The Rivet Joint Under Threat – The RC-135W
The RC-135W Rivet Joint, an advanced electronic intelligence plane with a crew of up to 30, was on a routine flight when it was intercepted by two Su-27s. The Russian fighters tailed the slow-moving plane for an hour and a half.
Then there was a disturbing communication breakdown. Ground control allegedly instructed one of the Russian pilots, “You have the target,” a phrase in its best sense ambiguous.
One of the Su-27 pilots interpreted this as a go-ahead to launch an R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) missile. The weapon shot off into the air but missed its target.
The second pilot, shocked, asked his wingman—only to see a second missile drop innocently from the plane, perhaps because it was aborted or malfunctioning.
Misfires and Misjudgment – The R-27 Missile
NATO pilots are trained on strict guidelines of engagement, demanding clear-as-day commands and double-checks before they’re allowed to fire. From intercepted communications, in this instance, it appears that the Su-27 crew flew with much more lax discipline.
The first missile’s miss was not the result of mere technical malfunctioning, high-level Western defense sources attest—it was a misfire caused by a mistranslation of orders. The R-27’s malfunction saved the RAF crew, but the encounter laid bare unsettling cracks in Russia’s airborne professionalism, where unclear commands might become life-or-death choices.
Preventing an Article 5 Spiral – The Typhoon FGR4
In public, the UK Ministry of Defence played down the incident, accepting the official Russian explanation of a “technical malfunction” to prevent a politicization of tensions. Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace accepted it as a “dangerous engagement” but refrained from characterizing it as an intended attack.
Privately, though, the U.S. was treating it as a “near shoot-down,” with Pentagon officials describing the incident as “really, really scary.” If the RC-135 had been hit directly, NATO leaders might have had to consider invoking Article 5, but specialists such as ex-NATO officer William Alberque observe that political leaders tend to use diplomatic means—and not firepower such as the Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4—as their initial response.
Patterns of Provocation – The MQ-9 Reaper
The September 2022 event is only one of many. The Russian pilots have repeatedly harassed NATO aircraft and Black Sea drones, on occasion using provocative maneuvers, sometimes incurring direct losses.
One of the most prominent examples was the deliberate shooting down of an American MQ-9 Reaper drone in international airspace.
The distinguishing factor among these interactions is the stakes—dancing on an unmanned drone provokes diplomatic ire, but destroying manned aircraft invites automatic military counterattack and possible chain reaction towards armed conflict.
Changing Tactics – The AIM-120 AMRAAM
Following the incident, the UK suspended its Rivet Joint flights temporarily, resuming only after equipping Typhoon escorts with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.
NATO, too, has shifted much of its surveillance missions further away from Crimea, flying well beyond what international law requires.
These adjustments reflect a guarded but necessary recalibration—one designed to make it less likely for a single misreading to boil over into a full-scale conflict.
Lessons in Discipline – The M61 Vulcan
If anything can be gleaned from this close call, it’s that air power in contested areas requires precision—both communication and action.
Whether it’s the firing of an M61 Vulcan cannon in the heat of a dogfight or launching an air-to-air missile, every action is capable of sparking a crisis.