We got to talking about the what-ifs, might-have-beens, and never-wases in the thread about the F-35 at Hill AFB.  It got me thinking, there were a lot of proposals for the US (and allied) armed forces in the last 25 years that never went anywhere.  With the perfect clarity of hindsight, it seems like some options that were derided in the past would now be preferable to what was actually done.

The Gulf War period was tumultuous for the US military.  With the end of that war and the collaspe of the Soviet Union, the greatest scaling back of the US Armed Forces since the end of World War II was underway.  Forces would be cut, and cut, and cut again, cuts that would not be reversed until after 9/11.

(The same thing is happening again, I expect.  The great irony is that during the Gulf War, the US military was twice as large, the number of DOD civilians was less than half of what it is now, and the overall defense budget was STILL smaller than it is today.  Makes you think perhaps we're operating with too much overhead.)

So, going back to the Gulf War era through today, throw out some what-ifs and wouldn't-that-have-been-cools.  Try to justify it as much as you can.  For example, if you think the USAF should've bought some F-20 Tigersharks, explain why you think so.  (In this case, how would the F-20 have been better than simply buying more F-16s?)

Feel free to throw in as many pictures as you like.  I like pictures, and it's not like we're on dialup anymore.  These don't have to be all aircraft related.  There were just as many starts-and-stops in the realms of land warfare, surface ships, and submarines as there were in military aviation.  Anything from Gulf War 1 to yesterday is fair game.

Since I started the thread, I'll go first.  I don't have any pictures to link, because so far as I know such a thing has never been proposed: a conventional jet bomber to replace the B-52H Stratofortress.

The B-52 was supposedly replaced several times in its long career (which spans the late 1950s to present; the last B-52 rolled off the assembly line in 1962).  The XB-70 was supposed to replace it, but was overtaken by technology.  The B-1 was supposed to replace it, but they served side by side, and now I think there are more B-52s in service than the much younger B-1.  The B-2 was supposed to replace it, but only twenty-one B-1s were built, which isn't enough to be a viable bomber force in of itself.  There's a joke that when the last B-2 is retired, and ferried to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB, the crew will be flown home in a B-52.

As of right now, the venerable Stratofortress is expected to fly until possibly 2040.  That's a career of over eighty years, which is probably record-breaking for a warplane.

On one hand, it's amazing, a tribute to the engineers at Boeing who built the greatest bomber of all time.  On the other hand, it's kind of ridiculous that the United States Air Force and the entire US Aerospace industry can't come up with something better than a 1950s design. It just goes to show you the value of doing it right the first time.

Let's say, then, that during the Gulf War the B-52 once again demonstrated its value in a purely conventional war.  With the end of that conflict, and the coming defense cuts, the Air Force began to suspect that the 160 B-2s it wanted weren't going to pan out.  On the other hand, in 1992, the youngest B-52 was thirty years old.  Some enterprising bomber officers saw the writing on the wall and managed to push for something radical in its conventionality: a subsonic, non-stealthy jet bomber to replace the B-52.  Just in case, it was thought, there were problems with B-2 acquistion, or if the program was cancelled.

The advantages were several.  A modern design could be designed with different mission perameters already in mind.  The B-52 was originally built to be a high-altitude bomber, and adapted to the low-altitude attack profile, but wasn't ideal for the task.  It could be modular and upgradeable; the BUFF was never expected to serve half as long as it did.  A new plane could have the arcitechture in place to more easily replace the avionics, mission systems, etc., as newer types came online.  The aircraft would be built concurrently with the C-17, so the line would be open and replacement parts could be built as needed.  Preparing for  what was, at the time, and unusually-long service life of 30+ years could have been one of the mission perameters.

Thus the Boeing B-3A was born.  Each airframe cost a fraction of the B-2, so a full production run of 100 tail numbers was planned.  This is later upped to in the late 90s as B-2 production is prematurely capped.

