Military equipment during a continuous Cold War

[Father Maryland]

The Strike Eagle was always intended as an F-111 replacement, so the writing is on the wall for the F-111. And it’s likely they won’t be produced at the same low rate they were IOTL; the full buy of 392 will probably be done by 2001 just like the reduced buy of 236 the Air Force wound up getting.

F-111s will by necessity stick around longer, but by the early 2000s I expect them to be all gone.


IIRC 24 Type 23s were initially planned, to give the Royal Navy 38 frigates and 50 surface combatants overall.

I know that the Strike Eagle was intended as a replacement. Though I could see the Strike Eagles operating as complements to upgraded F111s for longer then you suppose.

Use the strike eagles as escorts to provide fighter cover and SEAD capability while the F111s act as the bomb trucks.

Especially if the US still get's involved in some COIN type wars even with the Cold War. Having the cheaper to operate F111s acting as bomb trucks to save lifespan on F15E air frames. Sort of like how the WOT ended up using a lot of air frames from the B52s/B1s and the like newer more capable and expensive aircraft.

If the Soviet Navy also grows to be a bigger menace perhaps we might see modified/upgraded F111s rededicated to maritime strike using cruise missiles and the like. Say bassed out of Norway to counter the North Sea Fleet, from the UK or Denmark or southern Norway to counter the Baltic fleet, Out of Greece, Turkey or British bases in Cyprus for the Black Seas fleet, and say out of Alaska/Okinawa/Japan/SK/Philippines/ Guam to counter the Pacific Fleet and potentially the Chinese one as well.


I've been wondering about a TL where say instead of the B1A/B1B instead the FB111/F111 is stretched, heavily modified, perhaps different engines, more integral electronic warfare suite, increased in size and turned into something like the TU22M. Moreso something that's designed from the start to be capable of not just nuclear roles but conventional ones capable of carrying everything from naval mines to ASM, ground attack guided missiles, bombs of various sorts, capable of say firing potentially anti radar missiles, anti runway missiles, and the like giving it a lot of diversity of capability. While also being intended to be operated from rougher airfields in a potential WW where the aircraft could be forced to use anything from smaller airstrips to reinforced stretches of highway.

So the US goes with the Super F111 instead of the B1. The Tu22M like aircraft is smaller then a B1 so less theoretical ordinance but its still quite capable and the reduced cost of construction and operation result in significantly more being acquired then the B1a/B1B with roughly 250 being constructed instead of 100 of the B1Bs.

Even less likely is for say the USN to actually buy in and buy a force of say 24-36 (two to three 12 aircraft squadrons) bringing the constructed total up to roughly 275. The Naval version is specifically intended to act as a counter to support the USN's surface and submerged fleet against the ever growing Soviet surface fleet. The naval variant is still land based but focused more on Anti ship work (or anti enemy naval/air base work) carrying things like new cruise missiles, guided rockets, naval mines, cluster bombs, dumb bombs, anti runway weapons, incendiary, anti radar weapons and the like. So you might see the naval bombers say hitting the enemy's radars/SAMs, runways and mining the port entrances immediately before say carrier aircraft make a strike to try and destroy the fleet in port.

So basicaly no B1s, the F111 gets modified into something like the TU22 was turned into the TU 22M, the USAF and potentially navy buy a good deal more then B1s were built. The super F11s are intended from the start to be very versatile in weapons usage. This might save some wear and tear on the B52 fleet. And the FB111s probably get phased out or modified into F111s with the Super F111s taking over the FB111 role.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Especially if the US still get's involved in some COIN type wars even with the Cold War. Having the cheaper to operate F111s acting as bomb trucks to save lifespan on F15E air frames. Sort of like how the WOT ended up using a lot of air frames from the B52s/B1s and the like newer more capable and expensive aircraft.

Strike Eagles are way cheaper to operate than ancient F-111s.

If the Soviet Navy also grows to be a bigger menace perhaps we might see modified/upgraded F111s rededicated to maritime strike using cruise missiles and the like. Say bassed out of Norway to counter the North Sea Fleet, from the UK or Denmark or southern Norway to counter the Baltic fleet, Out of Greece, Turkey or British bases in Cyprus for the Black Seas fleet, and say out of Alaska/Okinawa/Japan/SK/Philippines/ Guam to counter the Pacific Fleet and potentially the Chinese one as well.

