Norwegian Aircraft Carriers

Perhaps, under certain circumstances, Norway would feel more threatened by Nazi Germany than it did in OTL, and would need them for defense. If the Nazi invasion plans were somehow uncovered before they were put into action, Norway would take the threat more seriously. These could be paid for via access to oil reserves off of Norways coast (if they were accessible around 1930-1940). The carriers might also be needed to protect drilling operations offshore. You may be wondering why Norway would prefer carriers over a large force of seaplanes; this may be because seaplanes, though they would be a hindrance the Kriegsmarine, would be sitting ducks to the Luftwaffe. However, CVEs with multi-role fighters could put up more of a fight (the planes would be more capable in combat); this could perhaps buy Norway enough time to receive help from the Allies. Perhaps the small carrier(s) could defeat an invasion force in a Battle off Samar-esque victory, as I stated before.

They did and they were in the process of ramping up the Airforce to that having orders in the US for some 40 P-36s and a squadron of floatplanes.

Also AA was to be improved.

Edit: found this in an old thread of mine:
Thing is that Norwegian airforces had the following aircraft in the pipeline:
Hawk 75 fighters: 19 delivered but not operational, 5 enroute and another 36 for delivery.
Caproni light bombers: 15 for delivery.
He 115 torpedobombers: 6 for delivery.
Douglas 8A light bombers: 36 for delivery.
Northrop N-3 reconnaisance: 24 for delivery.

Already at hand was 12 Gladiator fighters, 4 Caproni and 6 He 115.

Taking the performance of the Hawk 75 in French use into consideration the Norwegians would be quite well off given some extra time for preparation.
 
Last edited:
You may be wondering why Norway would prefer carriers over a large force of seaplanes; this may be because seaplanes, though they would be a hindrance the Kriegsmarine, would be sitting ducks to the Luftwaffe. However, CVEs with multi-role fighters could put up more of a fight (the planes would be more capable in combat); this could perhaps buy Norway enough time to receive help from the Allies. Perhaps the small carrier(s) could defeat an invasion force in a Battle off Samar-esque victory, as I stated before.

I understand this, but I can't believe Norway's interwar economy would be able to pay the construction and running costs of even a single aircraft carrier. And what planes would they use ? A carrier is worthless without good planes. Would they buy American models or some early British ones ? (Seafires are out of the question if you're talking about the years prior to the war or the early war years.)

Even the Nazis never finished one ! (Truth be told, there were other reasons behind that, but they still didn't prioritize aircraft carriers, even though it could have helped their war effort in the longer run.)
 
Last edited:
I understand this, but I can't believe Norway's interwar economy would be able to pay the construction and running costs of even a single aircraft carrier. And what planes would they use ? A carrier is worthless without good planes. Would they buy American models or some early British ones ? (Seafires are out of the question if you're talking about the years prior to the war or the early war years.)

Even the Nazis never finished one ! (Truth be told, there were other reasons behind that, but they still didn't prioritize aircraft carriers, even though it could have helped their war effort in the longer run.)

I believe that I had stated earlier that theoretically, such a project could be paid for if Norway accessed its untapped (at the time) oil reserves off shore. However, I'm not entirely sure if this is possible at this point of time; if not, then Norway could just pursue smaller projects, like a floating airstrip or two.
 
I believe that I had stated earlier that theoretically, such a project could be paid for if Norway accessed its untapped (at the time) oil reserves off shore. However, I'm not entirely sure if this is possible at this point of time; if not, then Norway could just pursue smaller projects, like a floating airstrip or two.


Thing is off-shore drilling wasn't done till post-WWII so they wouldn't know what was beneath the waters; anyway the Continental shelf convention wasn't around till 1958 and North Sea areas of interest not negotiated till late 1960's.
Quite hard to get it going.
But theoretically yes; as such anythings possible. ;)
 
The purpose of aircraft carriers has usually been to project power beyond the reach of your land-based air power. Norway hasn't been a country wanting to project power.

