How about just develop a new STOVL fighter and keep on upgrading existing jets?
Marc A
Alternate Military Procurements
- Thread starter Have Blue-117
- Start date
How about just develop a new STOVL fighter and keep on upgrading existing jets?
Marc A
Interesting idea, but a lot here depends on how many they buy. If these countries all buy similar numbers to their OTL airlift fleets, this means about 15 aircraft for Canada and Australia, 10 for South Africa, 50-60 for India (most probably built by HAL), 20 for France and 10 for Brazil. The big question with these is what they get used for. Are they there early enough to back up the Australian Army in Vietnam? Do the South Africans use them for paratrooper or support operations like they used their Transalls? French use them in Africa? Gulf War? Canada backing up General Dallaire's forces in Rwanda in 1994?
Why bother with this one? The FAL and M14 use the same round, and the FAL was phased out by many of its first-world users as the M16 was being brought in. The AR-15 series as a special forces only weapon raises the question - what does the US replace the M14 (or hypothetical FAL) with in the 1970s?
The question on both of these is why? The Goshawk isn't supersonic, whereas the T-38 Talon is. Better to buy a supersonic trainer like the Alenia M-346 or KAI T-50. F-16s for the RNZAF is another why question simply because of the fact that New Zealand is so far away from anywhere, has no real external threats and rarely sends troops abroad in any real numbers.
The P.1123 is an interceptor, so the Phantom would be a better multi-role aircraft. I think the idea of a Britain-Canada-Australia fighter purchase can get more done, with the Phantoms assembled in their respective countries with components from all three countries, with RR Spey engines and Commonwealth electronics. The Vickers V.1000 is an obvious what if. The TSR.2, if anything, would probably work better in reverse, as the Mirage IV has a bigger payload but shorter range and less sophisticated electronics. I'm thinking a TSR.2 with SNECMA turbofan power and its high-end electronics for both the RAF and French Air Force.
See above. Spey-powered Phantoms with Commonwealth components made by Canadair would be a wonderful improvement to the RCAF in the mid-1960s and later.
At the timeframe the F-5 was bought (late 1960s), if Canada is buying attack aircraft the A-4 would be a cheap buy but not the best one, the best one would probably be the A-7 Corsair II, which if Canada has the Phantoms above would allow engine commonality, as the Allison TF41 from the A-7 is effectively a license-built Spey.
Why the Eagle? It has no ground-to-air armament. If Canada has the $$$ for a dedicated interceptor in the 1970s, the Tomcat would probably be better for its greater range and the Phoenix missiles. If you want multirole aircraft, the Hornet is superior until the Strike Eagle comes around in the early 1990s.
F-16 would be a major increase in capability over the CF-5, but F-20 would be a waste of time in a bunch of respects, namely range and payload. Considering Canada would assuming all of your suggestions happen have a fleet of F-14, F/A-18 and A-7 aircraft already, having F-16s or F-20s added to the fleet is a bit pointless.
Why call this one off? The Chieftain would be no real improvement on the Leo 1 (aside from the 120mm gun) and the Challenger 2 isn't available yet.
Considering all of the crap that the Cyclones have given us, I'm kinda inclined to agree on this one, though as always I'd prefer something made in Canada rather than abroad.
The Trafalgar or Rubis (particularly the former) would be a HUGE step-up in capability but at a major cost. The 1987 White Paper called for 10-12 such submarines to be bought or built in Canada, which would be if done a project that would extend right through the 1990s but would give Canada a capability that few nations other than the US, Russia and UK have.
If Canada stays in this in the early 1980s it would have to be a multi-role aircraft and not strictly an attack aircraft, or Canada would have to be confident enough in the Tornado and have sufficient funds to buy an interceptor aircraft in the 1970s to replace the CF-101 and F-104 (or the Avro Arrow if its built) and also to buy a fleet of the Tornado. For the Netherlands, they would have to butterfly their NF-5s or have sufficient funds to replace the F-104 with the Tornado rather than relying on the F-16, which is possible but not easy I suspect.
Australia would probably have loved to have the Apaches in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, I'm sure of that much. Not sure why Sweden would buy the AH-64, though.
RR-powered CH-53s I can see only if the Royal Navy keeps its carriers or the Royal Marines have a bunch of their own dedicated assault ships. Other than that or butterflying the (faster and just as capable) Chinook, there is no point. A Westland Black Hawk might also be good for Canada and Australia, the former of which needs real medium transport helicopters and the latter of which bought Black Hawks in any case.
This is a response to earlier posts on the F-35 and F-22.
