HMAS Ark Royal, HMCS Eagle

[TheMann]

Canada's shipbuilding industry is now, and has always been, capable of building just about anything Canada's military would need. And in 1972, as expensive as operating a 45-aircraft carrier would have unquestionably been, the ability was there. The Trudeau years saw the military just gutted, because Trudeau and his socialist ilk figured that the US nuclear umbrella and NATO would save them from attack, and that meant the Canadian forces didn't have to be much at all. Mulroney knew better than that, and the forces as a result in the 1980s had substantial plans. Hence Canada talking about SSNs. During the whole SSN buying debate, Canada did more than consider building the things themselves - they commissioned studies from their best shipbuilders on what that would cost. I don't think any designs came out of it, but I know they were working on it. I know because my dad was in on it.

Overhauling Eagle would need to happen if they wanted a substantial operational life out of it. But since the Brits were gonna scrap it, it makes lots of sense to buy it from Britain for peanuts and rebuild it into a modern fleet carrier. That's pricey, but 1972 Canada had major unemployment problems and everybody wanted to fix that, and a defense-growing Conservative government with a communist-hating pro-spending NDP in support would not have a hard time finding the political will. The Liberals wouldn't like it, but the jobs gained in Ontario and Quebec from a growing Canadian military would provide the Conservatives political help anyways.

The fleet would most often use the four Iroquois class destroyers as escorts, though they'd want something to go with it, hence the Patrol Frigate program speeds up a fair bit. I also figure that the SSNs/SSKs would come anyways - we'd need to replace the Oberons eventually.

 

[MacCaulay]

The Trudeau years saw the military just gutted, because Trudeau and his socialist ilk figured that the US nuclear umbrella and NATO would save them from attack, and that meant the Canadian forces didn't have to be much at all.

What!? Are you implying, sir, that it was a mistake to go with the Bomarc missiles!? Heresy, I say! Heresy!

I also figure that the SSNs/SSKs would come anyways - we'd need to replace the Oberons eventually.

Like I said before, I just don't see the cash being there to do it. And even if the cash is there, the people aren't. It'll take a lot of manpower to run a carrier program, and SSNs are way more manpower intensive than SSKs.
The carrier would definitely be the flagship, and the best people would want to be there. If the submarines had the reputation they do now (and they probably would), I can't think of a soul who would want to serve on them.

I'm standing by my initial thought that the navy would have to make a choice as to whether they wanted a sub or carrier program.

I'm wondering if they had carriers (the air group, crew, and support being the expensive part) and subs at the same time if there would even be the cash to pay for the Leopards or the Bisons.
And coming from the army, that scares the shit out of me. I was a proud member of the PPCLI, and I'll freely admit now that I hated walking. I'd jump on an Afghan's back if he'd been patted down for bombs and it meant I didn't have to walk.

 

[TheMann]

^ Well, my friend, I think you need to remember that Canada has a substantial defense budget, it's getting bigger thanks to Harper, and any scenario that has Canada operating a modern CV would require them to have a much, much bigger budget. Canada here has a strong defense industry itself, which means much more reason to spend on military goods and personnel. Figure the total budget of the Canadian Forces here being about double what it is now, so say the budget is about $30 Billion to $35 Billion. This puts us at about the level of South Korea, which has a land army about 5x the size of the Canadian Army. And since the costs of buying the goods in question is spread out and we are assuming that personnel amounts haven't risen to double what the current CF is. I'd say to maintain this you'd be looking at growing the CF personnel count to roughly 85-90,000, which is about a 50% growth.

Double the budget with 50% higher personnel costs and somewhat higher operating costs (but not 50% higher) actually puts more money in the kitty for equipment and gear. Canada might have 100 Leopard II tanks instead of 60, for example. Canada might also have stuff like dedicated attack helicopters. Personnel costs are higher for European militaries compared to Canada, too, simply because of their higher currency value.

Assuming 95,000 active duty personnel and each one costing about $90,000 on average (I'm ballparking on that figure - I have no idea what it actually is) you'd have to boost current personnel budgets to about $8.6 Billion. Now, assume that much and a bit more again for operations costs (say $9 Billion), and then you have to count R&D and maintenance costs, as well as the costs of maintaining reserves. This, plus adding acquisitions needed through basic operation (missiles, bombs and ammo expended, replacement planes and helicopters for those that have crashed, worn-out land vehicles, et cetera), and you're leveling off at about $25-$27 Billion.

