WI: USN buys a 'better F-14' instead of Super Hornet

I could see this going either way tbh. But to me, there's a couple things that I think would push the Navy to the Super Tomcat. One: the airframe itself is more capable than every other option by orders of magnitude (excluding NATF). Two: the Navy REALLY hated giving up the range that the Intruder and Tomcat had, but didn't have a whole lot of options. Three: The Super Tomcat can replace the F-14, F-18, A-6, EA-6 and KA-6 in the carrier airwings and do all those jobs every bit as well as the aircraft it's replacing (unlike the Rhino, which is very much a Jack of all Trades, Master of None type design). And finally, the Navy just had one brand new aircraft go completely to shit on them in the form of the A-12. I don't see them willing to gamble on the NATF being smooth sailing at this point.

One last thing, even though I mentioned that the Tomcat can replace the Hornet in the airwing, I don't think it would. At least not right away. The Navy would keep the Hornets as long as possible while developing the NATF as a cost saving measure. Super Tomcats would only replace the Hornet squadrons as it became clear the NATF was going to be severely delayed or cancelled.

So I was a bit confused on the timeline. The Navy actually bailed from the NATF before the A12 was cancelled. The objection was weight. An F-22 derived NATF would have weighed half again what a Tomcat does, and even more than an A6. The advanced Tomcats would have been good until 2015. Of course, the JSF, which started as a program only a couple years afterwards, didn't have operational aircraft until 2015, but the Navy couldn't have known then they needed to get the ball rolling on a replacement immediately.

And the Tomcat wouldn't replace the Hornet. The C/D Hornets start needing replacement even before 2015. I'm thinking the Navy starts a new NATF/A12 type program in the early 1990's and just buys upgraded Hornets to replace the C/Ds. An E/F Not-Super-Hornet.
 

SsgtC

Banned
So I was a bit confused on the timeline. The Navy actually bailed from the NATF before the A12 was cancelled. The objection was weight. An F-22 derived NATF would have weighed half again what a Tomcat does, and even more than an A6. The advanced Tomcats would have been good until 2015. Of course, the JSF, which started as a program only a couple years afterwards, didn't have operational aircraft until 2015, but the Navy couldn't have known then they needed to get the ball rolling on a replacement immediately.

And the Tomcat wouldn't replace the Hornet. The C/D Hornets start needing replacement even before 2015. I'm thinking the Navy starts a new NATF/A12 type program in the early 1990's and just buys upgraded Hornets to replace the C/Ds. An E/F Not-Super-Hornet.
Hmmmm, I thought it was the other way around as well. Ok, so I think that throws the STC into being option number 1. As far as the legacy Hornets, it's going to depend on what kind of budget you give the the Navy to maintain/upgrade their airwings. And the kind of threat environment they're facing. What about having two dedicated air superiority squadrons of Toms, one dedicated attack squadron and one composite squadron for EW and tanking. That gets your wing to 48 birds. Plus two Hornet multirole squadrons gets you to 72. Add in 4 Hawkeyes and 2 Greyhounds that gets you to 78. Then your helicopter squadron gets you to about 82 (depending on how many are kept onboard and how many are on your escorts).

As for a -18 replacement, you could go with a Not!Super Hornet, maybe something with a sightly larger airframe and more internal fuel with upgraded avionics? Or you can go from 2x12 aircraft squadrons down to one 16 aircraft squadron and replace the Hornets with a multirole STC squadron. Depends on budget and other external factors.

^^^All of that is just spitballing and seeing what looks good.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm, I thought it was the other way around as well. Ok, so I think that throws the STC into being option number 1. As far as the legacy Hornets, it's going to depend on what kind of budget you give the the Navy to maintain/upgrade their airwings. And the kind of threat environment they're facing. What about having two dedicated air superiority squadrons of Toms, one dedicated attack squadron and one composite squadron for EW and tanking. That gets your wing to 48 birds. Plus two Hornet multirole squadrons gets you to 72. Add in 4 Hawkeyes and 2 Greyhounds that gets you to 78. Then your helicopter squadron gets you to about 82 (depending on how many are kept onboard and how many are on your escorts).

