F-14A VF-84

[guillaume320]

Hi all F-14 experts,

I have a question with regards to this color scheme: F-14

What would be the correct color for the underside of this particular airframe? I can see a bit of white in several areas, like on the air intakes under 'USS', under the nose or even the pylons, but not sure if its not just a trick of the light. The reason I ask: if it is white, why where the flaps and the upper part of the stabs not white as well?

By the way, does anybody know the serial of this particular aircraft so I can try to find more pictures?

Many thanks,

Guillaume

[Skull Leader]

If I had to guess,this photo was taken in 1979... they were still using the large national insignia but had already begun to do away with the white. The answer is probably "either/or." They started out the year with white undersides and by the end of the year had gone to overall gull grey.

The BuNo. Was likely 16039X (not sure what the last digit is..probably 160391 or 394.) It could also be 160400.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Skull Leader

[guillaume320]

Thank You very much for this reply Skull Leader!

[Jennings]

204 was 160386 in summer 1977...

[JEN722]

From here it looks like white undersurfaces.

Jens

[Swordsman422]

I seem to recall watching Final Countdown that some othe aircraft looked like they were in transition to all gull grey. The upper control surfaces and flaps had been painted gull grey but the undersides were still white. It has been a month or so since I saw that film, but it does provide a decent look at several VF-84 aircraft and might make for an okay reference.

Kinda wish VF-41 had gotten more screen time, though. They actually did things with their F-14s. :rolleyes:/>

Have a look at this video. Almost all the F-14 scenes in Final Countdown. Note Victory 200 has GG topside with no white control surfaces and a white belly.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Swordsman422

[guillaume320]

Thanks for all the replies!

G

[TomCooper]

...

Kinda wish VF-41 had gotten more screen time, though. They actually did things with their F-14s. :rolleyes:/>/>

It's not like the VF-84 didn't try: skipper Andrews flew a 4,5-hours CAP after VF-41 splashed two Sukhois. His Tomcat was armed with Phoenix missiles (which VF-41's pair didn't have).

At least a pair of Foxbats came in but contrary to Sukhois, their pilots didn't open fire: with ROEs dictating that Libyans have to fire first before Americans can shoot back, Andrews was left without a choice but to return to USS Nimitz with all his missiles still aboard.

[Swordsman422]

It's not like the VF-84 didn't try: skipper Andrews flew a 4,5-hours CAP after VF-41 splashed two Sukhois. His Tomcat was armed with Phoenix missiles (which VF-41's pair didn't have).

At least a pair of Foxbats came in but contrary to Sukhois, their pilots didn't open fire: with ROEs dictating that Libyans have to fire first before Americans can shoot back, Andrews was left without a choice but to return to USS Nimitz with all his missiles still aboard.

Yeah, Tom, I know. There are lots of interesting no-shoot dogfight stories come out of those days. They make for great reading. I just like to kick the VF-84 fans in the craw every now and again. Blackburn's Curse seemed to hold true for the most part. The skull and bones never got any real action until VF-103 got taken over. While carrying the traditions, the Navy doesn't officially recognize 103 as a successor, so the curse died when they were disbanded.

Oh well. I'm a Pukin' Dogs fan anyway, and until they were dropping bombs in OEF they didn't do much in anger either.

By the way, (and without the intent of starting a flame war) I really appreciate your efforts to bring the facts about the IIAF/IRIAF to light. So many westerners want to put them down as backwards and stupid, but I think that is a serious underestimation. They always seemed like a very professional force that did the best they could with what they have.

Just remembered a question I want to ask: Do you think the Lybian Su-22 that fired on the VF-41 Tomcats did so by accident, considering how out of the envelope the launch occured? I am not challenging the validity of the engagement, I'd just like to hear your opinion.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Swordsman422

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

The skull and bones never got any real action until VF-103 got taken over.

Weeeelllll....I'm assuming you mean after WW2, with not only their Corsair aces but also for the Hellcat as well, being one of the highest scoring squadrons of the war for their particular time period.

But I could bring up VF-84's combat tour to Vietnam in '65. Before the MiGs became an issue, but they did a TON of groundpounding, and lost a couple of crews to ground fire, some of them being POW's for a good 7 years or more. Just sayin'.

Would also love to know the answer on the Su-22 firing from head-on, from which there was pretty much no chance of hitting the Tomcats. Misfire, perhaps? Either way, it had disastrous consequences for them, not that I feel much sympathy....:D

[Skull Leader]

Well, we could probably debate that forever and never have the correct answer.

