Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

IMO, I can imagine there being a time when history turns a corner on Gerald Ford ITTL, just as they did for Truman in the 1970s. He led the US through a massively difficult time, was a war time President only a few short years after the US military had been traumatized by Vietnam, and began the steps to rebuild a shattered economy.

IOTL, he would go on to support gay rights and was pro-choice by the 1990s/early 2000s. He was the first former President to join the board of a gay equity group, and he endorsed gay marriage in 2001. I've always liked him for that, and for being in many ways, the last moderate Republican President.
Yeah, I think that with the benefit of hindsight Ford could definitely enjoy a fair amount of rehabilitation in the public eye. Probably not to Truman’s level but he also might not be dismissed as a Hoover re-run as he plainly worries he’ll be here.

(Though by the time he died Hoover was a respected elder statesman himself so who knows)
 
I started reading this thread yesterday, and while I haven't read all of the comments, I think I've hit all of the story posts, and I've enjoyed what is written.
I do have a few thoughts on major US procurement changes however. The space shuttle design was locked-in well before the PoD, and Ford's full term will, like Carter's in OTL, see no American spaceflight. I expect the shuttle program will continue more or less as it did OTL with the order for the conversion of STA-099 to OV-099 Challenger replacing the originally planed conversion of OV-101 Enterprise into a flight vehicle. Similarly, the US space program needs won't change, and I expect OV-103 and OV-104 (Discovery and Atlantis) will similarly be ordered in early 1979 as no one wants to put aerospace workers out of their job in the ongoing recession. The spares components that eventually went into OV-105 were not ordered until the mid 1980s, so that will be determined by events that are to come, but I expect that something similar will still happen.

Without Carter, I expect that the B-1A bomber program will not be subject to the historic review in 1977 that led to it's cancellation. While a reduction from the initially planned 240 units is possible, an outright cancellation seems unlikely, and I'd expect serial production to have started by the time that Ford's successor moves into the White House, making it even harder to cancel.

Furthermore without Carter, I could see that CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson doesn't spend five years between being laid down and being launched without another CVN put under construction. Even if the USN ends up loosing both CV-42 USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and CV-43 USS Coral Sea to get CVN-71 earlier than they did in OTL. Historically CV-42 was old, and had not received the same refits as the other two Midway class carriers, and was sold for scrap just 7 months after her decommissioning in 1977. This is often attributed to a desire to keep her from being recommissioned in place of the next Nimitz class carrier. The OTL Carter administration looked at a number of lower-cost designs for aircraft carriers including Sea Control Ships, and the Medium Sized Carrier (CVV). I think these get studied, but not pushed anywhere near as hard as carrier replacements prior to 1981. What comes after 1981 will entirely depend on what else has happened in the world. The fate of the nuclear escort program is entirely up in the air. While the ships offer capabilities when paired with nuclear powered carriers, they are also quite expensive. If that can be sold as a subsidy to the civilian nuclear industry, it helps, but nuclear power and AEGIS on a ship gets very expensive very quickly.
 
I started reading this thread yesterday, and while I haven't read all of the comments, I think I've hit all of the story posts, and I've enjoyed what is written.
I do have a few thoughts on major US procurement changes however. The space shuttle design was locked-in well before the PoD, and Ford's full term will, like Carter's in OTL, see no American spaceflight. I expect the shuttle program will continue more or less as it did OTL with the order for the conversion of STA-099 to OV-099 Challenger replacing the originally planed conversion of OV-101 Enterprise into a flight vehicle. Similarly, the US space program needs won't change, and I expect OV-103 and OV-104 (Discovery and Atlantis) will similarly be ordered in early 1979 as no one wants to put aerospace workers out of their job in the ongoing recession. The spares components that eventually went into OV-105 were not ordered until the mid 1980s, so that will be determined by events that are to come, but I expect that something similar will still happen.

Without Carter, I expect that the B-1A bomber program will not be subject to the historic review in 1977 that led to it's cancellation. While a reduction from the initially planned 240 units is possible, an outright cancellation seems unlikely, and I'd expect serial production to have started by the time that Ford's successor moves into the White House, making it even harder to cancel.