Now, with $27 Billion regular costs and a $32.5 Billion budget, that gives you $5.5 Billion to spend on new stuff. Land vehicles aren't that expensive, so if you split it equally among the divisions with a slightly smaller total for the army (say 35/35/30), you get close to $2 Billion a year for acquisitions. Spread out all of the gear bought here, and $2 Billion is plenty sufficient.

A 688i SSN costs about $800 million. A brand new Upholder class SSK is probably about $300 million, assuming Canadian labor costs and British technical help and gear. A F/A-18 is about $30 million, and what I'd assume is that the Air Command would want to upgrade to the state of the art stuff in about 2000ish, at which time the F/A-18s, which still have plenty of life in them, get transferred to the Navy. Canada's upgraded CF-18s are among the best F/A-18 variants in the world, too. CF-18s and Hawkeyes on a real CATOBAR carrier gives a lot of capability. It gives the capability to hit anything that is within 300 miles of the ocean, or assuming you stay in international waters and shoot, 100 miles. That's a lot of possible problem areas - The Balkans and Desert Strom could be places where Canada's carrier could be useful. Equip the carrier with in flight refueling, and you could it in Afghanistan, even.

Now, the costs of buying it. Well, the Brits would sell the carrier for peanuts, though the cost of refit would be fairly high. Say, adjusted for inflation, $1 Billion to build it and refit it. Pay that off over a few years, easily done. Do it between 1972 and the 1980, even with the purchases of Phantoms and helicopters for it, and you can still easily pull it off. Then, in the late 70s, equip it with a handful of E-2C Hawkeye and C-2 Greyhound aircraft - another $600 million for that. Over three years (before start of patrol frigate project), you can do it easily.

The Halifax class frigates cost about $300 million each. 12 of those, so you get $3.6 Billion. Again, spread over time, and its not hard to justify. Three SSNs at $800 million a pop and five SSKs at $300 million each totals $3.9 Billion.

You have a total of $7.5 Billion for the ships, spread over 1984 to 2000ish. On a $2 Billion purchase budget, that's child's play.

Now, all of these numbers are adjusted for inflation. This actually makes it easier to justify, because prices of military gear and wages for forces members have tended grow far faster than inflation.

 

[MacCaulay]

^ Well, my friend, I think you need to remember that Canada has a substantial defense budget, it's getting bigger thanks to Harper, and any scenario that has Canada operating a modern CV would require them to have a much, much bigger budget. Canada here has a strong defense industry itself, which means much more reason to spend on military goods and personnel. Figure the total budget of the Canadian Forces here being about double what it is now, so say the budget is about $30 Billion to $35 Billion. This puts us at about the level of South Korea, which has a land army about 5x the size of the Canadian Army. And since the costs of buying the goods in question is spread out and we are assuming that personnel amounts haven't risen to double what the current CF is. I'd say to maintain this you'd be looking at growing the CF personnel count to roughly 85-90,000, which is about a 50% growth.

Double the budget with 50% higher personnel costs and somewhat higher operating costs (but not 50% higher) actually puts more money in the kitty for equipment and gear. Canada might have 100 Leopard II tanks instead of 60, for example. Canada might also have stuff like dedicated attack helicopters. Personnel costs are higher for European militaries compared to Canada, too, simply because of their higher currency value.

Assuming 95,000 active duty personnel and each one costing about $90,000 on average (I'm ballparking on that figure - I have no idea what it actually is) you'd have to boost current personnel budgets to about $8.6 Billion. Now, assume that much and a bit more again for operations costs (say $9 Billion), and then you have to count R&D and maintenance costs, as well as the costs of maintaining reserves. This, plus adding acquisitions needed through basic operation (missiles, bombs and ammo expended, replacement planes and helicopters for those that have crashed, worn-out land vehicles, et cetera), and you're leveling off at about $25-$27 Billion.

Now, with $27 Billion regular costs and a $32.5 Billion budget, that gives you $5.5 Billion to spend on new stuff. Land vehicles aren't that expensive, so if you split it equally among the divisions with a slightly smaller total for the army (say 35/35/30), you get close to $2 Billion a year for acquisitions. Spread out all of the gear bought here, and $2 Billion is plenty sufficient.

