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

SsgtC

Banned
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.
The other part is, when you've got a MEU afloat, they can be forward deployed near trouble spots. If/when the President orders them in, they can go now. There's no waiting around for the Air Force to find a suitable base and deploy a fighter wing, or for the Navy to get a carrier into position. We've got our own organic air support, no need to wait. It's flexibility and response time.
 
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.

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.
The Air Force planned on buying a de VTOL'd Marine VTOL. As for performance, that depends on the performance of the VTOL version, the AF version would be faster, longer ranged, more maneuverable, lighter and cheaper without the VTOL. With how technology has advanced even if you don't require something like the F-35, the CALF would still be supersonic, stealthy in its VTOL config and have open architecture systems and limited modularity, so F-16 performance plus plus (won't be able to out dogfight an airshow config F-16, but no one fights that way), good enough for the airforces low end

The AF will be the issue, as the Marines will be buying a few hundred, while the AF will be buying nearly 2000, so it will need to meet enough of their standards

Good point about USMC F-35C, bought so that the Navy does not have to stand up more fighter squadrons fro the carriers, may or may not still happen in your TL
 

Ak-84

Banned
There is no way, no freakin way, that the early 1990's timeframe politics would have permitted the USN to take to fruition, three separate aircraft programmes. Which is what is being suggested, that the USN gets the STC, JSF and A-X............Congress is going to say, "oh hell no", frankly there is a better chance of the USN getting the Su-27/33.

If the USN gets an STC-21, there is no Super Hornet and absolutely no JSF. JSF was approved only because of the "J" part in the name, hence its the lemon it is OTL.The Navy has no need for it, if they get an STC-21. Super Hornet was the STC-21 replacement, its not going to be proposed if the STC-21 comes online.

If the STC-21 is approved, then I suspect it starts service in 1995 and stays in production till 2005. In 2005 the USN gets its own ATF programme, which results in something looking like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Good point about USMC F-35C, bought so that the Navy does not have to stand up more fighter squadrons fro the carriers, may or may not still happen in your TL
Maybe if one of the Hornet squadrons in each airwing is a Marine VMFA? Then the Navy is likely going to pressure them into buying a carrier capable strike fighter
 
There is no way, no freakin way, that the early 1990's timeframe politics would have permitted the USN to take to fruition, three separate aircraft programmes. Which is what is being suggested, that the USN gets the STC, JSF and A-X............Congress is going to say, "oh hell no", frankly there is a better chance of the USN getting the Su-27/33.

If the USN gets an STC-21, there is no Super Hornet and absolutely no JSF. JSF was approved only because of the "J" part in the name, hence its the lemon it is OTL.The Navy has no need for it, if they get an STC-21. Super Hornet was the STC-21 replacement, its not going to be proposed if the STC-21 comes online.

If the STC-21 is approved, then I suspect it starts service in 1995 and stays in production till 2005. In 2005 the USN gets its own ATF programme, which results in something looking like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31.
Assuming the USN gets A-X (which is not SHornet), there won't be a JSF, it will still be CALF which is USMC and USAF, no USN involved saved in the Marines being sort of part of the Navy way

STC as the stopgap, A-X then A/F-X as the enters service in 2010's complement/replacement and CALF is for the USAF F-16 replacement and USMC Harrier/Hornet replacement
 

SsgtC

Banned
There is no way, no freakin way, that the early 1990's timeframe politics would have permitted the USN to take to fruition, three separate aircraft programmes. Which is what is being suggested, that the USN gets the STC, JSF and A-X............Congress is going to say, "oh hell no", frankly there is a better chance of the USN getting the Su-27/33.

If the USN gets an STC-21, there is no Super Hornet and absolutely no JSF. JSF was approved only because of the "J" part in the name, hence its the lemon it is OTL.The Navy has no need for it, if they get an STC-21. Super Hornet was the STC-21 replacement, its not going to be proposed if the STC-21 comes online.

If the STC-21 is approved, then I suspect it starts service in 1995 and stays in production till 2005. In 2005 the USN gets its own ATF programme, which results in something looking like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31.
No, we're talking STC-21 as a replacement for the A+ and D Tomcats and A-6 Intruders with eventual plans to use the airframe to replace the Prowler as well. And a development of the AF-X program as an eventual Hornet replacement. ITTL, the JSF would be a Marine/Air Force program. One VTOL, one light fighter. I think BKW had pretty much ruled out a Super Hornet at this point. The only other development program I think he's mentioned is an eventual ATF program sometime in the 2000s to replace the STC
 
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.

Even in all my various military reform thought experiments, I have never considered getting rid of Marine Aviation. The integration of all arms capability into a common framework is something that's really hard to replace. Just for example, the expeditionary airfield capability of the Marines is unique within the U.S. military and wouldn't exist if they didn't have fixed-wing aviation organic to the Corps. If the Marine F-18 squadrons belonged to the Navy, what we'd see right now is them flying as part of carrier air wings (which they do) with nothing more than lip service to how they could be part of the MAGTF.
 
Even in all my various military reform thought experiments, I have never considered getting rid of Marine Aviation. The integration of all arms capability into a common framework is something that's really hard to replace. Just for example, the expeditionary airfield capability of the Marines is unique within the U.S. military and wouldn't exist if they didn't have fixed-wing aviation organic to the Corps. If the Marine F-18 squadrons belonged to the Navy, what we'd see right now is them flying as part of carrier air wings (which they do) with nothing more than lip service to how they could be part of the MAGTF.

With a POD before WWII, not only can I see USMC aviation not existing to the extent of OTL (if at all), but possibly a more-than-lip service air support role by the USN for the Marines (depending on Naval leadership butterflies anyway). I realize that's outside this thread's scope, but IMO the OTL evolution of Marine aviation is anomalous compared to normal naval infantry organizations.
 

SsgtC

Banned
With a POD before WWII, not only can I see USMC aviation not existing to the extent of OTL (if at all), but possibly a more-than-lip service air support role by the USN for the Marines (depending on Naval leadership butterflies anyway). I realize that's outside this thread's scope, but IMO the OTL evolution of Marine aviation is anomalous compared to normal naval infantry organizations.
Eventually, you'd end up with Marine Aviation anyway. Because at some point, the Navy would decide that providing the MAGTF with it's Air element, was really far down on their list of priorities. Honestly, it would have happened in WWII. Because the instant the Navy felt therev was the POSSIBILITY of a threat, they abandoned the Corps on whatever God forsaken spit of sand they dropped us on and hightailed it to either face the threat or head back to port. So you'll have to excuse us if we don't quite trust the Navy to provide the air support they promised us
 
Eventually, you'd end up with Marine Aviation anyway. Because at some point, the Navy would decide that providing the MAGTF with it's Air element, was really far down on their list of priorities. Honestly, it would have happened in WWII. Because the instant the Navy felt therev was the POSSIBILITY of a threat, they abandoned the Corps on whatever God forsaken spit of sand they dropped us on and hightailed it to either face the threat or head back to port. So you'll have to excuse us if we don't quite trust the Navy to provide the air support they promised us

Have you any other instances of the USN "abandoning" the Marines other than Guadalcanal*? Far as I can tell, where the USMC went, the USN was at their backs 99% of the time. I would also point out that not only were there no carrier assets in range to cover the landing troops or vessels in-area at Savo Island at all (you can't support what you can't reach), but the Hepburn Investigation pretty much raked US naval commanders at the battle over the coals over the entire affair. Hate to be this dickish, but playing the "Savo Island" card is one example of non-support compared to dozens where that wasn't the case.

Now that all being said, I never said I opposed the USMC having their own aviation per se, merely that it's an anomaly compared to the Royal Marines and the like. Then again, the USMC isn't a sub-branch of the Navy in reality, but a sister service, so there you go.

*Wherein naval losses were, across both phases of the sea battle, 1,732 Sailors, compared to 1,600 KIA out of 6,000 Marines on land. I'd hardly call that "abandoned" considering the near parity in death toll (granted, that's not included combat-ineffective Marines due to injury or illness).
 
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.
Personally, I like a Super Hornet/A-6F combination, if the A-6F can be preserved through the end of the A-12 as a sort of fallback option. See, calling the A-6F “marginally improved” is a bit of a misnomer. The A-6F gains additional range, payload, and engine commonality with the Hornet over the A-6E, as well as a modern avionics suite. And since it’s an 80s program at heart, it would be harder to kill than an all-new plane, though it would get trimmed down from the planned 340 units.

The Super Hornet, then, would be more of a Tomcat replacement. And yes, you would lose air defense capability, but the Navy also isn’t facing multi-regiment Backfire raids anymore.

There is no way, no freakin way, that the early 1990's timeframe politics would have permitted the USN to take to fruition, three separate aircraft programmes. Which is what is being suggested, that the USN gets the STC, JSF and A-X............Congress is going to say, "oh hell no", frankly there is a better chance of the USN getting the Su-27/33.

If the USN gets an STC-21, there is no Super Hornet and absolutely no JSF. JSF was approved only because of the "J" part in the name, hence its the lemon it is OTL.The Navy has no need for it, if they get an STC-21. Super Hornet was the STC-21 replacement, its not going to be proposed if the STC-21 comes online.

If the STC-21 is approved, then I suspect it starts service in 1995 and stays in production till 2005. In 2005 the USN gets its own ATF programme, which results in something looking like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31.
The F-35, the plane, is not a lemon. Is it not as good as it could be? Yes. Was the program badly mismanaged, to say the least? Also yes. But the plane itself is a perfectly respectable bird.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Have you any other instances of the USN "abandoning" the Marines other than Guadalcanal*? Far as I can tell, where the USMC went, the USN was at their backs 99% of the time. I would also point out that not only were there no carrier assets in range to cover the landing troops or vessels in-area at Savo Island at all (you can't support what you can't reach), but the Hepburn Investigation pretty much raked US naval commanders at the battle over the coals over the entire affair. Hate to be this dickish, but playing the "Savo Island" card is one example of non-support compared to dozens where that wasn't the case.

Now that all being said, I never said I opposed the USMC having their own aviation per se, merely that it's an anomaly compared to the Royal Marines and the like. Then again, the USMC isn't a sub-branch of the Navy in reality, but a sister service, so there you go.

*Wherein naval losses were, across both phases of the sea battle, 1,732 Sailors, compared to 1,600 KIA out of 6,000 Marines on land. I'd hardly call that "abandoned" considering the near parity in death toll (granted, that's not included combat-ineffective Marines due to injury or illness).
There's an excellent thesis on USMC CAS in WWII I'll link to. Pages 3-5 (14-17 of the PDF) provide a good overview of why the Marines would have developed their own aviation regardless. And then a very thorough and in-depth examination of the development of CAS doctrine during several Amphibious operations. Starting with Guadalcanal and ending with Okinawa. The main point being, that the Navy never considered CAS their mission. They always considered fleet air defense their primary mission. And then if they had anything left available that wouldn't detract from that, they would consider performing CAS.

Here's the link to the thesis. It's very good reading of you're interested in it.

Edit: wrong link. Sorry. Here's the correct one
 
Last edited:
@SsgtC I'll try to give it a read, sounds interesting. I agree that the roots of Marine aviation predate WWII (use of dive bombers in the Banana Wars comes to mind), but it took till the 40s AIUI for that idea to come to fruition.

As for Navy policy, I agree that fleet defense came before everything else in OTL. That being said (with or without a USMC air program), I have to wonder if a different interbellum might see CAS as a priority get a boost depending on who ends up running/developing NAVAIR.
 