I would have put more funding towards the F-22 because the only way to drive down the unit price is to buy more of them. USAF gets all 750-800 Raptors after intense lobbying in Congress and phases out the F-15C, with that money Lockheed starts work on the F-22N with the Navy to replace the F-14 and F/A-18, butterflying away the Shornet. USN F-14's and USAF F-16's get moderate updates while the F-22 comes into service and the A-6 fleet is modernized to the A-6F standard as an interm strike aircraft until the Navy has the funds to pursue the A-12.
The F-35 program is changed as a result. The F-35C is butterflied away as there is no need for it. The F-35B is cancelled because the USAF spent billions getting the F-22 in numbers and wants the F-35 to be a cheaper compliment to the F-22, as the F-16 was to the F-15. A STOVL version is seen as unnecessary , adding weight and cost as well as complicating the air frame. The production F-35A is much lighter, has the large wings of the F-35C with a greater sweep angle, and larger tail fins. These give the F-35 improved range and fuel efficiency, a positive thrust-to-weight ratio and better climb rate, higher top speed and lower wing loading. The F-35 is cheaper, better performing and still comes into service around the same time.
As for a VTOL aircraft, there was a BAE proposal in the 1990's that could fill the gap of the F-35B. There's not much info about it that I could find but AFAIK it was called the Super Harrier and was a ground-up stealth VTOL jet with supersonic capabilities. Have a US company like Northrop-Grumman build an Americanized version for the USMC in partnership with BAE.
I would have put more funding towards the F-22 because the only way to drive down the unit price is to buy more of them. USAF gets all 750-800 Raptors after intense lobbying in Congress and phases out the F-15C, with that money Lockheed starts work on the F-22N with the Navy to replace the F-14 and F/A-18, butterflying away the Shornet. USN F-14's and USAF F-16's get moderate updates while the F-22 comes into service and the A-6 fleet is modernized to the A-6F standard as an interm strike aircraft until the Navy has the funds to pursue the A-12.
The F-35 program is changed as a result. The F-35C is butterflied away as there is no need for it. The F-35B is cancelled because the USAF spent billions getting the F-22 in numbers and wants the F-35 to be a cheaper compliment to the F-22, as the F-16 was to the F-15. A STOVL version is seen as unnecessary , adding weight and cost as well as complicating the air frame. The production F-35A is much lighter, has the large wings of the F-35C with a greater sweep angle, and larger tail fins. These give the F-35 improved range and fuel efficiency, a positive thrust-to-weight ratio and better climb rate, higher top speed and lower wing loading. The F-35 is cheaper, better performing and still comes into service around the same time.
As for a VTOL aircraft, there was a BAE proposal in the 1990's that could fill the gap of the F-35B. There's not much info about it that I could find but AFAIK it was called the Super Harrier and was a ground-up stealth VTOL jet with supersonic capabilities. Have a US company like Northrop-Grumman build an Americanized version for the USMC in partnership with BAE.
Last edited:
I'm not sure in the 1970s there is any way of getting this one across. It took Reagan's defense buildup to allow the B-1 to exist, and with the B-52 still in the AF in huge numbers in the 1970s and cruise missiles making it possible for bombers to massive expand the reach of the BUFF, why? IMO the better idea for the B-1 might have been to replicate the USSR's bomber use and make it a dedicated missile carrier from the start and make it a tactical weapon, leaving the nukes to the B-52 and the B-2 and use the B-1 in a naval war as a way of beating the shit out of Soviet naval bases and naval aviation units, keeping the Mach 2+ speed as a way of getting through Russian interceptors.
This one should still be done now IMO, if one can figure out how to make the M-8 work with the airborne units reliably. It's useless against modern MBTs, but when used to back up airborne troops it could be a wicked tool.
Without the mobile launcher, the Midgetman is kinda pointless IMO, and the mobile launcher causes plenty of security concerns.
The Crusader went down because it was not enough of an improvement to justify the cost and with the PzH2000 able to do everything the Crusader could at 40% of the cost it was unlikely to sell abroad. It just wasn't enough of an improvement on the Paladin to be justifiable. (And whatever genius thought that naming it Crusader at a time when the US was getting into crap in the Middle East should get punched in the face.)
The XM8 is a different story, though I do think it makes two mistakes, the first being that it still uses the 5.56x45 NATO round (which isn't as powerful as it should be) and that it was designed mostly by Heckler and Koch and as such runs into the not-made-here problem. I very firmly believe that if the XM8 had been made by Colt instead of Heckler and Koch it would have been accepted and would be entering service now.
Not sure this would be the right call. The F-15K has a greater payload and longer legs than the Rafale, though the Rafale is the better fighter.