My hypothesis has always been that they were told to shoot. Everything about the entire incident came across as posturing, I've always felt the missile shot was too (against the pilots better judgement I'm sure... )

[Swordsman422]

Weeeelllll....I'm assuming you mean after WW2, with not only their Corsair aces but also for the Hellcat as well, being one of the highest scoring squadrons of the war for their particular time period.

But I could bring up VF-84's combat tour to Vietnam in '65. Before the MiGs became an issue, but they did a TON of groundpounding, and lost a couple of crews to ground fire, some of them being POW's for a good 7 years or more. Just sayin'.

/>

Yeah, I was talking about the post-war period, and especially during the Tomcat Era where it seemed all the Jolly Rogers did was look good in movies and on posters while giving off the image that they were some kind of elite squadron. This, as stated, was also a bit of intersquadron rivalry. My Pukin' Dogs weren't particularly known for doing a lot with their Tomcats either.

The whole Blackburn's Curse thing came about when after VF-17 was disbanded, two other squadrons wanted to claim the Jolly Rogers' traditions. Tom Blackburn and the Navy disagreed as to who held the right to it. The Navy got its way and Blackburn supposedly said that the new squadron wasn't going to be worth a damn.

[TomCooper]

Yeah, Tom, I know. There are lots of interesting no-shoot dogfight stories come out of those days. They make for great reading.

Indeed. Sadly, the best one can't be published: a VF-21's clash with IRIAF F-4E from 1987 (with an outright 'Sparrow shoot-out').

I just like to kick the VF-84 fans in the craw every now and again. Blackburn's Curse seemed to hold true for the most part. The skull and bones never got any real action until VF-103 got taken over. While carrying the traditions, the Navy doesn't officially recognize 103 as a successor, so the curse died when they were disbanded.

...which was a great shame. It's not for nothing that the last CO VF-84 is now a Flag.

Oh well. I'm a Pukin' Dogs fan anyway, and until they were dropping bombs in OEF they didn't do much in anger either.

I couldn't make up my mind, so selected one favourite for Atlantic (VF-14) and one for Pacific (VF-114). Sadly, some of my pals that used to serve with VF-32 are not that delighted about this. ;-)

By the way, (and without the intent of starting a flame war) I really appreciate your efforts to bring the facts about the IIAF/IRIAF to light...They always seemed like a very professional force that did the best they could with what they have.

Thanks. It's nice to have that work appreciated. More in this regards is to follow in the future.

Just remembered a question I want to ask: Do you think the Lybian Su-22 that fired on the VF-41 Tomcats did so by accident, considering how out of the envelope the launch occured?

It was intentional - and that's no 'opinion', but something based on evidence. And the missile was not fired 'out of envelope': that was a R-13M (the AIM-9D-lookalike), which had a limited front-aspect capability too. It just couldn't hit 'Hank's' F-14 because he was pulling too many gs while flying perpendicular to the incoming Fitter.

More details about this in Libyan Air Wars, Part 1 due out sometimes between November this and February next year.

[Swordsman422]

It was intentional - and that's no 'opinion', but something based on evidence. And the missile was not fired 'out of envelope': that was a R-13M (the AIM-9D-lookalike), which had a limited front-aspect capability too. It just couldn't hit 'Hank's' F-14 because he was pulling too many gs while flying perpendicular to the incoming Fitter.

More details about this in Libyan Air Wars, Part 1 due out sometimes between November this and February next year.

Oh, thanks! I was under the obviously mistaken impression that the missile he fired was an earlier model Atoll with an an aft-only aspect. Not that I would question Kleeman's airmanship. Evasions are pretty impressive feats.

I look forward to the publication. Having grown up in that time and hearing about the clashes on the news, the further details of that period are always interesting.

[TomCooper]

Oh, thanks! I was under the obviously mistaken impression that the missile he fired was an earlier model Atoll with an an aft-only aspect. Not that I would question Kleeman's airmanship. Evasions are pretty impressive feats.

I look forward to the publication. Having grown up in that time and hearing about the clashes on the news, the further details of that period are always interesting.

Now that you mention it: I think Kleeman never intended to evade. He pulled a hard turn left to position himself behind that Fitter and the Libyan fired while he was already in turn.