They’d already modified B-52Gs to do that. With B-2s rendering the B-52 fleet redundant it’d be easier just to use those.

 

[Father Maryland]

Strike Eagles are way cheaper to operate than ancient F-111s.


They’d already modified B-52Gs to do that. With B-2s rendering the B-52 fleet redundant it’d be easier just to use those.

Was the operating cost per flight hour really that much cheaper then F111s?

I just think there was a lot of continued potential in the F111s. They'd proven extraordinarily capable in the Gulf War plinking more tanks and armored vehicles then anything else. The B2 was still going to be acquire in relatively small numbers (100) at most. For attacking large naval forces upgraded (or my hypothetical uber F111) would be more capable and potentially survivable. B2s would also still have their nuclear delivery role. That and frankly B2s would be more expensive to operate, much fewer locations could service them, and much fewer could they operate from.

 

[Monk78]

I've heard that the Russian's counted their hours more strictly than NATO, something about engine running or taxiing or something counting/not counting, but that only plays around the edges. NATO aircrew were flying 4 or 5 times a week, the Soviets 2 or 3.

Did the Soviets expect their fighter pilots to even play Red Baron ?
Wasn’t their main role secondary to SAMs the exact opposite of what NATO expected of their pilots ?

 

[Monk78]

If you stand still, you’re dead. There was a bad enough technical disparity by 1990 and you want to make it worse? And even if that didn’t happen, new and better fighters would give the Soviets an advantage rather than just standing still.

Monk, the MiG-25PDS and MiG-31 do the exact same job: intercept low-flying aircraft and missiles for the PVO.

Mig25PDS couldn’t target any low level missiles IMHO
PD/PDS seemed more like upgrade program so they can counter the NATO tactical strike planes many of which may target places traditionally defended by PVO

 

[butch4343]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that the WE177 would not have been built and placed in service as it was historically, but I expect it would have been replaced by another air launched nuclear weapon when the WE177 was retired. I agree some form of air launched stand off weapon seems likely. I recall reading about some possible options several decades ago and don't recall all the details that were reported.

Wasn't one of them SRAM2 and one called golden Eagle which was a Harpoon spin off and the third a variant of what became stormshadow? Am sure the program was called CASOM

 

[butch4343]

They would be tough, but still in the same class overall. The Soviets were making progress too, and their situation was becoming worse more because the Europeans had caught up. Nonetheless the Eurocanards are smaller than the Su-27 class, which means that the latter can offset any efficiency issue with size. Regardless the 27M was set to get the quite potent N011 radar set. The proliferation of R-73, R-73M, R-27ER and R-77 counters the proliferation of AMRAAM, ASRAAM and MICA.

On that point, the Tornado ADV was supposed to get a weapon systems enhancement program in the 90s which was killed in 1991 in favor of less advanced programs. It's likely the OG program would have stayed. Meanwhile F-16s would have got more weapons integrated, IRST and improved ECM that it never got OTL. Finally the German F-4F ICE may not have been cut: a fully German radar was intended originally but was cancelled in 1990.

As of 1989, the plans were to produce M1A2 up to FY 1994 at least, but it's likely that production rates would have been actually quite low, as the bulk of the 2926 planned A2s were to be remanufactured basic M1s. The Block III tank of the AFV/AMS program was to enter production in FY97.

Am fairly sure there was a planned raf upgrade to the phantoms as well that were to be broadly similar to the luftwaffes f4f ICE upgrade program , am not sure what radar was intended but AMRAAM capability was to be included.

As a side note to this, what happens in RAFG, does 19 and 92 Sqn remain flying phantoms until typhoon comes along or do they swap them for Tornado F3s until typhoon comes in to service?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Was the operating cost per flight hour really that much cheaper then F111s?

I just think there was a lot of continued potential in the F111s. They'd proven extraordinarily capable in the Gulf War plinking more tanks and armored vehicles then anything else. The B2 was still going to be acquire in relatively small numbers (100) at most. For attacking large naval forces upgraded (or my hypothetical uber F111) would be more capable and potentially survivable. B2s would also still have their nuclear delivery role. That and frankly B2s would be more expensive to operate, much fewer locations could service them, and much fewer could they operate from.

Unfortunately, CPFH data for the F-111 is hard to find. All I have to go on is anecdotal claims that the F-111 was an expensive headache to maintain. Given similar horror stories I’ve heard about the F-14A, with which the F-111 shared a great many components like the swing wing, TF30 engines, and 60s electronics, I have little doubt the F-111 was considerably more expensive to fly than the F-15E.