Britain buys a modified version of the Armstrong Whitworth AW.681 where the the insane VTOL requirement has been dropped, IIRC Hawker-Siddeley floated a possible plan for this that came to naught, and the plane is slightly enlarged to make something similar to the Ilyushin Il-76. Also leaves the door open to future developments such as improved engines and possibly going up the C17 Globemaster size further on down the line.
I don't know about the cost of the Belfast compared to the Herc, but it is 50% more plane so less are needed than Hercs. The RAAF bought a sqn of C130Es in 1966 and sqn of C130Hs in 1975, so the Belfasts would replace either of those buys, perhaps 10 instead of 12 Hercs. Similar would apply to the other customers.
The B-1A was felt to be what SAC needed in the 1980s, because of increasing Soviet Air Defenses, which would make life difficult for any B-52 being sent in as a penetrating bomber-and there were SIOP targets assigned to penetrators. Even Viktor Belenko, during his time as a Voyska PVO pilot, was told that if the B-1 was deployed, the Soviet air defense system would be largely helpless against the aircraft. The B-52s, under the plan would've been replaced or reroled as conventional-only bombers (likely the Hs). Even when B-1B was produced, SAC apparently intended the B-1s to handle the penetration role, and have Buffs do the cruise missile strikes under SIOP.
Agree on reviving the M-8 AGS. Stryker's 105 variant just doesn't cut it in dealing with tanks, IMHO.
Midgetman could have been emplaced in silos as an alternative to mobile deployment. Even under normal condiitons, the mobile launchers would've remained on their main operating bases, only going off-base in times of tension. Which is what the Russians do with SS-25.
Agree on reviving the M-8 AGS. Stryker's 105 variant just doesn't cut it in dealing with tanks, IMHO.
Midgetman could have been emplaced in silos as an alternative to mobile deployment. Even under normal condiitons, the mobile launchers would've remained on their main operating bases, only going off-base in times of tension. Which is what the Russians do with SS-25.
The problem with that idea (as good as it is) is the cost of it. For the price of a B-1A you could have 200 or more cruise missiles, which would give Voyska PVO as much if not more trouble than one B-1. Over 700 B-52s were built for the USAF, and since each of those could carry at six missiles on the wings and at least six more in the bomb bays. The B-1A doesn't make enough sense with cruise missiles and B-52s able to do the same jobs. It's an increase in capability, yes, but at a very steep cost.
The problem with this is that trying to control the movements and locations of road-mobile ICBMs is very hard, and you increase the risks of both accidents and broken arrows.
At the time of cancellation, SAC had only 350 Buffs assigned to SIOP (Gs and Hs), and 90 Ds that were conventional bombers only. Throw in 70 or so FB-111s, which were apparently tasked with striking targes on the Soviet periphery to aid bomber penetration. There were targets that called for an actual bomber to strike-and the B-1 (A or B) could not carry the B53 gravity bomb (yield: 9-10 MT) to hit targets such as submarine pens and C3 sites.
SAC had bombers tasked for penetration (i.e. gravity bombs and SRAMs), standoff (ALCM) and Shoot-and-penetrate (ALCMs external, Bombs and SRAMs internal-the B-52's bomb bay can hold a four-pack of gravity bombs (B-28/43/61/83) and a eight-round rotary launcher for SRAM). The crews wanted the B-1; SAC leadership and the AF brass in general wanted it, and even Carter's SECDEF wanted it.
SAC had bombers tasked for penetration (i.e. gravity bombs and SRAMs), standoff (ALCM) and Shoot-and-penetrate (ALCMs external, Bombs and SRAMs internal-the B-52's bomb bay can hold a four-pack of gravity bombs (B-28/43/61/83) and a eight-round rotary launcher for SRAM). The crews wanted the B-1; SAC leadership and the AF brass in general wanted it, and even Carter's SECDEF wanted it.
Another one of mine is the F-14 and F-15 having more customers. The F-14 is easy enough with Canada buying Iran's Tomcats, and Japan ordering it over the Eagle. Hopefully this would bring the unit price down enough to where countries like Britain could afford it, maybe with uprated Speys instead of the TF30's. Some other possible operators I've seen included Spain, Germany, and Australia. There is an interesting TL on Beyond the Sprues that wanks Australia in a way similar to Mann's Canadian Forces TL. I'll post a link:
http:// http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3.0
The F-15 was also proposed to similar customers, but like the Tomcat was hampered by its high price. Customers I've seen could have included Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Norway and Britain. Most aren't very likely but are interesting to think about.
