So, you're talking about a nuclear powered Peacemaker fleet, with a number of them aloft at all times? Maybe with patrol flight paths over the poles. However I don't see this type of bomber having the capabilities that carrier launched fighters and fighterbombers have as far as close air support.[/QUOTE
Consider what types of variants could be made with close air support in mind. Larger scale puff the magic dragons (i forget the real name). Also I vaguely remember a concept called Thoth, with Long term lingering planes with heavy rocket support.
And why aloft at
all times? Just pointing out that long term presence is possible.
Honestly this ATL seems a bit odd, sounds like you have the US abandon superiority on land and at sea and concentrate all resources on air power.
Ture.
I can see a couple of ways this could happen.
One: Lessons of WWII end up being that Carriers trump battleships, Landbased airpower trumps carriers.
Perhaps Midway is a Japanese victory, (dicrediting US navy power) and a followup Japanese attempt at replastering Hawaii ends up being destroyed by US landbased fighters. Island hopping seen as non-costeffective meatgrinder.
Finally get a airfield in range of Japan, heavy bombing leads to victory.
Two: North Africa campaign skipped, D-Day fails, no sign of American ground competance.
Three: Lose a carrier somewhere along the line. Seen as to expensive and causuality rich to be used in combat.
The only way I see this is by making the US poorer so that they can choose to maintain superiority in only one area, and then only have token force levels in other branches.
It does seem like something a more budget strapped would do. Perhaps this senerio makes more sense for a UK or France level power.
Perhaps a Weimar Germany that wants to project power but doesn't believe it can overcome the UK and/or US fleets?
COuld see a UK starting down this path with buying up the US nuclear bomber fleet after the US scrapps the idea. Then building it's own power projection as the fleet dwindles.
Or France, in order to contribute in a way that is not overshadowed by the US.
However this seems a bit unlikely, do you really think the pentagon would simply let the army and navy atrophy in favor of having a really large airforce, sure air power is crutial in any kind of modern war, but that is pretty unbalanced. Personally I think you would just see the US military opting to use cheaper alternatives at air, sea, and land in order to maintain a more well balanced military doctrine.
Agreed, but, if with a higer status Air Force, perhaps they "get" helicopters when they are first introduced. Then when Air Mobile infantry become possible they are under the Air Force.
My understanding is that Marines are more likely now to use helicopters than actual beach landings...
ATL these forces could be considered Air Mobile and thus part of Air Power.
Indeed OTL, infighting over ground support/fixed wing/helicopter has has some unlikley results, IMO.