Certainly there was a lot of continued potential in the F-111, but it’s also been out of production since 1972 and even the F-model would’ve been 30 years old by the time Strike Eagle production wrapped up. If the USAF really wants to get in on the maritime strike job and not suffer just using the B-52Gs it doesn’t need for nuclear strike and has already modified for the task, a modified Strike Eagle is the more likely platform. Even more likely is an F-16 variant.

Mig25PDS couldn’t target any low level missiles IMHO
PD/PDS seemed more like upgrade program so they can counter the NATO tactical strike planes many of which may target places traditionally defended by PVO

Well, yes. That limitation is why the MiG-31 exists. What’s your point?

 

[Blue cat]

Wasn't one of them SRAM2 and one called golden Eagle which was a Harpoon spin off and the third a variant of what became stormshadow? Am sure the program was called CASOM

I seem to recall SRAM2 was mentioned. I'm sorry I don't recall the names of the others.

To somewhat go on a tangent..

Also as Crowbar Six mentioned there were other roles for the WE177 (ie. the nuclear depth bomb role.) One way or another I expect the UK would have addressed those roles as well, so fully replacing the WE 177 would presumably require more than just a nuclear armed stand off missile for the Tornado (and perhaps other air craft.)

As I understand things, the nuclear depth bomb role really needed UK owned weapons for carrying on surface ships (for use by helicopters) as having US custodial detachments on board RN Warships to oversee dual key weapons would have been very difficult if not impossible to manage especially on smaller warships.

Lots for the UK to consider.

 

[edgeworthy]

Has the Common Support Aircraft been mentioned?
(I found an interesting design studies here and here)

To be used by the USN to replace ...

• C-2 Greyhound, for COD
• E-2 Hawkeye, for AEW
• S-3 Viking, for ASW, ASUW, and recovery tanking
• ES-3 Shadow, for ES
• EA-6B Prowler, for EW
• KA-6D, for mission tanking

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Something I think likely is that there would have been at least one more generation of British Harriers to see both the RN and RAF through to the introduction of the F35. I also think that if this happens then the RAN will acquire enough to equip their two Canberra class ships with a flight each plus spares and a training squadron.

 

[Father Maryland]

Unfortunately, CPFH data for the F-111 is hard to find. All I have to go on is anecdotal claims that the F-111 was an expensive headache to maintain. Given similar horror stories I’ve heard about the F-14A, with which the F-111 shared a great many components like the swing wing, TF30 engines, and 60s electronics, I have little doubt the F-111 was considerably more expensive to fly than the F-15E.

Certainly there was a lot of continued potential in the F-111, but it’s also been out of production since 1972 and even the F-model would’ve been 30 years old by the time Strike Eagle production wrapped up. If the USAF really wants to get in on the maritime strike job and not suffer just using the B-52Gs it doesn’t need for nuclear strike and has already modified for the task, a modified Strike Eagle is the more likely platform. Even more likely is an F-16 variant.



Well, yes. That limitation is why the MiG-31 exists. What’s your point?

There was a proposal to during the fracas over the B1A to create a enlarged improved F111 as a alternative.

 

[Father Maryland]

I wonder if the US would develop conventionally armed ground based ballistic/cruise missiles. Something like the mobile Tomahawks but with conventional warheads of different types.

 

[Blue cat]

Unfortunately, CPFH data for the F-111 is hard to find. All I have to go on is anecdotal claims that the F-111 was an expensive headache to maintain. Given similar horror stories I’ve heard about the F-14A, with which the F-111 shared a great many components like the swing wing, TF30 engines, and 60s electronics, I have little doubt the F-111 was considerably more expensive to fly than the F-15E.

Certainly there was a lot of continued potential in the F-111, but it’s also been out of production since 1972 and even the F-model would’ve been 30 years old by the time Strike Eagle production wrapped up. If the USAF really wants to get in on the maritime strike job and not suffer just using the B-52Gs it doesn’t need for nuclear strike and has already modified for the task, a modified Strike Eagle is the more likely platform. Even more likely is an F-16 variant.



......