The B-3 is smaller than the B-52, but more manuverable at low altitude.  Its modern turbofan engines are highly effficient, giving it very long range.  Its internal spaces are optimized a little better, making it less cramped for the crew.  While not a stealthy design, it has the bolt-on stealth features of the concurrently developed F/A-18E Super Hornet.  Thus when it's not carrying external ordnance or fuel tanks, its radar cross-section is significantly smaller than the B-52, making it harder to detect at range.  It carries a crew of four, but can operate with a crew of two.  The weapons officer and electronic warfare officer could theoretically be enlisted positions (we didn't require commissioned officers to be bombardiers in World War II, did we?).

For the sake of coolness, I'd like it to have a radar-guided M61 Vulcan 20mm tail gun and the rear-firing Stinger air-to-air missiles that were experimented with on the B-52, but really such systems would be a weight penalty with little benefit.

The design is smaller than the B-52, and utilizes four engines close to the airframe, in radar-cross-section-optimized angular housings.  It has internal bomb bays with rotary racks and external hardpoints for more bombs or large fuel tanks.  It has integrated radar and infra-red sensors, upgraded with LANTRN and SNIPER pods as they become available.  It's designed to be able to use all bomber weapons, from iron bombs to nuclear air-launched cruise missiles.  It has high, wide wings and a broad V-tail.

Two later variants are produced, and procurement begins in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  The first is an EB-3A, a standoff dedicated electronic warfare variant.  The USAF in reality cancelled the standoff jammer package for the B-52, but the modularity of the B-3 design made development easier.  The EB-3A is used for all forms of electronic attack, possibly including cyber attack later on and integration with some UAVs.

The next variant is a maritime patrol aircraft for the Navy.  The P-3 Orion is an old design that's presently being replaced with the P-8 Poseidon.  The P-8 is a weaponized Boeing 737 airliner fitted with a small bomb bay.

The PB-3 Poseidon in this timeline was designed from the outset to carry ordnance, and readily takes to the carrying of antisubmarine and anti-ship weapons.  It has enough space available in the fuselage to allow for additional crewmembers for the maritime patrol mission.  It has longer range and is faster than the P-3, and since it's already in production, the R&D work has been done.

Versions of the PB-3 are also purchased by the British Royal Navy, the Australian Navy, and a version for the Canadian Forces.

The closest thing to this in reality that are not based on a legacy Cold War era bomber design are the various proposals to turn the Boeing 747 into a bomber.  An airframe designed from the outset to be a bomber would likely work better for this function.

Having thought about it a bit, here's my idea: replacing the M16 and M9. Yes, I'm going there.

Here's the scenario: the Coalition did not declare a cease-fire on 28 February 1991 and instead continued with the invasion of Iraq. Why? Dunno. Let's say that the Iraqis decided to fight it out with Coalition forces rather than retreat from Kuwait. When it became clear that he would lose Kuat, Saddam Hussein ordered that chemical weapons be deployed against both Coaltion troops and Kuwaiti civilians. It takes a while, but eventually the Iraqi military is totally defeated and Saddam is either captured or killed.

And then we basically find ourselves in a situation not unlike the one we're in today, only in this version our forces aren't restricted by asinine ROE, so they're able to effectively counter the insurgency.

Anyway, during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, it became apparent that the M-16 and various Colt Commando carbines in service weren't really suited for desert warfare. Seems it's susceptible to jamming when exposed to a dusty environment. And it turns out that 5.56 ball ammo doesn't have the most knockdown power. Fortunately, since this is still the early 90s, our military leaders are more forward-thinking and aren't so head-over-heels in love with the platform. So they decide to replace it.

Unfortunately, in this version of history, the military still isn't immune from budget cuts once the conflict ends, so there isn't enough $$$ for an entirely new rifle platform. And just like today, we still have massive stockpiles of 5.56mm ammo and STANAG magazines, so those aren't going to go away.

