has been undertaken by 2 Gp to assure themselves that the RJ does and will continue to meet/exceed those requirements as laid down in UK regulations?

What work has been carried out to ensure that the USAF regulations under which these personnel will fly do not expose them to a higher risk than that would be encountered under UK regulation?

I am unaware but I am sure that it has been carried out to the DH's satisfaction..

[thunderbird7]

Conversion of MR to R standard is a major rebuild as opposed to a refurb of a tried and trusted platform, much as I lament the passing of the mighty 'Rod.

Witness XV249. 18 months?

[flipster]

.....in this post Haddon-Cave world, this is exactly what worries the bejesus out of Senior Management. They are being asked to underwrite something over which they have no control, authority or input.


I can understand concerns about whether USAF airworthiness requirements for a 45 year old airframe match those of the UK which have been around for yonks. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the USAF has systematically failed to implement their own regulations over the past 20 years. In the RAF, however, Haddon-Cave discovered much documented evidence that successive heads of 'Senior Management' (mil and civil) have ignored extant directives to make our aircraft safe for our crews to fly; something over which the management have had plenty of 'control, authority and input'.:ugh: (oh and Haddon-Cave barely scratched the surface!)

Hence, this 'post Haddon-Cave world' is of our own, selfish making and the people who should feel the force of our venom are not the USAF, not the MAA, nor anyone involved in trying to rectify the shambles created by their predecessors but instead, a number of retired Air Ranks and Lords/Sirs who, to add insult to injury, are commonly found in high-earning posts in aviation companies. It makes you wonder about our collective sanity, it really does!:mad::mad:

Good Luck to the MAA and UK Riveted Joints.:ok:

[500days2do]

As we have seen in the last few days, the legal system exists to bring to book wrong-doers however lofted their position appears.

Surely it is now the time to 'out' these smug individuals and expose their actions for what they were.

Just a thought...

5d2d

[ShortFatOne]

I think you may have mis-understood the direction of my post. I was not questioning our cousins' airworthiness regime or maintenance policy per se. What I was trying to point out is that our SofS will need to be satisfied that whatever that regime and policy are is consistent with our own mandated requirements. That huge piece of work, to effectively translate US DoD policy, standards and regulation into MoD policy, standards and regulation (in order to ensure we are comparing apples with apples) will need to be done before the RTSA is likely to recommend sign-off to ACAS.

The problem is that the specialist organizations and people required to do this large piece of work are dwindling faster than the hopes of resurrecting Maritime Aviation in the UK.

[flipster]

SFO,

Thanks for that - but neither was I querying our American cousins' system. Rather, I was lamenting the state into which we Brits have got our selves by constant penny-pinching and ignoring our own directives. If you are part of the MAA then I feel for you - you have a massive job to do with too few resources and I agree that far too much experience has been lost already - both over the past 20 years and, it sounds like, more recently.

Sadly, Haddon-Cave came as no surprise to a number of safety-conscious engineers who had been trying to bring this to the fore but who have been cast as pariahs by some senior offs who keep admiring the cut of the cloth in the emperor's new No1s!

Bon chance
flipster

[ShortFatOne]

Many thanks for the reply. No, I am not part of the MAA, although I worked pretty closely with them as part of the MRA4 programme, so have a reasonable understanding of the pitfalls likely to reveal themselves.

On a slightly different tack, I found this on the Air Safety Network. Not passing judgement, just trying to make people use their little grey cells!

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Type index > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=BO-135C)

[XV277]

Stats can say what you want them to say, but it would be hard to find any military aircraft in service for over 50 years, with over 800 built, that hadn't had accidents.

7 accidents and 10 fatalities in 20 years - and if you read the reports, the only two in the last 10 years were ground accidents, one of which was a collision and one a maintenance error.

[FlapJackMuncher]

Not going to mention the politics of the situation, but I am going to say:
What an ugly aircraft!

[ShortFatOne]

I specifically stated that I was not passing judgement. Make of the data what you will, all I'm trying to do is get folks to look at the wider picture, not just driving the bus, or spinning the antennae or adjusting the CFAR thresholds, or whatever your individual aviation poison may be. Debate it, question it, ignore it, I don't care. I no longer have any favourite axe to grind, I'm all ground down, time to leave.

[zedder]

I know where you are coming from with the all ground down and time to leave comments SFO. There's always the gossip around the round table to keep us amused in the meantime. Yesterdays titbit was a pearler (if true!).;)

[tucumseh]

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Rivet Joint joins Future Force 2020 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RivetJointJoinsFutureForce2020.htm)



Something familiar about this from Nimrod 2000 / RMPA (pre-MRA4) days.

[Tallsar]

I find it intriguing that the IPTL for Airseeker is the same as that for the Sentinel/Astor......Mmmmm I trust the pertinent lessons have been well learned.