Other than possibly keeping the EF-111's in service longer (and maybe the F-111F's stay in service longer and possibly receive some more upgrades and or life extension measures) I'm doubtful there would have been much change in the US use of the F111's in an alternate time line where the cold war continues longer than it did historically. I'm thinking the bulk of the F111 fleet still ends up in the boneyard to provide spares for the limited number that stay in service and or the Australian F-111's. Maybe the Australians put some more former US F111's into service.

Given the Australian track record keeping their F111 fleet in service long after the US retired their fleet of F111's, it doesn't seem out of the question to me for the US to at least keep their EF-111's flying for longer than they did in our time line.

Just my $.02

 

[jsb]

So the G36 AKA "the rifle that, once warm, can't shoot streight" fiasco would still have happened ITTL?

That has been pretty much debunked. The issues were never as bad as made out.

Is the G36 not just like any budget cheap million issue conscript rifles then used as the only weapon for very long fire fights on isolated Afghan bases without any support due to legal & logistical reasons, that would in WWIII be done by massive artillery cutting short any rifle fight (and probably the average life of any rifleman...)?

as having US custodial detachments on board RN Warships to oversee dual key weapons would have been very difficult if not impossible to manage especially on smaller warships.

Was that actually needed, as Did US & UK not have weapons deals that would get around without custodial detachments, unlike with other NATO none nuclear powers? Ie US could just give UK the parts for the bombs and have them "made in UK" as they did anyway share material and designs both ways and at that point they are UK weapons so dont need custodial detachments?

 

[Blue cat]

Was that actually needed, as Did US & UK not have weapons deals that would get around without custodial detachments, unlike with other NATO none nuclear powers? Ie US could just give UK the parts for the bombs and have them "made in UK" as they did anyway share material and designs both ways and at that point they are UK weapons so dont need custodial detachments?

I really don't know, but my recollection from readings I have done about the WE177 was that having UK owned nuclear weapons for deployment on war ships was seen as important. I seem to recall reading that the UK did have access to "dual key" US supplied nuclear weapons for dropping from ASW aircraft but they seemed to believe having UK owned nuclear weapons for deployment on their own warships was needed.

My understanding was that the US couldn't (and cant't) simply sell fully functional nuclear nuclear weapons to the UK, and that although the UK had (and has) access to US design information they still have to build the weapons themselves. Beyond exchanging and or selling nuclear materials (ie. Uranium, Plutonium, Tritium) etc I am not aware of the US providing the UK with actual components for nuclear weapons that could be assembled into functional nuclear weapons.

 

[RanulfC]

The LGM-118 Peacekeeper wouldn't have been retired, but instead upgraded and would most likely have seen an even more capable MIRVed successor by now.

Probably not. The trouble with the Peacekeeper was survivability, or rather lack thereof. That’s why Congress greatly limited the number procured (in the 1980s, well before the end of the Cold War) and is why Midgetman was under active development at the end of the Cold War. You’re much more likely to see Midgetman be deployed and replace Minuteman III than more Peacekeeper.

In context by the point the Peacekeeper was deployed they were finding that converting the Minuteman silos to hold a Peacekeeper was both cost and difficult and worse (as noted) it greatly reduced the survivability of the ICBM. And there was neither money or will to build new ones or try and convert Titan II silos which were already considered low survivability sites.

In a world with a continued Cold War and no nuclear detente wouldn't the US want to have a delivery system about as capable as the Soviet SS-18 Satan and the Chinese DF-5A. After all ITTL there'd still be some 20'000+ nuclear warheads in US arsenals as of 2022, which would require delivery systems to be of strategic and tactical value.

As Workable Goblin says In truth the US found the Peacekeeper to be overkill on the offense and too many "warhead-eggs" in one basket on the defense and with the survivability problem made them too vulnerable to be practical. Hence we 'traded' them away as soon as we could.

We're still dealing with this balance issue today as the new GBSD missile will have to fit into retro-fitted Minuteman silos AND (at least at last blush) at least have a possibility of being used in a mobile system.

I wonder if the US would develop conventionally armed ground based ballistic/cruise missiles. Something like the mobile Tomahawks but with conventional warheads of different types.

Still probably not as it runs into the same problem that we had during the later Cold War; How does the other guy "tell" what kind of warhead that oncoming "possibly strategic" platform have on it? The easiest, simplest and safest way to counter it is to launch YOUR strategic assets before it get here...

Besides which would OUR MIC contractors rather get: A short contract to 'adjust' Strategic platforms to carry conventional warheads or a NEW contract to design and develop a shorter range version of that asset?