Ultimately, rather than buying an all-new design, the Pentagon instead chooses to replace the direct-impingement upper receiver assemblies and bolt carriers with a short-stroke gas pistol design very similar to the AR-18. The upper also incorporates an M1913 rail and detachable carry handle. The end result looks similar to the M16A4, but sports A2-style handguards.



This new design, which I'll call the M18, also returns to a full-auto setting rather than a 3 round burst. Why? Because this is my alternate history and I think 3 round burst is stupid.    A carbine variant with a telescoping stock, which I'll call the M5, is also introduced. This basically looks like a stock AR-15 carbine but with a mid-length gas system.



The M5 is issued to rear-echilon and Special Forces/Special Operations units only. It does not replace the M18 service-wide.

After a few years, someone realizes that, hey, we're not using a buffer and buffer tube assembly anymore, so why not switch over to a folding stock? That moment of brilliance yields the M18A1 and M5A1, respectively. These look similar to the ZM LR300 (remember those?)



Only the stocks don't look like they came off a giant Erector Set and the rifles still utilize standard A2 hand-guards and AR-15 style front sight posts

The next evolution of the design is the M18A2/M5A2, with the only change being railed handguards. The A3 is the next evolution of the design, which replaces the standard fixed front sight base with a folding one, like this one:

.

At about the same time that the M18A1 and M5A1 were introduced, the Pentagon began to look away from the 9mm cartridge. Sure the then-newish Berettas were great guns, but prolonged combat experience was proving that the 9mm NATO ball round just doesn't have the knockdown power necessary to deal with enemy combatants, especially fanatical insurgents. At the time, there were still large stocks of .45 ACP ammunition on hand, but the old M1911 pistols still in inventory were pretty much worn out. So the decision was made to adopt a new pistol.

Ultimately, Beretta once again won the contract. The "new" design, designated the M12 and known in-house and on the civilian market as the 8145, is essentially a modified & updated 8045 Cougar.



The pistol features a 4.5" barrel and a modified locking block & recoil spring assembly. The new design is similar to the Px4 Storm in that it's only possible to assemble the components one way. As I understand it, in the original Cougar, it's possible to put the guide rod in backwards. The magazine design is also modified to allow a capacity of 9+1.

The M12A1 is introduced at about the same time as the M18A3/M5A3. This new design adds a Picatinny to the frame and night sights.

The AF doesn't do any more "carpet bombing"

There's a village - or what used to be a village - in the Kamdesh district, a short distance from where COP Keating used to stand, that would dispute that statement.  A B-1 bombed the place flat.  The whole village.

And NC - I think Prompt Global Strike has morphed into some kind of super-duper hypersonic cruise missile.  Mostly due to concerns that sending up something whose ballistic track looks like an ICBM might freak out people with nukes, even if it carried a conventional (or, at the velocity those things move, concrete) warhead.

For my alternative history, from an Army point of view, it would be really unsexy, but it would be conceptual, educational, and trianing based - get Big Green to understand that their resounding victory meant that the likelihood that anyone would want to play that kind of game with us was now very, very small, and thus that we needed to think about, train and educate our soldiers for, and build forces for, stuff at the lower end of the conflict spectrum - COIN, conflict against unconventional forces, etc - while still maintaining the capability to do high-intensity conflict.  Maybe avoid a lot of the ass pain of the early stages of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bombers are how an air force projects power.  The Strike Eagle, for example, can't do the job of a B-52, because the Strike Eagle can't fly halfway around the world to hit a target.

Bombers have a big advantage in the age of precision guided munitions.  They can do close air support.  B-1s and B-52s have done it in Afghanistan.

Fighters are fine for the task, but an F-16 guzzles gas like a fiend simply loitering over friendlies.  A bomber can just hang around up there at leisure.  A modern bomber could provide real-time recon info to troops on the ground, like a UAV. Unlike a UAV, it can carry dozens of 2000-lb bombs.  It can do a mission that would take fighters multiple sorties to accomplish.

