I'm looking for suggestions ,rebuilds etc . because they will need them .
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).
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
Should honestly be in 6x ASW carrier groups, plus MPA/AEW across the Arctic "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).
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
Yes, and we've already established that the UKRN and RCN are grossly undermanned for the amount of ocean they need to protect.
I appreciate your appraisal - especially the reality of manpower figures SSgtC.
As above 2 carriers require 2 crews, look how France operated Foch/Clem and how the UK is operating QE/PoW.
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.
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
I think the AFNORTH mission still does that, iirc Canada reined in 4CMBG for CAST but ended up doing neither properly?
Quite, the shipping would be key to moving it though although a single deployable brigade with airborne and amphibious hasnt been done elsewhere?
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.
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
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.
True. But the proposal is to have Canada operate two Centaurs. So they're going to need 8 AAW ships, at a minimum, to provide adequate escorts for them.
That and the politicians actually thought it would be cheaper.
The deterrence value of a pair of strike carries probably have deferred or precluded the invasion of the Falklands. But you are correct that going after the Argentine mainland bases would have been possible with a real big deck carriers. Of course, the Argentines were always incredibly vulnerable to the RN’s submarines as well. In the absence of any carrier availability, I’d suggest that the sinking of the entire Argentine naval fleet, not just the cruiser Belgrano, would have occurred. Moreover, Britain controlled the global maritime insurance business and Argentina’s agricultural exports would have ground to a halt. It’s odd that the Junta never realized their own vulnerability to even a handful of British SSNs.
Keep in mind, given the time period in question, an AAW destroyer only carried between 31 and 39 Tartar missiles (31 if later in life and Harpoons were also carried, 39 earlier in life with the final spot taken up by an inert training round). So 4 AAW destroyers is honestly the bare minimum. Especially since, given the tech capabilities of the time, a ship like the Adams class could only engage (i think) 2 inbound missiles at a time. It wasn't until the 1980s with the NTU program that the Tatar Fire Control System could engage more targets at once by time sharing the radar.
On the flip side, Soviet Naval Aviation was only carrying 1x AShCM per plane, so the incoming threat was a lot lower, too.
One thing in Canada's favor was that they had a much more robust Naval construction industry than Australia did. While Australia could build Naval vessels, they were all foreign, licensed designs. Canada could design and build their own ships. So acquisition and maintenance costs for Canada would be significantly lower than they would be for Australia.