[Ivan Rogov]

You have to admire the MOD, what could possibly go wrong -

The most complex military sales case the UK has undertaken with the US Air Force for the last 70 years is well under way.


After performing so poorly on so many 'complex' projects such as Typhoon, Chinook HC3, Nimrod MRA4 maybe we shouldn't be quite so ambitious. It would be more reassuring to read something like, "This project is simple, it will be monitored closely to ensure it meets our requirement, arrives on time and budget"

Oh well, let's hope it isn't fingers crossed procurement again :{

[flipster]

JTO

Hi there dear boy!

Bill Chrispin must have the worst CV on public record.

The scrapping of Sentinel/ASTOR wasn't his fault was it....?!

However, I can think of a few more like him!:):)

[bluetail]

Just seen the MoD Serial allocations for the three RJ,s

ZZ664, 665 & 666

at least someone still has some humour left, but will the Devils Jet ever make it

[Stu666]

ZZ666 :E

Oh pleeease let it be true!

[MyRIVETisJOINT]

Nice to see some historical continuity - using the same serial numbers as the the 3 Nimrod R1s. I'm sure someone will raise an objection to the resurrection of 'The Beast' (the previous one having been plonked very gracefully into the Moray Firth).

[tucumseh]

I'd just like to say I think it wrong to name a serving Civil Servant (or Officer) in this context, if he has never sought to put his name in the public domain.

It is unfair to single out one man when his bosses (2 and 4 Star) placed on record a ruling that aircraft/equipment could be paid for and offered as safe to the Services, when it was known it was not. This was the fundamental criticism in the Haddon-Cave Review, that safety was knowingly compromised to save money.


As mentioned by flipster, more than one person gleefully implemented this illegal order, often for personal gain (advancement, not financial - but it is still fraud). In fact, in 2003 MoD claimed only one person in MoD thought it wrong to implement it!

I agree with the general sentiment, but just think the background to the comment should be explained.

[Tallsar]

Totally agree Tuc......No one should use this forum to directly abuse or berate named individuals, whatever the issue. Our procurement system is complex, and responsibility for certain decisions is carried across the MoD and industrial spectrum both at what is now the DE&S and senior desks within the MoD, the Commands and Corporate HQs.

What demanding programmnes like Sentinel, MRA4 and RJ demonstrate is the need for clear lines of responsibility and expertise throughout the procurement process where aviation safety is properly embedded in these processes from the outset. All too often the focus is on time and technical success alone.

Over recent decades, the safety part has been compromised as a variety of individuals have sought to deliver capability from floundering (often underfunded from the outset) programmes based on far too optimistic plans and contractural promises. The politicians have played their part in these deceits too, as well as adding to the problem as they moved the goal posts for personal political gain. Competent and honourable individuals have been put down and sidelined as they have tried to align the processes with the regulations - H-C has shown this. This is nothing for anyone to be proud of.

Having dismantled the checks and balances set up many decades ago that had created a world class culture and process focussed on airworthiness and aviation safety, we see all around us the consequences of this.

Let us hope the recent formation of the MAA will lead to a return to a much more approriate approach across the board to this vital issue...and a programme such as RJ gives everyone an opportunity to get it right.....but it may prove expensive and time consuming!

[XV277]

Just seen the MoD Serial allocations for the three RJ,s

ZZ664, 665 & 666


and 6+6+4+6+6+5+6+6+6 =?

[NormaStitz]

51 are EVERYWHERE...if they're not, then there's something wrong!

Ever listened to the greeting message if you ring a certain doughnut near Cheltenham? It states that '...your call may be recorded...' I should bloomin' hope it is!

[MyRIVETisJOINT]

Does anyone know how big the gap is between end of R1 and start of RJ? What's happening (other than this Offutt thing I've seen in the papers) to the 51 aircrew? Does the Sqn still exist between aircraft? If we can do without the capability in between aircraft, do we need it at all?

[TEEEJ]

MyRIVETisJOINT,

There will be a function held at RAF Waddington on 31 Mar 11, to celebrate the last flight of the Nimrod R1 (and the end of Nimrod).

From

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/439305-nimrod-r1-out-service-function.html

An MoD spokesman said that between "2011 and 2014, the U.K. will enter into a partnering arrangement with the U.S. that will safeguard U.K. personnel core competencies."

From

USAF Planes To Help U.K. Fill SIGINT Gap - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4549506&c=AME&s=AIR)

Up to four UK crews will deploy from summer 2011 with their US colleagues on combined operations worldwide, including Afghanistan.

From

RAF - News by Date (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=2DF6FF36-5056-A318-A8A018F102261E2E)

In regards to Signals Intelligence the Special Relationship has never gone away. The UK/USA Agreement was declassifed in June 2010 by both the UK and US.

Newly released GCHQ files: UKUSA Agreement (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukusa/)

UKUSA Agreement- NSA/CSS (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml)

TJ