No Light Fleet Carriers and More Fleet Carriers - Effects on the Smaller Navies

Lemming, there's the cliff, do your duty!

I usually think that the British should have built 16 Centaurs instead of the 16 Colossus/Majestic class and the 7 Swifsture/Tiger class cruisers that were begun. That would have given the smaller navies that bought British light fleet carriers much better ships because they could operate more and/or heavier aircraft.

I also think that 2 Audacious class should have been built for the Royal Navy instead of the 4 Centaurs that were laid down 1944-45 because they would have been a better long term investment.

Recently I have started to think that the RN might have been better off laying down 8 extra Audacious class instead of the light fleet carriers laid down 1942-43 and the cruisers laid down 1941-43.

IOTL about half the Colossus and Majestic classes were sold to other navies. Would the same have happened to the extra Audacious class ships ITTL? Would the navies that bought light fleet carriers IOTL have the resources to buy and operate a full fleet carrier ITTL?

E.g. I can see the French operating one instead of Arromanches and experience of operating a larger ship might lead them to buying bigger carriers than Clemenceau and Foch. However, I think the Canadians and Dutch would have to pay off some of their cruisers to provide the larger crews. Australia would have a similar problem, but she probably buys one fleet carrier instead of 2 light fleet carriers. We might have seen the RAN's Audacious class ship operating on Yankee and Dixie stations during the Vietnam War.
 
Such a large carrier in a small but first rate defence force like Australia or Canada or whatever would drastically distort the force posture of these countries.

During the Suez Crisis the Eagle carried about 55-60 Jet fighters, Wyverns, Skyraider AEW plus Whirlwind SAR helos. That's a pretty massive force for countries like Australia and Canada which bought 39 Sea Venoms and 39 Banshees respectively.
 
Such a large carrier in a small but first rate defence force like Australia or Canada or whatever would drastically distort the force posture of these countries.

During the Suez Crisis the Eagle carried about 55-60 Jet fighters, Wyverns, Skyraider AEW plus Whirlwind SAR helos. That's a pretty massive force for countries like Australia and Canada which bought 39 Sea Venoms and 39 Banshees respectively.
So does that mean navies like the RAN and RCN wouldn't acquire any aircraft carriers?
 
Maybe some from the US, like Spain did, but otherwise I doubt it.

Just for context when Australia bought the 39 Sea Venoms and 35 Gannets they had Sydney and Vengeance (on loan) and expected to refit Sydney with an angled deck, steam cat etc, once Melbourne entered service, however money and manpower shortages put an end to that idea. This is why the RAN bought way too many aircraft for a single carrier. But even 74 aircraft would not be enough to make use of Eagle, even if the mix was changed to include more jets, as Eagle would carry 50-60 aircraft which leaves little to nothing as reserves, for training and deep maintenance. But to buy more, particularly jets, means this single arm of a single (and smallest) service is getting close to the 112 Sabres and 48 Canberras the RAAF bought in the period. That's before these small navies buy the cruisers and fleet destroyers to escort such a valuable asset.
 
I actually like the light fleet idea as smaller countries can keep a fleet presence. They dont have to fight large battles, but escort, in a time of 100's of Soviet submarines and attack bombers is a good idea.
 
I could see Australia being the big benifactor of this considering their continued need for a significant fleet that has some expeditionary power. Canada on the other hand converted their aircraft carrier in the 1960s to an ASW carrier rather than pay to upgrade it to a modern conventional carrier and binned it entirely in 1970. Bluntly the Canadians have no overseas territories to defend and have the mighty US navy parked right beside them; if we are going to spend anything on our cash strapped military it doesn't go to building major surface combatants like carriers.
 
Maybe some from the US, like Spain did, but otherwise I doubt it.