Randy

 

[Thoresby]

- Literally everything entering service 5-10 years earlier than OTL (FELIN infantry equipment as early as 2005, Tigre HAC in 2005-2008, Rafale in 1999, SAMP Mamba in 2000 or 2005...)

I think that wouldn't have happened in this scenario, there are a lot of reasons why defence projects tend to run years behind schedule and bigger budgets doesn't fix any of them because Defence Ministry's being what they are they will just use the larger budget to underfund more programs rather than properly fund the same amount of programs.

 

[RanulfC]

What about the SDI/Star Wars?

I'm aware that it was basically a blanket term to coordinate a bunch of separate research projects, many of which were highly fanciful. However were there any that showed promise in thr short term, that might be useful in sat 1995 if development had continued?

Not really as to do what was being pitched (protect the US population from nuclear attack) you have to have an over 99% intercept rate which wasn't going to happen in any likely war scenario. Most of the more effective programs were also the most expensive and the lower cost (for a given value of 'lower' of course ) were not as effective so would require many more systems to reach an acceptable level. It would have been horribly expensive either way.

And the 'counters' to the system were 'easy' and 'cheap' enough to drop your intercept percentage into the low 70% which then requires a more extensive system and the cost soon becomes prohibitive even for the US.

Now something to keep in mind is the military had a different plan for SDI which didn't require such a high "general" intercept rate and that was to use SDI to protect the missile fields, bomber and sub bases and let the rest of the warheads through. You might guess that this would not have set well with the public or the politicians and you'd be very correct. But it was a vastly more 'doable' way to go about it since it would ensure that no "first strike" took out our ability to retaliate.

Of course the MAIN issue was that the most 'effective' (and obvious ) counter is to launch before the system is in place while your weapons are still effective and before you rack up too much costs in countering the system and that's why a lot of the experts called SDI "destabilizing" because it was. Deployment of anything over the allowed "limited" systems means that the opposition (the Soviets in this case) HAVE to counter and given they were already in economic trouble doing so would be a no-win scenario which very clearly puts all the other "no-win, but maybe survive" scenarios on the table.

Also, what about the US ASAT programme? IIUC it fizzled out in the mid-late 80s, but could it be restarted?

Considering it was a replacement for using IRBM launched nuclear anti-satellite weapons we'd had standing by since the late 50s it was generally a success but not really seen as something that would be viable during an actual war where we'd fall back on "nuking" everyone's (including our) orbital assets anyway. Really the parallel Navy program to upgrade the Standard was a more viable means of deployment.

Randy

 

[Blue cat]

In context by the point the Peacekeeper was deployed they were finding that converting the Minuteman silos to hold a Peacekeeper was both cost and difficult and worse (as noted) it greatly reduced the survivability of the ICBM. And there was neither money or will to build new ones or try and convert Titan II silos which were already considered low survivability sites.



As Workable Goblin says In truth the US found the Peacekeeper to be overkill on the offense and too many "warhead-eggs" in one basket on the defense and with the survivability problem made them too vulnerable to be practical. Hence we 'traded' them away as soon as we could.

We're still dealing with this balance issue today as the new GBSD missile will have to fit into retro-fitted Minuteman silos AND (at least at last blush) at least have a possibility of being used in a mobile system.



Still probably not as it runs into the same problem that we had during the later Cold War; How does the other guy "tell" what kind of warhead that oncoming "possibly strategic" platform have on it? The easiest, simplest and safest way to counter it is to launch YOUR strategic assets before it get here...

Besides which would OUR MIC contractors rather get: A short contract to 'adjust' Strategic platforms to carry conventional warheads or a NEW contract to design and develop a shorter range version of that asset?

Randy

Re the Titan 2. I do wonder at times why the US never developed (or as far as I know never even seriously contemplated) a new ICBM with a single large warhead. Reportedly the US pulled 9Mt bombs out of storage for use by B52’s when the Titan 2 left service. I can speculate a bit about why the US both decided they didn’t need ICBM’s that could deliver such warheads yet felt they needed to be able to deliver them via bombers when old ICBM’s that could were taken out of service but I really don’t know.

Edit to add:
Back in the day I had a conversation with some one (who had much more insight into the topic than I did) about how there were various proposals being discussed to deal with differentiating between nuclear and conventionally armed cruise missiles. Perhaps if the Cold War had continued something might have been figured out.