Aircraft carriers used as defense become targets. Aircraft carriers without effective early warning systems and effective air groups become easy targets. German ground-based air easily out-classed all ship-board air in 1940.

Norway already possessed the cutting edge in naval air defense in their 12 Gladiators. Malta was later to demonstrate that it was an aircraft carrier that could not be sunk. Since Norway did not have to seek an enemy across the sea, it could have become a Malta-class carrier. Swedish-style airfield dispersal with prepositioned stores, based on a road network. Norway didn't need carriers. They needed more roads, bulldozers and snowplows.
 
The purpose of aircraft carriers has usually been to project power beyond the reach of your land-based air power. Norway hasn't been a country wanting to project power.

Aircraft carriers used as defense become targets. Aircraft carriers without effective early warning systems and effective air groups become easy targets. German ground-based air easily out-classed all ship-board air in 1940.

Norway already possessed the cutting edge in naval air defense in their 12 Gladiators. Malta was later to demonstrate that it was an aircraft carrier that could not be sunk. Since Norway did not have to seek an enemy across the sea, it could have become a Malta-class carrier. Swedish-style airfield dispersal with prepositioned stores, based on a road network. Norway didn't need carriers. They needed more roads, bulldozers and snowplows.

I'm aware that aircraft carriers are a power projection tool. However, this only really applies to fleet carriers. In this hypothetical scenario, however, Norway would only purchase 1-2 escort carriers. Additionally, they would be both an alternative to airstrips on land and vessels that could patrol Norway's long coastline and protect its theoretical oilfields (which would have to be present if the carriers could be put into being). If escort carriers still seem a bit unrealistic for an oil-exporting Norway, they could at least build some floating airstrips and a handful of aircraft.
 
I'm aware that aircraft carriers are a power projection tool. However, this only really applies to fleet carriers. In this hypothetical scenario, however, Norway would only purchase 1-2 escort carriers. Additionally, they would be both an alternative to airstrips on land and vessels that could patrol Norway's long coastline and protect its theoretical oilfields (which would have to be present if the carriers could be put into being). If escort carriers still seem a bit unrealistic for an oil-exporting Norway, they could at least build some floating airstrips and a handful of aircraft.

There wasnt such a thing as an "escort carrier" in the late 1930's when Norway would be thinking about getting one. There were only new, biggish, fleet carriers and old, obsolete, smallish, fleet carriers. The purpose of all carriers was power projection, fleet protection, and fleet scouting, none of which Norway needed. Norway did not have any offshore oil interests then, which I agree might be in some situations justification for a small airplane or helicopter carrier. If they wanted to spread out air defenses, just build more airstrips or try putting pontoon floating strips in sheltered fjords.
 
If you're determined that Norway will purchase two carriers for your tl then as I said before your only realistic options are Langley and Argus, though Langley would need some work to allow her to operate in the North Sea/North Atlantic in winter. Floating runways in the Fjords for a flight of single engined aircraft are certainly doable and I would still reccomend purchasing the Albatross seaplane tender to go with the Northrop seaplanes Norway bought OTL. Given the size of the carriers for aircraft I would suggest Swordfish torpedo bombers and either Sea Gladiators or Grumman F3 to start with, to be eventually replace by Wildcats. Given how far north Norway is I would suggest that the Swordfish be fitted with enclosed cockpits as the Canadians did OTL.
 
What you are saying does not disprove my point. dgharis said the modern Norwegian economy is too small to afford one, when that is patently false, as an economy half the size has one. Whether or not Thailand can keep their ship in the water is not the point.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Fucking Thailand has an aircraft carrier, and their economy is half the size. If Norway wanted one today, they could get one. /nitpick


Of course it never leaves port, lacks aircraft, and is built on a commerical quality hull so it is combat non survivable, but they do have a carrier.

They also lack any sort of reasonable escort force so the ship would be meat on the table for anyone with a decent SSK, but, hey, it's a carrier.

It makes no economic sense, is a drain on their defense budget, and nothing but a vanity item, but they do, by God, do have a carrier.