As for a -18 replacement, you could go with a Not!Super Hornet, maybe something with a sightly larger airframe and more internal fuel with upgraded avionics? Or you can go from 2x12 aircraft squadrons down to one 16 aircraft squadron and replace the Hornets with a multirole STC squadron. Depends on budget and other external factors.

^^^All of that is just spitballing and seeing what looks good.

I was thinking two squadrons of Hornets for CAP and suchlike, two fighter/interceptor Tomcat squadrons, and one strike fighter Tomcat squadron. Not sure if the Prowlers need to be replaced in the 1990's, since the Marines are still flying theirs, but if they do, a detachment of 6. I was thinking the S-3s would have the lions share of tanking duties and F-14 tankers would only be needed for fast strikes. Basically the Cold War layout with Tomcats instead of Intruders.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I was thinking two squadrons of Hornets for CAP and suchlike, two fighter/interceptor Tomcat squadrons, and one strike fighter Tomcat squadron. Not sure if the Prowlers need to be replaced in the 1990's, since the Marines are still flying theirs, but if they do, a detachment of 6. I was thinking the S-3s would have the lions share of tanking duties and F-14 tankers would only be needed for fast strikes. Basically the Cold War layout with Tomcats instead of Intruders.
That's basically what I was thinking. And replacing the Prowlers, no, probably not in the 90s, but when they're due for replacement, use an E/A-14. The Corps is only still using them because they don't have the budget to buy Growlers. Agree on a 6 plane detachment though.

The issue with using the S-3 for tanking is it's speed. A Tomcat CRUISES faster than an S-3 can go flat out. And by allot. A -14 cruises at 576mph. An S-3 at 405 (and tops out at 514). So they're not usable for escort or strike tanking. They just flat out can't keep up with a strike package.
 
That's basically what I was thinking. And replacing the Prowlers, no, probably not in the 90s, but when they're due for replacement, use an E/A-14. The Corps is only still using them because they don't have the budget to buy Growlers. Agree on a 6 plane detachment though.

The issue with using the S-3 for tanking is it's speed. A Tomcat CRUISES faster than an S-3 can go flat out. And by allot. A -14 cruises at 576mph. An S-3 at 405 (and tops out at 514). So they're not usable for escort or strike tanking. They just flat out can't keep up with a strike package.

Was the solution in the 80's just for the F-14s to buddy refuel? Or, I guess the A-6's were doing most of the strikes, and a man on a walker could keep up with an A-6.
 
I still haven't fixed this for my TL, despite a number of attempts. POD starts having dramatic effects in 1991, but smaller changes can show up a bit earlier. The main idea is that DoD goes for a Zumwalt-esque high-low mix of capabilities instead of trying to get Reagan defense programs on a Clinton budget.

When it comes to Navy carrier air wings, we have two F18 squadrons, two F14 squadrons, and one A6E squadron. For replacing our aging long-range airframes, we have a few options.

1) A-12 Flying Dorito. Probably DOA even without Cheney as SECDEF.
2) A-6F. Very good long range strike aircraft. Less useful as an interceptor/fighter. Navy might be leery of spending money on a marginally improved 1960's aircraft.
3) F-14 upgrade package. This can replace both the A-6 and the F-14. From there we can:
3a) Go hog wild on improved F-14s. Probably not going to happen, this isn't much cheaper than a whole new airframe.
3b) Hold out for the NATF and hope it doesn't get screwed up. (http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/04/natf-better-is-enemy-of-good-enough.html)
4) F-18E/F. Even though it's an all-new aircraft, you can sneak it by Congress as an "upgrade". Cheaper than any alternative other than simple upgrades to the F-14 or A-6, and will last longer as it's a new build, which is handy if you know the NATF is never coming. The huge problem is that its range is significantly less than the F14 and A6 were and it seriously degrades the threat bubble of your carrier.