Furthermore without Carter, I could see that CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson doesn't spend five years between being laid down and being launched without another CVN put under construction. Even if the USN ends up loosing both CV-42 USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and CV-43 USS Coral Sea to get CVN-71 earlier than they did in OTL. Historically CV-42 was old, and had not received the same refits as the other two Midway class carriers, and was sold for scrap just 7 months after her decommissioning in 1977. This is often attributed to a desire to keep her from being recommissioned in place of the next Nimitz class carrier. The OTL Carter administration looked at a number of lower-cost designs for aircraft carriers including Sea Control Ships, and the Medium Sized Carrier (CVV). I think these get studied, but not pushed anywhere near as hard as carrier replacements prior to 1981. What comes after 1981 will entirely depend on what else has happened in the world. The fate of the nuclear escort program is entirely up in the air. While the ships offer capabilities when paired with nuclear powered carriers, they are also quite expensive. If that can be sold as a subsidy to the civilian nuclear industry, it helps, but nuclear power and AEGIS on a ship gets very expensive very quickly.
Great stuff! I certainly welcome more input like this since procurements is definitely not my strong suit.

Id agree the B-1A was not cancelled here; I’d imagine Ford slashes the procurement maybe by a third to half, though, as the Pentagon expected and much of NATO high command wanted, possibly in an effort to keep pursuing SALT and de emphasizing missile dev. The plane did have a lot of issues after all. This probably delays the ATB/B-2 project quite a bit too, I’d think
 
IMO, I can imagine there being a time when history turns a corner on Gerald Ford ITTL, just as they did for Truman in the 1970s. He led the US through a massively difficult time, was a war time President only a few short years after the US military had been traumatized by Vietnam, and began the steps to rebuild a shattered economy.

IOTL, he would go on to support gay rights and was pro-choice by the 1990s/early 2000s. He was the first former President to join the board of a gay equity group, and he endorsed gay marriage in 2001. I've always liked him for that, and for being in many ways, the last moderate Republican President.
I can imagine him being a respected president who couldn't handle the massive amount of crises on his hand. But like Carter one who's better as a former president (due to his support for gay marriage) and was the wrong man at the wrong time.

On that note, I wonder what Carter's legacy will be TTL?
 
I can imagine him being a respected president who couldn't handle the massive amount of crises on his hand. But like Carter one who's better as a former president (due to his support for gay marriage) and was the wrong man at the wrong time.

On that note, I wonder what Carter's legacy will be TTL?
Ive tipped my hand that Carter will soon be a Senator… beyond that, we shall see :)
 
Great stuff! I certainly welcome more input like this since procurements is definitely not my strong suit.

Id agree the B-1A was not cancelled here; I’d imagine Ford slashes the procurement maybe by a third to half, though, as the Pentagon expected and much of NATO high command wanted, possibly in an effort to keep pursuing SALT and de emphasizing missile dev. The plane did have a lot of issues after all. This probably delays the ATB/B-2 project quite a bit too, I’d think
As for the nuclear triad, Trident is well under development in the mid 1970s, and would probably continue without changes. The first seven of the Ohios were ordered pre-1979 in OTL, with a gap that didn't see the next boats ordered until 1981. For items like submarines, steady-state construction has distinct cost advantages as the producers can keep the workforce employed and trained up by doing the job, rather than make-work or letting people go and having to rebuild the industrial base. If there are going to be draw-downs, the Navy will try very hard to make it be the older, less capable boats rather than cutting the planned Ohio buy. I think the D-5 program goes more or less on schedule here no matter who wins in 1976 and 1980, given that it is a direct replacement for the existing systems. The Ohios won't be a part of a 600 ship navy, but 18 Ohios replacing the original 41 For Freedom boats under SALT II is a deal that the USN would take. The earlier submarines had a total crew requirement of about 11000 officers and enlisted (41 boats each with two crews and roughly 140 officers and enlisted per crew), while the Ohios totaled under 6000 (18 boats with two crews of 155 each). For a military structured like that of the US, people cost more than things, so getting the crew requirements down is a big cost savings.

