Most interesting All.
OGBD - My personal fascination with adding the Chinook to the capabilities is in the interest of Jointery.
That confirms my view of "joint" in Canada, which IMO has become a code word for the Army to tell the other two elements to support it (not the other way around however). Nonetheless, as I look at the "scenarios" you list below, I don't even find in there a single one that the Army would remotely like to implement.
If the new vessels are going to have a Flex Deck (and that would be the primary driver, in my layman's view, of a heavier vessel) then that Flex Deck might as well serve the needs of the Army as well as Health Services, CJOC and CanSOFCOM. The Air Force already have their own chunk of the ship. The Chinook is in the Air Force's inventory and has twice the lifting capacity and twice the range of CH-148/124.
They are not going to have a Flex deck, and the primary driver for heavier vessels is a combination of the fact that we now lob missiles at one another and they are voluminous - thus to carry more you need volume. This is combined with the fact that in a modern warship, building larger ships with its attendant stability, improved living standards, survivability and comfort of ride is cheap. The CSCs are not there to serve the needs of the Army (which other than phibs, has no need of ships). Finally, the "Air Force" does not own "chunks" of the ships. The Air Force, as a result of unification, took over the operation of the NAVAL assets that are shipborne helicopters from the Navy and is running them FOR THE NAVY. They remain NAVAL assets and the Air Force personnel that run them ARE part of the ship.
The addition the ability to land, refuel and launch a Chinook would allow for any of the following:
Domestically
The vessels can become mobile FRPs that extend the radius of action of the Chinooks
So, you are proposing that Chinooks employed domestically in Canada fly out from continental Canada over the Atlantic or the Pacific to then fly back into Canada? How does that extend their range? If it is the Arctic you have in mind, the CSCs are not intended to operate there - the AOPS are and they can support landing a Chinook.
Internationally
The Chinooks, after they are flown into theater by the CC-177s to a staging ground like Cyprus, for example, could then be used to move heavier weapons/supplies/systems from Canada, via Cyprus, directly to vessels patrolling. The navy would now be served by flying 10 tonne trucks instead of flying 4 tonne trucks And those trucks would have twice the radius of the CH-148. You could now see a more significant capability to modify the loadout of your ships in a more timely fashion to respond to a change in your threat picture.
I can't see any of that happening. First of all, the shipborne helicopters are NOT trucks - don't ever insult them like that if you want to live 
, they are an integral weapon system of the ship. Second, ships already carry ALL their weapons systems with themselves, they don't need extra guns or missile launchers or torpedo tubes flown in. As for their supplies being delivered directly to vessels patrolling, we already do that: It's called an AOR and it is damn more efficient at it than a mere "10 tonnes" truck. Finally, we cannot "modify our loadout" at sea. Ship's don't do that save in harbour. I remember discussing the handling equipment required for torpedoes in these forums earlier, and an Army CWO saying that for a 700 pound torpedoes he would merely use about ten of his men and handle it by hand, why not do the same. I had to explain that the difference is doing it on a deck pitching and rolling 10-15 degrees each way, going through tight compartments and turns that cannot accommodate the ten people at the time and so forth. He understood.
It would also permit the timely dispatch of DART and CanSOFCOM assets to a wider area more rapidly while giving them a secure base at sea from which to operate.
DART has a hard time getting itself somewhere using C-17's. What makes you think they would want to get themselves to an intermediate point, then split into tiny little pieces to be "staged out" a few dozen at a time and with one or two piece of gear at the time, to be then re-staged out from the same ship? If it could be done at all: Where would we put their equipment on a combatant vessel? It's not like they are cargo ships. Besides, DART is not a combat unit going into a war zone: they go into countries that have had a disaster and asks for them - so they just fly in country directly. As for CanSOFCOM, they have their own flying equipment and, last I checked, they did not include Chinooks.
It would also permit lightly equipped troops to be supported by heavier weaponry than could be supported by the CH-148 alone. That has significant implications for the Artillery - both in Fire Support and Air Defence - which in turn is important to the navy because the sooner those assets are ashore the sooner the navy can retire from the shore line to blue water.