Almost forgot to add the Mirage 4000 to this list too. Hampered by not only price but a lack of support at home, it died a quiet death. Customers could have been Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Spain, Australia, Germany, India, and Greece.
http:// http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3.0
The F-15 was also proposed to similar customers, but like the Tomcat was hampered by its high price. Customers I've seen could have included Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Norway and Britain. Most aren't very likely but are interesting to think about.
Almost forgot to add the Mirage 4000 to this list too. Hampered by not only price but a lack of support at home, it died a quiet death. Customers could have been Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Spain, Australia, Germany, India, and Greece.
Delta Force
Banned
The CL-1200 or F-20 would have been a good National Guard or Aerospace Defense Command point interceptor.
The Rooivalk being exported to more nations. The first I could see is Israel as they had close ties during the Cold War and SA wouldn't mind it being fitted with Israeli weapons and avionics, and maybe GE T700's for commonality with the IAF's Blackhawk fleet. Canada, Australia, and Sweden are potential customers because of the Rooivalk's low maintenance requirements, range, and durability. Others I've thought of included Turkey, India, Brazil, the Netherlands, and Malaysia.
I think the US Navy was going to replace the A-6 Intruder anyway because the plane was too vulnerable by the middle 1990's for a ground attack plane. It was either going to buy the A-12 Avenger II or a version of the F-18 Hornet with more advanced ground attack capabilities.
Anyway, had the TSR.2 entered RAF service by the late 1960's, there was a chance that we would never had the MRCA project--both the Luftwaffe and the Italian Aeronautica Militare would have ended up flying the TSR.2, probably in a licensed-produced version likely built in Germany and with a military turbofan instead of the original Rolls-Royce Olympus turbojet.
Anyway, had the TSR.2 entered RAF service by the late 1960's, there was a chance that we would never had the MRCA project--both the Luftwaffe and the Italian Aeronautica Militare would have ended up flying the TSR.2, probably in a licensed-produced version likely built in Germany and with a military turbofan instead of the original Rolls-Royce Olympus turbojet.
sharlin
Banned
Things i'd do first.
Find Duncan Sandys and threaten to break his neck if he publishes his white paper which all but killed off the British aviation industry, a blow its still not recovered from.
In no particular order.
Have the Hawker P1121adopted as the UK's fighter and for the export market.
Put serious work into exposing US jet fighter sales bribes. (F-104 i'm looking at you).
Tell the US to go lick a band-saw Re the F-111 and press forwards with TSR development whilst also working on Buccaneers.
Press ahead with the Fairy Rotodyne for local airports and the RAF/AAC with heavy emphasis put on silencers for it to reduce the noise issue.
Aggressively export the English Electric Lighting as a competitor to the F-104 Starfighter, both aircraft are similar, short range interceptors, the Lighting however didn't actively go out of its way to kill its pilots.
Do NOT waste money on refitting Tiger and Blake into helicopter cruisers, also find the men responsible for HMS Victorious' massively costly refit and have them shot.
Use the money saved from above to refit and retain HMS Ark Royal or HMS Eagle for as long as possible, scrap the 66 white papers idea of getting rid of fixed wing aircraft carriers whilst actively working on a replacement carrier for the 80s.
Purchase the licence from the USA to produce the Standard Missile system for the RN to equip their destroyers as well as the ASROC system.
Do not adopt the SA-80, instead use the 5.56mm version of the SLR. Having used the SA-80 for 8 years I know how wretched they were until the A-2 came out prior to the occupation of Iraq where they FINALLY worked.
Purchase the US AWACS & 707 system instead of persuing the Nimrod AWACS variant.
Find Duncan Sandys and threaten to break his neck if he publishes his white paper which all but killed off the British aviation industry, a blow its still not recovered from.
In no particular order.
Have the Hawker P1121adopted as the UK's fighter and for the export market.
Put serious work into exposing US jet fighter sales bribes. (F-104 i'm looking at you).
Tell the US to go lick a band-saw Re the F-111 and press forwards with TSR development whilst also working on Buccaneers.
Press ahead with the Fairy Rotodyne for local airports and the RAF/AAC with heavy emphasis put on silencers for it to reduce the noise issue.
Aggressively export the English Electric Lighting as a competitor to the F-104 Starfighter, both aircraft are similar, short range interceptors, the Lighting however didn't actively go out of its way to kill its pilots.
Do NOT waste money on refitting Tiger and Blake into helicopter cruisers, also find the men responsible for HMS Victorious' massively costly refit and have them shot.
Use the money saved from above to refit and retain HMS Ark Royal or HMS Eagle for as long as possible, scrap the 66 white papers idea of getting rid of fixed wing aircraft carriers whilst actively working on a replacement carrier for the 80s.
