With any POD after WW2 have the Royal Canadian Navy/Maritime Command have at least 1 carrier and experience with fleet aviation up to present day. You can't stop the Canadian Forces unification.
AHC: Keep RCN with a carrier and fleet aviation
- Thread starter Anime Ninja
- Start date
The Canadian navy agrees to keep at least one major escort group with a large helicopter component as part of its commitment to Nato
Therefore from the 60s it maintains a Colossus initially with ASW aircraft and later Helicopters - then in the 80s it builds or buys an Invincible class carrier possibly along with a small fleet of Sea Harriers?
In the Noughties Canada Purchases HMS Invincible from the UK in 2004 and after a 3 year refit and this ships serves for 5 years while their Invincible class ship undergoes a major refit to allow it serve on till 2020 Invincible is paid off in 2011 and sold for scrap - it was intended to serve for longer but a serious dockyard fire linked to an issue with incompatible dockside power links used in error results in her being deemed beyond economical repair.
During the late Noughties Canada seeks to build 2 replacement ships and chooses the Mistral class although the deal is an on and off then on and later off again affair
After the Arms embargo on Russia in 2014 Canada eventually manages to make a deal to buy both Russian Mistrals and these enter service in 2018 and 2020 respectively - with the Canadian Invincible finally paid off after 33 years of service 2 years earlier than intended (to the relief of many as she was in poor material condition and in need of a major overhaul)
Riain
Banned
One way to keep the Bonnie alive is to replace her Banshees with Skyhawks in 1962-63. The sunk cost of 20-30 Skyhawks will see them serve at least 10-15 years, taking Bonnie to the mid to late 70s.
What are the defense politcs of Canada like in 1973 or so? It wouldn't take much for them to be better than 1969.
What are the defense politcs of Canada like in 1973 or so? It wouldn't take much for them to be better than 1969.
Do you think that the government might buy some GR1 as well as the Sea Harrier to replace the CF-116s (F-5) that were in service, have a mixed fleet in the late 80's + of Harrier, (land and sea) and CF-188.
Riain
Banned
I have a Commonwealth wank of sorts rattling around in my head. Nothing too drastic, but Canada and Australia did use a fair bit of British kit up to the 60s so might push cooperation in a few areas more than OTL, carrier operations being one. Canada might be the backstop for the RN in NATO Stike Group 2 if the RN goes to 3 carriers from 1966. This justifies a 3 carrier fleet for the RN and the retention of the Bonnie for the RCN, so both navies would like it.
I could see Canada trying to swap part of its fleet of CF5's for a smaller fleet of Harriers.
(Maybe try and sell 80 to 100 CF5's to fund a much smaller fleet of Harriers. Maybe a complex deal where by Greece and or Turkey get the CF5's and the Canadians some how get at least partial funding for a smaller fleet of Harriers. I suspect the Canadians would still want to retain a modest fleet of two seat CF5's for training and utility duties.)
OTL A long series of defence funding cut backs forced the RCN to narrow their missions to anti-submarine and convoy escort. This meant buying Sea King helicopters and inventing the Beartrap haul-down and securing system while retrofitting DDEs with flight decks and hangars. New DDEs, tribal class and city class destroyers were built with hangars big enough for a pair of Sea Kings.
It became too expensive to maintain 2 or 3 squadrons of naval fighters. A-4 Skyhawks could fly of a “Bonny” but Harriers would be more versatile, especially for the NATO ground attack mission. I always felt that the RCAF “found” the nuclear bomber role to utilize excess CF-104 airframes.
During her last few cruises, the “Bonny” left all her fixed-wing aircrat (mostly S-2 Trackers) and replaced them with Sea Kings.
You for folks are miss understanding the primary role of CF-5 fighters. Their primary role was buying votes in Quebec. The RCAF struggled to find a role for fighter-bombers that could barely deliver a full load of bomb to the end of their own runway!
Hah!
Sadly, CF-5s were only useful for training young fighter pilots before they transitioned to more expensive front-line fighters.
Master Corporal (retired) Rob Warner, HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Iroquois helicopter air detachments. Later I bent wrenches on CF-18s based in Baden Sollingen, West Germany.
It became too expensive to maintain 2 or 3 squadrons of naval fighters. A-4 Skyhawks could fly of a “Bonny” but Harriers would be more versatile, especially for the NATO ground attack mission. I always felt that the RCAF “found” the nuclear bomber role to utilize excess CF-104 airframes.
During her last few cruises, the “Bonny” left all her fixed-wing aircrat (mostly S-2 Trackers) and replaced them with Sea Kings.
You for folks are miss understanding the primary role of CF-5 fighters. Their primary role was buying votes in Quebec. The RCAF struggled to find a role for fighter-bombers that could barely deliver a full load of bomb to the end of their own runway!
Hah!
Sadly, CF-5s were only useful for training young fighter pilots before they transitioned to more expensive front-line fighters.
Master Corporal (retired) Rob Warner, HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Iroquois helicopter air detachments. Later I bent wrenches on CF-18s based in Baden Sollingen, West Germany.
Good points... But I am assuming in my prior post the CF5's were procured then swapped some how for harriers so the jobs were already created
Presumably some more jobs could also have been created canadianizing the harriers and maintaining them Good points... But I am assuming in my prior post the CF5's were procured then swapped some how for harriers so the jobs were already created
Keep the jobs in Quebec, that would be the most political response. Might have a Canadian version with different electronics and other minor things then the base UK model.