OTL they went for 4. I'm thinking 3b would be best in my TL, assuming NATF can start flying by 2010, which is...generous, and would also mean the Navy would just get new-build slightly upgraded Hornets instead of F-35s.
There is another option, kill NATF as OTL and go all in on A-X into A/F-X, which was cancelled in 1993 OTL although Lockheed kept working on it longer. Program was to be the replacement to A-12, that would be developed into a multirole aircraft later on, wouldn't be as good in ATA as the NATF, lacks supercruise requirement, not as stealthy, Navy considered strike the priority. This is what the Navy wanted OTL, modest Tomcat upgrade for short term strike needs, A-X to replace the A-6's late 2000's, then A/F-X variant to get ATA capability

SuperHornet was actually described as a bridge to A-X then A/F-X, but A/X and A/F-X got killed to protect SuperHornet. One consideration about Super Hornet is that the cost was made possible by buying an extra 229 vanilla Hornets, if those aren't bought Super Hornet cost goes way up as the line has to restart
 

SsgtC

Banned
Was the solution in the 80's just for the F-14s to buddy refuel? Or, I guess the A-6's were doing most of the strikes, and a man on a walker could keep up with an A-6.
In the 80s? The KA-6D handled tanking. Because it was a modified A-6, it could easily keep up with the strike (the A-6 cruises at 474 mph and tops out at 644). They were retired around the same time as the rest of the A-6 fleet because the airframes were completely shot. A lot of them had actually stretched out because if the insanely high number of cats and traps they had gone through. The Navy didn't have enough to go around, so they shuffled the frames around the fleet, usually cross decking them between an arriving and departing carrier. The aircraft themselves were flown by the A-6 squadron's aircrew.
 

SsgtC

Banned
SuperHornet was actually described as a bridge to A-X then A/F-X, but A/X and A/F-X got killed to protect SuperHornet. One consideration about Super Hornet is that the cost was made possible by buying an extra 229 vanilla Hornets, if those aren't bought Super Hornet cost goes way up as the line has to restart
Whereas the Tomcat line was still open, I believe? Grumman was building the F-14D, at least in small numbers. So there shouldn't be a disruption
 
Whereas the Tomcat line was still open, I believe? Grumman was building the F-14D, at least in small numbers. So there shouldn't be a disruption
AFAIK the tomcat line closed down in 1991, regarding new aircraft, not sure how long the line was open with upgrades. The Hornet line would still be delivering to 1994 I think even without the extra purchases, possibly longer if export orders counted, decision was made in 1993
 
There is another option, kill NATF as OTL and go all in on A-X into A/F-X, which was cancelled in 1993 OTL although Lockheed kept working on it longer. Program was to be the replacement to A-12, that would be developed into a multirole aircraft later on, wouldn't be as good in ATA as the NATF, lacks supercruise requirement, not as stealthy, Navy considered strike the priority. This is what the Navy wanted OTL, modest Tomcat upgrade for short term strike needs, A-X to replace the A-6's late 2000's, then A/F-X variant to get ATA capability

SuperHornet was actually described as a bridge to A-X then A/F-X, but A/X and A/F-X got killed to protect SuperHornet. One consideration about Super Hornet is that the cost was made possible by buying an extra 229 vanilla Hornets, if those aren't bought Super Hornet cost goes way up as the line has to restart

The A-X was a joint program, I thought? But yeah, that is the term I should be using instead of "NATF". The development timeline is right too, provided it doesn't get JSF-ed to hell and back.

When were the 229 extra Hornets bought? Were those C/Ds purchased after 1991 to replace A/Bs?
 

SsgtC

Banned
AFAIK the tomcat line closed down in 1991, regarding new aircraft, not sure how long the line was open with upgrades. The Hornet line would still be delivering to 1994 I think even without the extra purchases, possibly longer if export orders counted, decision was made in 1993
Ok. I couldn't remember when the line closed. I could have sworn that Grumman kept it open longer though. At least the upgrade program from the A+ to the D kept it somewhat open. IIRC as well, wasn't the proposed STC design somewhat more advanced than the Rhino? Allowing Grumman to get it into production faster?
 
Last edited:
The A-X was a joint program, I thought? But yeah, that is the term I should be using instead of "NATF". The development timeline is right too, provided it doesn't get JSF-ed to hell and back.

