Bonaventure Replacement

In my timeline the HMCS Bonaventure stays in service until the early eighties as it was intended before unification operating Seakings and Trackers in the ASW role. As well there is an added capability to act as a "commando carrier" like Bulwark and Albion if the need ever arose. My question is what would be a suitable replacement for the ship to continue carrier based ASW operations in the north Atlantic as well as maintain a secondary capability to assist in amphibious operations.
 
In my timeline the HMCS Bonaventure stays in service until the early eighties as it was intended before unification operating Seakings and Trackers in the ASW role. As well there is an added capability to act as a "commando carrier" like Bulwark and Albion if the need ever arose. My question is what would be a suitable replacement for the ship to continue carrier based ASW operations in the north Atlantic as well as maintain a secondary capability to assist in amphibious operations.

Considering especially manpower restrictions and if you wouldn't want to operate any fixed wing aircraft an Invincible class is pretty much the only option. Are you sure you want to keep the Trackers?

All other options, such as an old Essex-class or an Audacious class, need about 2+ times the manpower to run in comparison to the old Bonaventure.
 
First problem is the one eluded to by FlyingDutchman - manpower. Bonaventure required 1,200 crewmen, and no carrier available in the early 80s aside from amphibious assault ships and the Invincible class, neither of which was capable of operating Trackers. If Canada was gonna continue as a carrier operator after about 1980 and keep the trackers flying, they would make to make a design on their own, which is probably not advisable.

A early 1980s paper by the Center for Strategic Studies recommended the purchase of three Invincibles for the Canadian Navy. The idea did exist, but IMO the better option might be to take the Invincible design, stretch it to get a bigger air wing - 22 aircraft is a size down from the Bonnie, even.
 
First problem is the one eluded to by FlyingDutchman - manpower. Bonaventure required 1,200 crewmen, and no carrier available in the early 80s aside from amphibious assault ships and the Invincible class, neither of which was capable of operating Trackers. If Canada was gonna continue as a carrier operator after about 1980 and keep the trackers flying, they would make to make a design on their own, which is probably not advisable.

A early 1980s paper by the Center for Strategic Studies recommended the purchase of three Invincibles for the Canadian Navy. The idea did exist, but IMO the better option might be to take the Invincible design, stretch it to get a bigger air wing - 22 aircraft is a size down from the Bonnie, even.

Actually, the Bennington (CVS-20), Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31), Oriskany (CV-34) would all still be around in the 1980s. The Bennington was scrapped in January 1994. Bon Homme Richard was scrapped in March 1992 and Oriskany was turned into an artificial reef in May 2006.
 
Actually, the Bennington (CVS-20), Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31), Oriskany (CV-34) would all still be around in the 1980s. The Bennington was scrapped in January 1994. Bon Homme Richard was scrapped in March 1992 and Oriskany was turned into an artificial reef in May 2006.

Buying big old ships in an effort to get more bang for your buck is just a way to set up a budget consuming financial blackhole that spends most of it's career in drydock. Look at the Indians and HMS hermes/INS Viraat.
 
Actually, the Bennington (CVS-20), Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31), Oriskany (CV-34) would all still be around in the 1980s. The Bennington was scrapped in January 1994. Bon Homme Richard was scrapped in March 1992 and Oriskany was turned into an artificial reef in May 2006.

Buying big old ships in an effort to get more bang for your buck is just a way to set up a budget consuming financial blackhole that spends most of it's career in drydock. Look at the Indians and HMS hermes/INS Viraat.

To a large extent, he's right. Better to buy new. In addition to that, the Essex-class vessels would require more than double the crew of the Bonaventure or an Invincible-class vessel. I think it would be better under the circumstances to buy or develop a design and build something new. An Invicible would be easy to build and well within Canada's capabilities to operate, complete with Harriers preferably. I don't think the Trackers would be able to operate off of it, but Sea Kings can handle that and Canada's Trackers would be over 20 years old when the new ships commissioned into the fleet.
 

NothingNow

Banned
There's always building a copy of the Clemanceau-class with modern machinery and electronics (admittedly it's a 20 year old design, but it's the closest to what the RCN wants.) Which could probably get her complement below 1200 officers and men.

With a pair of Sea Dart launchers and a few Goalkeeper turrets, it'd also free up a bit more hangar space than Clemanceau and Foch have.

She'd be capable of operating everything Bonaventure did, on up to aircraft like Rafales, Hawkeyes and Super Hornets without any difficulty.
 
There's always building a copy of the Clemanceau-class with modern machinery and electronics (admittedly it's a 20 year old design, but it's the closest to what the RCN wants.) Which could probably get her complement below 1200 officers and men.

With a pair of Sea Dart launchers and a few Goalkeeper turrets, it'd also free up a bit more hangar space than Clemanceau and Foch have.

She'd be capable of operating everything Bonaventure did, on up to aircraft like Rafales, Hawkeyes and Super Hornets without any difficulty.