You are looking for phibs again. There is, and will not be, room onboard the CSC's for heavy weapons of the Army. Therefore, we will not need to disembark them, thus it is of no importance to the Navy. I would like to remind everyone here again that the "SC" in CSC stands for Surface Combatant. They are not support, not amphibious, not patrol, nor aircraft carriers. They are for destroyer/frigates style of operation.
Finally it would mean that larger numbers of light troops could be staged forward at a time closer to H-Hour meaning that they do not have to live with you all the way from Halifax to the Form Up Point. They can leave you in peace until you get to the FUP, fly onboard and concentrate their numbers for a couple of days in multiple lifts to multiple ships, marry up with their gear and then assault forward using all available and appropriate lift assets in the area (to include CH-147s, CH-148s and LCVPs). This allows Canada to deploy "cheap" light infantry by helicopter rather than "expensive" paratroopers.
No it does not allow that. You are still looking for a phib. Would you like to "land" these light infantry one load of thirty at a time and see them massacred waiting for the next group? Phibs and other large deck carriers can operate and launch multiple helicopters and landing crafts simultaneously for mass effect. CSC's can't. You can only have ONE air frame on deck either landing, taking off, or being resupplied/readied for flight. What you propose is that, over say 24 hours, you would build up your force onboard a CSC (say to 180 soldiers -even though where you you would accommodate them is beyond me) while at the FUP (which I assume means Form Up Point - not a naval term) and then a few days later, at your destination, similarly send them out one helicopter load at the time and one Rhib boatload at a time. WHY would you want such an insignificant capability?
And the real value for both sides in this dispute (the army and the navy) is that they only have to put up with each other for a week or so rather than a couple of months.
We have nothing against the Army. They are welcome onboard anytime they want.
Hence my fascination with the Chinook capability - a fascination that I believe that I share with the RN, the Danes and the Dutch all of whom have written the Chinook into their specs.
I don't believe the Danes have Chinooks into their "specs", even though the Absalon class can handle one landing there if need be. As for the other two nations you mention: their combat vessels (destroyers/frigates) are capable of supporting the landing of Chinooks, for emergency landing purposes, as result of the fact that they both have amphibious forces that operate such helicopters. We don't, so we don't need to.
Note, I am not suggesting building hangars for the Chinooks, merely restressing the deck to handle 20 tonnes (the Chinook) landing on 4 wheels rather than 12 tonnes (the CH-148) landing on 3 wheels. And if (as is the case with the AOPS) the planning were to incorporate the accomodation of the Cormorant then the requirement would be for 15 tonnes landing on 3 wheels. I believe the point loading for the Cormorant and the Chinook would be similar.
In addition, the increased use of UAVs is also driving the provision of larger flight decks to permit concurrent manned and unmanned vehicle use. So you might as well plan to be able to land a Chinook as well as being able to operate a CH-148 and a ScanEagle at the same time from the same deck.
I don't even know where you see nations increasing size of their flight decks on their destroyers/frigates other than for those who now want to operate larger helicopters like Merlins or NH90's where they used small helicopters before. There is no race to make decks on frigates/destroyers larger for the purpose of operating multiple air assets at the same time. In fact, on such combatant ships, the rule is and remains that you operate ONE and only ONE air asset on the flight deck at a time. You can carry more than one, but you only have one on deck at a time.
The Chinook would also allow you to beef up your crews, when and as necessary, by adding specialist elements like your standing Enhanced Naval Boarding Parties or, perhaps, a shore raiding capability.
I can already do that, for the very limited number of extra crew I may want from time to time, with my own air assets. Besides, my understanding is that the combat radius of a Chinook is somewhere around 500 Km. Would you want me to build a whole class of ships with Chinook capability on the extremely remote chance that wherever I happen to be operating on the world's ocean, or even way off along Canada's coasts, I miraculously would happen to be within range of one of Canada's 15 Chinooks to deliver these people to me? I would rather rely on my making into a friendly port nearby or cycling these extra seamen through a nearby US Carrier group. Finally, we have been shore raiding in the Navy since the days of the Phoenicians - we don't need beefing up to do it .
