Ok, my take in this scenario, is as follows:
The USAF's LWF/ACF program is first and foremost an 'American designed and built'. The American-centric Military Industrial/Congressional Complex wouldn't allow anything but an American design - so the suggested Dassault Mirage F1, SEPECAT Jaguar derivatives are out! (I know, it's What If!)
I would assume that if, as so correctly denoted, that the GE YF101 engine would still potentially be developed further, as the Northrop P-530, from which the eventual P-600/YF-17 would be developed, was in fact a private development and marketing Northrop program; so the acclaimed F404 might still eventually be derived (Although saying this, the driving force behind the F404, was the USN's adoption and further development of the YF-17 Cobra into the larger and heavier F-18 and A-18 [and eventual F/A-18A/B] Hornet.)
Although saying this I think the P-530 Cobra was far less carrier adaptive than the YF-17!
There's also the prospective scenario that Northrop builds the single-engine F100 powered P-610 variant of the YF-17!!
I know and appreciate that the Vought 'Super V-1000' would have been a good and affordable choice for a air force lightweight air superiority fighter. But I think the fact that the Super V-1000 was just the same fundamentally based on a 1950's design, I'm thinking the USAF (and NATO air force's) wouldn't appreciate this lineage - regardless of its F-8 Crusader combat proven capability.
Also ironically even though the USAF favoured the V-1000 over the proposed lightweight F-4E Phantom II and F-5E Tiger II, as it's preference choice for the 'International Fighter Aircraft (IFA) competition (which was won by the Northrop F-5E Tiger II), even with the USAF favoured F100 engine fitted, I don't know if the USAF would have allowed another Navy lineage fighter within its service!
There is also the question of the Super V-1000's offensive weapons capability 're NATO requirements! Unfortunately I don't have enough information/knowledge about the Super V-1000 wing pylon capability - and hence weapons carrying capability - it's true multi-role capability being preeminent in its NATO want and selection.
I also think the USAF would frown at the Super V-1000's two single 20mm cannons, as opposed to its favoured 20mm M61 multi-barrel cannon (Although the USAF and LTV did remedy this exact issue with the USAF's A-7D!)
Then there's the inherent Crusader issue of minimalist size/volume for avionics/sensors/systems. I think it's clearly known and appreciated that the Crusader design had reached its growth potential. Would the likes of the APG-66 multi-media radar system been able to be fitted to the Super V-1000?
On a positive side, I love the thought of the Super V-1000 meeting the original American Congressional decree that the USN VFAX/NACF adopt the selected winning design of the USAF's LWF/ACF. I would like to envisage a USN Super V-1000 equipped with the F401 turbofan (yes the F-14B Tomcat gets its F401's!!). But once again, I don't know if the Super V-1000 could/would meet the 'attack' requirements of the USN's 'VFAX' specifications! Maybe the USN would opt for a A-7F (with F401) and Super V-1000 mix to meet VFAX?
Then again, I really really like the notion of a of the Vought/LTV V-1100!!
Although denoted as yet a further evolution of the F-8 Crusader, the V-1100, clearly went beyond the Super V-1000 attempted refinements, into what appears to be an almost a completely new tailored air-superiority design. I'm thinking with its Vought lineage, it could have been adapted for carrier operations to meet USN's VFAX/NACF specifications!
P.S. As a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the NATO air force's adopting the Saab Viggen either!!
M.A.D