Just for context when Australia bought the 39 Sea Venoms and 35 Gannets they had Sydney and Vengeance (on loan) and expected to refit Sydney with an angled deck, steam cat etc, once Melbourne entered service, however money and manpower shortages put an end to that idea. This is why the RAN bought way too many aircraft for a single carrier. But even 74 aircraft would not be enough to make use of Eagle, even if the mix was changed to include more jets, as Eagle would carry 50-60 aircraft which leaves little to nothing as reserves, for training and deep maintenance. But to buy more, particularly jets, means this single arm of a single (and smallest) service is getting close to the 112 Sabres and 48 Canberras the RAAF bought in the period. That's before these small navies buy the cruisers and fleet destroyers to escort such a valuable asset.
Point taken.

When I had the idea one of the methods in my madness was that Audacious class carriers could better cope with the explosive growth in the size and weight of naval aircraft that took place in the 1950s than the smaller aircraft carriers.

E.g. Melbourne when completed in 1955 had an air group of 22 aircraft made up of 8 Sea Venoms, 12 Gannets and 2 SAR helicopters. Centaur could operate 38 aircraft when completed in 1953 which was made up of 16 Sea Hawks, 8 Sea Venoms, 8 Gannets, 4 Skyraiders and 2 SAR helicopters. Centaur was also faster and had two catapults which were more powerful than Melbourne's. I haven't looked up the air groups of Eagle and Ark Royal in the 1950s.

In the 1960s Centaur was down to 24 aircraft (12 Sea Vixens, 4 AEW Gannets and 8 Whirwind ASW) and Eagle 36 (i.e. Centaur's group plus a squadron of 12 Buccaneers). AFAIK Melbourne was limited to a mix of 20 Skyhawks, Trackers and Wessexes, the latter were replaced by Sea Kings in the 1970s. I was hoping that ITTL the Australians would have bought some Sea Vixens and Buccaneers in place of the Skyhawks purchased IOTL and some E-1A Tracers to go alongside their Trackers.

AFAIK Melbourne had a crew of 1,250 and Eagle's in the 1960s was 2,400 and a larger shore maintenance and training organisation would have been required. That's at least 1,250 extra sailors and from memory the personnel of the RAN in the 1960s was between 10,000 and 17,000. However, if they can manage it they can put twice as many aircraft and better aircraft to sea. That would give them more "clout" for want of a better word in the region, not just with their potential enemies, but also their allies because they can make a bigger contribution.
 
When I had the idea one of the methods in my madness was that Audacious class carriers could better cope with the explosive growth in the size and weight of naval aircraft that took place in the 1950s than the smaller aircraft carriers.

I assumed so, that's pretty much why all big British carriers: Malta, 1952, CVA01 and Ark/Eagle ideas are put up.

However the likes of Canada and the Netherlands are likely marginal carrier operators, I don't know what crises Canada's carriers participated in but IIUC the Dutch only used their for one crisis cruise, to Australia as part of the Indonesian takeover of West Papua in 1961. I'd also suggest that Brazil and Argentina wouldn't operate British carriers if they weren't 2nd hand and very cheap, which only leave Australia, India and France and long term operators.

Not that the way things panned out was the best, I think it would have been better for the RN if some combination of Glory, Ocean, Pioneer, Theseus, Triumph, Perseus and Leviathan were instead completed as a 3rd Audacious and 5th Centaur. I'd be happy to forego 4 or 5 of these light fleets to get 2 bigger carriers which will serve for longer in both the Fleet role and Commando role.
 
Wouldn't Australia, Canada, France and possibly the Netherlands be offered the armoured carriers in this case giving them the option if they can raise the money of converting them to modern standards in the mid to late fifties? They could also opt to order dedicated carrier versions of the Unicorn instead, though this would give them real problems as they moved to jets.
 
Wouldn't Australia, Canada, France and possibly the Netherlands be offered the armoured carriers in this case giving them the option if they can raise the money of converting them to modern standards in the mid to late fifties?

I doubt they would be willing to shoulder the costs.
 
The HMS Implacable had a complement of 2300 in 1945, the HMAS Sydney had a complement of about 1200 on her Korean War cruise. Manpower shortages was a reason why the Sydney wasn't refitted to the same standard which would give Australia 2 carriers requiring about 2600 crew at peak times. So if Australia can't find 2600 pussers to man 2 carriers on occasion we won't be able to find 2300 year in and year out. That doesn't take into account the cost of running a ship with double the machinery and quadruple the boilers of a majestic class.
 
