AHC: A more competent U.S. Armed Forces

[marcus_aurelius]

According to Wiki Dick Cheney had a series of heart attack in the 80s. Suppose ITTL he had a big one in 1989 and was forced to retire, and so the Senate confirmed John Tower as Secretary of Defense. The outcome is a more powerful and efficient US military.

The question, therefore, is: what would the US military look like ITTL as of 2012, in terms of training, equipment, etc.?

Marc A

[marcus_aurelius]

Nobody?

Marc A

[SAVORYapple]

Originally Posted by marcus_aurelius

Nobody?

Marc A

The U.S. members here just don't want to admit the U.S. Military could be better than it is now.

[Matt Wiser]

Tower might be much more friendly to Naval Aviation, of which Cheney clearly was not. (Not killing the A-6F and curbing the F-14D programs, for example, as Cheney went for, but Tower would've put the A-12 to the ax, just as Cheney did)

The problem isn't competence at the military level-which is what you seem to imply by your question: it's at the political level within DOD (i.e. the civilian leadership-and not just SECDEF, it's the service secretaries, the assistant secretaries of Defense, etc.)-read: Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, etc. in 2002-3 re: Iraq and not listening to the generals, which Tower certainly would have had he been SECDEF in 1990-91. Cheney, btw, did listen to what Schwartzkopf and his field commanders were saying, and by and large, gave them what they wanted.

But things like force structure post-Cold War almost certainly would've been the same, along with the push post-Gulf War for women in combat aviation and on surface ships.

[Snake Featherston]

Define competent in terms of this thread.

[marcus_aurelius]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Define competent in terms of this thread.

Maybe my wording could use a bit refinement. By "competent" I meant less screw-ups in weapons procurement and no "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you may want" kind of mentality.

In general, the challenge is to make the US military even better than it is today, and discuss what sort of equipment it'll use.

Marc A

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by marcus_aurelius

According to Wiki Dick Cheney had a series of heart attack in the 80s. Suppose ITTL he had a big one in 1989 and was forced to retire, and so the Senate confirmed John Tower as Secretary of Defense. The outcome is a more powerful and efficient US military.

The question, therefore, is: what would the US military look like ITTL as of 2012, in terms of training, equipment, etc.?

Marc A

Motherfucking Tomcats, possibly over the F/A-18E/F (which might still happen in a less ambitious form) and an series of DIVAD assets that aren't a sick joke.
But yeah, the Flying Dorito's fucked.
Maybe there'll be the money available to extend the lease on the F-21 Kfirs, or to get some more F-5Es, or possibly even F-20s when the F-16Ns inevitably start falling from the sky.

[Matt Wiser]

Remember, Marcus, Bush 43 inherited the military that had just been through the drawdown from the Clinton years. And he went further than Bush 41 was willing to go.

You want competent leadership in DOD from 2001 onwards? Either keep Bill Cohen on as SECDEF, or get someone like Sen. John Warner (R-VA) in the job. No Rummy or Wolfowitz. That was the big problem-DOD leadership not willing to listen to the generals, and forcing retirement on those who disagreed with them.

[marcus_aurelius]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Remember, Marcus, Bush 43 inherited the military that had just been through the drawdown from the Clinton years. And he went further than Bush 41 was willing to go.

You want competent leadership in DOD from 2001 onwards? Either keep Bill Cohen on as SECDEF, or get someone like Sen. John Warner (R-VA) in the job. No Rummy or Wolfowitz. That was the big problem-DOD leadership not willing to listen to the generals, and forcing retirement on those who disagreed with them.

I once had a borderline ASB idea of Admiral John S. McCain III (retired) [1] nominated as SecDef. That, or having Gore won in 2000 and make Wesley Clark for the job.

Marc A

[1] A possible POD would be he wasn't shot down over Vietnam

[Jim Smitty]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Remember, Marcus, Bush 43 inherited the military that had just been through the drawdown from the Clinton years. And he went further than Bush 41 was willing to go.

You want competent leadership in DOD from 2001 onwards? Either keep Bill Cohen on as SECDEF, or get someone like Sen. John Warner (R-VA) in the job. No Rummy or Wolfowitz. That was the big problem-DOD leadership not willing to listen to the generals, and forcing retirement on those who disagreed with them.

I have to argee with this.

[TheMann]

As far as better equipment goes, I honestly think one of the things that might help there is a fewer consolidations among the industry. Keeping Martin Marietta and Lockheed apart is one, keeping McDonnell Douglas from getting sucked into Boeing is another. TRW and Rockwell staying in business also counts. I'm not sure if keeping Northrop and Grumman apart is a benefit or not.

