XV474

RE: XV474

Sad thing about the AAM U-2: when it was still at Alconbury, it was still a U-2CT dual with a second cockpit added behind the normal one (a bit like the Tu-22U). For display purposes, it was thought better to make it look like a ´real´ U-2 in stead of a much rarer U-2CT trainer.

This is what it looked like in it´s more exotic days…

http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u2_photo_gallery/u2_pics/56-6692-b.jpg
Photo through Blackbirds.net

RE: XV474

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-10-02 AT 11:07 AM (GMT)]The Phantoms would have been RF-4’s (not sure which variant) of the 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing. They shared the base with the ‘Aggressor’ F5’s until 1987 (I think?), when the A-10’s moved in. There were also a few Lockheed TR-1’s there at that time. I moved up to Cambridgeshire in early ’87, when the sky was full of F-4’s, F-5’s, TR-1’s, Canberras and Nimrods out of Wyton… them was the days… now we just get those poxy little Cambridge UAS Grob Tutors buzzing around, and the Cambridgeshire Police helicopter scooting about at all hours. Sometimes in the summer we have some of the Duxford residents getting stick time in just off to the east, but that’s usually about all the excitement Huntingdon sees these days. Although the last week or so has seen quite a bit of fast jet activity out of Lakenheath. No prizes for guessing what they may be up to…

Editted to include an apology for duplicating what Doughnut’s told you. Doh.

RE: XV474

Hi Ashley,

Alconbury’s Phantoms were the RF-4C reconnaissance variant, operated by the USAF’s 1st TRS (Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron) from the 10th TRW (Tactical Reconnaissance Wing), also assigned to the 10th TRW at that time were the TR-1A of the 95th TRS. The TR-1A basically being an upgraded, new build U-2. Did you know that the U-2 hanging in the AAM at Duxford came from Alconbury! (how many anorak points do I get for that then ?), it never flew with the unit but was use for training purposes, being towed around the airfield.
The 10th TRW was also the parent unit for the 526th AS (Aggressor Squadron) that flew the brightly coloured F-5E Tiger. With the run-down of USAF units in the UK in the 1980’s the RF-4C where replaced by A-10A ‘tank busters’, until they also where returned to the USA and the base closed. Another ex Alconbury machine at Duxford is the A-10A, I will have to check but I believe this airframe had a mishap and was grounded and temporarily used as a gate guard, until being moved to Duxford.
When I have time I will post some photos taken at Alconbury at that time, Oh happy days!

RE: XV474

Sorry Damien, I guess I misread it. Although I admit I completely forgot about the F4 which is currently hemmed in at the back of the AAM. Amazing how you can ‘lose’ an aeroplane that big, shows just how cluttered the AAM has become IMHO….

RE: XV474

As I understand it, ownership of XV474 has transferred to the IWM…I rather like to see it sat next to the Lightning also in 74 Sq markings…:)

Little ancedote here…when I was a baby I was a bit of a squawker i.e. I bawled/snotted/guess the rest non stop and drove my parents mad…we lived in Wyton and at the time, Phantoms were based at Alconbury (Not sure what squadron, can anyone help me on this? I was born in May 1979)
Now these Phantoms used to scream their way past our kitchen window and you would have thought that baby+loud noise=screaming baby wouldn’t you? Not me…they’d fly over and I’d stop squawking and be all smiles (ok, maybe it was wind) and look all excited…as soon as the planes had gone though I’d be off again…:P

So maybe my interest in aircraft comes from those early days in Wyton? 😉

RE: XV474

The CFE treaty simply limits the number of conventional weapons a country can have, split into an enormous array of categories. One of which is of course ´combat aircraft.´ Somewhere around 1990 the regulations got into service, and since most (if not all) countries which had signed had more aircraft available than allowed by CFE standards, aircraft had to be scrapped. The sickening thing is that even withdrawn aircraft fell under CFE ´jurisdiction´ so it was pretty convenient for most airforces to scrap only those aircraft which were withdrawn, or were going to be withdrawn.

As the RAF was already in the process of retiring it´s Phantom fleet that aircraft (together with the Buccaneer) bore the brunt of RAF´s race to comply with the treaty. The same happened in Italy with their G91s, and in the former Soviet Union with almost everything nice (Yak-28, Su-15… 🙁 )

WARNING! SHOCKING CONTENT BELOW!

