More Colossus / Majestics for other navies ?

[uk 75]

There are two navies in South America with long coastlines that get cruisers: Chile and Peru. It is possible that under different regimes they might look for carriers.
In Asia Indonesia under an earlier right wing regime rather than Sukharno's pro Soviet one or Thailand are navies that might fit.
In Europe Spain if Franco died in the 50s might have been a candidate.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not pertaining to our world but my Lost Monkeys TL over in alternatehistory.com, so bear with me if it's the wrong thread, but how useful would be a Majestic or an Independence/Saipan if you are TTL Greece (which can afford one) and you are trying to protect convoys to Cyprus?

I suppose that you can use a Majestic either as an ASW carrier with Trackers/Alizes/Gannets or to supplement air cover flying N-156F. Is it actually good value for money or painting a huge target sign on it because the admirals want a big ship? Rather less certain.

Quoting you since this is on a new page.

My gut says, not very. It's only 550 miles or so from Greece to Cyprus. With aircraft based in both places, they can provide air cover without the expense of, or the risk of losing, a carrier. You'd be better off flying Neptunes with fighter escorts than trying to use a carrier in such a restricted area

Agreed, get some fighters with 300 miles range and have them meet in the middle if you can't get 600mi range and fly out-land-and-back.

 

[Lascaris]

Quoting you since this is on a new page.

Agreed, get some fighters with 300 miles range and have them meet in the middle if you can't get 600mi range and fly out-land-and-back.

That's my assessment too, essentially you are much better off with something like say a Doria or Vittorio Veneto helicopter cruiser running herd of any convoy and basing Phantoms and ASW planes off Crete than a small carrier. Of course that's different than wanting a carrier. "The Dutch, Spanish and Italians have all got flattops. We need one too!"

Now granted Phantom becomes available no earlier than 1968 if you are not USN/USAF and most other western fighter aircraft around earlier would be more confined range wise.

 

[riggerrob]

More carriers to the colonies would require the US Navy to back down from patrolling the sea routes (see recent writings and blogs by Peter Zeihan) forcing British colonies to assume greater responsibilities. South Africa would need more ships to patrol Cape Horn …. say after the Suez Canal got clogged by some British/French/Israeli foolishness.
Perhaps the RCN gets tasked with defending British colonies in the Caribbean????
For the Royal Canadian Navy to adopt carriers in a serious way, that would require three or four hulls to station one on the Atlantic Coast, one on the Pacific Coast, one in overhaul and one in work-ups.
This would also require four or more oilers/supply ships.
This would also require a far larger RCN budget to man the ships. One grievance from 1950s admirals was that a single aircraft carrier needed 40 percent of the sailors.

 

[GK Dundas]

The problem with operating a single carrier is that what does one do when it's laid up for refit or breaks down.
Or if you have more than one crisis that requires a carrier ?

 

[riggerrob]

Hell yes. On the British side - next to nothing. SR.177 and Sea Vixen ? Nope.
On the US side there are some attractive types but they wouldn't fit on a Magestic, by a long shot.

Case in point: Canadian Banshees. A straight wing subsonic aircraft, and still a carnage of airframes and pilots. 16 out of 39 DOA for the count.

Can a Majestic handle a supersonic Skyhawk interceptor ? Pretty hard.

RCN Banshees were just one in a long list of Canadian Defense Procurement bungles. Ottawa dithered for so long that the Banshee production line shut down. The RCN ended up purchasing USED Banshees as the USN was retiring theirs.

Spare parts were a big problem. RCN technicians got into the habit of cannabalizing parked/surplus USN Banshees while American sailors quietly looked the other way.

A big problem was cracked wing hinge fittings.
In retrospect, the RCN would have been better served by several generations of Grummans.
During the 1960s both the RCN and RCAF drew up short-lists of the fighters that they wanted. Both mentioned Douglas A-4 Skyhawks. A-4 was one of the few 1960s vintage jets that could launch from carriers as short as HMCS Bonaventure.
Both the RCN and RCAF listed Northrop’s F-5 as priority last.
But Defense Minister Paul Hellyer had worked at Northrop - as an engineer - before he went into politics. Hellyer chose the F-5 to keep Canadair busy after they completed CF-104 production. CF-5 could only land on HMCS Bonaventure ONCE and it had fallen too short a range for the RCAF. After struggling to assign a role, CF-5s were relegated to serving a lead-in trainers for supersonic fighters like CF-101 Voodoo, CF-104 Starfighter and CF-18.