When were the 229 extra Hornets bought? Were those C/Ds purchased after 1991 to replace A/Bs?
Yeah the Air Force wanted it to replace F-111, given F-15E is so new, not likely to happen but they expressed interest, primarily a navy program. Probably going to get JSF'd, if you mean long delays and overruns, JSF timeline is on par with the F-22, Rafale and Eurofighter, that's just how long it takes

C/Ds ordered between 1991 and 1993 AFAIK, in 93 fighter programs were consolidated and F-16 and F/A-18 production was halted, with SHornet chosen and the genesis of JSF in JATF
Ok. I couldn't remember when the love closed. I could have sworn that Grumman kept it open longer though. At least the upgrade program to from the A+ to the D kept it somewhat open. IIRC as well, wasn't the proposed STC design somewhat more advanced than the Rhino? Allowing Grumman to get it into production faster?
Yes it was more advanced, but still when the decision was made Grumman had to factor in extra costs of reopening the line, Boeing didn't
 
Yeah the Air Force wanted it to replace F-111, given F-15E is so new, not likely to happen but they expressed interest, primarily a navy program. Probably going to get JSF'd, if you mean long delays and overruns, JSF timeline is on par with the F-22, Rafale and Eurofighter, that's just how long it takes

C/Ds ordered between 1991 and 1993 AFAIK, in 93 fighter programs were consolidated and F-16 and F/A-18 production was halted, with SHornet chosen and the genesis of JSF in JATF
Yes it was more advanced, but still when the decision was made Grumman had to factor in extra costs of reopening the line, Boeing didn't

So very roughly, for my TL:

Navy orders Super Tomcat in 1991, Grumman keeps the line open and survives.
Navy needs replacement for Hornet fairly quickly, replacement for Tomcat in 2015. They buy upgraded Hornets (would these be designated C/D or E/F?) starting in the late 1990's.
AF-X starts replacing strike Tomcats in 2015 or so.
Marine VMFAs tag along with the Hornet replacement, VMFA(AW) get first Tomcats, then AF-X

Marines need a AV-8 replacement 2015-2020. They were partnered with the Air Force in the early 1990's, I guess that could continue?

I would like to have the Air Force procure all or most of the 700 F-22s. Not sure how they'd pay for that, unless it was committing to the F-16 for even longer? I'm wondering if the Air Force would pull the rug out from under the Marine VTOL fighter at some point. The Marines might struggle to replace the Harrier unless they don't mind flying the wings off their Tomcats and replacing their Hornets with Harrier replacements.
 
So very roughly, for my TL:

Navy orders Super Tomcat in 1991, Grumman keeps the line open and survives.
Navy needs replacement for Hornet fairly quickly, replacement for Tomcat in 2015. They buy upgraded Hornets (would these be designated C/D or E/F?) starting in the late 1990's.
AF-X starts replacing strike Tomcats in 2015 or so.
Marine VMFAs tag along with the Hornet replacement, VMFA(AW) get first Tomcats, then AF-X

Marines need a AV-8 replacement 2015-2020. They were partnered with the Air Force in the early 1990's, I guess that could continue?

I would like to have the Air Force procure all or most of the 700 F-22s. Not sure how they'd pay for that, unless it was committing to the F-16 for even longer? I'm wondering if the Air Force would pull the rug out from under the Marine VTOL fighter at some point. The Marines might struggle to replace the Harrier unless they don't mind flying the wings off their Tomcats and replacing their Hornets with Harrier replacements.
One thing to note is that a replacement for the A-6 was always the higher of the priorities, unless you have something to change that (China deciding to get into the Backfire spam business) would be more focused on replacing the A-6, so more probably A-X around that period (maybe year or two earlier), with A/F-X coming 5-10 years later, as the plan was to get a strike version first, then add air to air capability in a later version

Depends on the degree of upgrade the Hornets get, just sensors, Avionics and weapons capability probably C/D, something more E/F

Marines quite probably would replace their Hornets and AV-8s both with CALF, that was the plan OTL, and logistics is king

Price for procuring more F-22's depends on how much capability cut OTL gets added back and export sales, plus if FB-22 shows up. Assuming none of the added capabilities (B variant, multi color IRST (or IRST period) cheek AESAs, new ejection seats etc.), if you procure 700 marginal cost per unit almost certainly drops below $120m, and at that price you could get exports if willing. Assuming everything goes right even with the added capabilities you could possibly get below $120m a unit, but don't want to be too optimistic. Probably would retain F-16 for longer, especially if there is no 9/11 in your TL necessitating massive increase in ops tempo needs replacing less

One advantage for replacing the Harrier, is that the British and Italians both want a replacement for their Harriers too, so export sales are pretty much guaranteed, quite probably a monopoly. Don't think the Airforce would pull the rug out, that would jeopardize their F-16 replacement as well, as to really get any benefit from dropping VTOL need a brand new airframe, and with the way the air combat paradigm is changing, electronics are becoming more important than kinematics, so the gain is much less than it would be in earlier times
 