There's a reason the B-52 has been around so long, and it's not because of simple tradition.  Sometimes you just need a big-assed bomb truck.

Exactly,

In practical terms, B-52 can provide precision weapons delivery in 15 minutes or less to an area larger than West Virginia or South Carolina and loiter time is limited by human endurance.  Depending on the load out, it might be able to make anywhere from 12+ bomb runs prior to having to be relieved on station to rearm.

The next day, it can fly out and mine a harbor, serve as conventional cruise missile launch platform or deliver the canned sunshine.   

Part two of the High/Low mix: the A-13 Tomahawk.

Right now, the Marines are mortgaging their future on the F-35B, the most troublesome of the three variants.  It was originally supposed to have achieved IOC by 2012.  It is not now known when this plane will actually enter service.





Additionally, the Navy made the Marines agree to buy a number of carrier-variant F-35Cs.



It has better range than the B-model, and can carry more.  (I think technically the STOVL version should be the FV-35B, but we seem to have abandoned the numbering system lately, for marketing reasons.)

Meanwhile, while the F-35 program struggles along, the Marines are working to keep ancient F/A-18A and AV-8B Harrier airframes operational.  They've purchased surplus Harriers from the British, even.

So here's what we do.

The Harriers are withdrawn from service except for those in training squadrons.  This will allow pilots to keep their STOVL skills fresh until the F-35B comes online.  An interim solution is, like the F-24 for the Air Force, based on a trainer.





The T-45 Goshawk is based on the British Aerospace Hawk trainer.  Something like a thousand units of the Hawk have been built for clients all over the world in the previous decades, and they remain in production today.  Many countries are purchasing similar transsonic trainers, adapted as low-cost attack aircraft, for their air forces.  Similar aircraft include the YAK-130/M-346 and older birds like the Alpha Jet and the Czech L-39 Albatross.

Now, these planes have to compete with refurbished surplus American F-16s on the market, but they're still inexpensive.  They're also considerably cheaper to maintain and operate than the F-16, and are a lot less likely to get a less-experienced pilot killed (the F-16 is not an easy aircraft to fly). 

At any rate, BAE seems to be onto something.  They are producing a single-seat light attack version of the Hawk, the fully modernized Hawk 200.









It can carry a variety of air-to-ground ordnance as is, and can carry Sidewinder missiles for self-defense.  The Hawk is very maneuverable, and is used by the RAF Red Arrows.



The single seat version, in attack configuration, reminds me of nothing so much as a modernized A-4 Skyhawk.

So in that spirit, the US fields a version of the Hawk intended primarily for the Marine Corps.  It's an up-to-date, single seat, navalized variant that becomes the A-13A Tomahawk.  It can't operate from assault ships, but otherwise replaces USMC Harriers in operational duty.  A couple hundred A-13As are built and purchased.  It serves as an inexpensive, reliable, easy-to-fly, cheap-to-maintain, easy-to-replace bomb truck/CAS bird for the Marines.  Its primarily designed to operate in permissive environments, but has an ECM suite and countermeasures just in case.  It's cheaper to operate after the enemy's air defense network is smashed, or for low-intensity conflicts or counterinsurgency missions where economy and loiter time are more important than speed and stealth.

Getting in on the buy, the Air National Guard purchases a number of Tomahawks as well.  The rationale is, since they won't be getting many, if any, F-35s any time soon, it falls to the ANG to take on different mission sets other than just being a back up, part-time Air Force.  The ANG uses its F-24s and A-13s to take on the COIN/ground combatant support missions, CONUS air defense, and joint training with partner nations, and other missions that don't necessarily require the capabilities (and expense) of the F-22, F-35, or even the older F-16s that go to the USAF Reserve.