 

[uk 75]

The Canadian and Dutch navies both responded to the growing Soviet threat to their small aircraft carriers by moving over to ASW helicopters on escort ships.
Ironically the Royal Navy at the same time needed a larger vessel for their new Seaking ASW helicopters.
It is tempting to see Canadian and Dutch carriers getting a similar airgroup but sadly the Sea Harrier comes too late to save them.

 

[uk 75]

A South American carrier race in the 50s and 60s seems the most feasible fate for the Light Fleets.
Chile and Peru join Argentina and Brasil in buying them.
South Africa is a non starter (not just politically) because its shape makes a combination of long range MPA, frigates and subs much more useful.
Japan and Korea are protected by the US 7th Fleet.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The problem with operating a single carrier is that what does one do when it's laid up for refit or breaks down.
Or if you have more than one crisis that requires a carrier ?

That's why I keep insisting on a minimum of 3 carriers.

That 4 carrier plan for Canada? You need more like 5 or 6, to keep one carrier on the Pacific coast and one on the Atlantic coast. Two in workups and 1-2 in refit.

 

[GK Dundas]

The RCN's problem is it has been during the near entirety of it existence is that it wasn't able to reach it recruiting goals.
It had planned a post WW II Navy based around a two carrier, two cruiser force plus destroyers . But was never able to reach the 10,000 man force required.
It also doesn't help that Navy was never what you would call aviation minded.

 

[uk 75]

I think Canada was right to focus on MPA and ASW helo carrying escorts. Unlike the UK Canada had no serious global reach requirements but needed to defend its sea lanes in the Atlantic and Pacific

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think Canada was right to focus on MPA and ASW helo carrying escorts. Unlike the UK Canada had no serious global reach requirements but needed to defend its sea lanes in the Atlantic and Pacific

Which means at least hemispheric reach requirements...

 

[GK Dundas]

I keep wondering how different the RCN would have been had they'd been able to run a Carrier group off Korea.
It would required a complete change in mindset of the Government. Mind you St Laurent was almost 180 degrees in attitudes towards the world outside our border then Mackenzie King.

 

[Volkodav]

I keep wondering how different the RCN would have been had they'd been able to run a Carrier group off Korea.
It would required a complete change in mindset of the Government. Mind you St Laurent was almost 180 degrees in attitudes towards the world outside our border then Mackenzie King.

I don't know that it would have changed much, if anything.

Australia operated HMAS Sydney off Korea with great success, yet within a couple of years Sydney's modernisation had been cancelled and Melbourne was slated to be converted to an ASW helo carrier. It was only Indonesia's expansionist behaviour and growing ties with the USSR, plus a level of politically opportunistic Xenophobia that resulted in a stay of execution, then the FAA getting a new generation of fixed-wing aircraft.

 

[EwenS]

In 1951 the Admiralty requested Sydney "for two or three months operational flying if the Korean business is still going", as a relief carrier for the Glory. The Australian Govt agreed on 11 May 1951 while at the same time deciding not to agree to further troop commitments. She undertook 7 sucessful patrols during her tour between 30 Sept 1951 & 27 Jan 1952. During the course of the Korean War 4 RAN destroyers and 4 frigates also participated at different times.

With the exception of that period in 1951/52, the RN was able to maintain a carrier in Korean waters from June 1950 to the end of hostilities from its own resources.

The RCN supplied 8 destroyers for tours off Korea and the RNZN 6 frigates.

 

[GK Dundas]

Manpower constraints have been the big killer of many of the RCN's plans . If they managed to keep to their original plans in 1946 they would been based around a two carrier, two cruiser force.
That might have allowed for at least a carrier deployment.
And might have allowed for something else, a turn away from the pure ASW force that the Navy was evolving into.