That would be a waste of time. If you start off with an old design and then modify it for modern technologies, different needs (heavier seas, colder weather), different equipment fit out (unless they're going to use 20 year old French water heaters, stoves etc.) you've got a completely new ship design and probably not a very good one.
 

NothingNow

Banned
That would be a waste of time. If you start off with an old design and then modify it for modern technologies, different needs (heavier seas, colder weather), different equipment fit out (unless they're going to use 20 year old French water heaters, stoves etc.) you've got a completely new ship design and probably not a very good one.

It's still a design built for the North Atlantic, and a solid carrier.

Building an updated version of it isn't different than what happened with the Nimitz sub-classes, or the relationship between the Principe de Asurias and Chakri Naruebet.
 
^ That's what I'd figured on, too. If one can, this might be a place where Canada and Australia (and perhaps a couple other interested parties - calling India) to do a design for a smaller carrier that they can operate. 45,000 tons, 830 feet in length, 140 feet in beam at the deck, 32 feet in draft. Marine diesel or gas turbine power, three catapults and three arrestor wires, three elevators and as big a hangar deck as possible, aiming for 1250-1500 crew depending on the air wing.

Do the design in mid-late 1970s as Canada ITTL is looking to replace HMCS Bonaventure, Australia is looking to replace HMAS Melbourne and India is looking to replace INS Vikrant. (There may be other interested parties in NATO, too.) Design finalized in 1977-78, ordered in 1979 and laid down in 1980-81, with commissioning coming in 1984-85.
 
Cheapie route:

A few (2-4) DDH or CLH - say, something with the broad capabilities of the Italian Vittorio Veneto. If you get a half-dozen Sea Kings and a basic area-defence SAM system (SM-1?) aboard, I imagine it'd be a popular addition to any NATO ASW force...

If amphibious capability is still required, include accomodations for a company of troops and the ability to operate something like Blackhawks...
 
I think it would come down to either an Invincible or a modernized Clemenceau inspired ship. Either way at this point the trackers can be replaced by helicopters or a new fixed wing aircraft depending on the design chosen.
 
It's still a design built for the North Atlantic, and a solid carrier.

Building an updated version of it isn't different than what happened with the Nimitz sub-classes, or the relationship between the Principe de Asurias and Chakri Naruebet.

The Clemenceau class wasn't designed for the North Atlantic. It was designed in the mid-1950's to power project in North Africa from the Med or along the West African coast. The ship had no active hull stabilisation system and as a result used to roll like a mofo in the heavy mid-Atlantic seas.

Personally, I would just go for an Invincible class for Canada. Seeing how the countries main role in NATO is ASW warfare, and the Invincibles were designed for just such a role (including an active hull stabilisation sytem) they would be ideal. With a couple squadrons of Harriers, come post Cold War they would be ideal for peacekeeping operations.

Oh, and all this talk of simply "stetching" ships is bunk. A: It's little more than a desire to dickwave and B: stretching the hull also means widening it, and possibly deepening it. This will bugger up your internal arrangements and simply result in a very costly redesign.

Russell
 
^ That's what I'd figured on, too. If one can, this might be a place where Canada and Australia (and perhaps a couple other interested parties - calling India) to do a design for a smaller carrier that they can operate. 45,000 tons, 830 feet in length, 140 feet in beam at the deck, 32 feet in draft. Marine diesel or gas turbine power, three catapults and three arrestor wires, three elevators and as big a hangar deck as possible, aiming for 1250-1500 crew depending on the air wing.

Do the design in mid-late 1970s as Canada ITTL is looking to replace HMCS Bonaventure, Australia is looking to replace HMAS Melbourne and India is looking to replace INS Vikrant. (There may be other interested parties in NATO, too.) Design finalized in 1977-78, ordered in 1979 and laid down in 1980-81, with commissioning coming in 1984-85.

Except the all have different needs. India is by far the poorest and has the least manpower issues so they're the only one for whom getting a second carrier actually makes sense. More automation isn't necessary and in some ways is actively bad as it means more expensive things to go wrong. If it's going to go to the extra expense of designing something new then it wants something simple enough that the Indian Shipbuilding industry can handle and tropical climate adapted (AC/Fans instead of heaters). In terms of role it's 50% trophy/50% force projection inside the Indian Ocean Theatre, the ASW requirement is purely defensive.
Australia on the other hand needs something with long legs and tropical adaptations. The seas it operates in are generally less stressful than the North Atlantic and ASW is also not a key role, force projection in the South East Asian littoral is what it's for. Also as the most manpower stressed of the three automation is a must.
Canada on the other hand needs a North Atlantic ASW carrier. It needs to be able to operate in extreme cold weather and needs an air wing primarily focused on sub hunting with force projection as a secondary role.
Once you look at the requirements you've got three different ships. Now Canada would be perfectly happy with a Invincible, the RN had basically identical requirements to the RCN and it would have been a great fit but if the sale of the Invincible to the RAN had gone through I doubt if it would have been happy and it would definitely have required considerable modification.
 
Top