Purchase the licence from the USA to produce the Standard Missile system for the RN to equip their destroyers as well as the ASROC system.
Do not adopt the SA-80, instead use the 5.56mm version of the SLR. Having used the SA-80 for 8 years I know how wretched they were until the A-2 came out prior to the occupation of Iraq where they FINALLY worked.
Purchase the US AWACS & 707 system instead of persuing the Nimrod AWACS variant.
I'd have to disagree, Sandys often takes the blame for an overall situation that wasn't his fault. No more manned aircraft isn't strictly true, what the paper said was that ballistic missiles rather than bombers were going to be the main threat and he was proved right. Apparently it even influenced the Russians to some extent since it may of helped convince them to not go ahead with a new generation of bombers. All the paper did was say that nuclear armed bombers weren't going to be the main threat of the future so that the associated Operational Requirement F.155 supersonic interceptor aircraft and the planes that were meant to bridge the gap until it entered service, the Saunders-Roe SR.53 and SR.177, were cancelled. The Avro 730 also got the chop since logically if ballistic missiles were the future for of nuclear warheads being lobbed at the UK then it was likely more efficient to use missiles to chuck warheads back at them, even the RAF had come to that conclusion themselves.
There was a certain amount of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that some promising programmes were cancelled but the looking over the list of major programmes most of them don't seem to of been tragic national losses. On the aircraft industry reorganisation at the end of the day it needed to happen, the company operations and of the time industry and government set-ups were horribly inefficient. Really they should of been encouraged to merge in the late 40s or early 50s in a slightly better manner but neither of the political parties wanted to pay the possibly public relations/electoral cost of being seen to be associated with the demise of what were then still widely famous companies from the war.
U.S. Navy
1990s: Fund both the Tomcat and Super Hornet development. A-6F developed. Full development of the AV-8B with continued upgrades.
Start developments for Advanced Naval Strike Fighter to replace the F-14. Develop new versions of the S-3 Viking for Sea Control, Buddy Tanking, and ISR. Eventual plan is for the A-6Fs to move to the reserves.
Begin development of a new nuclear cruiser class to serve as escorts for the CVNs that will come on line, and a strike cruiser to provide fire support for the Marines (heavy 8" battery, significant TLAM capability, some area AAW).
Build new frigates to replace the Knox class one-for-one. Extend production of the Arleigh Burke-class DDs. Extend life-time of Spruance class destroyers.
2000s: Enterprise slated for a second RCOH. Build LCS in addition to frigate force.
USAF
1990s: Extend B-1 and B-2 production to replace B-52Gs and FB-111s in active service.
Shift B-52Gs, FB-111s, and F-111s to Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve. Massive C-17 production to eventually more those to the ANG/AF Reserve.
Army
1990s: Buy the XM8 AGS to replace the Sheridan and equip light forces. Dump Stryker and buy the USMC's LAV-25 off the shelf to up the combat power of light infantry units in the interim.
Marines
Purchase the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to replace the AAV-7. Standardize with the Navy on the Super Hornet.
Also acquire A-6F for the Reserves.
1990s: Fund both the Tomcat and Super Hornet development. A-6F developed. Full development of the AV-8B with continued upgrades.
Start developments for Advanced Naval Strike Fighter to replace the F-14. Develop new versions of the S-3 Viking for Sea Control, Buddy Tanking, and ISR. Eventual plan is for the A-6Fs to move to the reserves.
Begin development of a new nuclear cruiser class to serve as escorts for the CVNs that will come on line, and a strike cruiser to provide fire support for the Marines (heavy 8" battery, significant TLAM capability, some area AAW).
Build new frigates to replace the Knox class one-for-one. Extend production of the Arleigh Burke-class DDs. Extend life-time of Spruance class destroyers.
2000s: Enterprise slated for a second RCOH. Build LCS in addition to frigate force.
USAF
1990s: Extend B-1 and B-2 production to replace B-52Gs and FB-111s in active service.
Shift B-52Gs, FB-111s, and F-111s to Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve. Massive C-17 production to eventually more those to the ANG/AF Reserve.
Army
1990s: Buy the XM8 AGS to replace the Sheridan and equip light forces. Dump Stryker and buy the USMC's LAV-25 off the shelf to up the combat power of light infantry units in the interim.
Marines
Purchase the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to replace the AAV-7. Standardize with the Navy on the Super Hornet.
Also acquire A-6F for the Reserves.
Totally agree! Though you're more likely to see B-1B production extended than the B-2 (Bones are cheaper, after all).