MX (Peacekeeper) development is well in place at the PoD, and I don't see Congress' objections to Carter's basing plans getting butterflied. Most of the basing options evaluated in the 1970s have deep problems (for examplerail basing risks locking up the entire rail network to all traffic within 72 hours of deployment, stopping all shipments of coal, grain, ect), which drives the USAF back to either road/off-road or silo deployments. If there are to be DoD cuts starting in 1981 (as I expect), then MX is probably on the chopping block - but this could lead to the Small ICBM being funded later as the Minuteman replacement rather than cancelled. It's easier to justify it if there isn't another 'New' ICBM that was just bought. I would note that no MX program in the 1980s puts extra pressure on the Shuttle program to support the American large solid rocket motor industrial base - a cost that the shuttle, and later SLS has borne for decades until the recent contract work on a new ICBM.

With the B-1As, yes, I think a reduction in the total order from 244 down to 164 is plausible, certainly if the cruise missile program is going ahead. Air launched cruise missiles were just one arrow in the quiver of the bomber force alongside gravity bombs and short range missiles. The B-1A, being a higher altitude bomber, actually gets better range out of both cruise and short range missiles because the missile itself is going higher and faster at t+1.
 
As for the nuclear triad, Trident is well under development in the mid 1970s, and would probably continue without changes. The first seven of the Ohios were ordered pre-1979 in OTL, with a gap that didn't see the next boats ordered until 1981. For items like submarines, steady-state construction has distinct cost advantages as the producers can keep the workforce employed and trained up by doing the job, rather than make-work or letting people go and having to rebuild the industrial base. If there are going to be draw-downs, the Navy will try very hard to make it be the older, less capable boats rather than cutting the planned Ohio buy. I think the D-5 program goes more or less on schedule here no matter who wins in 1976 and 1980, given that it is a direct replacement for the existing systems. The Ohios won't be a part of a 600 ship navy, but 18 Ohios replacing the original 41 For Freedom boats under SALT II is a deal that the USN would take. The earlier submarines had a total crew requirement of about 11000 officers and enlisted (41 boats each with two crews and roughly 140 officers and enlisted per crew), while the Ohios totaled under 6000 (18 boats with two crews of 155 each). For a military structured like that of the US, people cost more than things, so getting the crew requirements down is a big cost savings.

MX (Peacekeeper) development is well in place at the PoD, and I don't see Congress' objections to Carter's basing plans getting butterflied. Most of the basing options evaluated in the 1970s have deep problems (for examplerail basing risks locking up the entire rail network to all traffic within 72 hours of deployment, stopping all shipments of coal, grain, ect), which drives the USAF back to either road/off-road or silo deployments. If there are to be DoD cuts starting in 1981 (as I expect), then MX is probably on the chopping block - but this could lead to the Small ICBM being funded later as the Minuteman replacement rather than cancelled. It's easier to justify it if there isn't another 'New' ICBM that was just bought. I would note that no MX program in the 1980s puts extra pressure on the Shuttle program to support the American large solid rocket motor industrial base - a cost that the shuttle, and later SLS has borne for decades until the recent contract work on a new ICBM.

With the B-1As, yes, I think a reduction in the total order from 244 down to 164 is plausible, certainly if the cruise missile program is going ahead. Air launched cruise missiles were just one arrow in the quiver of the bomber force alongside gravity bombs and short range missiles. The B-1A, being a higher altitude bomber, actually gets better range out of both cruise and short range missiles because the missile itself is going higher and faster at t+1.
Well said, and gives me a good idea for some political controversy in the early 1980s with an MX cancellation/shuttle program shenanigans

(Also, I figure a 600 ship Navy is DOA in this TL- I get the sense that was very much Lehman’s baby)
 
I have some rough ideas. Suffice to say Sanjay would/will be a disastrous PM
Let's not forget about his out of control appetite for multiple women, etc.,

PS: Sanjay: if I were you, I would get fire these two Sikh bodyguards ASAP (just saying).

The Indian Armed Forces might launch a coup d'etat (thinking about doing a timeline of the Indian Armed Forces launching a coup: stay tuned).
 
Let's not forget about his out of control appetite for multiple women, etc.,

PS: Sanjay: if I were you, I would get fire these two Sikh bodyguards ASAP (just saying).

