Alternate Military Procurements
- Thread starter Have Blue-117
- Start date
Nick P
Donor
US Army agrees to standardise their rifles with NATO, getting the Belgian designed FN FAL instead of the M14 or later the M16. This eventually extends to all US armed forces. The AR-15 remains a Special Forces only weapon.
US Navy buys the T-45B Goshawk for land based training roles. These are a lead-in to the T-45A ship based trainer aircraft.
RNZAF gets the F-16 order they wanted in 2001.
RNZAF keeps the combat force and replaces the lot with BAe Hawks on cost saving terms as these are capable of ground attack, air defence and training roles.
US Navy buys the T-45B Goshawk for land based training roles. These are a lead-in to the T-45A ship based trainer aircraft.
RNZAF gets the F-16 order they wanted in 2001.
RNZAF keeps the combat force and replaces the lot with BAe Hawks on cost saving terms as these are capable of ground attack, air defence and training roles.
Britain buys the Hawker P.1123 to fill the role the Phantom did in OTL. And instead of TSR.2 goes for a joint project with France based on the Mirage IV, also the Vickers V.1000/VC-7 is bought as a tanker/transport by the RAF helping to justify the launch of the subsequently highly succesful airliner version
Last edited:
Canada buys the F-4 instead of the F-104.
Canada buys the A-4 instead of the F-5.
Canada buys the F-15 instead of the F-18.
Canada replaces the CF-5 with either the F-16 or the F-20 rather than not at all.
Canada purchases the Chieftain or Challenger II instead of the Leopard C1.
The EH-101 purchase is not cancelled.
Canada purchases either the Rubis-class or Trafalgar-class nuclear submarines.
Canada buys the A-4 instead of the F-5.
Canada buys the F-15 instead of the F-18.
Canada replaces the CF-5 with either the F-16 or the F-20 rather than not at all.
Canada purchases the Chieftain or Challenger II instead of the Leopard C1.
The EH-101 purchase is not cancelled.
Canada purchases either the Rubis-class or Trafalgar-class nuclear submarines.
Couple more:
Canada and the Netherlands stay in the Tornado consortium.
Sweden, Spain, and Australia buy the Apache like they originally wanted to.
The Westland-Sikorsky consortium doesn't fall apart and Britain gets Rolls-Royce powered UH-60's and CH-53's.
Germany buys the F-15 instead of the F-4 in the 1970's.
Australia buys the Leopard 2 instead of the M1 Abrams.
Canada and the Netherlands stay in the Tornado consortium.
Sweden, Spain, and Australia buy the Apache like they originally wanted to.
The Westland-Sikorsky consortium doesn't fall apart and Britain gets Rolls-Royce powered UH-60's and CH-53's.
Germany buys the F-15 instead of the F-4 in the 1970's.
Australia buys the Leopard 2 instead of the M1 Abrams.
Some post war Mers el Kebir resolution ideas.
Smallarms.
UK
Jansen EM2 Rifle 7.2mm/.280" Commonwealth cardridge
Taden GPMG
France
FAMAS Type 53 (A type 54 with the 7.92 Kurz round)
(Due to a diplomatic impasse The US used the 7.62 while the commonwealth uses he 7.2 and most of continental europe uses the 7.62 Kurz, renamed the Continental Cartridge, it is not until the early 70s that the western powers adopt the common 6.8 mm Treaty Round).
Aircraft
Fighters:
RAF, RCAF, RAAF, RNZF, IAF among others
Hawker P.1081 "Dingo"MN, RN, RAN, RCN, Indian Navy, Brazilian Navy, Argentine Navy, Royal Netherlands Navy
Breguet Cyclone (OTL's cancelled Sirocco project).
RAF
Hawker P.1081 "Hound"
Smallarms.
UK
Jansen EM2 Rifle 7.2mm/.280" Commonwealth cardridge
Taden GPMG
France
FAMAS Type 53 (A type 54 with the 7.92 Kurz round)
(Due to a diplomatic impasse The US used the 7.62 while the commonwealth uses he 7.2 and most of continental europe uses the 7.62 Kurz, renamed the Continental Cartridge, it is not until the early 70s that the western powers adopt the common 6.8 mm Treaty Round).
Aircraft
Fighters:
RAF, RCAF, RAAF, RNZF, IAF among others
Hawker P.1081 "Dingo"MN, RN, RAN, RCN, Indian Navy, Brazilian Navy, Argentine Navy, Royal Netherlands Navy
Breguet Cyclone (OTL's cancelled Sirocco project).
RAF
Hawker P.1081 "Hound"
Viewing this thread I can't help but think of all the weapons systems cancelled after the end of the cold war but that would be an entirely different thread all together.