[Janissary]

Indeed. Sadly, the best one can't be published: a VF-21's clash with IRIAF F-4E from 1987 (with an outright 'Sparrow shoot-out').

Can you expand upon this? Couldn't find much info on this except for a few sentences here and there on the net. Why can't it be published?

[TomCooper]

Can you expand upon this? Couldn't find much info on this except for a few sentences here and there on the net. Why can't it be published?

Well, the essence of the story is something like this: the Tomcat driver got severely criticised by almost everybody. Less so for missing, but foremost because nobody was really sure there was an IRIAF F-4 around (very humid weather and all sorts of problems for radars). Although sent to Top Gun afterwards, that was the end of a highly promising career - while he actually saved quite a few lives then the Iranian AIM-7 was about to splash a USN P-3... IMHO, one of rather shameful stories in the history of modern-day USN.

Bottom line: publishing just the interview with the IRIAF RIO is 'no fun', really.

[TomCooper]

Oh, thanks! I was under the obviously mistaken impression that the missile he fired was an earlier model Atoll with an an aft-only aspect.

It seems that many think that way, inside the USN too. I think it's actually so that somebody between the USN intel folks had a massive problem with armament of Libyan MiG-23s and Su-22s at that time - and that's something the USN isn't proud to talk about.

The first LAAF MiG-23MS' the USN saw were all armed with old R-3S'. Corresponding intel was forwarded to squadrons. Then, on 18 August1981 LAAF MiG-23s armed with R-13Ms appeared, and then similarly armed Su-22s too. And that was a 'surprise'. And when then Su-22s not only appeared, but opened fire too... there were two surprises. And surprises should not happen to intel people: they are 'unfailable', if you know what I mean...

Even more so because by that time the Adolf Tolkachev - aka 'Donald' - was feeding 1st class intel on all sorts of radars and weaponry installed even into latest, I.e. then still 'future' Soviet jets (like MiG-29 and Su-27; Tolkachev caused so much damage that the Soviet aviation never really recovered from that blow). It just seems the amount of intel he was providing was too much for the CIA to cope with - at least within the short period of time before the COMEX off Libya in Aug 1981.

To make things worse: even Tolkachev's intel wasn't needed, because just a few years earlier certain US gentleman (yes, a US ex-military pilot) was contracted by the LAAF to test-fly the MiG-23 and write a new pilot's manual for the type (the ones provided by Russians have caused a few Libyans to crash and thus considered 'useless'). Now, if the gentleman in question didn't tell anybody about his experience when coming back home... well, feel free to call me an idiot.

So, it was a kind of usual story: intel was available, but not provided to warfighters.

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

Well, the essence of the story is something like this: the Tomcat driver got severely criticised by almost everybody. Less so for missing, but foremost because nobody was really sure there was an IRIAF F-4 around (very humid weather and all sorts of problems for radars). Although sent to Top Gun afterwards, that was the end of a highly promising career - while he actually saved quite a few lives then the Iranian AIM-7 was about to splash a USN P-3... IMHO, one of rather shameful stories in the history of modern-day USN.

Bottom line: publishing just the interview with the IRIAF RIO is 'no fun', really.

Yeah, I remember that one well; had the article clipped from Aviation Weekly & Space Technology for a long time, the Tomcats flying CAP on the oil convoys. The article used a file photo of a hi-vis VF-41 plane firing off a sparrow. The essence of the article was that the Sparrows were being called into question, as he fired more than one without result. Seems like one failed to ignite its motor and just dropped like a bomb, and the other completely failed to guide or something.

Glad that they didn't quote the pilot's thoughts on it right afterward; would've made for "R"-rated reading for sure....

[ElectroSoldier]

I would go with white under grey.

Love those days of the Tomcat, the heyday without doubt and wearing her colours loud n proud

[TomCooper]

Yeah, I remember that one well; had the article clipped from Aviation Weekly & Space Technology for a long time, the Tomcats flying CAP on the oil convoys. The article used a file photo of a hi-vis VF-41 plane firing off a sparrow. The essence of the article was that the Sparrows were being called into question, as he fired more than one without result. Seems like one failed to ignite its motor and just dropped like a bomb, and the other completely failed to guide or something.

...whatever the USN concluded (can't recall nor find that write-up right now): at least one flashed only inches over the Iranian cockpit - forcing the crew to break their lock-on.

Sometimes it does not have to be a 'kill' to become a 'mission kill'.