The HMS Implacable had a complement of 2300 in 1945, the HMAS Sydney had a complement of about 1200 on her Korean War cruise. Manpower shortages was a reason why the Sydney wasn't refitted to the same standard which would give Australia 2 carriers requiring about 2600 crew at peak times. So if Australia can't find 2600 pussers to man 2 carriers on occasion we won't be able to find 2300 year in and year out. That doesn't take into account the cost of running a ship with double the machinery and quadruple the boilers of a majestic class.
All of which is why I only said they would be offered them, not that they would necessarily buy them. France is probably the only country that would be able to afford them, for the other nations if they want carriers they'll have to look to the US. The problem they face with that option is that whether they buy Independence class ships or one of the larger escort carriers is that they are too small to operate jet aircraft when they become available. By 1960 they would either have to have new ships built (which is very unlikely), or give up carrier operations altogether.
 
HMCS Canada

AFAIK the initial postwar plan for the RCN was a fleet built around 2 Majestics, 2 cruisers and 11 destroyers. The latter were made up of the Colony/Swiftsure class ships Ontario and Quebec, the 7 surviving Canadian Tribal class destroyers and the 4 Emergency class destroyers transferred to the RCN.

However, they did consider buying one of the suspended Essex class carriers (Reprisal and Iwo Jima) as an alternative to the 2 Majestics. In the end they only bought one Majestic, HMS Powerful, which became HMCS Bonaventure, but while she was building they were lent HMS Warrior 1946-48 and then HMS Magnificent 1948-57.

Therefore the POD for the RCN would be for it to stick to its initial post war plan, which ITTL would be fore one Audacious class fleet carrier (instead of the 2 Majestics) or one Essex, 2 cruisers and 11 destroyers - because one British fleet carrier equals 2 light fleet carriers in terms of personnel requirements. E.g. according to JFS 1968-69 Bonaventure's crew was 1,370 (war) by comparison Eagles crew was 1,745 including the ship's air staff and a maximum of 2,750 with air squadrons, but I suspect both are for the 1950s and their actual crews in the late 1960s were a few hundred lower. E.g. the same book says that Ark Royal's pre 1967-70 refit crew was 1,632 to 1,745 or 2,295 to 2,345 with air squadrons and Melbourne's crew as 1,209 to 1,250.

But if the Canadian Government was prepared to buy a full size fleet carrier it would have to pay the doubled running costs, which would include increasing the RCN's personnel by 1,500 to 2,000 or paying off the cruisers. But the latter course of action only postpones the inevitable to 1956-58 because that is when Ontario and Quebec were paid off IOTL.

OTOH finding the doubled air group might not be that hard. The RCN operated 2 fighter squadrons (Sea Furies and then Banshees) and 2 ASW squadrons (Avengers, Fireflies and Trackers) for most of the 1950s, which was more than the light fleet carriers could accommodate. (AFIAK) from the late 1950s RCN aircrew were trained by the USN.

IOTL Bonaventure was used as an ASW carrier operating an air group in the 1960s of 8 Trackers and 6 Sea Kings, which AFAIK would increase to 12 Trackers and 9 Sea Kings in war. The TTL Audacious class ship instead should be able to operate an Essex CVS air group of 45 aircraft (20 Trackers, 4 Tracers, 16 Sea Kings, one Trader for COD and 4 Skyhawks to replace the Banshees for anti-shadower fighters). IOTL (IIRC) the RCN bought 100 Trackers and although some of them were for export what's left should be enough to maintain a front-line of 20 aircraft to 1970 instead of the 8-12 aircraft supported IOTL. About 40 Sea Kings were bought IOTL and the order might have to be increased to about 50 ITTL to allow for the larger complement of the aircraft carrier.

So I think the Canadians buying an Audacious class carrier instead of one Majestic (out of 2 projected) is feasible if combined with a timeline where Canada maintains larger armed forces between the end of WWII and the Korean War and then doesn't cut its armed forces as dramatically as it did IOTL between the late 1950s and early 1970s.
 