The Indian Armed Forces might launch a coup d'etat (thinking about doing a timeline of the Indian Armed Forces launching a coup: stay tuned).
I mean let’s call it what it is: Sanjay was an absolute savage. Which is why I’m surprised more ATLs haven’t made use of such a ready-made villain, I only hope I can make a humble contribution myself

(The setup is there for an Indian coup; the Emergency would be a decent jumping off)
 
I mean let’s call it what it is: Sanjay was an absolute savage. Which is why I’m surprised more ATLs haven’t made use of such a ready-made villain, I only hope I can make a humble contribution myself
Reading his biography, I was horrified Sanjay was a conniving bastard who retaliated against opponents even those inside the government & parliament.

His vicious tactics made Cuomo a choir boy.

Speaking of India, I'm keeping that close to the vest in my Rocky timeline as US/India relations soured.
 
The Trouble with Peace
The Trouble with Peace

"...let us never forget who it was who led us not only into this economic disaster, but our political and military one too! It is now up to the people to rise up and take back this country..."

- Saul Ubaldini, head of Argentina' CGT Labor Union

The formal Treaty of Cordoba that ended the Beagle War would in most normal circumstances seem to be a case for hope; a senseless, remarkably bloody war between two major South American militaries, the most severe international conflict on the continent in decades, was over in less than a year. 33,000 Argentines and 19,000 Chileans lay dead, with over a hundred thousand wounded; among the latter, it was primarily civilian casualties. Much of Santiago and Valparaiso lay in ruins; the Argentine military, however, had been effectively destroyed. Most of their planes shot down, most of their ships sank, and their elite mountaineer divisions shredded down to the bone.

The trouble with peace, however, was that Argentina's military dictatorship - one in a line of many dating back fifty years - was the reason the country had been marched into the meatgrinder. Not only was its prestige in civilian governance, stepping in after the chaotic final act of Juan Peron and his latest politically-inclined wife, completely shattered, but its competence as a fighting force gone too. The economy was in crisis as it was even before the Venezuelan oil shock (where the government had driven the leftist cadres of the military into the jungles as in Panama but still failed to find the ringleaders) and now seemed to be in utter collapse. The only thing the military seemed to be good for was disappearing people; it couldn't even fight Chile to a draw!

The announcement of the Treaty of Cordoba was the final straw. Border adjustments uniformly benefitted Chile and a massive, crippling indemnity was part of the final agreement. The last man on the unstable musical chairs of junta heads, Reynaldo Bignone, was in office just long enough to sign the treaty before mass protests even larger than those that had shook Buenos Aires all year erupted after a fiery speech by union head Saul Ubaldini. SIDE spies and Army officers began shooting not just at protesters but at each other; the various factions of the military descended into anarchy, the streets of the capital and other major cities consumed by ugly paramilitary violence and immediate radicalization. Bignone resigned and tried to implement a transitional council to elections in 1980; more violence erupted at Ubaldini, one of the most respected anti-junta leaders, was gunned down on his way to meet with Raul Alfonsin, the well-regarded head of the moderate UCR who agreed, to act for the salvation of Argentina, to chair said transition. Peronist guerillas spread like wildfire in the countryside along with rising numbers in the ranks of the ERP socialist revolutionary network; Argentina's postwar crisis had only now begun.

As for Chile, the war effectively gutted whatever opposition Pinochet had had. He was a national hero to most Chileans now, or at least that's what they admitted to publicly when asked; he had defended the homeland and defeated hated Argentina in their war of aggression. A new constitution was promulgated and voted on with mass irregularities in the new year; Pinochet so thoroughly consolidated rule in Chile that he would not leave office until after two further eight-year terms as President, finally retiring in 1996 as one of Latin America's longest serving and most ruthless dictators. His economic performance, despite some bright spots navigating the late 1970s, only grew worse with time too; his wave of privatizations (with the robust mining sector excepted) made Chile a playground for international and domestic conglomerates like never before, and by the time he left office after 23 years the average Chilean was nearly 40% poorer than when he had seized power in 1973...
 
Top