Soviets realize the value of carriers waaaaaaaay sooner than OTL, keep Graf Zeppelin as a training ship, and include carriers in their first post-war naval construction plans.
lmaoSo the Germans raid the west coast and this does what to the majority of Canada's population which lives on the East Coast and the Great Lakes.
Shocks the hell out of them and at least on the East Coast they start to worry the German's will sneak a raider past the RN and bombard THEIR homes.So the Germans raid the west coast and this does what to the majority of Canada's population which lives on the East Coast and the Great Lakes.
So the Germans raid the west coast and this does what to the majority of Canada's population which lives on the East Coast and the Great Lakes. It really isn't that big of a problem. It isn't going to lead to the Germans marching on Ottawa or Toronto, AKA where the majority of the population lives. So from the point of view of the Canadian government the situation as it stood was perfectly fine. The OP posits a Post-1945 POD so we should operate with that in mind. In which case the USA will protect Canada. There was never a way for Canada to resist the US on its own after the Civil War and the starting of the breaking between the UK and Canada. And no amount of navy is going to stop an army from marching across the border. And of course the UK was going to throw Canada under the bus because there wasn't much else they could do.
France had the Clem, Foch and Arromanches all in commission as carriers 1963-68. If the PA58 Verdun had been built I think it would have replaced the Arromanches giving France 3 carriers in commission throughout the Cold War.
AFAIK the defensive interpretation of the constitution was an "error" by the US when writing it. Japan might have got a more neutral constitution or been able to reinterpret it in a less defensive way earlier but that would lead to far greater changes than just having carriers. Pretty cool thoughJapan might be able to accelerate its postwar carrier timeline a bit, but are hamstrung by their defensive constitution and how carriers are classed as offensive weapons. Nobody wanted a re-run of WW2 in the 50s and 60s or even the 70s and 80s for that matter.
Those poor sheep!"Kaisers Cruisers Raid Canuck Town and ravish 150% of the women and 200% of the sheep while holding competitive baby eating Competition. ARE WE NEXT?"
If Japan asked its allies some time in the 60's on how ASW escort carriers counted towards the constitution, a reasonable cause could be made for the 'helicopter destroyer' to arrive earlier. The biggest hurdle might actually be Japan's own domestic politics, I understand that a good deal of Japan felt really strongly about upholding the spirit of the 'self-defense only' part of the constitution, only relaxing over the last couple of decades.Japan might have got a more neutral constitution or been able to reinterpret it in a less defensive way
Those poor sheep!
U-boats made it all the way up the St.Lawrence in WW1, so the east coast of Canada had plenty to worry about at the time. I do agree a raid into the Strait of Georgia would scare the bowler hats off anyone who thought Vancouver was effectively immune to attack. Not sure if that feeling of vulnerability (and thus increased naval spending) could persist all the way through the 1950's though.
Australia has maintained a surprisingly large navy for most of its existence, being effectively isolated from direct support from Britain or (reasonably) friendly neighbour. If HMAS Australia (1930s version) was a light carrier instead of a heavy cruiser, it might convince the Aussies they need a couple more going forward, what with how things shook out in the war. Actually, a 'HMAS Australia as a carrier' could make an interesting timeline in and of itself if anyone's game.
If Japan asked its allies some time in the 60's on how ASW escort carriers counted towards the constitution, a reasonable cause could be made for the 'helicopter destroyer' to arrive earlier. The biggest hurdle might actually be Japan's own domestic politics, I understand that a good deal of Japan felt really strongly about upholding the spirit of the 'self-defense only' part of the constitution, only relaxing over the last couple of decades.
There were attempts in the early days of the JMSDF, but the Tartar destroyers ate the budget.I'm honestly surprised that Japan didn't go for aircraft carriers earlier. After all the Japanese Navy had a tradition in carriers to look back to. Maybe if the Soviets had, as Mike D proposed, buildt their own class of proper carriers in the late 50s/early 60s, and given the old hulls purchased from Britain to the PLAN, Japan might have felt the need to at least match the PLAN carrier-wise earlier. IOTL the Izumo-class helicopter destroyers will, once the conversions approved on 18 December 2018 are finished, become the first ship class in the JMSDF able to launch at least STOVL fixed wing aircraft.