If somehow the Canada and Australia navies participated in operations against Vietnam, might this keep carrier strength up?
 
Having 2 fighter squadrons doesn't mean you have put both of them to sea, you need a HQ squadron for training, reinforcements, deeper maintenance and the like in order to have a squadron for the carrier. If you want 2 fighter squadrons at sea you'll need 3 squadrons in total, however once you meet the minimum requirement of a HQ Sqn you can support 2 or 3 operations squadrons with it, if you go for 4 operational sqns you might need to split out a trials squadron to free up the HQ and operational sqns from trials duties.

As for the Trackers, it, the Gannet, Alize and Viking all can do a certain amount of work limited by their performance, endurance and crew. I can't give you a definitive answer but I'd suspect that putting 20 Trackers on a carrier is only going to mean you search the same areas twice, ASW helos are the same. I'd guess that 8 Trackers and 6 Sea Kings provides a very thorough ASW capability out to a definite distance limit and this limit can only be increased by increasing the speed and decreasing the transit time to the search area to get more work done within the limits of aircraft and crew endurance. Doubling the number of aircraft won't do it.
 
If somehow the Canada and Australia navies participated in operations against Vietnam, might this keep carrier strength up?

I think it would in the case of Australia, but there were a couple of factors conspiring against it IOTL. primarily the decision to make Melbourne an ASW carrier in 1959 and ordering 27 Wessex helos and then changing that decision in 1963 and ordering Skyhawks and Trackers which didn't arrive until late in the Vietnam war.
 
Having 2 fighter squadrons doesn't mean you have put both of them to sea, you need a HQ squadron for training, reinforcements, deeper maintenance and the like in order to have a squadron for the carrier. If you want 2 fighter squadrons at sea you'll need 3 squadrons in total, however once you meet the minimum requirement of a HQ Sqn you can support 2 or 3 operations squadrons with it, if you go for 4 operational sqns you might need to split out a trials squadron to free up the HQ and operational sqns from trials duties.
I was only counting the first-line squadrons, the RCN had second-line squadrons for those duties, which I didn't mention.
As for the Trackers, it, the Gannet, Alize and Viking all can do a certain amount of work limited by their performance, endurance and crew. I can't give you a definitive answer but I'd suspect that putting 20 Trackers on a carrier is only going to mean you search the same areas twice, ASW helos are the same. I'd guess that 8 Trackers and 6 Sea Kings provides a very thorough ASW capability out to a definite distance limit and this limit can only be increased by increasing the speed and decreasing the transit time to the search area to get more work done within the limits of aircraft and crew endurance. Doubling the number of aircraft won't do it.
I think that argument doesn't work because it means that the Americans would have been putting 20 Trackers and 16 Sea Kings on their Essex CVS when half the number would have sufficed.
 
I think that argument doesn't work because it means that the Americans would have been putting 20 Trackers and 16 Sea Kings on their Essex CVS when half the number would have sufficed.

My bad, yes you're right. Do you envisage the RCN providing a screen around other navy's ships, or just its own?

I was only counting the first-line squadrons, the RCN had second-line squadrons for those duties, which I didn't mention.

The RCN acquired 39 Banshees IOTL, which is enough for 2 sqns with an attrition reserve, they initially wanted 60 but farted around too much. 60 would be enough for 2 operational sqns, a HQ sqn and attrition reserve.
 
I thought it would form the core of an American style HUK group, which AFAIK consisted of one CVS and 8 ASW destroyers, so the group built around HMCS Canada would have 8 St Laurent class frigates. I hadn't thought out its employment in detail other than it would be assigned to the NATO Atlantic Command, which AFAIK Bonaventure and its predecessors were. Plus the USN maintained 9 Essex CVS from the late 1950s to the middle 1960s and tried to increase it to 10 in the early 1960s for 5 in each in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets, but the 10th CVSG was disbanded after only a year. So the furthest I had got was to effectively give the Americans the 10th HUK group built around a big CVS.

I had intended to try and get an 11th HUK group if the Dutch can find enough men to crew a full-size fleet carrier, which they might be able to do if they decommission one of the 2 big cruisers they operated in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Top