A 688i SSN costs about $800 million. A brand new Upholder class SSK is probably about $300 million, assuming Canadian labor costs and British technical help and gear. A F/A-18 is about $30 million, and what I'd assume is that the Air Command would want to upgrade to the state of the art stuff in about 2000ish, at which time the F/A-18s, which still have plenty of life in them, get transferred to the Navy. Canada's upgraded CF-18s are among the best F/A-18 variants in the world, too. CF-18s and Hawkeyes on a real CATOBAR carrier gives a lot of capability. It gives the capability to hit anything that is within 300 miles of the ocean, or assuming you stay in international waters and shoot, 100 miles. That's a lot of possible problem areas - The Balkans and Desert Strom could be places where Canada's carrier could be useful. Equip the carrier with in flight refueling, and you could it in Afghanistan, even.

Now, the costs of buying it. Well, the Brits would sell the carrier for peanuts, though the cost of refit would be fairly high. Say, adjusted for inflation, $1 Billion to build it and refit it. Pay that off over a few years, easily done. Do it between 1972 and the 1980, even with the purchases of Phantoms and helicopters for it, and you can still easily pull it off. Then, in the late 70s, equip it with a handful of E-2C Hawkeye and C-2 Greyhound aircraft - another $600 million for that. Over three years (before start of patrol frigate project), you can do it easily.

The Halifax class frigates cost about $300 million each. 12 of those, so you get $3.6 Billion. Again, spread over time, and its not hard to justify. Three SSNs at $800 million a pop and five SSKs at $300 million each totals $3.9 Billion.

You have a total of $7.5 Billion for the ships, spread over 1984 to 2000ish. On a $2 Billion purchase budget, that's child's play.

Now, all of these numbers are adjusted for inflation. This actually makes it easier to justify, because prices of military gear and wages for forces members have tended grow far faster than inflation.

I'm very impressed at the number crunching. The Los Angeles-class, or for that matter, ANY American sub, as a Canadian SSN, I can't see.
After reading Through A Canadian Periscope, I'm basically convinced it was either the French Rubis class or nothing. They really didn't want to buy those things from the Americans, since the US Navy was half the reason they wanted them.
And they couldn't by the Royal Navy's SSNs, because the US helped develop the reactor and so could stonewall the purchase on non-proliferation treaty grounds.

And in order to get that kind of budget, you might need pretty smooth sailing for the Conservatives. I can't see the NDP rolling over and playing dead for that. They'd rather be putting that money into hospitals and stuff.

Believe me, man, if you'd've said "Phantom-carrying carrier with no sub program," I think I'd've been on board. I just can't see both at the same time. Not with the manpower they've got, and not with any Canadian government in power before the 2000s. Except Mulroney, maybe. Or possibly Peate. It could probably be worked to fit into his grand scheme of things.

 

[TheMann]

I'm very impressed at the number crunching. The Los Angeles-class, or for that matter, ANY American sub, as a Canadian SSN, I can't see.
After reading Through A Canadian Periscope, I'm basically convinced it was either the French Rubis class or nothing. They really didn't want to buy those things from the Americans, since the US Navy was half the reason they wanted them.
And they couldn't by the Royal Navy's SSNs, because the US helped develop the reactor and so could stonewall the purchase on non-proliferation treaty grounds.

A fair point, but here's an alternate scenario.

The Brits could just said "f*** you" to the Americans after the garbage over the Trafalgar class, and helped us develop a design on our own, built in Canadian shipyards with a Canadian reactor design. AECL is very, very good at nuclear reactor designs. I'm envisioning a 5000-ton SSN with an AECL-designed heavy water reactor and pumpjet propulsion, and much of the hull design and features of the Trafalgar class. The Americans couldn't object to that. This takes longer and costs more money, but has more benefit for Canada, too.

And in order to get that kind of budget, you might need pretty smooth sailing for the Conservatives. I can't see the NDP rolling over and playing dead for that. They'd rather be putting that money into hospitals and stuff.

This is true, but how often to minority governments last? I'm envision a similar scenario to OTL with parties switched - Stanfield gets his majority in 1974, loses it briefly to Trudeau (actually more likely to be Turner or Chretien) in 1978-79, then the Liberals cock up and do something dumb, returning the Conservatives to power. Joe Clark didn't have much of a PM term because he didn't count how many MPs he had. (I never had much respect for him, either.) Here, I'm envisioning Stanfield wanting a more experienced successor. Stanfield retires with full honors in 1984-85, hands it off to Mulroney.

(This may stop the 1982 Constitution, but I doubt it - Stanfield was more of a federalist than Trudeau ever was, and he'd probably have that card to play, too. Mulroney's popularity in Quebec compared to Trudeau, who most Quebecers hated, would make life easier for him to do this.)

Here, with Trudeau not having much of a legacy and knowing Chretien's awesome arrogance and Turner's real lack of leadership ability, could well lead to the NDP growing into Canada's second party, landing the Liberals in the same hole the Conservatives found themselves in in the 1990s. Broadbent never spent much time going after the Conservatives either - the Liberals always were an easier target, particularly under Trudeau. I can see the NDP taking advantage of their 1972-74 work and Broadbent's leadership to move into official opposition status by the mid-1980s, forcing a Liberal regeneration. That could be much better indeed for Canada, because Broadbent IMO is one of the last true visionaries the government of Canada had in its ranks, as opposed to Chretien's (and the Liberals in general) arrogance.

Believe me, man, if you'd've said "Phantom-carrying carrier with no sub program," I think I'd've been on board. I just can't see both at the same time. Not with the manpower they've got, and not with any Canadian government in power before the 2000s. Except Mulroney, maybe. Or possibly Peate. It could probably be worked to fit into his grand scheme of things.

We're not talking the same time. The carrier is running in 1975. The SSNs aren't ordered until the 1980s. You'd have to clear the costs of the carrier before you even thought about SSNs. I'm not that dumb.

The carrier and the New Fighter project would be done by the mid 80s, which leaves the frigate project and the armored vehicles for the Army projects underway. With a bigger budget, this is not as out to lunch as one thinks. A Trafalgar class SSN requires 130 crew, not much compared to most warships. Even the Halifax class FFH requires 225 crew.

 

[MacCaulay]

I'd probably stick to as close to the OTL SSN sub purchase as possible then, and go with the idea to build six SSNs in Canadian yards. That would put 3 at Esquimalt and 3 at wherever on the Atlantic (though NATO would probably throw a hissy and want 4 to help cover the GIUK Gap, but by the time they got online, there wouldn't be any need for them.)

The French seemed to be much more amenable to the Canadians as far as helping them develop independent SSN technology. And part of the problem with the British helping them was that Americans could basically be dicks and step in at any time and tell the British, "Hey! That pump you're using? And that widget and the doodad to the left of it? An American was in the design group that helped, so you can't use that."
And meanwhile the French were off to the side telling the Canadians they were ready to jump in and help, even offering to modify some of their diesel boats to take nuclear reactors and let them be built in Canadian yards.

You're managing to sell me on this, mostly because you're able to present a really good logical argument (better than most people on the board), and if you want, I can dig through some source material I've got here on my bookshelves to figure out what the French would've done.

I'm still very convinced, though, that the French were probably the partner that offered the Canadians the most...latitude...with their technology. The British offer would've come with strings attached that the Royal Navy, through no fault of it's own, had no control over.
The French had no qualms with it.

So...that's sort of where I stand. I agree with you, with conditions.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Brits could just said "f*** you" to the Americans after the garbage over the Trafalgar class, and helped us develop a design on our own, built in Canadian shipyards with a Canadian reactor design. AECL is very, very good at nuclear reactor designs. I'm envisioning a 5000-ton SSN with an AECL-designed heavy water reactor and pumpjet propulsion, and much of the hull design and features of the Trafalgar class. The Americans couldn't object to that. This takes longer and costs more money, but has more benefit for Canada, too.

While I'm a big fan of Candu reactors, the fact is that the US built special submarine reactors using enriched Uranium. I suspect strongly that a Candu based reactor is just not going to work in a sub.

Candu s have tremendous fuel efficiency (MWh / kg fuel), but not in mass efficiency (MWh / kg reactor). AFAIK.

I think any Canadian nuke sub would likely have to use someoneelse's reactor.

 

[Dilvish]

Regarding likely carrier aircraft, the F-14 would be out. The US Navy's Midway-class couldn't operate the F-14, the plane was too heavy.

