AH Challenge: Us is an Air Power

With a POD of After December 17 1903, your challenge is to make the US an Air power rather than a maritime power.
 
Wow, you do realize the U.S. is the premier world air power right? And it has been since the 40s, and had been at the forefront since the 20s.
 
Wow, you do realize the U.S. is the premier world air power right? And it has been since the 40s, and had been at the forefront since the 20s.

I thought the US was a Maritime power. The challenge is for it to be an AIR power, not a maritime or continental power.
 
Avalon, what does this even mean? We are the worlds #1 Air Force right now. Of course we are an Air Power, it is one of many "powers" America brings to the table.

We are ALSO a Maritime Power, a Economic Power, a Nuclear Power, and a Cultural Power. It doesn't work on this narrow definition of "only having one power".
 
Thank you for clarification. I tended to think it was either maritime, celestial or terra firma that would be the strongest suit.
 
I think he meant that it's key strength was air power (ie- the key to what power it has in this TL).

Even if so, I'd still call OTL. Sure we also have the world's biggest navy, but most that navy is centered around either our massive floating airbases or our mobile underwater ballistic missle platforms -- just another way to project airpower.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I think he meant that it's key strength was air power (ie- the key to what power it has in this TL).

Well...the strategic bombing in World War II, Operation Linebacker and Linebacker II in Vietnam, the weeks leading up to Desert Storm, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Kosovo, Bosnia...those were air campaigns.

That was the US pretty much running the show. The only time we weren't completely in the driver's seat was in World War II with the Brits and with Kosovo with NATO.
 
If they had went with the nuclear bomber idea, and then we lost a carrier somewhere...

so that carriers are seen as to expensive to risk and thus to build (since you don't dare use them).

You could have a situation where nuclear powered "bombers" armed with anti-ship missiles, nuclear powered air mobile infantry (with small but kick-ass armed cars) and other stuff based on the same platform could be the primary arm of American force projection.

Hell, with B-52 sized planes or bigger, you could have very long air patrols...:cool:
 
If they had went with the nuclear bomber idea, and then we lost a carrier somewhere...

so that carriers are seen as to expensive to risk and thus to build (since you don't dare use them).

You could have a situation where nuclear powered "bombers" armed with anti-ship missiles, nuclear powered air mobile infantry (with small but kick-ass armed cars) and other stuff based on the same platform could be the primary arm of American force projection.

Hell, with B-52 sized planes or bigger, you could have very long air patrols...

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.

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. 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. 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.
 
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.
 
let me rephrase my challenge then:

with a POD after 1904, your challenge is for the US to be an Air power by 1940.
 
Top