SsgtC

Banned
So very roughly, for my TL:

Navy orders Super Tomcat in 1991, Grumman keeps the line open and survives.
Navy needs replacement for Hornet fairly quickly, replacement for Tomcat in 2015. They buy upgraded Hornets (would these be designated C/D or E/F?) starting in the late 1990's.
AF-X starts replacing strike Tomcats in 2015 or so.
Marine VMFAs tag along with the Hornet replacement, VMFA(AW) get first Tomcats, then AF-X

Marines need a AV-8 replacement 2015-2020. They were partnered with the Air Force in the early 1990's, I guess that could continue?

I would like to have the Air Force procure all or most of the 700 F-22s. Not sure how they'd pay for that, unless it was committing to the F-16 for even longer? I'm wondering if the Air Force would pull the rug out from under the Marine VTOL fighter at some point. The Marines might struggle to replace the Harrier unless they don't mind flying the wings off their Tomcats and replacing their Hornets with Harrier replacements.
Only thing is, if you're waiting till the late 90s to order more Hornets, you're talking about restarting a production line that's been closed for probably at least 5 years. At that point, it would probably be cheaper to buy more Tomcats.

Keep the Marine VTOL program separate from everything else. Congress forcing the 3 services into a "do everything" plane was the source of a lot of headaches.

If you want to keep the F-22 buy high, extend the F-16 service life, and have the Air Force get forced into the Navy AF-X program. It's pretty easy to denavalise an aircraft for land use.
 
Last edited:
One thing to note is that a replacement for the A-6 was always the higher of the priorities, unless you have something to change that (China deciding to get into the Backfire spam business) would be more focused on replacing the A-6, so more probably A-X around that period (maybe year or two earlier), with A/F-X coming 5-10 years later, as the plan was to get a strike version first, then add air to air capability in a later version

Depends on the degree of upgrade the Hornets get, just sensors, Avionics and weapons capability probably C/D, something more E/F

Marines quite probably would replace their Hornets and AV-8s both with CALF, that was the plan OTL, and logistics is king

Price for procuring more F-22's depends on how much capability cut OTL gets added back and export sales, plus if FB-22 shows up. Assuming none of the added capabilities (B variant, multi color IRST (or IRST period) cheek AESAs, new ejection seats etc.), if you procure 700 marginal cost per unit almost certainly drops below $120m, and at that price you could get exports if willing. Assuming everything goes right even with the added capabilities you could possibly get below $120m a unit, but don't want to be too optimistic. Probably would retain F-16 for longer, especially if there is no 9/11 in your TL necessitating massive increase in ops tempo needs replacing less

One advantage for replacing the Harrier, is that the British and Italians both want a replacement for their Harriers too, so export sales are pretty much guaranteed, quite probably a monopoly. Don't think the Airforce would pull the rug out, that would jeopardize their F-16 replacement as well, as to really get any benefit from dropping VTOL need a brand new airframe, and with the way the air combat paradigm is changing, electronics are becoming more important than kinematics, so the gain is much less than it would be in earlier times

The strike variant of the A-X absolutely has number one priority.

I didn't know the Marines planned to replace all their fighters with one replacement model. It makes a lot of sense, but they procured F-35C's OTL, not that anything about JSF makes sense. I know a lot of other navies would like something like Harrier besides those who actually flew the original. Basically everyone besides France who operates an aircraft carrier could use it.

I'll have to think on the F-22. I was hoping for an FB-22 variant but there's no burning hurry on that given how new most of the F-15Es are. 700 seems like a bridge too far, but a big purchase makes a lot of sense if they're extending F-16 service life.

It would be nice if the Air Force could just buy a B variant of the Harrier replacement, but I'm not sure how good a VTOL fighter without VTOL would actually be, and a VTOL replacement would be unnecessary for most of what the Air Force needs, except possibly the A-10 replacement.

Only thing is, if you're waiting till the late 90s to order more Hornets, you're talking about restarting a production love that's been closed for probably at least 5 years. At that point, it would probably be cheaper to buy more Tomcats.

