Jump to content

CD48159 - 1/48 Air National Guard F-84F


Recommended Posts

Kursad,

Here is a copy of the Fowler sheet FD48-05.

fd48-05.JPG.60db2d7c85bbc846c21ff5c706954a5a.JPG

You could do one or more sheets just of 366th aircraft:

 

389th FBS/TFS  red/white

390th FBS/TFS  blue/white

391st FBS/TFS   yellow/black

490th FBS/TFS  green/white

 

Oops! Sorry, these are not ANG specific.  

Edited by Dutch
Link to post
Share on other sites

f84f001.jpg
 

One of the more colorful slides I have. For all the wrong reasons. Anscochrome sure never had the longevity of Kodachrome. 
 

Unpublished pics of SAC controlled F-84Fs can be tough to find. 
 

Rick L. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
4 hours ago, Corey said:

Seeing how well the F-89 sheet has done, I wonder if this sheet would do as well too?

 

It would make my day for sure, another sheet I've had on permanent Watchlist on Hannants for years now. Chuck in the FJ-4 Fury one and my year will be complete! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2022 at 10:38 PM, Spruemeister said:

f84f001.jpg
 

One of the more colorful slides I have. For all the wrong reasons. Anscochrome sure never had the longevity of Kodachrome. 
 

Unpublished pics of SAC controlled F-84Fs can be tough to find. 
 

Rick L. 

As much as I love the SEA Camo look on these, a SAC fighter scheme would be very cool. Most unusual as well.

 

Why did SAC have fighters?  I'm assuming bomber escort, but no way did these have the range to stay with a B-36, -47 or -52. Could these even air refuel?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dmk0210 said:

As much as I love the SEA Camo look on these, a SAC fighter scheme would be very cool. Most unusual as well.

 

Why did SAC have fighters?  I'm assuming bomber escort, but no way did these have the range to stay with a B-36, -47 or -52. Could these even air refuel?

 

 

 

I'm assuming it was because it could carry a Mk.7 nuclear force multiplier? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Evil_Toast_RSA said:

 

I'm assuming it was because it could carry a Mk.7 nuclear force multiplier? 

Perhaps. Maybe TAC wasn't allowed to carry nukes yet back then?

Edited by dmk0210
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dmk0210 said:

As much as I love the SEA Camo look on these, a SAC fighter scheme would be very cool. Most unusual as well.

 

Why did SAC have fighters?  I'm assuming bomber escort, but no way did these have the range to stay with a B-36, -47 or -52. Could these even air refuel?

 

 

Quite a few actually.

 

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/wings/FighterWings.htm

 

When the B-47 and 52 came along, the escorts couldn't keep up and went back to TAC.

 

Rick L.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spruemeister said:

Quite a few actually.

 

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/wings/FighterWings.htm

 

When the B-47 and 52 came along, the escorts couldn't keep up and went back to TAC.

 

Rick L.

Thanks for the link! 

 

This explains it well.

 

Quote

SAC's Fighter Wings

    The Strategic Air Command was founded by men who had flown bomb raids against Germany during World War II.  They usually encountered swarms of enemy fighters and knew the importance of having fighter escorts. They didn't want to haggle with other commands to get fighters when needed, so they had fighter wings placed under their own operational control.
    Advances in technology soon made them obsolete.  A single atomic bomb had more explosive power than all the bombs dropped during all of World War II, so only one of them could certainly destroy a target far more effectively than hundreds of World War II B-17s and B-24s.  Thus SAC's missions were based on the use of an individual airplane, not a formation of them.
    During its early years, SAC flew B-29s left over from the war and later B-50s and B36s.  They were soon replaced by new jet bombers, the B-47 and B-52.  They flew so fast and so high that they were virtually immune from fighters.  Plus the F-84s and F-86s in SAC's fighter inventory couldn't keep up with them.  The fighter wings were no longer necessary, so they were either inactivated or assigned to other commands.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Paul Boyer said:

Not to mention the limited range of most fighters. You would have to station the fighters close to enemy territory and have them meet the bombers you may be sending from CONUS. 

On that site it says they were forward deploying them in Germany and other places in Europe. Probably forward deployed in the Pacific as well. I imagine they'd escort the B-29s, B-50s and B-36s in relays across the route (like they did with B-17s in the WWII ETO before the longer range Mustangs came on the scene). 

 

SAC also experimented with the B-36 carrying an F-84 (FICON) around this time. Plus they were starting to put the pieces together to finally get practical aerial refueling. Though the latter wouldn't have helped the escort mission I don't think.

Edited by dmk0210
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...