Re: UN Fleet Size: (was Nominal Taxation Rates)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan E and Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, 18 January 2000 23:29
Subject: Re: UN Fleet Size: (was Nominal Taxation Rates)

>Beth Fulton wrote:
>Joint operations with Foreign Powers is one of those areas that the
DSTO
>(Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation, ie real not
>GZGverse) is rather interested in. I did a small presentation to them a
>few months back (went WAYY over time).

<snip>
>So in a 3000 pt force, you might have:
>Sqdrn 1: UN SuperDreadnaught + 2 UN Escorts (Flagship), 1 PAU Frigate
>Sqdrn 2: 3 OU Heavy Cruisers, 1 IAS Heavy Cruiser, 1 OU Escort Cruiser
>Sqdrn 3: 3 Dutch Heavy Cruisers + 1 Indon. Escort Cruiser.
>
>UN CiC
>OU 2iC
>Dutch 3iC
>
>For the utter disaster that can happen under these circumstances, have
a
>look at the "Battle of the Java Sea" in 1942. The ABDA (Australian
>Britisch Dutch American) force had real problems, like not being able
to
>read each others codes, having different standard operating procedures
>etc.

Or getting it right would be the RAN in the Gulf in 1990/91. Same
communications, datalinks (after HMS Brisbane got its link sorted), etc.
The
RAN plugged into the USN carrier group. Likewise last year a Canadian
frigate deployed as part of a USN carrier group for the while
deployment.
Again it plugged right in. Then there's STANORFORALT, etc.

>Now the UN forces will be FAR better at co-ordinating different
>nationalities' navies than anyone else. But even they couldn't get the
>NI and the IC to trust one another in battle. They'd prefer to have
>traditional allies (say mixed NSL-NAC) grouped together, regardless of
>relative speeds and other advantages, rather than have an ESU
SuperDread
>escorted by a Maria or Tegethof.

I'd say Naval groups have an easier time than ground units.

Peter Grining
grining@southcom.com.au