RAF Phantom FG.1 & FGR.2s on scrap dumps

Thank you TEEJ.

And apologies to the OP for causing a bit of thread drift with my question!

Blue Cross

Bravo24 has it correct in post #11.

It has nothing to do with arms treaties. Enthusiasts do seem to get mixed up and especially in relation to SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) and CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) Treaty.

For example the following website has an image of Victor XL162 with a Blue Cross with the caption

Note the blue cross signifying the airframe had to be scrapped under the SALT treaty

Image link.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4P5-tuc4Uno/TzWWcO-CYjI/AAAAAAAAAHw/c91E5bdQq0g/s400/spares%2Brecovery%2Bmanston.jpg

From

http://victorxl231.blogspot.co.uk/p/spares-recoveries.html

The UK is not a signatory to the SALT/START treaty. A similar myth has RAF Phantoms covered by SALT.

The Blue Cross appears on such types as Jet Provosts and as previously mentioned Hunters.

Jet Provost blue cross image links

http://www.demobbed.org.uk/images/XM386.jpg

http://www.demobbed.org.uk/images/XM404.jpg

http://www.jetprovostfile.org/t3-xm401-to-xm428/

Blue Cross on Buccaneer

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1528350&postcount=986

My take on it is that for aircraft to be destroyed under CFE conditions that country would have to have exceeded their allocated quota. Under the CFE treaty (2010 figures) the UK is allowed 900 combat aircraft and 356 attack helicopters. In 2010 the UK declared 417 combat aircraft and 233 attack helicopters. Anything over that ceiling would have to be destroyed as per the CFE guidelines. Jaguars also came under CFE but were obviously not destroyed or disposed of by CFE methods. If the numbers had exceeded the permitted UK quota then those excess aircraft would have to have been destroyed per the guidelines.

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table415.php

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2011/c4/table413.php

With the ceiling numbers I don’t think that the UK has destroyed any type under the CFE Treaty guidelines?

Section VI consists of 4 paragraphs. This Section details the procedures for the reduction of combat aircraft at reduction sites. Section VI specifies three ways by which combat aircraft may be destroyed: destruction by severing (i.e., cutting); destruction by deformation (e.g., bending or crushing); and destruction by use as an aerial target drone. The number of combat aircraft that may be destroyed by use as a target drone is limited to 200 per State Party, but such destruction need not take place at a reduction site (e.g., it may occur at a test range).

Paragraph 1 of Section VI provides each State Party the right to choose any one of the following procedures each time it destroys combat aircraft at reduction sites. The purpose of this provision is to make clear that a State Party is free to pick from the entire menu of destruction options each and every time it elects to destroy a combat aircraft.

Paragraph 2 of Section VI lists the procedures for destruction by severing, as follows:

The fuselage of the aircraft shall be divided into three parts not on assembly joints by severing its nose immediately forward of the cockpit and its tail in the central wing section area so that assembly joints, if there are any in the areas to be severed, shall be contained in the severed portions.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/cfe/text/artbyart/art7.htm

XT288 Buccaneer East Fortune

The flip side, the side that the public does not get to see. The inscription reads along the lines of tanks filled with water. The traces of the Blue cross through the Roundel can still be seen. The blue cross is used by the RAF to denote an aircraft for disposal.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wwshack/4503023393/

Thanks Phil (and PL).

Does that mean the blue cross was painted on the top too? Or were the ‘satellites’ expected to be more like Defence Attaches peering over the fence? :diablo:

The ‘Blue Cross of Death’ as it was known was part of a disarmament agreement with the Russians. It allowed their satellites to see how many aircraft were being disposed of!

The ‘Blue Cross of Death’ as it was known was part of a disarmament agreement with the Russians. It allowed their satellites to see how many aircraft were being disposed of!

Hi there sad to say that it was’nt only the Phantoms that had the blue cross, here is a picture showing the run down of the Canberra fleet at RAF Wyton 😡
all the best Matt.

Hi there sad to say that it was’nt only the Phantoms that had the blue cross, here is a picture showing the run down of the Canberra fleet at RAF Wyton 😡
all the best Matt.

Blue cross

I purchased XL613 and XL573 from disposal sales many years ago, they were lying at Shawbury. Both had the blue cross on each side of the nose. At that time i thought it signified that they were for disposal/scrap.

Blue cross

I purchased XL613 and XL573 from disposal sales many years ago, they were lying at Shawbury. Both had the blue cross on each side of the nose. At that time i thought it signified that they were for disposal/scrap.

Blue cross

I’ve seen plenty of pictures of dead RAF aircraft ancient and modern, but only Phantoms have that big blue ‘X’ on the nose. Anybody know why?

Blue cross

I’ve seen plenty of pictures of dead RAF aircraft ancient and modern, but only Phantoms have that big blue ‘X’ on the nose. Anybody know why?

Took these of XT863 at Abingdon in 1991

Took these of XT863 at Abingdon in 1991

I have a load of pictures

Will scan and post next week

Philip

I have a load of pictures

Will scan and post next week

Philip

Leuchars Open Day 1987

This poor thing was in a revetment on the far side of the airfield in September 87. No idea which aircraft it is, but I’ m sure someone can enlighten us.
:rolleyes:

Leuchars Open Day 1987

This poor thing was in a revetment on the far side of the airfield in September 87. No idea which aircraft it is, but I’ m sure someone can enlighten us.
:rolleyes:

Well I’ve just made it 275 views. But I’m only here to clear up your grocers’ apostrophes.

Can’t help with the images I’m afraid.

Moggy
Moderator

Well I’ve just made it 275 views. But I’m only here to clear up your grocers’ apostrophes.

Can’t help with the images I’m afraid.

Moggy
Moderator

The link doesn’t work for me unfortunately.