IOTL, the Majestic-class CVL Bonnie was scrapped in 1970. By that time she only carried Trackers and Sea Kings (later assigned to MARCOM and DDs respectively) , the Banshees having been scrapped in 1962. WI the Bonnie was replaced, with perhaps an Essex-class from the US?
WI Canada retains CV capability?
- Thread starter RogueBeaver
- Start date
- Status
Well, we can use it as a transport, but also useful for overseas deployment. Later on, we can still use Hornets like the RCAF/AIRCOM (depending on whether the services are unified). I think the best equipment initially would be some Skyhawks with Crusaders, since they can be operated from a smaller CV.
MacCaulay
Banned
We'd have to use Skyhawks. You can't fit Hornets on that thing. The Argentines, Australians, and Brazilians have all used insanely pimped out A-4 Skyhawks on carriers from the same class, the South Americans are still using theirs' to this day. They're capable of a thrust-to-weight ratio that's almost even, meaning they can fly almost straight up.
The A-4s aren't bad aircraft, though if I had to choose between a CF with 80+ CF-18s or a carrier with some Skyhawks I'd go with the Hornets. They're just way more capable with what they've been asked to do. Take the air war in Kosovo for example: the Balkan Rats couldn't have launched out of Aviano and done what they were asked to do with A-4s.
They could've launched off a carrier, sure, but I just don't see that happening.
What about Corsairs or Crusaders? The French used the latter quite effectively on their two CVs.
OOC: No, but it's nicer to join the Canadian Army rather than Land Command. 
IC: No, because otherwise we'd have a WWII-era AF and Army.
IC: No, because otherwise we'd have a WWII-era AF and Army.
Sachyriel
Banned
OOC: No, but it's nicer to join the Canadian Army rather than Land Command.
IC: No, because otherwise we'd have a WWII-era AF and Army.
So no PACCOM CV... what are you saying?
For non-canadians or even non-(Canadian navy fanatics), this is not the 'Bonnie' who 'lies over the ocean', but rather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Bonaventure_(CVL_22)
Bearcat
Banned
The last US Essex cruises had Crusaders and Skyhawks. Anything heavier is out, the flight decks aren't stressed for it and the hangar decks are small.
Crusaders are somewhat all-weather interceptors, but have limited missile loads and short legs. The French are in a whole different world with Rafale.
Realistically, the Canadians probably would have an ASW Light Carrier at best.
Harriers anyone?
Fearless Leader
Donor
Your best bet for having such a thing happen would be for a conservative government to come into power in the late sixties (Perhaps Trudeau gets hit by a car or something...). With the Tories in power you'd see increased defense spending and probably no Unification of the Forces leading to the Bonaventure being in service longer (though still as an ASW carrier) perhaps she gets another rebuild in the 80's (assuming the political climate is right...) to launch Harriers. This takes her into the 90's/Early 21st century where she is finally retired and perhaps replaced by an old Tarawaclass ship...
So we'd have to go for Harriers and helos like the Brits... Someone should write a CanMil-wank... There was also the homegrown Bobcat APC, which is largely overshadowed by the Arrow, unification and the Bonnie. It was cancelled (Hellyer again ) near the end of development and replaced by the M113, which is still used today.
) near the end of development and replaced by the M113, which is still used today.No, the Majestic (her predecessor) was only allowed to be part of the UNEF TF at Suez when she hauled down the RN ensign and could be mistaken for a RN ship. Unless a Canadian government sends troops to Nam, which I highly doubt under Pearson, Trudeau or Stanfield. Even Winters, the most conservative of the bunch, probably would say no.
MacCaulay
Banned
Really? I would've thought the Crusaders were too big. Maybe it's just seeing them on the Clemenceau or the other French carriers...
Well...there's Cyprus in '73...too late. There's Suez in '56...wait!
Okay, this is stretching, but just bare with me: There was this plan that LBJ came up with in '67 to head off the crisis that eventually became the Six Day War. It was called Regatta, and basically consisted of an international fleet crossing through the Suez Canal to break the Egyptian nationalization without the Israelis doing it.
The Canadians were already on board and one of the leading proponents. The plan went the way of the Dodo because the Israelis moved the borders during the Six Day War, but had there been no Six Day War and the LBJ Administration decided to keep pushing for it, then we could've seen a Canadian carrier in Suez.
Without knowing much about Canada's defense policy I think the carrier would be justified if Canada saw the role of it's defense to be focused mainly on expeditionary capabilities. In OTL Canada had forces earmarked for reinforcement of Canadian forces in Germany as well as for expeditionary duties in Norway. Navy had the task of helping NATO's ASW effort while the RCAF was tasked in helping the North American air defense effort.
I think what we would need is a major Canadian defense reappraisal in late 1950's, perhaps circa 1957. It would center on two arguments. First, with coming of ICBM's the task of RCAF helping the North American air defenses is rather moot. Retain CF-100's, but there's no need for follow-on interceptor. Second, with threat of global thermonuclear war there's not much point maintaining NATO forces in Germany where they help German, not Canadian taxpayers. As for ASW effort, that's quite moot also as in thermonuclear war no reinforcement convoys will be needed.