Keep the Marine VTOL program separate from everything else. Congress forcing the 3 services into a "do everything" plane was the source of a lot of headaches.

If you want to keep the F-22 buy high, extend the F-16 service life, and have the Air Force get forced into the Navy AF-X program. It's pretty easy to denavalise an aircraft for land use.

A later Hornet purchase works a lot better with the schedule for procuring everything else, but you're right, the halted production lines throw a wrench in the works. I'm not really sure what the best way to fix that would be. The F-18 replacing the F-16 for some big export purchases?

USMC and USAF sharing the light strike/fighter program was already happening at this point OTL. It may not be ideal, but the only big stumbling block I see is the Air Force not needing VTOL.

I don't think the AF-X would be an appropriate F-16 replacement. It was meant to be a Tomcat/Intruder replacement, not a Hornet replacement. The only appropriate denavalized plane to replace the F-16 in the 2000's would be the Marines' Harrier replacement.
 

SsgtC

Banned
A later Hornet purchase works a lot better with the schedule for procuring everything else, but you're right, the halted production lines throw a wrench in the works. I'm not really sure what the best way to fix that would be. The F-18 replacing the F-16 for some big export purchases?

USMC and USAF sharing the light strike/fighter program was already happening at this point OTL. It may not be ideal, but the only big stumbling block I see is the Air Force not needing VTOL.

I don't think the AF-X would be an appropriate F-16 replacement. It was meant to be a Tomcat/Intruder replacement, not a Hornet replacement. The only appropriate denavalized plane to replace the F-16 in the 2000's would be the Marines' Harrier replacement.
Well, maybe if you keep the line open at low rate production? Say 12 aircraft per year (excluding any export orders)? That gives you loss replacement and keeps the line running, able to increase production if needed. Not sure it would be economically viable though to keep the production rate that low.

Good point on AF-X and the AF/MC fighter program. You can keep it VTOL, just have to keep it a Marine program and make sure the Air Force knows, if they don't like, they can shove off. Basically, it sounds like you're gonna end up with a Not!F-35.
 
Good point on AF-X and the AF/MC fighter program. You can keep it VTOL, just have to keep it a Marine program and make sure the Air Force knows, if they don't like, they can shove off. Basically, it sounds like you're gonna end up with a Not!F-35.

Sorry, that won't work because the Air Force will be buying a lot more aircraft meaning they will be spending a lot more money. You tell the Air Force to shove off, they will and then the Marines will end up footing the bill for the entire program to R&D funds for a purchase of a small number of aircraft.

Here is another question and yes I know it is heretical but why do the Marines really need their own fixed wing TACAIR component?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Good point on AF-X and the AF/MC fighter program. You can keep it VTOL, just have to keep it a Marine program and make sure the Air Force knows, if they don't like, they can shove off. Basically, it sounds like you're gonna end up with a Not!F-35.

Sorry, that won't work because the Air Force will be buying a lot more aircraft meaning they will be spending a lot more money. You tell the Air Force to shove off, they will and then the Marines will end up footing the bill for the entire program to R&D funds for a purchase of a small number of aircraft.

Here is another question and yes I know it is heretical but why do the Marines really need their own fixed wing TACAIR component?
Because it's 100% organic to the MEF. Meaning A LOT of dedicated CAS training between the two forces. Plus, strategically, when a MEF deploys, it has its own air support with it, instead of relying on the good will of the Navy or Air Force to provide it. Not to rely on the other branches was pretty much ingrained into is during the campaign in the Pacific during WWII
 
Because it's 100% organic to the MEF. Meaning A LOT of dedicated CAS training between the two forces. Plus, strategically, when a MEF deploys, it has its own air support with it, instead of relying on the good will of the Navy or Air Force to provide it. Not to rely on the other branches was pretty much ingrained into is during the campaign in the Pacific during WWII

I understand the history and doctrine behind it, I'm just not convinced it is necessary going forward in terms of the way the US military deploys and fights now. I realize this is not going to change either.

The funny thing is that during Guadalcanal you had USAAF P-400s providing CAS to Marines while USMC Wildcats handled the air-to-air fight because that was the best allocation of resources from a standpoint of airframe capabilities. I realize that is something of a unique and isolated situation but from a standpoint of service cultures, it's kind of mind boggling.
 
Top