US defense policy without Cheney

Let's assume for whatever reason Cheney didn't become SecDef under Bush Sr.'s administration, what changes would it have on the US Armed Forces? Could we see Super Tomcats? Earlier F-22s?

Marc A
 
Interesting question, especially if John Tower had been confirmed or someone else besides Cheney: You'd see the F-14D program go ahead (he killed it after 67 airframes), though the A-12 was so behind schedule and over budget that any SECDEF would've had to kill it. Bringing back the A-6F in its place would've happened, or the Navy AX program goes ahead in 1992 after the A-12 gets the ax. Maybe an earlier start to the F/A-18E/F, though the F would strictly be a trainer instead of the F-14/A-6 replacement it turned out becoming. The AF would've replaced its F-111s on a one-for-one basis with the F-15E, and maybe the Advanced Wild Weasel (a flyoff between the F-15G, F-16G, and Tornado Wild Weasel) goes ahead.
 
Interesting question, especially if John Tower had been confirmed or someone else besides Cheney: You'd see the F-14D program go ahead (he killed it after 67 airframes), though the A-12 was so behind schedule and over budget that any SECDEF would've had to kill it. Bringing back the A-6F in its place would've happened, or the Navy AX program goes ahead in 1992 after the A-12 gets the ax. Maybe an earlier start to the F/A-18E/F, though the F would strictly be a trainer instead of the F-14/A-6 replacement it turned out becoming. The AF would've replaced its F-111s on a one-for-one basis with the F-15E, and maybe the Advanced Wild Weasel (a flyoff between the F-15G, F-16G, and Tornado Wild Weasel) goes ahead.

Very useful info. Thanks Matt! :)

You see, I'm trying to figure out the TO&E for the US Armed Forces in the ATL/story I'm writing. ;)

Marc A
 
Cuts in nuclear forces would in all likelihood stay as they were OTL. (i.e. cancelling SRAM-II, SRAM-T, and the MGM-134 Midgetman ICBM program, and removing bombers from day-to-day nuclear alert) Though it's possible that the B-2 program gets some increases from 21 airframes (say, 25 or so, maybe 30 if you're lucky. And no additional Trident submarines, though six more hulls were planned.
 
Cuts in nuclear forces would in all likelihood stay as they were OTL. (i.e. cancelling SRAM-II, SRAM-T, and the MGM-134 Midgetman ICBM program, and removing bombers from day-to-day nuclear alert) Though it's possible that the B-2 program gets some increases from 21 airframes (say, 25 or so, maybe 30 if you're lucky. And no additional Trident submarines, though six more hulls were planned.

Which means we could have either more Seawolfs, skip the Seawolfs and go straight to Virginias, and/or more SSGNs? Oh, and is it possible to keep one of the Iowas in service longer?

Also, what - if any - Army projects had Cheney axed?

Marc A
 
Those decisions were made after Bush left office, though a slowdown of the Seawolf was already underway, with talk of only two units instead of the 30 originally planned. Mr. Clinton added the third boat and ordered development of the Virginias. SSGNs came after START-II in the Clinton years, and Bush 43. The Battleships were already on their way out (1989-90 cuts), so it's not likely, but if Congress had its way-there were several attempts to keep at least one battleship in service-you might see Wisconsin staying in service. Pre-1990, it was planned to repair Iowa after the turret explosion disabled #2 turret, and upgrade the ships in terms of electronics, replacing the 5-inch 38s with 5-inch 54s, NATO Sea Sparrows, and Mark-41 VLS launchers amidships. Of course, the fall of the Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union sent those plans back to the filing cabinet and the ships to mothballs and eventual museum status. Not sure on what Army projects would've been changed, though.
 
Top