So, the US has a three-tier combat capability in fighters.  The bottom tier is covered by the Tomahawk.  It's rugged, cheap to operate, and can move mud as well as anything else out there.  It's designed to support the grunt and harass the enemy.  The middle tear consists of new F-24As and older F-16s.  They cover the spectrum from low intensity to higher intensity.  The top tier is made up of the F-15E, the F-35, and the F-22.  The latter two, being stealthy, are especially for "first day of the war" missions.

Had we bought more F-22s, the F-15s could be phased out faster, but oh well I guess.

Here's a Navy one.  Sort of.

Experience in the Gulf War taught western leaders that even though the Cold War was ostensibly over, the world was unstable.  Instead of massive, fixed military forces poised across Europe to defend against Soviet invasion, wars could start with little notice anywhere in the world.

Gleaning from experience learned in the Falklands Campaign, British leaders realized that even in an era of defense cutbacks, the United Kingdom needed to be able to project power abroad.  After 9/11 and during the War on Terror, the British realized that a Fortress Britannia policy, with a military that can scarcely be deployed without the logistical support of the United States, wouldn't serve the nation's interests in the 21st century.  Public concern about the UK armed forces becoming a token, non-deploying Gendarmarie like so many of continental Europe's nations had become caused a number of previously unthinkable propositions to move forward.

In order to fund much of this, the British Army took most of the hit.  The active duty force was shrunk, with three-quarters of its strength being found in Reserve units modeled after the US National Guard. The Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force received the brunt of the new equipment and organization. 

As part of a power projection strategy, the Royal Navy wanted to have a real aircraft carrier in its inventory again.  The pocket carriers it had been using for decades were dependent on the Harrier jump-jet.  This subsonic, 1970s-vintage aircraft was rapidly headed toward obsolescence, and even in the late 1990s it was believed that the technological challenges of the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter might cause serious delays.

In lieu of trying to build new carriers on their own, the United Kingdom worked out an agreement with the Clinton Administration and the United States Navy in January of 2000.  The Kitty Hawk-Class USS Constellation and USS America, as well as the the Forrestal-Class USS Independence, having been decommissioned by the US Navy, were essentially donated to the United Kingdom in lieu of being scrapped.


USS Constellation


USS Independence, mothballed


USS America

With these three big deck carriers being refurbished, the Royal Navy begins an exchange program with the US Navy in 2001, flying US Navy F/A-18s and some of their own Harriers off of US Navy ships.  Royal Navy crews train aboard US Navy ships, learning how to run a real aircraft carrier again.

Meanwhile, a competition is held for a navalised strike fighter, as the Royal Navy had nothing compatible with a catapult & trap system.  Contenders were the much-delayed F-35C, the F/A-18E/F, and a navalised Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Rafale-M, which was already in service with the French.

Given that the Typhoon was entering active squadron service with the RAF, the Typhoon won the competition and entered production.  After several design issues, it began to enter squadron service in 2009.











The Royal Navy was able to build a starter carrier force by purchasing aircraft and systems that the US Navy was decommissioning, such as the S-3 Viking.



The former Constellation, now christened the HMS Leviathan, began its shakedown cruise in 2011, having spent more than a decade being refitted and upgraded. In UK service it is expected to serve until the 2045.

Do we have to go with things that would be cool?
Because I can think of something for the near future that wouldn't be pretty...

In that vein, how about some alternative military present:  recognizing the need for highly survivable platforms to operate in the face of hostile Anti-Access / Area-Denial (A2AD) systems, the US Navy announced that at least 2, and possibly up to 4, Iowa-class battleships would be removed from mothballs, to be completely stripped and rebuilt.

The ships will be stripped to the hull and superstructure, including the replacement of the oil-fired steam turbines with nuclear reactors.  Three of the twin 5" turrets on each side, along with the Harpoon-missile launchers, will be replaced with a vertical launch missile system, as well as rapid-slewing turrets armed with a 155mm and 57mm rapid-fire guns, one of each per side, to deal with close-in fast moving enemy ships.  The ships will also be equipped with the latest bloc Aegis radar.

