The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

[alejandrogrossi]

Air group of ARA 25 de Mayo at the Falklands war
8 A-4Q /4 SK /6 S-2E and 1 Alouette.
With the information, I learn here, you can replace 2 S-2E for E-1.
AEW capacity and posible ASuW

 

[GK Dundas]

Trying to do a what if with the RCN post Cuban missile crisis. The government in OTL was fairly upset with the Navy basically going a war footing while the rest of Canadian government basically dithered.
Instead they begin to realise that the crisis exposed several weakness concerning both the Government and the Navy. .
For the next couple of years Defence spending is little safer. There are no massive increases in spending but there aren't any cuts.
Fiscal management is improved within all 3 services but the Navy is told to squeeze every nickel til the beaver squawks. It's going to need every penny.
You see they've started negotiating with the Brits for two of the Centaurs.

 

[GK Dundas]

Trying to do a what if with the RCN post Cuban missile crisis. The government in OTL was fairly upset with the Navy basically going a war footing while the rest of Canadian government basically dithered.
Instead they begin to realise that the crisis exposed several weakness concerning both the Government and the Navy. .
For the next couple of years Defence spending is little safer. There are no massive increases in spending but there aren't any cuts.
Fiscal management is improved within all 3 services but the Navy is told to squeeze every nickel til the beaver squawks. It's going to need every penny.
You see they've started negotiating with the Brits for two of the Centaurs.

I'm looking for suggestions ,rebuilds etc . because they will need them .
I'm currently thinking Tarter And Terrier equipped escorts. Possibly an enlarged Huron class.

 

[SSgtC]

I'm looking for suggestions ,rebuilds etc . because they will need them .
I'm currently thinking Tarter And Terrier equipped escorts. Possibly an enlarged Huron class.

From the US, you'd be looking at Charles F Adams class destroyers with RIM-24 Tartars on them. They were built between 1958 and 1967, so right when you'd be looking to buy. It was a big class as well, with 29 built, so economy of scale will help you considerably on purchase costs and the availability of spare parts. If you want RIM-2 Terriers as well, you'd be looking at either Leahy or  Belknap class cruisers. The first is a double ended design (though the last one built was finished in 1964) while the second is a single ended design (they were being built between 1962 and 1967). If you need to be able to escort 2 carrier battle groups, you're looking, at a minimum, of needing 2 Cruisers (1 for each CVBG) to provide medium to long range SAMs, 8 Destroyers (3 for each CVBG plus 2 spares for other independent missions) for short to medium range SAMs, and probably 4 frigates for ASW work (the one area where the RCN already has enough hulls).

Now, beyond that. How is the RCN planning to operate these ships? As strike carriers or as ASW carriers? Because if they're only going to be used for ASW, you probably don't need the cruisers and their 477 man crews. Either way, this is a MASSIVE expansion of the RCN. You're going from needing 1,200 men to crew Bonaventure to needing 2,100 to crew a Centaur that's been brought up to the same standards as Hermes. And you're buying 2 of them. So instead of 1,200 you need 4,200. Plus 954 for the 2 cruisers. And another 2,640 for the DDGs (roughly 330 men on each of them).

At the time, the entire RCN only mustered roughly 20,000 personal. So your two carrier groups alone amount to a full 50% of the RCN personal. To operate a Navy with multiple carriers, plus all the other missions needed for the ASW role within NATO, you need to double the size of the RCN

 

[Scott Kenny]

To operate a Navy with multiple carriers, plus all the other missions needed for the ASW role within NATO, you need to double the size of the RCN

Given how much coastline Canada, they kinda need to have that big a Navy.

 

[SSgtC]

Given how much coastline Canada, they kinda need to have that big a Navy.

True. But those numbers should really spread across more smaller platforms and MPA squadrons rather than concentrating it into two carrier strike groups

 

[Scott Kenny]

True. But those numbers should really spread across more smaller platforms and MPA squadrons rather than concentrating it into two carrier strike groups

Should honestly be in 6x ASW carrier groups, plus MPA/AEW across the Arctic "coast".

So there's one ASW group always at sea on either coast.

 

[SSgtC]

Should honestly be in 6x ASW carrier groups, plus MPA/AEW across the Arctic "coast".

So there's one ASW group always at sea on either coast.