Thus the New Look Canadian Armed Forces would rather center on fighting the Cold War with expeditionary capabilities and to assist in the beginning phase of the Hot War. This would be also achieved by using expeditionary capabilities, a Canadian Amphibious Task Force centered upon CVA's and Commando Carriers. RCAF's primary task would be to provide transportation service, air surveillance and sovereignity patrols, the Army's task to provide mainly light-centered force which could be rapidly airlifted or transported by sea to crisis point whether it's in the high arctic or in the Middle East.
All the forces would maintain their normal garrisons in Canada, thus their basing benefiting the Canadian taxpayers where ever the political pork is needed.
How's that?
It might have been possible that the Canadian could have adopted the British Harrier as the carriers fighter and strike aircraft. This would have given it the ability to strike at enemy positions as well as to defend the carrier. The aircraft is lighter than the Crusader so it should be able to operate from the carrier.
Riain
Banned
On a technical note I'm positive that the Crusader could never operate on a Majestic. The Crusader had a 140kt landing speed, the French Crusaders had work to allow them to operate on the C & F such as extra incidence on the wing and blown flaps. On top of that the C & F can go 32kt, similar to a SBC27 Essex, Majestics could only do 24kt. Similarly Majestics only had a short catapult so I don't think they could launch a Crusader. Also Majestics had small lifts and the Crusader was friggin massive and I doubt it could use these lifts.
Have a look at this YouTube vid of a Crusader buddy-tanking from a Skyhawk and you'll see the size difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqdD7n5NU8
Have a look at this YouTube vid of a Crusader buddy-tanking from a Skyhawk and you'll see the size difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqdD7n5NU8
An Essex-class requires about 3,500 crew if I recall correct.
It's going to be hard for Canada to crew that, especially without giving up too much else navy-wise.
To compare numbers, a Majestic-class only used about 1,200 crew (I might be comparing apples and oranges here, with the Essex including aircrew and the Majestic not).
Such a large crew is doable for the US, even in a pinch for an ASW/commando-carrier, but for Canada having an ASW carrier with that large a crew is probably not worth it.
Riain
Banned
The Melbourne had a crew of about 1300 including about 300 'birdies' of the airwing, so 1200 in the Bon including the airwing sounds right.
From time to time it is suggested that a country like Australia or Canada could replace their too-small and worn-out Majestic with an Essex or HMS Eage/Ark Royal. A Vietnam era Essex had an airwing of 2 Crusader sqns, 3 Skyhawk sqns (replaced by 2 Corsair sqns) and assorted cats and dogs like S2, E1 and helicopters. Similarly HMS Eagle and Ark Royal carried 14-16 Buccaneers and 12-16 Sea Vixen/Phantoms and cats and dogs like Gannet AEW and helicopters.
In the 60s the RAAF had 116 Mirages, bought 24 F111s and 20 P3 Orions, I don't know about the 60s RCAF but I assume that it was broadly similar in size. To operate an Essex the RAN/RCN would need 40 F8 and 55 A4/40 A7 plus cats and dogs, or an ex RN carrier 25-30 Buccaneer and 25-30 Phantom. This would make the FAA almost the size, power and cost of the country's airforce, which is ludicrous. The RAN FAA, and I assume the RCN FAA is broadly similar, had 20 Skyhawks and 16 Trackers which in my mind is in proportion with the size of the RAN and the FAA's role within that service and in proportion to the FAA's role within the wider Australian combat flying force structure.
The best I can imagine for stronger FAAs is the adoption of the HMS Centaur and/or Hermes in the 60s early 70s. These ships would allow a 50% growth of the RAN/RCN FAA for a handy increase in power but still keep it within a realistic force structure. These bigger, faster ships may also allow the use of the Crusader as a multi-role fighter instead of the Skyhawk.
From time to time it is suggested that a country like Australia or Canada could replace their too-small and worn-out Majestic with an Essex or HMS Eage/Ark Royal. A Vietnam era Essex had an airwing of 2 Crusader sqns, 3 Skyhawk sqns (replaced by 2 Corsair sqns) and assorted cats and dogs like S2, E1 and helicopters. Similarly HMS Eagle and Ark Royal carried 14-16 Buccaneers and 12-16 Sea Vixen/Phantoms and cats and dogs like Gannet AEW and helicopters.
In the 60s the RAAF had 116 Mirages, bought 24 F111s and 20 P3 Orions, I don't know about the 60s RCAF but I assume that it was broadly similar in size. To operate an Essex the RAN/RCN would need 40 F8 and 55 A4/40 A7 plus cats and dogs, or an ex RN carrier 25-30 Buccaneer and 25-30 Phantom. This would make the FAA almost the size, power and cost of the country's airforce, which is ludicrous. The RAN FAA, and I assume the RCN FAA is broadly similar, had 20 Skyhawks and 16 Trackers which in my mind is in proportion with the size of the RAN and the FAA's role within that service and in proportion to the FAA's role within the wider Australian combat flying force structure.
The best I can imagine for stronger FAAs is the adoption of the HMS Centaur and/or Hermes in the 60s early 70s. These ships would allow a 50% growth of the RAN/RCN FAA for a handy increase in power but still keep it within a realistic force structure. These bigger, faster ships may also allow the use of the Crusader as a multi-role fighter instead of the Skyhawk.
- Status