Norway can't afford a carrier, more critically it doesn't need one. In a practical sense the only countries on Earth than actually NEED carriers are France, the UK & the U.S. due to their extensive overseas commitments. The PRC and Russia can justify a need, for power projection purposes, but that is a stretch.

What any country, outside of the three I listed, needs, at most, is an LHA (or, as the JNSDF calls it, a helicopter destroyer :rolleyes:) to act as a sea control ship.
 
What any country, outside of the three I listed, needs, at most, is an LHA (or, as the JNSDF calls it, a helicopter destroyer :rolleyes:) to act as a sea control ship.

Well, India might want to give the Sri Lankans a lesson or two:rolleyes:

This is the same thing that happened in the 1900-1920 period with Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Greece, Turkey, Spain, and God knows who else wanting dreadoughts. YOu aint nobody without a big piece of steel floating in the ocean even now.
 
What you are saying does not disprove my point. dgharis said the modern Norwegian economy is too small to afford one, when that is patently false, as an economy half the size has one.

Actually, he's right. Thailand may HAVE a carrier (nominally, since it doesn't function) but they can not in fact afford it. It's a bleeding wound on their budget that even the Thais laugh at. Having =/= affording. So Norway could, I suppose, put a hull in the water, but it would be fiscal insanity on their part.
 
Of course it never leaves port, lacks aircraft, and is built on a commerical quality hull so it is combat non survivable, but they do have a carrier.

They also lack any sort of reasonable escort force so the ship would be meat on the table for anyone with a decent SSK, but, hey, it's a carrier.

It makes no economic sense, is a drain on their defense budget, and nothing but a vanity item, but they do, by God, do have a carrier.


Don't mince words, CalBear, tell us what you really think. :D
 
In a practical sense the only countries on Earth than actually NEED carriers are France, the UK & the U.S. due to their extensive overseas commitments. The PRC and Russia can justify a need, for power projection purposes, but that is a stretch.

What any country, outside of the three I listed, needs, at most, is an LHA (or, as the JNSDF calls it, a helicopter destroyer :rolleyes:) to act as a sea control ship.


I would tentatively add Australia to that list for two reasons.

1. Its very long and in many places sparsley populated coast line.
2. If trouble comes knocking its distance from its allies means it would take time some time for non airborne help to arrive.
 
I would tentatively add Australia to that list for two reasons.

1. Its very long and in many places sparsley populated coast line.
2. If trouble comes knocking its distance from its allies means it would take time some time for non airborne help to arrive.

Hmm. I never thought about that. Australia would likely be able to support a small carrier; I wonder why they've never considered it?
 
They did they've had three.

Hmas Vengence, on temporay loan.
Hmas sydney.
Hmas Melbourne.

They have two near sister ships of the Spanish Juan Carlos I which can support Vstol aircraft on order. (In my opinion Britain could do with two of these as well.)

Sydney had a proud record of service off Korea, and then as a transport to and from Vietnam.

Melbournes record wasn't so good, being involved in two fatal collisions with othr warships.

The Australians had agreed to purchase Hms Invincible prior to the Falklands war.
 
They did they've had three.

Hmas Vengence, on temporay loan.
Hmas sydney.
Hmas Melbourne.

They have two near sister ships of the Spanish Juan Carlos I which can support Vstol aircraft on order. (In my opinion Britain could do with two of these as well.)

Sydney had a proud record of service off Korea, and then as a transport to and from Vietnam.

Melbournes record wasn't so good, being involved in two fatal collisions with othr warships.

The Australians had agreed to purchase Hms Invincible prior to the Falklands war.


Oh. Never knew about those. I wonder why they don't have any now. Do you think it would have been possible for them to have one during WWII?
 
They could have run a CVE during WWII but with all the US ships in the Pacific there was no real need.

As for why Melbourne wasn't replaced. After the Falklands war the naval cuts that would made HMS Invincible redundant were canceled so the Australian purchase of her fell through. Melbourne was both worn out and obsolete and the funds to build a replacement just weren't there.
 
Top