Canada would need 30,000 personal just to man those 6 groups. Add in detatched and independent operations, submarines, coastal patrol, fisheries protection, and air groups, you'd need 60,000 men just to man the fleet. Plus another 60,000 or so on shore duty. That's bigger than the Royal Navy in 1961 (102,000 in the RN including the Royal Marines).

 

[Rule of cool]

In theory, maybe. In practice though, you'd have to pick one or the other. For a small Navy/Country, they won't be able to afford two complete air groups for one carrier. The only Country in the world that can really afford to do have multiple types of air groups is the United States

In 1965 or so, when SEATO was a thing, the RAN ordered 14 S2Es and 10 A4Gs (2 x 2 seaters) to use the HMAS Melbourne as an ASW carrier with 4 x A4s, ~10 S2s and ~ 8 Wessex helicopters. It was to be the centrepiece of a SEATO ASW Hunter-Killer Task Force in the Sulu Sea.

In 1971, with the withdrawl of the US from Vietnam/Guam doctrine and the British withdrawal East of Suez, the RAN bought another batch of 10 A4Gs. Throughout the 70s the Melbourne carried a more attack oriented CAG of 8 x A4s, 6 x S2s and 6 helicopters. However they could change the CAG mix to suit the circumstances, apparently 14 A4s were carried on occasion (presumably before the spate of cold cat-shot crashes) or the ship could be loaded with the ASW CAG.

 

[GK Dundas]

Who said they're going to operate two multiple carriers...at least at the same time.
One carrier operating at sea the other in reserve. Operating in the ASW role with the option of a strike role.
I'd also like to carry Bonneventure as either a ASW Helo carrier or the centerpiece of a small Amphibious squadron.
In the late 60's The RCN was running one Majestic class (Bonneventure) and thirty two Destroyers and Frigates. I believe I could get away running one Modernized Centaur and twenty four Destroyers and Frigates ..
The trick would be operating the Amphibious Squadron. Not sure they'd have the manpower to pull that all off .

 

[SSgtC]

Who said they're going to operate two multiple carriers...at least at the same time.
One carrier operating at sea the other in reserve. Operating in the ASW role with the option of a strike role.
I'd also like to carry Bonneventure as either a ASW Helo carrier or the centerpiece of a small Amphibious squadron.
In the late 60's The RCN was running one Majestic class (Bonneventure) and thirty two Destroyers and Frigates. I believe I could get away running one Modernized Centaur and twenty four Destroyers and Frigates ..
The trick would be operating the Amphibious Squadron. Not sure they'd have the manpower to pull that all off .

You still need the crew for both. Otherwise you'll have one ship in the active fleet, and the other will be mothballed and a minimum of 90 days to be reactivated. Thing is, it's not much cheaper to keep a ship in that condition than it is to just keep it in commission

 

[Scott Kenny]

Canada would need 30,000 personal just to man those 6 groups. Add in detatched and independent operations, submarines, coastal patrol, fisheries protection, and air groups, you'd need 60,000 men just to man the fleet. Plus another 60,000 or so on shore duty. That's bigger than the Royal Navy in 1961 (102,000 in the RN including the Royal Marines).

Yes, and we've already established that the UKRN and RCN are grossly undermanned for the amount of ocean they need to protect.

 

[GK Dundas]

I'm not the first person to suggest this is was considered viable by more then a few people in the early to the mid sixties.
The problem with owning just one carrier is simple.
You can't afford to have it laid up .
That what the real problem with Bonnie was laid up in the Davie body and fender shop for all that time. 25 % of the Navy's capability was sitting there for almost 18 months for what was her midlife rebuild.

 

[Pioneer]

From the US, you'd be looking at Charles F Adams class destroyers with RIM-24 Tartars on them. They were built between 1958 and 1967, so right when you'd be looking to buy. It was a big class as well, with 29 built, so economy of scale will help you considerably on purchase costs and the availability of spare parts. If you want RIM-2 Terriers as well, you'd be looking at either Leahy or  Belknap class cruisers. The first is a double ended design (though the last one built was finished in 1964) while the second is a single ended design (they were being built between 1962 and 1967). If you need to be able to escort 2 carrier battle groups, you're looking, at a minimum, of needing 2 Cruisers (1 for each CVBG) to provide medium to long range SAMs, 8 Destroyers (3 for each CVBG plus 2 spares for other independent missions) for short to medium range SAMs, and probably 4 frigates for ASW work (the one area where the RCN already has enough hulls).

