> John Atkinson wrote:
Correct.
> Or, it could be because - as Alan suggests on his homepage - the OUDFN
Also correct. In addition, some very good designs (Kosciusko class carrier
etc) have been made on others websites, based on NAC hulls. The OU shipyards
may not be capable of building anything larger than about mass 100 too, and
must rely on export hulls which they then refit for anything larger.
> Or, it could be because the ships Alan has given stats for are the
3 out of 3.
> The choice is yours <g>
> BTW, Alan - what happened to the note about the BORON program
Yes, I'll insert that one back in. Thanks for reminding me. BTW there was a
piece of kit in Royal Australian Navy service (on subs) called the "Automated
Plotting and Charting Table" that was originally called the "Combined
Underwater Navigation Table".
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 aebrain@austarmetro.com.au wrote:
> > BTW, Alan - what happened to the note about the BORON program
Oh boy, the Oz Navy seems to have a rare talent for picking, um, *interesting*
acronyms!
***
...acronymic minefields...
***
Geeze, guys, you could give a fellow a warning! I barked out a laugh, and my
girlfriend made me explain it.
Karen now sez we're all very bad boys. (Not that she didn't find it a scream.)
As for the fluff, I gather that the OUDF may be big enough to field capitals,
but I'm assuming barely. I'm reminded of the smaller powers near the turn of
the century HAVING to have dreadnoughts, and what it cost them, especially the
case of the Agincourt.
On the other hand, I remember, back in the seventies, Janes and Weyer's
analysii(sp?) of the Japanese naval defense forces as the model of what a
small fleet tailored well to their needs should be.
Not that I'm against going crazy in a 'race' made for s**ts-and-grins;
the TFNS has carriers each built by combining THREE super tankers.
> Geeze, guys, you could give a fellow a warning! I barked out a
You handle that as follows: "I deleted it, but Beth's dice rolling is so poor,
that her child made
for her a die-with-no-one." (which is true, and the fact that there
was over a year between B and A is a mere detail, not worthy of mention).
> Karen now sez we're all very bad boys.
"All"? Nonsense, we didn't all comment on it, so you don't have evidence on
all of us. And Beth is worse than...I think everyone except J Tuffley. Tom
Barclay claims to be competing but he's at best
> You handle that as follows:
Beth
> Hey I resemble those remarks!! And besides I didn't immediately
> But I didn't *have* any doubt.
Oh dear I'm becoming predictable;)
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > Karen now sez we're all very bad boys.
And the only reason I'm not in the running is because I edit my typing.
> Brian Burger wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 aebrain@austarmetro.com.au wrote: