SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,126
- Reaction score
- 2,527
Been thinking about this, and I've got a few ideas.
For your first scenario (No Cheney SECDEF/Bush reelected):
The F-14D isn't killed. With a hot production line (plus conversations of newer A models) more VF squadrons are equipped with D models which lowers overall maintenance man-hour costs.
AIM-152 gets developed to replace AIM-54. IIRC one of the main arguments to kill it was that, without the F-14 and its APG-71, the Navy didn't have a platform in the fleet capable of using it to its maximum range. With the Tomcat having a longer life, it probably sees service.
The A-12 doesn't die when it did. AIUI, Cheney killed the program unilaterally. So the A-12 will continue on for at least a little while longer. This has knock on effects as now MDD is fully involved in developing the A-12 instead of scrounging for work to keep the Hornet line open. Tied in with the first point, we may see the Navy order F-14 Quickstrike as a gap filler between A-6 retirement and A-12 IOC. (Once the extent of the delays become apparent).
Likely no Super Hornet. With MDD still having their hands full with the Avenger, no glaring gap in Navy fighter squadrons with the Tomcat still in production (and a possible Quickstrike order as well) there's no impetuous to develop Super Hornet. Particularly since they'll have F-15, A-12, KC-10 and C-17. In that environment, it's more politically feasible to throw Grumman a bone and keep the F-14 line going.
The Seawolf class doesn't get killed after 3 boats. The Peace Dividend still sees them cut from 29, but probably only to 12 or so. This also keeps EB busy building boats. (Minor side effect, we probably don't get a boat named Jimmy Carter and instead all 12 get "denizens of the deep" names).
Halfway through Bush's second term, the A-12 would either be in service or canceled (in not knowledgeable enough about to know if MDD could have gotten it flying or not). If it's in service, we see a gradual reduction in the Legacy Hornet fleet as Hornet squadrons drop from 2 per carrier to one (the Navy planned for 20xA-12s per carrier, roughly double the number of A-6s. This gives the Navy a BIG reserve of Hornets to replace older ones as they time out of service. This cuts ANOTHER fighter gap later in the 2000s.
By the end of Bush's second term, USS America will probably be in the yard for her SLEP instead of getting retired by the Clinton administration (and Forestall will probably actually be serving as a training carrier instead of just retired). JFK is also likely to be in somewhat better condition than she was historically. So the Navy will have a significantly lower operational tempo for its carrier fleet than historically with one deck dedicated to training instead of pressing active ships into the role every free minute that they have and an entire extra active deck as well. (Side note relating to Carriers, Truman probably keeps her original name of United States). Figure this as the USN carrier fleet in 1996:
Forestall CVT-59
Independence CV-62
Kitty Hawk CV-63
Constellation CV-64
America CV-66
John F Kennedy CV-67
Enterprise CVN-65
Nimitz CVN-68
Dwight D Eisenhower CVN-69
Carl Vinson CVN-70
Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71
Abraham Lincoln CVN-72
George Washington CVN-73
John C Stennis CVN-74
That gives an active fleet of 13 decks (12 available for operations with one in long term refit) with one dedicated training carrier. Compare this to OTL 1996 when the Navy was down to only 12 decks total.
Now, if Bush still loses to Clinton, I think we see the A-12 killed early in his presidency along with the OTL reduction of the Seawolf class to 3 boats. The F-14 might get killed outright, but with no Super Hornet to call back on, it's likely to continue in limited production or MAYBE even see ST-21 get bought to replace the canceled A-12 production while a new, light fighter/attack design gets developed to replace the Legacy Hornet. The carrier fleet still drops to 12 as well.
Last edited:
