HMCS Defender (CV-23)

[TheMann]

Mann:

Your scenario is definately do-able for Canada. It just would be expensive and the ship would be "maintenance intensive" as we say in the USN. I for one would heartily welcome a more involved Canada. The image of a joint North American task force steaming around in the Gulf is a good one to project. I tip my hat to our neighbors up north and appreciate their assistance in the GWOT so far. (BTW, a Canadian corporal holds the world record for the longest successful sniper shot, a kill made in Afghanistan from a mile and a half!)

Well, thank you for the compliment. At least some of us aren't wussies, and I wholeheartedly agree with the GWOT, as long as it stays focused on the GWOT. (Iraq, IMO was a bloody fiasco. Not much else can be said about it.) I figure that such a carrier would be bought to give Canada more weight and influence in world affairs, and I figure that the carrier would be bought to keep the Navy, which after unification was really surly, from being a constant pain. I agree that the older carrier would be rather expensive to maintain, but I think with Canada's budgets, facilities (Saint John Shipbuilding's Main drydock is big enough to handle a Midway class) and expertise, it could be done.

Funny thing about the Midway class. The rebuilds that were done during the Cold War added a lot of stuff topside and made them quite top heavy. The Midway in particular was known as a real roller. In one of her last overhauls, she was fitted with hull blisters in an attempt to lessen the rolling problem. The naval architects goofed and the blisters actually made the problem worse. Towards the end she could barely conduct flight ops in anything except glass calm seas. A FDR/Defender conversion would have to be done very carefully so as to not compound this problem.

I knew of that, and have been wondering how one would fix that problem. I'm thinking a deeper draft might help that, but it would hurt the maneuverability and speed.

I would imagine that any major overhauls or repair work would probably take place in the U.S. Britain and France both sent ships to U.S. shipyards for overhaul during WWII so Canada would probably do the same. If so, the availability of a dry dock would not be a problem.

Saint John Shipbuilding in Saint John, New Brunswick had during WWII one of the world's largest drydocks, able to handle a ship of Suezmax size. That's big enough for the carrier, I think. Besides that, Canada would want to be able to fix their carrier in one of their shipyards, especially if they have the expertise and manpower to do it.

Having read your 2nd post, I agree with your reasoning that the FDR was the right carrier for Canada in 1978. However, by 1998 the Defender would have been fifty years old and pretty worn out, despite the TLC given her by her crew. Here is were it gets interesting, though. Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence were all available for sale at this time, with the Sara and Indy being probably in the best shape. With the hard earned street cred the Canadians have now as a 1st rate naval power and with the stirling reputation the Defender earned over the years, wouldn't it be plausible that they would have retired her and purchased the Sara or Indy (or both!!) as a replacement? They were newer ships, in better shape, and would have given the Canadians 20 more years of good service.

Saratoga and Independence were laid down in the late 50s/early 60s, and they'd been ridden hard and put away wet by the USN, which means they would need substantial work done. Besides that, It's another step up in size from the Midways to the Forrestal class. Two of them is too much money for Canada (well, probably) to afford without one of them being docked most of the time. If one is going to spend all that money on a new carrier and another big bill, especially after having seriously refurbished Defender (new machinery, technologies, electronics and other upgrades included), why would they retire it?

Keep up the good work!

I'm working on it.

 

[DaveJ576]

Surely you wouldn't need both. I'm just an interested civilian, but given that a carrier can (AFAIK) launch fully-loaded aircraft in a dead calm, steaming for wind over deck- which gives about 30 knots over the deck- it could launch a less-loaded aircraft with less wind. Landing would be more of a problem.
I appreciate, however, that if you have any sort of tailwind or crosswind carrier operations would become impossible.

One of my sources is an Aviation Ordnanceman and the other an Aviation Electricians Mate and both have spent a lot of time on a carrier flight deck. Both are still on active duty. They stated catagorically that launching a fully loaded aircraft of any sort (except for choppers of course) with the carrier at a dead stop just will not happen. You can ratchet up the power on the catapult to the point where it is technically possible, but at that point it would rip off the nose gear where the catapult attaches. It is the combined force of the catapult, the engines on the aircraft, and the wind down the deck that makes this possible. Remove any of the three and the plane goes in the drink every time.

TheMann did state in his 2nd post that the ship would have still been underway in the harbor but at a slow speed. With a strong enough wind down the deck and a hell of a lot of luck, you would be able to get a light loaded plane in the air. This would never, ever be done under normal circumstances, but 9/11 was far from normal and they might just have tried it.

Dave

www.pigboats.com

 

[David S Poepoe]

Much like other while liking the ATL as a whole I find it bewildering that Canada would find the money - and then justify - new boilers and engines for the HMCS Defender. Do they have that much money that nobody would see a way of getting better use of it?

I guess I would consider the Canadian goverment asking earlier than the 1970s for a carrier for the US. With the Forrestals coming on line perhaps the Americans can see it to see the Canadians the FDR in the late 1960s.

Also the Canadians would probably know what parts of the SCB-101.66 modernization not to ask for in order not to effect seakeeping, etc. The presence of fleet carrier in the RCN may do additional wonders for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. If the Australians can build their own submarines the Canadians should be able to eventually design and build their own.

I would consider it likely that a replacement carrier would be order for HMCS Defender by the late 1990s and a Canadian firm building. Heck, there may even be an act to split the Canadian Armed Forces back into their original elements.

 

[Thucydides]

Much like other while liking the ATL as a whole I find it bewildering that Canada would find the money - and then justify - new boilers and engines for the HMCS Defender. Do they have that much money that nobody would see a way of getting better use of it?

I guess I would consider the Canadian goverment asking earlier than the 1970s for a carrier for the US. With the Forrestals coming on line perhaps the Americans can see it to see the Canadians the FDR in the late 1960s.

Also the Canadians would probably know what parts of the SCB-101.66 modernization not to ask for in order not to effect seakeeping, etc. The presence of fleet carrier in the RCN may do additional wonders for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. If the Australians can build their own submarines the Canadians should be able to eventually design and build their own.

I would consider it likely that a replacement carrier would be order for HMCS Defender by the late 1990s and a Canadian firm building. Heck, there may even be an act to split the Canadian Armed Forces back into their original elements.

Who cares? It's Canada-Rific!

 

[TheMann]

Much like other while liking the ATL as a whole I find it bewildering that Canada would find the money - and then justify - new boilers and engines for the HMCS Defender. Do they have that much money that nobody would see a way of getting better use of it?

That's a fair point, but the counterpoint to that is that the GE steam turbines on the Defender are old and badly worn, and that they would need to be replaced as otherwise they would pose an operational problem and perhaps a safety hazard. If you are replacing the turbines, why would you keep the same boilers, rather than go up to newer, more powerful machinery?

I guess I would consider the Canadian goverment asking earlier than the 1970s for a carrier for the US. With the Forrestals coming on line perhaps the Americans can see it to see the Canadians the FDR in the late 1960s.

FDR was last refitted in 1971. The SCB 101.66 work cost so much on Midway and Coral Sea that with FDR's age and its troublesome machinery, they decided not to bother with the full work. Canada scrapped the Bonaventure in 1970, and clearly the will was not there at that point to replace her. Hence, Canada has never again operated a CV. I simply had the unification's resulting anger from the former RCN get to the point where Trudeau decides to placate them by getting a good vessel. Sounds cheesy at first, but knowing how mad Trudeau made every member of Canada's military in the 1970s it does make some sense.

Hence at the time when Trudeau is looking, the US offers up their old carrier and offers to fix it for a decent price. Trudeau, seeing both a legacy and a way of making the Canadian Forces hate him less, jumps at it. Hence, the somewhat modified carrier goes into service in September 1978.

Also the Canadians would probably know what parts of the SCB-101.66 modernization not to ask for in order not to effect seakeeping, etc. The presence of fleet carrier in the RCN may do additional wonders for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. If the Australians can build their own submarines the Canadians should be able to eventually design and build their own.

That it definitely does. Note that 1992-95 are spent refurbishing Defender, includign all new machinery, new tower, new hangar supports, lifts and numerous other upgrades. Canada would of course have to do this so that the thing is able to be used in rough seas - a design challenge which the Canucks would have to master. As for the subs, the problem is what I mentioned earlier - the Canadians have no experience building submarines, nuclear or conventional. Operating the LA class boats would give them a good idea where to start.

I would consider it likely that a replacement carrier would be order for HMCS Defender by the late 1990s and a Canadian firm building. Heck, there may even be an act to split the Canadian Armed Forces back into their original elements.

By 2008, a new CV would definitely be on the cards, and probably being planned. I had the idea of Defender's successor being commissioned 2010-2012 sometime, and Defender retiring to be Canada's biggest museum ship, with a place in Canadian history. And yes, with this support for the military now, it's likely MIL-Dawie or Saint John Shipbuilding would be contracted to build Defender's successor.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

This scenario is fantasy world. Forgetting Trudeaux who was hardly a leftist, large fleet carriers cost money which is why Britain no longer has them. Were there plans by any other party for increased defence expenditure. I am sure that if the Canadian Tories had come to power they would have had budgetary problems. The NDP are to the left of Trudeau and probably less likely to spend money on defence.

The RCN was temporarily the 4th largest navy in the world in 1945 as the axis fleets were either sunk or in the case of the Italians confiscated but its strength lay in anti submarine warfare. Canada has been able to afford 1 light fleet carrier from 1945 until the end of the Bonadventure an Invincible would have been more practical. Given the RCN's post war history what would they need a fleet carrier for? Anti piracy operations have been their main contribution and support for the UN. The old commonwealth was not actively involved in the Falklands there would be no reason why Canada would have lent a fleet carrier. The only potential enemy after the collapse of the Soviet Union would have been the United States (territorial disuptes in the North West Passage where there may be oil). The United States has expressed concern about Canada having nuclear submarines I suspect they may well not have sold a Midway class carrier to Canada.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

The NATO role for Canada wouldn't really justify such colossal expenditure on a single flag-showing asset, even if their budget was increased 200-300%. although I could easily see a bigger RCN operating small asw/VTOL carriers like the Spanish/Italian navies, or SSNs.

Canada had a requirement to guard N American airspace, defend the western Atlantic/Eastern seaboard and Arctic areas against naval incursions, and maintain a land and air force in Germany.

By the 1970s it needed to replace virtually all its surface ships and recruit more sailors; that, coupled with any realistic SSN procurement for the 1980s and the replacement of fighter aircraft, in addition to the expansion/modernisation of their air and land forces in Germany, would've eaten up that increase.

 

[Electric Monk]

I had the idea of Canada not going all the way down the leftist path Trudeau took Canada in the 1970s. Some things, such as socialized healthcare, still will make it. I don't know whether I can get Robert Stanfield as PM or not, so I didn't put it down.

It's not even the leftist path. Stanfield, being a Red Tory, would almost certainly have supported socialized healthcare. However he also would have done such amazing things as a balanced budget, a good civil service, an actual military, and the potential (for a successor) to strike a "New Deal" for Canadian cities.

Basically avoid Trudeau and Canada winds up in a pretty good position, unless you get even stupider Prime Ministers.

One of my more amusing alt-Canadian PODs is that the Liberals get marginalized by the (Red) Tory and NDP Parties and they wind up as the libertarian version of the Reform Party (think Mike Harris or Harper born in Toronto).

By 2008, a new CV would definitely be on the cards, and probably being planned. I had the idea of Defender's successor being commissioned 2010-2012 sometime, and Defender retiring to be Canada's biggest museum ship, with a place in Canadian history. And yes, with this support for the military now, it's likely MIL-Dawie or Saint John Shipbuilding would be contracted to build Defender's successor.

If the Royal Navy and the French Navy still work together on a CVF analogue, I could see Canada buying into that.


Overall though a couple-three Invincible-like light carriers are more likely. Particularly if the RN could convince a couple nations to get on board—say Australia, perhaps Spain and/or Italy, maybe India, maybe even the French—you could build a decent run of light carriers and establish a solid framework for doing the project again in 20 years.

Plus the experience from small carriers would be invaluable (and more plausible) in adding a CVF type carrier to the fleet in the 1990s or '00s.

That said, I enjoyed the mini-timeline and it's always fun to see a better off Canada .

 

[Riain]

As much as I love carriers, and think the west should have stacks of them I can't see the Canadians taking on the FDR. It's just too much ship for a medium power, it would distort Canada's defence budget so much that it would be incredible. However I could see Canada taking on one of the RNs light fleet carriers, not Hermes because I want that for Australia, but perhaps Centaur. Such a ship could fit itno Canada's force structure without tilting it completely toward the navy.

As for the FDR, it should have been refitted by the USN and kept in service.

 

[pieman3141]

I think pocket or escort carriers, with ASW would better benefit Canadian defense policy. Sorry, but as cool as a full-sized carrier sounds, it just doesn't fit with where Canada was going post-WWII, IOTL. Pocket carriers with proper working VTOL planes, plus a couple of missile destroyers/small BBs, frigates, etc. with ASW would probably be better. Think along the lines of insertion/extraction of forces.

Now, in an ATL, where the US would be more weakened by WWII (protests break out in '44, more sympathy for Nazis, isolationism doesn't die, etc.) AND where the Soviets have a sizable force in Siberia (maybe they invade Japan, and what the hell, let's send troops to Siberia to take Alaska too!), then I can see Canada spending a lot of money on defense all-around. The Arrow doesn't die, more carriers, more big ships, bigger army, etc.

 

[TheMann]

To the above criticisms, I can see them. Yes, Canada's role in NATO was generally ASW work, but this carrier would be almost a "offer he cannot refuse."

 

[Ward]

As for Carrier how about a long deck Essex Class .
They are smaller then the Midway class .
And have the Canadian navy buy the navy version of the jaguar Fighter attack aircraft . The French had already proven it would fly of a flight deck .

 

[whatisinaname]

Great TL, looking forward to reading more

 

[pacifichistorian]

Honestly, this is ASB. Do you have the vaguest notion how much F-15s & 688s cost?! And how much it costs to operate a CVBG? Not to mention I see damn all need for SSNs, let alone the Cadillacs of the ocean. What are we supposed to be doing with them, hunting Krasny Oktaybr? I could maybe believe Valiant & Warspite. Maybe. More likely, & a better choice, would be half a doz Type 209s with AIP for under-ice (& maybe sail strengthening to surface in polynia), plus Mark 48s. DaveJ's right. How much did the bare hull of CVN68 cost? Add a squadron of F-4s & a squadron of A-4s, you've pretty much starved the Army & Air Force for, oh, a decade. On your program, Canada would be bankrupt before the end of the '80s.

 

[The Militant One]

I like it. The idea of Canada assisting the United States on 9/11 would most likely strengthen the relationship between the two nations 100 fold.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Honestly, this is ASB. Do you have the vaguest notion how much F-15s & 688s cost?! And how much it costs to operate a CVBG? Not to mention I see damn all need for SSNs, let alone the Cadillacs of the ocean. What are we supposed to be doing with them, hunting Krasny Oktaybr? I could maybe believe Valiant & Warspite. Maybe. More likely, & a better choice, would be half a doz Type 209s with AIP for under-ice (& maybe sail strengthening to surface in polynia), plus Mark 48s. DaveJ's right. How much did the bare hull of CVN68 cost? Add a squadron of F-4s & a squadron of A-4s, you've pretty much starved the Army & Air Force for, oh, a decade. On your program, Canada would be bankrupt before the end of the '80s.

Oktaybr - Oktyabr Although that's a DIFFERENT spelling mistake from the movie

 

[pacifichistorian]

Oktaybr - Oktyabr Although that's a DIFFERENT spelling mistake from the movie

OK, so Russian isn't my second language. Sue me.