Brian (Witch*...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net) wrote:
: SHIPFIXR wrote:

>From: Howard Aubrey <h...@erols.com>
>Date: 6/3/99 06:24 PDT
>In article <19990531170459.10271.00000...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
>  mic...@aol.comNOJUNK (MICOMA) wrote:
>> Right about what?  That they were attacked by the IDF on 8 June 1967,
>and
>> suffered 34 killed, and 171 wounded?
>Right about the fact that the IDF did repeated fly bys of the Liberty
>and knew full well whose ship it was before attacking deliberately.

ran...@notatnetcom.com wrote:
> I believe the original question was, is it true that those rotten
> medal grubbing naval reservists qualified for the silly medal while
> true Merikun fighting men on active service could not qualify for the
> same award and I said, "no."   What you appear to have found, and I
> won't check it, is that a reservist could only qualify for the same
> medal every living and dead active serviceman got handed at bootcamp,
> if the reservist in question had served in a warzone or had
> participated in a campaign.  In other words, who had the 'stricter'
> requirement to qualify?

> regards,
> random

> Since it is based almost wholy upon the design of the German 'MEKO'
> Destroyer,

>In article <3751E57A.8BEA2...@au1.ibm.com>,
>Jeff Ooi  <jeff...@au1.ibm.com> wrote:
>>This issue has probably been debated ad nauseum, but I find it difficult
>>to grapple with the current designation of 'Frigate' for the class
>>latest Australian warship, the ANZAC.
>>Since it is based almost wholy upon the design of the German 'MEKO'
>>Destroyer,with upgraded weapons and ASW, can anyone speculate upon why
>>it has been rebadged a Frigate?  Function maybe, or political reasons?

>Is the ANZAC primarily area air-defence or primarily ASW? Or general-
>purpose, for that matter? RN practice is that area AAW ships are
>destroyers, and ASW or general-purpose ships are Frigates. The RAN
>may follow RN practice in this.
>Besides, I've always heard the MEKO ships described (in Britain and
>Germany at least) as Frigates.

>--
>Andy Breen ~        PPARC Advanced Research Fellow
>            Solar Physics Group
>            University of Wales, Aberystwyth
>            My posting, my opinions..

e...@e.net.eu wrote:

> It depends on the outcome of the WIP, but I would say a ship based on
> AAW with secondary ASW and ASuW

> On 31 May 1999 10:03:37 +0100, a...@aber.ac.uk (ANDREW  BREEN) wrote:

> >In article <3751E57A.8BEA2...@au1.ibm.com>,
> >Jeff Ooi  <jeff...@au1.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>This issue has probably been debated ad nauseum, but I find it
> difficult
> >>to grapple with the current designation of 'Frigate' for the class
> >>latest Australian warship, the ANZAC.
> >>Since it is based almost wholy upon the design of the German 'MEKO'
> >>Destroyer,with upgraded weapons and ASW, can anyone speculate upon
> why
> >>it has been rebadged a Frigate?  Function maybe, or political
> reasons?

> >Is the ANZAC primarily area air-defence or primarily ASW? Or general-
> >purpose, for that matter? RN practice is that area AAW ships are
> >destroyers, and ASW or general-purpose ships are Frigates. The RAN
> >may follow RN practice in this.
> >Besides, I've always heard the MEKO ships described (in Britain and
> >Germany at least) as Frigates.

> >--
> >Andy Breen ~   PPARC Advanced Research Fellow
> >               Solar Physics Group
> >               University of Wales, Aberystwyth
> >               My posting, my opinions..

> bear in mind chaps the ANZAC Class are simply Meko 200 class
frigates

> the destroyer is meko 360 as i'm sure your all well aware of

> Is the ANZAC primarily area air-defence or primarily ASW? Or general-
> purpose, for that matter? RN practice is that area AAW ships are

Dennis Jensen wrote in message <7iviuh$25g_...@dwt.csiro.au>...
>Anyone care to suggest books that are good in explaining technical details
of
>subs, or books on sub operations.

>Dennis