Typical for CFE-scrapped aircraft is that they are chopped up into three pieces (forward, central and rear fuselage with often the wings chopped of as well) and then left for a while. This to ease inspection, either by sattelite or inspection teams (the latter also check operational aircraft. Those guys really are planespotters by profession). Only after some three months are the remains allowed to go to the smelter – although Italy has shown the courtesy to weld a bunch of Ginas back together again for display purposes (of course the separate parts often were part of different aircraft 😛 ). IIRC something similar was tried with an RAF Phantom as well, but those were chopped up in such locations that making a complete bird was structurally almost impossible.

Oh, and when RAF Wildenrath was cleared a bunch of Phantoms was simply blown up (more horror: the few Lightings remaining there as decoy or for BDRT were horridly overrun by shovels).

RE: XV474

I believe the Phantom acquired by the Museum Of Fllght (ex Us Navy) a couple of years ago came from Yeovilton. Don’t they have a Phantom in Navy colours on the Carrier exhibition?

RE: XV474

Being a Phantom nut I really must insist that the words ‘scrap’, ‘scrapped’, and ‘scrapping’ are not used in the same sentence as ‘F-4’, its making me feel ill!:P

Reagards, Dazza.

RE: XV474

Thanks for clearing that up Arthur,I knew they were affected by one of the major treaties.What are the exact conditions of the CFE treaty? It seems strange that some have been scrapped and some not,the inconsistancy doesn’t seem to make sense.

RE: XV474

>Can
>somebody from OFMC/IWM confirm its current ownership as it
>now appears to be a permanent IWM exhibit.

Careful Doughnut, it does have it’s wheels still on, so you may find someone jumping down your throat for saying that. 😉

RE: XV474

The OFMC Phantom was obtained primarily because Mark had flown many hours on the type, and was obviously in a position to get one direct from the RAF. Any thought of flying the type would have been a pipedream, as it appears to be with other fast jets, Lightning and Buccaneer, the best one could expect would be fast taxing, as at Bruntingthorpe, and I seem to remember the aircraft being using for a TV advertisement (was racing a Porsche) Can somebody from OFMC/IWM confirm its current ownership as it now appears to be a permanent IWM exhibit.

RE: XV474

I could well be wrong,but I’m lead to believe that all UK
Phantoms are affected by the SALT II treaty.The treaty
states that all US built/funded aircraft in the UK and other
countries have to be scrapped/permenantly decommissioned at
the end of thier service lives.

You’re mixing up a few treaties here. SALT II is the second Strategic Arms Limitations Talk-document, and this deals only with long-range bombers and strategic missiles. It has nothing to do with fighters.

The treaty which states that all US-funded aircraft need to be rendered unflyable after service is part of the Mutual Defense Assistance Program, in which the US paid for military equipment for NATO countries, mostly during the 1950s. Aircraft delivered under those conditions were either to return to the US after service, or scrapped. The British Sabres were part of this deal for example, but also the French Mysteres which served as decoys and BDRT hulks at USAFE bases like Bentwaters/Woodbridge, Upper Heyford and Bitburg.

The RAF Phantoms however were scrapped under the CFE treaty, which deals with bringing down the conventional weapons in the joined countries.

RE: XV474

Let’s hope the Leuchars Phantom goes to Yeovilton when its time is finally up on the gate at Scotland.

M
Attachments:

RE: XV474

This would be why so many potentially first class museum exhibits have been turned into dog food tins. I can’t see the m.o.d allowing a plane in private hands that could give Tornados a run for their money to take to the skies- however much we’d all like to see a Rhino at full tilt again.

RE: XV474

I could well be wrong,but I’m lead to believe that all UK Phantoms are affected by the SALT II treaty.The treaty states that all US built/funded aircraft in the UK and other countries have to be scrapped/permenantly decommissioned at the end of thier service lives.
This would prohibit them being flown in civilian hands.I’m also lead to believe that there is even some controversy over whther they should even be preserved for static display.
Correct me if I’m wrong,it certainly seems very heavy handed policy.

RE: XV474

XV474 as a potential flyer is a new one on me. Surely she’s the Phantom which is permanently installed in the Defence of Britain display, and therefore won’t be going anywhere? Or are there two F4’s at Duxford?

RE: XV474

XV474 T/XV474 MDD Phantom FGR.2

[img src=”http://www.f4phantoms.co.uk/pics/xv474.jpg“]

I do not believe that this has begun refurbishment. The intention was to do so, but i am not sure how the MOD view a private operator flying such a potent warplane. They wouldn’t want some civilian to start up a dog fight with one of their tornado’s! 🙂

Peter.

(USAAF Display Team)