Finally, and potentially most disturbing to battleship purists, the 9 16" guns will be replaced by electromagnetic rail guns.  These 16" rail guns, currently in the final developmental stages, will be able to launch 1000 lb smart (GPS or laser homing) projectiles up to 200 miles.

Navy spokesmen answered "No comment" when asked if the upgraded dreadnaughts would be equipped with Wave Motion guns. 

A nuke powered BB would be free from fleet tankers
 the improvements in armor, hull design and manuvering systems since they were originally launched would be phenomenal.

Here's a whimsical scenario:

The Joint Strike Fighter program is cancelled in December of 2001 as the nation spins up for war.   The Navy is ready, and simply continues purchasing the Super Hornet.  The Air Force is left scrambling, though.  Various defense contractors put in bids for upgrades and redesigns of existing fighters.  The F-15E and F-16 are still in production, and both have proven combat records.  F-22 production is accelerated, as the Air Force is suddenly afraid that might be canceled too, and they don't want to be stuck with less than two hundred tail numbers.  The F-22 achieves IOC with the 1st Fighter Wing in 2003.

Taking up the slack, the USAF begins to acquire upgraded 4th Generation fighters.  Both the F-16 and the F-15 were heavily modified over the years as test beds, and a lot of that knowledge and experience is applied.

The F-16E enters production for the Air Force, replacing many of its older Block 30/32 F-16Cs.  It is the more conservative of the F-16 upgrade proposals, lacking the F-22 delta wing and thrust vectoring nozzles that were under consideration.



The Air Force didn't want to take the risk of the program getting delayed and/or canceled like the JSF had, so they pushed for internal upgrades and less modification to the airframe.  The result was the Block 60 F-16E:



The first operational squadron of F-16Es deploys to Balad Air Base, Iraq, in 2007.



To bridge the gap until the 2025 timeframe, when the F-X next generation air combat system is expected to be developed, the USAF and Lockheed Martin explore options for a future spiral development of the F-16 airframe, incorporating features previously considered risky, like a lower radar cross section delta wing, diverterless intake, etc.

Part 3: A/F-117X

With the cancellation of the JSF, the Navy and Air Force were looking at a shortage of low-observable airframes.  F-22 production was coming along slowly, and while that aircraft was capable of ground attack it wasn't optimized for it.  Since the cancellation of the A-12, the Navy had no stealth airframes in the works. 

The USAF still had the original run of F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack aircraft, but experience in Bosnia had showed the USAF that this design had its flaws (namely in that its only defense was stealth; it was subsonic, had no radar, and aside from a pair of precision guided bombs was unarmed).

Lockheed was ready.  It dusted off mid-90s plans for the A/F-117X, an evolutionary upgrade to the F-117 Nighthawk.  This aircraft was more capable, could carry air-to-air weapons for self-defense, and was carrier capable.  The Navy was suddenly interested in that it would have an interim low-observable attack aircraft until the stealthy UCAVs could come online in the 2015-2020 timeline.







The A/F-117X offered a significant step up in capability over the early-80s vintage F-117, and was improved significantly with experience learned from the early JSF and the F-22 programs.  It was stealthier than its predecessor but was multi-mission capable.  It could carry a variety of air to air and air-to-ground ordnance.





The A/F-117 effort was the result of a crash program by Lockheed to meet the requirements of the USAF and USN.  They kept the project as in-house as possible to reduce bureaucratic delays.

The prototypes flew for the first time in 2003.  They began limited production in 2006.  Production of about 100 for the USAF and 180 for the US Navy is expected to continue into FY15.  The A/F-117X began its first deployment aboard the USS Ronald Reagan in 2008.  They were used in combat for the first time in 2011, over Libya, during Operation Oddessy Dawn.





The A/F-117X is expected to serve with the USAF and US Navy until as late as 2035, depending on how quickly a replacement system (most likely the QA-14 UCAS) can be made fully operational.