I think F-8's would be a better bet as a fighter/strike plane. The French got a lot of use out of their F-8's, and the USN/USMC is phasing out their F-8's.

The A-4 is another good plane. Lots of them around with a number of countries. The production line may even still be open in the early 1970's. There is also the A-7, or Canada could go in with France on the Entared.

 

[MacCaulay]

Regarding likely carrier aircraft, the F-14 would be out. The US Navy's Midway-class couldn't operate the F-14, the plane was too heavy.

I think F-8's would be a better bet as a fighter/strike plane. The French got a lot of use out of their F-8's, and the USN/USMC is phasing out their F-8's.

The A-4 is another good plane. Lots of them around with a number of countries. The production line may even still be open in the early 1970's. There is also the A-7, or Canada could go in with France on the Entared.

The F-8 is an interesting thought. The French got an immense amount of mileage out of the Crusader. They were using it in the fleet defense role of the Foch and Clemenceau until 2002. That's...god...at least 40+ years of service for the base model.
Something to think about, Mann...

The A-4 has been mentioned, most vehemently by me. I pushed it mostly for price reasons, since the Canadians might want a fleet of aircraft they can afford to keep the numbers up on while still maintaining affordability.
The Argentines and Brazilians have also shown that the Skyhawk can be nearly endlessly upgraded and modified.

While I'm a big fan of Candu reactors, the fact is that the US built special submarine reactors using enriched Uranium. I suspect strongly that a Candu based reactor is just not going to work in a sub.

Candu s have tremendous fuel efficiency (MWh / kg fuel), but not in mass efficiency (MWh / kg reactor). AFAIK.

I think any Canadian nuke sub would likely have to use someoneelse's reactor.

You've got some good point. When the Canadian navy first went looking for SSNs, the French were very forward about their willingness to help co-design a nuclear reactor if the Canadians wanted to indigenously build an SSN.
I made the point earlier that I felt this provided a much freer route for the Canadian navy to travel down, since they would be working with someone who didn't have any export restrictions on their technology, as opposed to the British, who were hampered by certain parts of the reactors they had developed with the Americans.
That the Canadians could build a nuclear reactor in a submarine, I have no doubt. That they could do it cheaper with help from another country that already had knowledge in that area? Well, that'd definitely be a plus.

 

[Riain]

What if the Canadians used the RAAF model of medium fighter and heavy bomber (Mirage/Hornet and F111) by using the Crusader and Buccaneer?

 

[Dilvish]

Here's an off the wall idea. Canada could buy one or two old Cleveland or Baltimore cruisers from the USA. Convert them to be helicopter cruisers/CVs, or a hybrid helicopter cruiser, with missile launchers up front. It might be possible to operate two cruisers for the same price as one CV.

 

[MacCaulay]

What if the Canadians used the RAAF model of medium fighter and heavy bomber (Mirage/Hornet and F111) by using the Crusader and Buccaneer?

The F111 was tried during the late-60s/early-70s on some trial basis in a fleet interceptor role. The pilots hated it, since the nose was too long which caused the pilot to have to land completely blind during the last few seconds of approach.
It wasn't a good carrier aircraft.

The Bucc was just never around in the numbers to do it. The British and South Africans pretty much had all of them. And while the South Africans, of course, weren't going to be buying any more, the Canadians had already gone the route of pushing their Air Force in a more Amero-centric force.
It's still a good idea, though.


Dilvish: While the idea of the "carrier/cruiser" hybrid worked well for the Soviets with their Kiev-class, the Canadians would be basically operating this thing for anti-submarine warfare and for CAP over an ASW group. Having the "carrier/cruiser" hybrid would be building a deadly weapon in the wrong direction.
Those are dangerous ships against other ships, even against other aircraft. But against what the Canadians were designing their fleet to kill, they probably wouldn't be the most bang for the buck.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Canada won't get a carrier, period. For starters, naval aviation was 25% of the total naval budget, and the navy fought tooth and claw to keep Bonaventure as long as she did. Secondly, she was at her prime just after her last refit (and a huge pile of money had ben pured into her), and they still scrapped her.

The problem wasn't with Trudeau.. well, him too. But it started with Pearson and Hellyer. The navy fought unification tooth and claw, and lost many good senior officers over it (Brock and Landymore being the big ones), and once it happened there was really no one left with much of a say in the navy on how it should be run. Really guys, they made the naval uniform green for God's sake.