Now, beyond that. How is the RCN planning to operate these ships? As strike carriers or as ASW carriers? Because if they're only going to be used for ASW, you probably don't need the cruisers and their 477 man crews. Either way, this is a MASSIVE expansion of the RCN. You're going from needing 1,200 men to crew Bonaventure to needing 2,100 to crew a Centaur that's been brought up to the same standards as Hermes. And you're buying 2 of them. So instead of 1,200 you need 4,200. Plus 954 for the 2 cruisers. And another 2,640 for the DDGs (roughly 330 men on each of them).

At the time, the entire RCN only mustered roughly 20,000 personal. So your two carrier groups alone amount to a full 50% of the RCN personal. To operate a Navy with multiple carriers, plus all the other missions needed for the ASW role within NATO, you need to double the size of the RCN

I appreciate your appraisal - especially the reality of manpower figures SSgtC.
Regards whether they'd be Strike or ASW, I'd think they'd realistically need to be multi-role.

Regarding the massive increase in crew size requirements, as much as this is frowned upon by many, I'd encourage the carriers themselves contributing to their own active defence - i.e. incorporating a Mk 22/RIM-24 Tartar launcher and supporting radar/director.......
I appreciate the arguments about incorporating such systems onto a carrier, but the truth is if you have a carrier, you need a substantial (and expensive) escort. If you mitigate some of the escorts - either in number or size/displacement of the escort, a cost saving in both escort/crew would derive much cost savings over the life of operating a carrier group.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GK Dundas]

I was thinking of an enlarged DDH 280 class. I'm not too sure if you could extend the hull form.
Apparently it was originally the same Annapolis or St Laurent class hull form modified for use in the 280's. And from what I have heard it wasn't the best of fits.
Using either MK 40 or MK 22 launchers for the Tarter/ SM 1.
In the early 70's the Tribals were perhaps the best ASW centric Destroyers in NATO. Perhaps an AAW variant might come in handy ?
A task group centered around a modified Centaur 3 Tribals and three of their AAW half sisters as well as an AOR .
As I recall the 280 had a crew of roughly 250 officers and men .

 

[Purpletrouble]

Who said they're going to operate two multiple carriers...at least at the same time.
One carrier operating at sea the other in reserve. Operating in the ASW role with the option of a strike role.
I'd also like to carry Bonneventure as either a ASW Helo carrier or the centerpiece of a small Amphibious squadron.
In the late 60's The RCN was running one Majestic class (Bonneventure) and thirty two Destroyers and Frigates. I believe I could get away running one Modernized Centaur and twenty four Destroyers and Frigates ..
The trick would be operating the Amphibious Squadron. Not sure they'd have the manpower to pull that all off .

As above 2 carriers require 2 crews, look how France operated Foch/Clem and how the UK is operating QE/PoW.

I think its only with 3 (RN with Invincibles) you can drop one ship although even in refit/reserve it has a crew assigned. Keeping the ships afloat and working is a full time job!

As you suggest, 1 ship focussed on being your asw/fighter carrier and other as a training/trials/support helo ops seems viable. Problem is the massive rebuilds required to keep the ships upto date with jet aircraft really wreck any availability plans.

If the goal is just some low end jets and helos then majestic should suffice - a centaur seems overkill?

With centaurs the dual CVS/LPH option as demonstrated by Hermes is an option, small sqn of jets. ASW helo sqn and amphib helos - so fully multirole, and with a squadron if each type you can flex loadings to task.

I’ve always thought it odd Canada didnt focus more on the AFNORTH role and kept a central europe brigade and air wing which doesnt seen natural it. Given location and arctic experience Canada seems more natural to support Norway (and now Sweden/Finland). A “proper CAST Bde” resourced with some amphib/logistic shipping would have been useful I feel and shaped better for expeditionary work since. A CVS/LPH, perhaps like the newer Ita/Sp ships would be ideal. Noting the Aussies went pure Amphib, assuming land or USN air cover?

 

[GK Dundas]

4 CMBG was probably the most political unit's in all of NATO . It was basically a security blanket almost militarily insignificant. It reassured Mainland Europe that Canada and by extension the both the US and UK had their backs.
In Canada politicians said it demonstrated our commitment to our Allies.
To the Army , well that it's whole universe every thing else was either in support of or a distraction from.
Quite frankly the more I reflect and think on it.The Cast brigade begins to make more sense.
It would have allowed Canada to have a larger role and impact both a political and military point of view.
And it it would have had more flexibility.
Desert Shield would different from a Canadian view. We could have an air mobile sea transportable Brigade ready to go in less then a week or so.
So many possibilities.

 

[SSgtC]

I was thinking of an enlarged DDH 280 class. I'm not too sure if you could extend the hull form.
Apparently it was originally the same Annapolis or St Laurent class hull form modified for use in the 280's. And from what I have heard it wasn't the best of fits.
Using either MK 40 or MK 22 launchers for the Tarter/ SM 1.
In the early 70's the Tribals were perhaps the best ASW centric Destroyers in NATO. Perhaps an AAW variant might come in handy ?
A task group centered around a modified Centaur 3 Tribals and three of their AAW half sisters as well as an AOR .
As I recall the 280 had a crew of roughly 250 officers and men .

I'm a little lost here. There is no Mk40 GMLS. The closest is the Mk41 VLS. Which is far too late for your proposed fleet. The Mk22 only holds 16 missiles. That's fine for a ship as part of a convoy escort that isn't expected to deal with a multi-regiment Badger/Backfire attack. It's total unsuited to escort a carrier battlegroup. Or rather, it's unsuited to being the primary escort for the group. You really need at least a 40 round magazine to properly escort a fleet.

I'll be honest here, I kinda forgot how strong Canada's domestic Naval shipbuilding industry was at this time. So it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that they decide to build their own domestic design for the ship and just buy the launchers, missiles and FCS from the Americans. As a rough guide you're going to want your destroyer to be roughly 3,500 tons, which would probably rule out enlarging a current design (they were all in the 2,800-2,900 ton range). Plus you're going to want your launcher to have as many clear arcs of fire as possible. Given when you're building, you'd probably want to go with the Mk13 launcher and Mk74 GMLS (the Mk13 replaced the Mk11 on the Adams class starting with USS Berkeley in 1960).

Given what you need these ships to do, you're still looking at 300+ crew on each of them. Steam plants and early missile launchers (and their missiles) tended to need a lot of TLC to keep them up and running.

 

[SSgtC]

Regarding the massive increase in crew size requirements, as much as this is frowned upon by many, I'd encourage the carriers themselves contributing to their own active defence - i.e. incorporating a Mk 22/RIM-24 Tartar launcher and supporting radar/director.......

Those systems were just way too big to be installed on a Centaur. Something like Sea Sparrow would be about it practically speaking. The Tartar system would just take up too much room in a small hull

 

[GK Dundas]

I'm a little lost here. There is no Mk40 GMLS. The closest is the Mk41 VLS. Which is far too late for your proposed fleet. The Mk22 only holds 16 missiles. That's fine for a ship as part of a convoy escort that isn't expected to deal with a multi-regiment Badger/Backfire attack. It's total unsuited to escort a carrier battlegroup. Or rather, it's unsuited to being the primary escort for the group. You really need at least a 40 round magazine to properly escort a fleet.

I'll be honest here, I kinda forgot how strong Canada's domestic Naval shipbuilding industry was at this time. So it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that they decide to build their own domestic design for the ship and just buy the launchers, missiles and FCS from the Americans. As a rough guide you're going to want your destroyer to be roughly 3,500 tons, which would probably rule out enlarging a current design (they were all in the 2,800-2,900 ton range). Plus you're going to want your launcher to have as many clear arcs of fire as possible. Given when you're building, you'd probably want to go with the Mk13 launcher and Mk74 GMLS (the Mk13 replaced the Mk11 on the Adams class starting with USS Berkeley in 1960).

Given what you need these ships to do, you're still looking at 300+ crew on each of them. Steam plants and early missile launchers (and their missiles) tended to need a lot of TLC to keep them up and running.

 

[GK Dundas]

I'm sorry , I actually meant the the MK 13 .

 

[Purpletrouble]

4 CMBG was probably the most political unit's in all of NATO . It was basically a security blanket almost militarily insignificant. It reassured Mainland Europe that Canada and by extension the both the US and UK had their backs.
In Canada politicians said it demonstrated our commitment to our Allies.
To the Army , well that it's whole universe every thing else was either in support of or a distraction from.

I think the AFNORTH mission still does that, iirc Canada reined in 4CMBG for CAST but ended up doing neither properly?

Quite frankly the more I reflect and think on it.The Cast brigade begins to make more sense.
It would have allowed Canada to have a larger role and impact both a political and military point of view.
And it it would have had more flexibility.
Desert Shield would different from a Canadian view. We could have an air mobile sea transportable Brigade ready to go in less then a week or so.
So many possibilities.

Quite, the shipping would be key to moving it though although a single deployable brigade with airborne and amphibious hasnt been done elsewhere?

The CMBGs seem a template for modern “medium” forces (and are about identical to future british army AI bdes…) so they arent bad, just a bit immobile without a sealift force or culture.

Personally I’d go for amphibious forces before carrier ASW (let alone strike), covered by land based air as being more useful. Which is why the UK going the other way is frustrating!

 

[Purpletrouble]

The Canadian lack of AAW is interesting pre TRUMP. They really dont seem to make any effort to defend against the air threat.

Is that they had the carrier? Or felt they were further back behind US/UK? I don’t quite get it. They certainly went hard over on ASW, but WW2 was pretty clear even convoys needed AA, hence RN early 50s prioritising that over fleet AAW. How come the RCN didnt?

 

[SSgtC]

The Canadian lack of AAW is interesting pre TRUMP. They really dont seem to make any effort to defend against the air threat.

Is that they had the carrier? Or felt they were further back behind US/UK? I don’t quite get it. They certainly went hard over on ASW, but WW2 was pretty clear even convoys needed AA, hence RN early 50s prioritising that over fleet AAW. How come the RCN didnt?

The RCN made the strategic decision in the 1950s to specialize in the ASW mission in order to maximize what dollars they did get in an effort to maintain the largest fleet they could. Part of the decision also revolved around what Canada thought they could realistically provide in a NATO/WARPAC war. Namely, that they could be of more value in the ASW role than they would with a more generalist fleet

 

[Purpletrouble]

The RCN made the strategic decision in the 1950s to specialize in the ASW mission in order to maximize what dollars they did get in an effort to maintain the largest fleet they could. Part of the decision also revolved around what Canada thought they could realistically provide in a NATO/WARPAC war. Namely, that they could be of more value in the ASW role than they would with a more generalist fleet

Yeah, I just find it weird given WW2 is pretty emphatic AAW is part of ASW in that nowhere on the ocean is safe and everything needs to be able to defend itself, convoy and ASW groups included.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I'll be honest here, I kinda forgot how strong Canada's domestic Naval shipbuilding industry was at this time. So it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that they decide to build their own domestic design for the ship and just buy the launchers, missiles and FCS from the Americans. As a rough guide you're going to want your destroyer to be roughly 3,500 tons, which would probably rule out enlarging a current design (they were all in the 2,800-2,900 ton range). Plus you're going to want your launcher to have as many clear arcs of fire as possible. Given when you're building, you'd probably want to go with the Mk13 launcher and Mk74 GMLS (the Mk13 replaced the Mk11 on the Adams class starting with USS Berkeley in 1960).

Given what you need these ships to do, you're still looking at 300+ crew on each of them. Steam plants and early missile launchers (and their missiles) tended to need a lot of TLC to keep them up and running.

This was the plan IOTL! The Canadians seriously considered buying 8 4700-ton Tartar frigates in 1960 - steam plant, Mark 13 and associated infrastructure aft, 5"/38 twin forward. They were to replace the 7 Tribal-class destroyers still in service, and provide NGFS and anti-air cover in replacement of Bonaventure's Banshees.

 

[SSgtC]

This was the plan IOTL! The Canadians seriously considered buying 8 4700-ton Tartar frigates in 1960 - steam plant, Mark 13 and associated infrastructure aft, 5"/38 twin forward. They were to replace the 7 Tribal-class destroyers still in service, and provide NGFS and anti-air cover in replacement of Bonaventure's Banshees.

Make sense given how thoroughly obsolete the Banshee was by that point. I suspect that in this timeline though, the proposed ships probably shrink a bit back down to 4,000ish tons and only get a single 5" instead of the twin. Given all the other costs associated with this project, I can see Canada looking for ways to trim costs wherever they can

 

[CV12Hornet]

Make sense given how thoroughly obsolete the Banshee was by that point. I suspect that in this timeline though, the proposed ships probably shrink a bit back down to 4,000ish tons and only get a single 5" instead of the twin. Given all the other costs associated with this project, I can see Canada looking for ways to trim costs wherever they can

More likely, given they're operating a Centaur, is that the class is cut to four ships as happened IOTL with the Iroquois-class, which were built on the same hull with different armament and engine fits.

Shrinking the ships to 4000 tons and a 5" single would result in only minimal cost savings.