SsgtC

Banned
@SsgtC I'll try to give it a read, sounds interesting. I agree that the roots of Marine aviation predate WWII (use of dive bombers in the Banana Wars comes to mind), but it took till the 40s AIUI for that idea to come to fruition.

As for Navy policy, I agree that fleet defense came before everything else in OTL. That being said (with or without a USMC air program), I have to wonder if a different interbellum might see CAS as a priority get a boost depending on who ends up running/developing NAVAIR.
It is very interesting. Even goes over the very first use of what we now call CAS in WWI and how the first Marine CAS mission was in Nicaragua. Very good read. Just make sure you hit the right link. I accidently put the wrong one in originally. Damn my fat fingers...
 
No, we're talking STC-21 as a replacement for the A+ and D Tomcats and A-6 Intruders with eventual plans to use the airframe to replace the Prowler as well. And a development of the AF-X program as an eventual Hornet replacement. ITTL, the JSF would be a Marine/Air Force program. One VTOL, one light fighter. I think BKW had pretty much ruled out a Super Hornet at this point. The only other development program I think he's mentioned is an eventual ATF program sometime in the 2000s to replace the STC

AF-X is the eventual ATF program to replace the STC, actually. My plan for the Hornet was a not-quite-super Hornet procured in the 1990's that should hopefully last into the 2020's before needing replaced.
 

SsgtC

Banned
AF-X is the eventual ATF program to replace the STC, actually. My plan for the Hornet was a not-quite-super Hornet procured in the 1990's that should hopefully last into the 2020's before needing replaced.
Gotcha. So AF-X would begin sometime in the mid 2000s to early 2010 for EIS sometime around 2015-2025?
 
Gotcha. So AF-X would begin sometime in the mid 2000s to early 2010 for EIS sometime around 2015-2025?
BKW is starting to confuse me, if you are basing an ATF program of A/F-X, then the program started in '91 and you could expect something 2011-2016, if it is a new program sharing the name starting later, would need to start no later than 2005 to be ready for 2025, and probably 2000. Given Navy priorities I'd assume they'd prefer an A-X for 2011 then give is fighter capabilities for 2021 or earlier in an A/F-X, rather than Multirole from the start
 
BKW is starting to confuse me, if you are basing an ATF program of A/F-X, then the program started in '91 and you could expect something 2011-2016, if it is a new program sharing the name starting later, would need to start no later than 2005 to be ready for 2025, and probably 2000. Given Navy priorities I'd assume they'd prefer an A-X for 2011 then give is fighter capabilities for 2021 or earlier in an A/F-X, rather than Multirole from the start

I'm confusing myself, I think. Your time frame is what I understood, the STC being an explicitly interim solution for an attack aircraft arriving around 2010-2015 and a fighter appearing 2020-ish.

The Hornet replacement program would start early 2000's with aircraft arriving mid-2020's, with 90's build Hornets replacing the older models.
 
I'm confusing myself, I think. Your time frame is what I understood, the STC being an explicitly interim solution for an attack aircraft arriving around 2010-2015 and a fighter appearing 2020-ish.

The Hornet replacement program would start early 2000's with aircraft arriving mid-2020's, with 90's build Hornets replacing the older models.
This is the part where I ask why not replace the Hornet with A-X and F/A-X, because all of the F/A-X proposals I have heard of would be less capable in ATA than all but the most barebones STC proposals, then replace the STC with something later, as it would be the newer airframe if it keeps being produced to 2011 or so
 
This is the part where I ask why not replace the Hornet with A-X and F/A-X, because all of the F/A-X proposals I have heard of would be less capable in ATA than all but the most barebones STC proposals, then replace the STC with something later, as it would be the newer airframe if it keeps being produced to 2011 or so

That makes a lot more sense. I guess SSgtC assumed I said that because it made sense, unlike my idea.
 
Top