 

[Richard Archer]

HMAS Victorious

Looking at this from the RAN POV, Ark Royal was the ugly twin of the class, Eagle was by far the better ship and would have been a good purchase for either Australia or Canada. Therefore I don't see the RAN wasting the time on her in the 1975-78 time frame.

Victorious in 1967 is another matter. At the same time as the RN was getting rid of that doughty lady the RAN was looking to modernise Melbourne to operate Skyhawks and Trackers. Now if the RAN were to acquire her instead they would get a ship with true fleet capabilities and capable of operating current generation naval aircraft. the recent refit also meant she had more up to date radars and defence systems than Melbourne and would thus need littled additional work done to her to make her ready for service.

The RAN would probably stick with Skyhawks and Trackers on grounds of cost but Victorious could also handle Buccaneers and F8 Crusaders would also be managable, as would A7 corsairs and possibly A6 Intruders while F11 Tigers could be a cheapskate option for supersonic interceptors, (I belive the USN still had numbers of them in storage). The ship could operate about 36 aircraft of this size range (perhaps 40 if the RAN opts for the diminutive Skyhawks) and that is a large enough air group to operate a potent mix of types.

If the RAN opts for American fixed wing she could have a Foch sized air group of around 10 Crusaders, 16 Skyhawks (or a smaller number of A7's), 6 or 7 Trackers and four or five helicopters (Wessex to 1975 and Sea King afterwards). If you go for Buccaneers or even Intruders instead of Skyhawks only about 9 or 10 could be embarked with probably fewer Trackers and Crusaders as well but the Buccaneer was a very capable aircraft. Alternately you could have a dozen Crusaders for fleet defence and the balance a large Tracker/helicopter ASW capability, perhaps with a Gannet AEW or two thrown in for good measure.

Coupled with the Adams DDG's, River and Q class Frigates and Oberon SSK's it gives the RAN a balanced and genuine blue water capability around 20 or so platforms with plenty of flexibility for different air wings to meet different requirements. It will be expensive, and without a big increase in budget allocation the RAAF and army will have to lose out (no F111's but perhaps 40-45 Buccaneers instead, 12-15 for the FAA and the rest for the RAAF and later delivery for Leopards for the army) but it's probably doable with a bit of a push and this is alternate history.

Just a thought.

 

[Riain]

The problem with the Vic was that she was completed in 1941 and spent the first four years of her life fighting WW2, which is no good for a ships expecting a long life. Also the timeframe is not very good, in 1967 when thje Vic was decommissioned the F111s were being built, the Melbourne refit had been decided and the Skyhawks were being built.

The only effective difference between the Ark Royal and Eagle was that Eagle had an extensive/expensive rebuild in 1961-4 but the Arks was delayed until 1967 and was somewhat less complete. Both were somewhat defficient in build and materials quality which is one reason why they didn't last into the 80s, they deteriorated quicker than would be the case if they were built solely during peacetime.

 

[Richard Archer]

HMAS Victorious

Most definitely true about Victorious in 1967. However I do see such a scenario in 1967 as being a little more feasible than Ark Royal in the 1970's. To my knowledge the British government offered Hermes to the RAN with two Harrier squadrons in lieu of Invincible just after the Falklands but was turned down in part due to Hermes age as well as a different defence policy.

Part of the reason for the length and expense of Victorious' rebuild was the decision to replace her machinery. If they had kept the original machinery it would have been worn out by 1967 and required the ship to be scrapped anyway but in the 1950's it would have resulted in a cheaper rebuild completed sooner. The new machinery was estimated to have a twenty year lifespan and thus viable to the mid to late 70's (in time for the CVA-1 ships to replace her) which makes scrapping her after only an additional 10 years seem a complete waste of the money spent on her.

True she had fought a very hard war but so had a great many USN ships that were kept operational and recieved far less ambitious rebuilds. If the RAN had decided to take Victorious they would have gotten a ship that could have lasted as long as Melbourne (i.e early 80's at a push, and Melbourne was pushed) and would have been able to handle Trackers and Skyhawks better than the little Melbourne.

My father was in Defence Intelligence and was aboard Melbourne in 69-70 for an exercise and remembers how the whole ship shook whenever an aircraft landed. The Skyhawks were bad enough but how the ship held together when a Tracker caught wire is beyond him.