But under the tread rules
FMC XR311 instead of the HMMWV as the replacement for the M151 MUTT
Bell AH-63 instead of the Hughes AH-64 in the AAH Program
Bell Bat instead of the RAH-66 in the LAX program
YA-9 instead of the A-10
I think at that point the US Armed forces are beginning to look like the GI Joe Cartoon
But under the tread rules
FMC XR311 instead of the HMMWV as the replacement for the M151 MUTT
Bell AH-63 instead of the Hughes AH-64 in the AAH Program
Bell Bat instead of the RAH-66 in the LAX program
YA-9 instead of the A-10
I think at that point the US Armed forces are beginning to look like the GI Joe Cartoon
Well this thread is for anything WWII to now, so any of those would be perfectly acceptable. This isn't a Cold War weapons thread although many of the posts are Cold War era, as long as its WWII and onward you are fine.
One that SAC really wanted: The B-1A program doesn't run afoul of President Carter, and is not cancelled.
M-8 AGS procured Mid-1990s as replacement for M-551 Sheridan.
MGM-134 Midgetman ICBM deployed to replace Minuteman.
M-8 AGS procured Mid-1990s as replacement for M-551 Sheridan.
MGM-134 Midgetman ICBM deployed to replace Minuteman.
XM2000 Crusader and XM8 rifle developed and fielded.
ROKAF buys Rafale instead of F-15K.
Marc A
ROKAF buys Rafale instead of F-15K.
Marc A
Britain buys Buccaneer and develops a supersonic version instead of Tornado.
Retains the Hermes, Albion and Bulwark as Bucc capable Strike Carriers instead of Invincible class. New 40,000t Centaur as flagship. Others replaced with this new class on ten year cycle. Smooth transition to 65,000t carriers: Centaur 40,000t (1975), Albion 45,000t (1985), Bulwark 50,000t (1995), Hermes 55,000t (2005), Centaur 60,000t (2015), etc.
Taden and Bullpup FN FAL in .270 British. Belgians support .270 as British support FN FAL. Canada adopts FN FAL in .270 (not bullpup).
After Suez US is left to provide nuclear umbrella. After Suez BAOR withdrawn.
Britain retains the capability to make bombs. Continuous SSN programme (one every 18 months) and satellite launch capabilty retains the capability to build an SSBN. Supersonic Buccaneer offers a nuclear option more immediately (in theory).
Last edited:
What's your thinking about the slowly escalating carriers? Just seems a little odd to me that it mean you effectively have four different carriers on the go at the same time. Granted a lot of the internals could be the same but considering how tight things always were with the defence budgets I would of thought that standardisation was the way to go.
After ten years do you really want the same technology? Operational research shows it is better to build and develop smoothly than batch build in twos or threes. While Destroyers, Frigates, etc are built privately (competition and exports permitted), SSN (Barrow) and CVA (Inchgreen) are built by nationally owned monopolies.
Yeah, all things considered personally I'd just jump straight to the CVA-01s as planned and maybe try to talk the government into letting the navy get the Invincibles in their original (well, not original, but the original version of the broad concept that was followed) incarnation as helicopter cruisers that carry some Harriers as purely defensive interceptors (no idea where the funds come from, but it keeps the Harrier navalized and makes Invincibles available for Canada and Australia).
PS: In writing this post I stumbled across the CVV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Carrier_(Medium)), and there is another I would have kept. The Nimitz's are lovely and worth having, but there's a real appeal to a mixed high/low fleet of carriers. That said, I grant that the current carrier fleet size is less determined by needs than by what keeps the production capability alive, so I'll say that I'd like to see the original one ship order (as a combination demonstration and Kennedy replacement at lower cost than the one off Kitty Hawk (really more of a single non nuclear Nimitz) restart that got kicked around for a while under Reagan after CVV died), even that much would have some advantages compared to the situation we've gotten ourselves into now. While I'm on the USN again, I'd really have loved to see the Strike Cruiser instead of the Tico's; as far as which variant there's something to be said for the through deck, but especially considering I just advocated for the CVV I see more use in it as an air warfare focused conventional surface combatant that is less a jack of all trades than a big nuclear platform that has significant commonality with the Burkes.
PS: In writing this post I stumbled across the CVV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Carrier_(Medium)), and there is another I would have kept. The Nimitz's are lovely and worth having, but there's a real appeal to a mixed high/low fleet of carriers. That said, I grant that the current carrier fleet size is less determined by needs than by what keeps the production capability alive, so I'll say that I'd like to see the original one ship order (as a combination demonstration and Kennedy replacement at lower cost than the one off Kitty Hawk (really more of a single non nuclear Nimitz) restart that got kicked around for a while under Reagan after CVV died), even that much would have some advantages compared to the situation we've gotten ourselves into now. While I'm on the USN again, I'd really have loved to see the Strike Cruiser instead of the Tico's; as far as which variant there's something to be said for the through deck, but especially considering I just advocated for the CVV I see more use in it as an air warfare focused conventional surface combatant that is less a jack of all trades than a big nuclear platform that has significant commonality with the Burkes.
Last edited:
No, don't do that without proposing something. The A and C are one thing, but there definitely is need for a new VTOL fighter. Moreover the program exists because a post teen series aircraft is needed in some numbers by both the Air Force and Navy; the F-22 might do it but it's bloody expensive and very tailored to air superiority as is (not that that means a whole lot as the F-15 showed us).
Check this TL out.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=267657
It has graphs of British defence spending from 1946 through to 1973.