Re: OU ships

As an Australian Naval Officer I really feel I must interject here
<g>...

We have had 3 CVs- HMAS SYDNEY, HMAS MELBOURNE and HMAS VENGEANCE, on
loan
from the RN from 1952 until 1955 while MELBOURNE was being completed (We
almost had a fourth, HMAS AUSTRALIA, in 1982 but HMS INVINCIBLE was
suddenly taken off the market :-).  This 2 Carrier policy suited our
defence commitments with SEATO and the SE Asian Strategic Reserve.  We
have
no CVs now, but that too reflects our current defence policy.  This is a
simple example of how Fleet compositions change with policy, which in
turn
changes with circumstances and allied capabilities.

We have also had a Submarine Force, admittedly on and off, since
1919...so
what is the equivalent strategic platform in the FT universe I wonder ?

Vessels simliar to the seaplane tender concept aka HMAS ALBATROSS (the
ship, not the place) carrying a single sqn would also be the go for long
range patrol tasks but also with a bit of sting for raiding and
anti-commerce operations (although WE would NEVER go into that sort of
Buisness !)

I agree that an OU fleet would also have numerous smaller combatants
doubling in patrol and response tasks, but seconded to fleet operations
when necessary.  OU Fleet ops and tactics would also be heavily
influenced
by the NAC...

And if I may be so immodest, OU vessels would have a higher than average
skill level if using the optional skill grade rules discussed here
recently.

Paul
paulog@one.net.au