As far as naval stuff goes, the Flying Dorito was a mistake from the start, they should have plowed the money into improved versions of the Tomcat. If the Navy must have a strike plane, go with the F-117N Lockheed proposed, though that would have been an iffy proposition compared to just continuing to soup up the Intruder. The Super Hornet was a good idea, though if you ask me the best bet there would be for them to replace the legacy Hornet with the Super Hornet and use souped-up F-14s for the heavy fighter duties. A F-14E / F/A-18E/F / A-6F air wing is a serious proposition. The retirement of the Spruance-class destroyers and the fact that the Perry-class frigates haven't been replaced yet is in both cases bad, both are needed, and are still needed now. Life-extending the Sprucans is possible, but the USN's plans to replace the Perrys with the Littoral Combat Ships is very bad (that program is a clusterfuck and the ships don't work) and should be fixed. I'm thinking the United States plows its considerable resources into making a small stealth frigate design that doesn't cost as much as the Burkes or anything near it during the 1990s.

[Matt Wiser]

Powell couldn't become SECDEF for the same reason as Clark: there's a law that prevents serving or retired flag officers from having civilan leadership positions at DOD until they've been retired for at least ten years, I believe. And if Sen. McCain wanted to be SECDEF, all he needed to do was ask, and Bush 43 would've given it to him, with Senate Confirmation, of course. You'd need a Senator or Congressman to become SECDEF, or someone who'd been an Assistant Secretary from 1989-93.

[EnglishCanuck]

This is making me think of a story I read where a luddite Senator goes back in time to try and keep Robert Heinlein in the navy so he never gets interested in science fiction and comes back to the future to find Admiral Heinlein has kickstarted the space program and has helped establish both lunar colonies and an asteroid belt mining industry leading to an even more advanced future!

Anybody heard of it?

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by TheMann

I'm not sure if keeping Northrop and Grumman apart is a benefit or not.

I'd say it'd be worth it, as they'd be more able to keep up with the big boys, and be a bit more competitive overall, with a track record of competence on both sides.

Originally Posted by TheMann

As far as naval stuff goes, the Flying Dorito was a mistake from the start, they should have plowed the money into improved versions of the Tomcat.

Just off the instant nickname alone it was kind of a bad idea.

Originally Posted by TheMann

The Super Hornet was a good idea, though if you ask me the best bet there would be for them to replace the legacy Hornet with the Super Hornet and use souped-up F-14s for the heavy fighter duties. A F-14E / F/A-18E/F / A-6F air wing is a serious proposition.

With the EA-6B (or an F414 engined A-6F with the same kit) as the normal ECM platform, or the EA-18G?

Originally Posted by TheMann

I'm thinking the United States plows its considerable resources into making a small stealth frigate design that doesn't cost as much as the Burkes or anything near it during the 1990s.

So, something like the La Fayettes?

[Meerkat92]

Originally Posted by EnglishCanuck

This is making me think of a story I read where a luddite Senator goes back in time to try and keep Robert Heinlein in the navy so he never gets interested in science fiction and comes back to the future to find Admiral Heinlein has kickstarted the space program and has helped establish both lunar colonies and an asteroid belt mining industry leading to an even more advanced future!

Anybody heard of it?

HOLY FUCK NO BUT I MUST READ THIS! Do you have a link?

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by Meerkat92

HOLY FUCK NO BUT I MUST READ THIS! Do you have a link?

It's The Return of William Proxmire by Larry Niven. It's in What Might Have Been? Volume 1. Got nominated for a Hugo in 1990.

[Meerkat92]

Originally Posted by NothingNow

It's The Return of William Proxmire by Larry Niven. It's in What Might Have Been? Volume 1. Got nominated for a Hugo in 1990.

Many thanks!

[Matt Wiser]

The EA-6B might be able to take the F404 (non-afterburning) that the A-6F was going to get. Otherwise, you'd need an EA-18G at some point, as the Prowlers are getting old.

[DD951]

Originally Posted by TheMann

(snip) keeping McDonnell Douglas from getting sucked into Boeing is another

Though, had it not been for the merger, McAir would have been in serious trouble because, frankly their management at the time stunk.

However, that'd probably make Boeing run more smoothly, as a lot of Boeing's problems over the last decade & a half can be laid squarely at the feet of former McAir people, & it's a pretty common article of faith in these parts, especially among current & former Boeing people, that what really happened with the merger is that the McAir management, in order to bail themselves out of their own mess that they created, they threw up some smoke & mirrors that fooled Boeing into essentially allowing the McAir people to buy Boeing with Boeing's own money, & then proceed to make a hash of a lot of things.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

The EA-6B might be able to take the F404 (non-afterburning) that the A-6F was going to get. Otherwise, you'd need an EA-18G at some point, as the Prowlers are getting old.

And if you could fit the F404, it'd be child's play to fit the F412 or F414BJ into the same airframe, and that extra 2000-3000lbs of thrust would likely be very appreciated.