Not sure on the EF-111 replacement, but the expeditionary EW squadrons, which are manned by joint USAF/USN crews, have EA-6Bs. And yes, the AF pilots in these squadrons became carrier-qualified. An upgrade to the EF-111 with new engines, EW systems, and HARM missile capability might have gone ahead if there'd been no 1990s drawdown.
The F-111 shouldn't have been retired if you ask me. For strike purposes, the thing is fantastically good - very fast, great for maneuverability, very long legs and tough as nails. If it was me making the decisions for the USAF, I'd order a version of the aircraft be returned to service, using high-end engines and electronics and some updates to the airframe and aerodynamics. The EF-111 would have been the same, but with the ability to use HARM missiles worked in and Sidewinders for self-defense.
Tornado Wild Weasel: The USAF was seriously considering the Tornado as an F-4G replacement. A planned competition in 1990 would've pitted the Tornado against WW versions of the F-15E and F-16D. Rockwell International had the license from Panavia for U.S. production, and assembly would've taken place at their Palmdale plant (same one where the B-1 was built). The flyoff was never held, and the F-16C "Weasel Viper" has the Wild Weasel mission.
The Tornado in USAF service? Seriously?
I'm amazed at that one. It makes perfect sense, mind you, but I have a hard time believing that a European strike aircraft would be adopted by the United States Air Force. The Rockell / Panavia F-24 Tornado? Interesting, indeed.
Aside from the obvious ones (CF-105 Arrow, P.1154, TSR-2), I would agree with the North American XB-70, McDonnell Douglas AV-16, Grumman A-6F, Fairchild-Republic YA-10B, Martin P6M and the Vickers V.1000. (Funny how NONE of those companies are still in the business. Boeing and Lockheed having better lobbyists, perhaps?) The XB-70 would probably have meant no B-1, and I love the Bone, so its hard for me to say that - but the Valkyrie could also have other uses. I'm thinking specifically of what the Russians built the Backfire and later versions of the Badger for, missile carriers for ocean defense. The AV-16, A-6F and A-10B are obvious choices - the AV-16 would be an even better close-air support airplane than it is now, ditto for the A-10B. The A-6F is obvious because the reliance on the Hornet and its derivatives is going to one day blow up in the faces of the USN.
The P6M is in this for the usefulness. Use it as a killer of merchies, and if you fit it with a sonar you could easily enough use it as a submarine hunter a la the P-3 Orion. Land on the surface or drop Sonobuoys to listen in, if you find something, track it down and kill it. The fact that the Seamaster could go 1100 kilometres an hour on the deck is incredible by any standard and difficult for many modern planes to touch, half a century later. Another aircraft that if built may well still be with us today.
The V-1000 was a massive politics fuckup by Great Britain, even compared to a period where they screwed up so many times it was incredible. Effectively, between that and the problems with the de Havilland Comet, Britain could have ushered in the jet age years ahead of the Americans, and forced McDonnell Douglas and Boeing to scramble to make the DC-8 and 707 work better to beat the British. Oops. The VC10 ultimately made it into the air, but hardly sold in any numbers, because it was years late and got sabotaged from inside.
