The challenge is this: with a post-1945 initial point of divergence, have a navy that's not the US Navy or Royal Navy (the latter because good lord that's been done to death already) operate a multi-carrier fleet for an extended period of time. Yes, you can include countries like the USSR or France that did pull it off, as long as they pull it off earlier or with more ships.
AHC: Give a Nation a Multi-Carrier Navy
- Thread starter CV12Hornet
- Start date
After acquiring Melbourne Australia has the Sydney converted to a jet capable carrier and they operate the pair with them taking turn and turn about either in service or refit and reserve through to the late 80's when two 27,000ton Harrier Carrier/LHD's are bought from the US and continue the pattern. The addition of the British P1216 Falcon AVSTOL in 1995 greatly improves the new ships effectiveness as carriers.
BlackDragon98
Banned
Surprisingly, Canada had 2 ASW carriers during the 1960s.
HMCS Magnificent and HMCS Bonadventure, I believe they were called.
Maybe Canada has a chance to deploy them and they are so successful that Canada decides to buying carriers, one for each ocean.
HMCS Magnificent and HMCS Bonadventure, I believe they were called.
Maybe Canada has a chance to deploy them and they are so successful that Canada decides to buying carriers, one for each ocean.
SsgtC
Banned
Magnificent decommissioned less than six months after Bonaventure joined the fleet in 1957. They really weren't operated together. Fixed wing operations on Magnificent ceased in October, 1956. And for the few brief months the two were in commission together, Magnificent was being used as a troop transport during the Suez Crises. Not to mention that Magnificent was only loaned to the RCN and was still owned by the Royal Navy
How about having the Soviet Union completes the Borodino Class Battlecruiser Izmail as an aircraft carrier? Having the Soviets get into aviation prior to WW2 might mean that post war, the Soviets get into aviation in a big way early on, with the Stalingrad Class being laid down as Carriers instead of conventional surface combatants. The later Moskva and Kiev classes would probably be a further evolution of the Stalingrads instead of their OTL ASW centric designs.
How would the Cuban missile crisis play out with a Soviet carrier battlegroup in the area?
How would the Cuban missile crisis play out with a Soviet carrier battlegroup in the area?
BlackDragon98
Banned
Budgetary limitations.
Money is always a problem for the Canadian military.
Just look at our rusty old CF-188 Hornets.
40+ years and still going
Of course because with the USA next door, ready, willing and able to defend Canada why do they need a large and expensive military? That really isn't something that can be changed without making everything unrecognizable.
The main issue with Canada is that the public has never been on the side of the navy, there was never a single time in the history of the nation when the general public was shown how vulnerable their nation would be without a naval force. For the majority of a conflict like WWI, the US was a neutral and provided no help to Canada.
Except in WW1 they were still part of the British Empire and the enemy couldn't even get close to Canada. So that really isn't an issue and after that the US Navy was strong enough to keep any enemy away and the US has a vested interest in keeping Canada safe if only to protect themselves.
I think you are forgetting the fact that the Royal Navy had completely withdrawn from their bases within Canada around 1905 as part of Fisher's reforms and the eventual centralization of Royal Navy assets around in Europe to deal with Germany left Canada open to attack. The Canadian west coast could have been raided by German cruisers operating off Mexico for weeks with relatively complete impunity as the RCN consisted of a broken down old 1890's protected cruiser and a pair of death trap Chilean submarines they bought. As a neutral power, the US would not have acted to protect Canada in that situation and at the same time, the Germans could have simply just kept within Canadian waters to point and laugh at the US Navy/coast guard.
The US and Canada especially before WWI were not exactly seen domestically or internationally as close allies. They had intertwined economies however even then, tensions within Canada was high with the scare of potential annexation or economic backlash from the US at anytime. Before the US enters the war and while Britain is busy elsewhere, Canada is not as secure as you think it is. Britain was ready to throw Canada under the bus if a conflict involving the US came up.
You are thinking with a bit too much of a modern mind I think.
Me too. I'm thinking an India that develops earlier and better could be a good choice. Either operate a couple of WW2 Light RN carriers or if India is in the US camp during the Cold War they could do the same. Perhaps pick up both of the Saipan Class light carriers or less desirably the Independence class. Maybe even pick up a Essex or two. I like the idea of both Saipan class vessels with a Essex as the heavy hitter in the 60's and 70's.
For some strange, arcane reason, Colombia got 2 carriers(ie multi requirement) when entered into Korean War to work as operation support, for some reason they keep them post war and bring it back into colombia, at modern time,both Carriers(Admiralte Padilla y 7 de Agosto) become legends for the Colombia small Navy, later on both were keep from a convination of USA and Korea Grants, retrofitting and just too romanticism to be decomissioned even if just used into anti-drugs operations.
WWII the Royal Indian Navy mans a couple of escort carriers, or more likely M.A.C's. These pass to the newly independent India and are eventually replaced in the 50's by Hercules and Leviathan. These are replaced by Bulwark and Hermes after the Falklands war (Bulwark is repaired in 1981 after the hanger and boiler room fires)
The Germans heavily raiding the Canuck Pacific coast might not have warranted a direct US intervention at the time but it would scared the shit out of the US. Might have led to a earlier "Preparedness Movement" and earlier mobilization. Germany would have been seen as a larger threat earlier.
American newspapers would be panicking about it for months "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?"
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.
The Indians were interested in Carriers pretty early. But at Independence they were desperately poor and incredibly underdeveloped. If you have the economy improve faster during the late Raj and early Republic you could plausibly have the Indians build up to a 3 carrier force late in the 50's. Probably composed of light carriers or escort carriers. But I kind of like the idea of the Indians going into the US camp early in the Cold War and largely switch from buying British and go American. They could probably pick up a couple of the Saipan or Independence class light carrier pretty easy. Probably unrealistic but I like the idea of them having both of the Saipan class with a Essex as the heavy hitter.
Maybe have a more openly hostile and powerful Indonesia leading to more resources being put into the navy.