Melbourne was retained for valid reasons but the idea of the RAN operating a strike carrier, even if it is a smalland elderly one, is a nice thought.

 

[Riain]

As far as I'm concerned the best bet for the RAN would have been not to refit the Melb for Skyhawks, but to grab the Centaur from RN reserve and refit her instead. Anything more would skew the force structure of the ADF toward the single carrier. If we only have one carrier we don't want to suck the life out of the rest of the ADF.

 

[TheMann]

What if the Canadians used the RAAF model of medium fighter and heavy bomber (Mirage/Hornet and F111) by using the Crusader and Buccaneer?

The Buccaneer was a bit of an old dog by 1972, and I don't imagine the Canadian Forces would have gone for it for a variety of reasons. The Phantom was a better fit for the carriers (a problem the Fleet Air Arm had themselves, too) and the Buccaneer was underpowered in many circumstances. This would have been very obvious by the 1970s.

The Crusader is more interesting. It is faster (considerably) than the Skyhawk but much smaller and cheaper than the Phantom, so yeah I suppose that could work for Canada's carrier. I must admit I'm not sure if they'd bother - the F-4 was known for being a solid multi-role aircraft, so the question might be "why bother with two types or aircraft to maintain?" If you could make a case for the Phantoms as longer-distance strike aircraft and the Crusaders as dogfighters, then I suppose you could make it work. (The French did, admittedly.)

The better idea for the medium fighter/heavy bomber combo might be the Air Force in this scenario, replacing the Starfighter with the Hornet (or if you want to use less American gear, perhaps the Mirage V/Mirage F1/Mirage 2000) and the Voodoo with the F-111. If Canada builds the Arrow then there wouldn't be much need, but that's another topic altogether.

 

[TheMann]

Here's an off the wall idea. Canada could buy one or two old Cleveland or Baltimore cruisers from the USA. Convert them to be helicopter cruisers/CVs, or a hybrid helicopter cruiser, with missile launchers up front. It might be possible to operate two cruisers for the same price as one CV.

Too small, and you'd have seakeeping issues. If Canada was buying cruisers at the time, the best plan might be to pick up Chicago or Albany for peanuts and start from there, but I don't think that would happen either. You'd have to scrap the entire superstructure to make such a conversion, which would cost gigantic $$$.

 

[TheMann]

The F111 was tried during the late-60s/early-70s on some trial basis in a fleet interceptor role. The pilots hated it, since the nose was too long which caused the pilot to have to land completely blind during the last few seconds of approach.
It wasn't a good carrier aircraft.

I think another problem with the F-111 as a carrier plane is size. It's a big mutha, considerably bigger than even the F-14, which is also a big plane. If the USN had thought about the F-111B as a carrier-based strike bomber instead of a fighter, it might well have served the USN. IMO, they should tried to improve the visibility. I'll leave it to somebody else as to how to pull that off.

The Bucc was just never around in the numbers to do it. The British and South Africans pretty much had all of them. And while the South Africans, of course, weren't going to be buying any more, the Canadians had already gone the route of pushing their Air Force in a more Amero-centric force.
It's still a good idea, though.

The South Africans never had that many Buccaneers. My grandfather has pics of a SAAF Buccaneer in Rhodesia in about 1975, and he says that the guys were paranoid about it because they figured if they broke it they'd have a hard time getting pieces to fix it. That's also why most of the SAAF's 1980s combat aircraft were retired in 1988-91, they had aged to the point of being tough to use, and with the war in Angola winding down, they didn't want to have pilots killed flying dangerous aircraft.

Dilvish: While the idea of the "carrier/cruiser" hybrid worked well for the Soviets with their Kiev-class, the Canadians would be basically operating this thing for anti-submarine warfare and for CAP over an ASW group. Having the "carrier/cruiser" hybrid would be building a deadly weapon in the wrong direction.
Those are dangerous ships against other ships, even against other aircraft. But against what the Canadians were designing their fleet to kill, they probably wouldn't be the most bang for the buck.

The idea of a destroyer or cruiser hull being built for an ASW helicopter carrier is not a bad one by any means, as you correctly point out here, the point of a Canadian carrier would be largely CAP over an ASW group. Such a ship would be a great ASW tool, but the Canucks already had those.