CLAC's in Home Fleet

Brigade XO wrote:Beyond training and working up with Home Fleet forces, a reason for stationing CLACs at Manticore would be to provide LAC support for fleets or task forces sent through any of the wormholes for the Junction in responce to needs or problems at the other ends of the wormholes.

Exactly. My aforementioned tactical and strategic flexibility.

One more thing about the Manticoran "Home System" CLACs that I haven't seen mentioned yet. We tend to forget this point in the Talbott arena of the books, the LACs are more system based, at least temporarily acting as a mobile force to give any uppity pirate types and/or the SLN the mother of all headaches should they try something nifty before the system defenses, sensor arrays, etc. can be brought up to snuff.

One of the things about keeping the CLACs with their support fleet is that any fleet-on-fleet engagement, the CLACs are likely to be in close proximity to the SD(p)s in the system, as part of the defensive clustering for the SD(s). You can't just 'station keep' the LACs with the SD(s) without being able to take care of their personnel, and LAC bases are too far in system for that purpose.

Same thing for Grayson's CLACs when in Yeltsin space, where their primary purpose is to maneuver with the GSN and Protector's Own to keep the katana(s) et. al as part of the defensive formations for the deadlier MDM launching ships.

cthia wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Bolding the bits in Sigs' post that are relevant - he's not questioning the mess of LAC's in Manticore - he's questioning the 16 CLAC's, for LAC's that (as he sees it) are permanently in the Manticore System anyway and can be serviced by bases instead.

Indeed.

But why send off CLACs to other systems without LACs?

And why send away your CLACs, loaded with LACs, in the first place unless a skirmish arises where they're needed?

Now, therein, I was responding to why the Home system would be a better permanent base for CLACs rather than someplace else like Talbot.

On the heels of that reasoning, why build specialized LAC platforms in the Home system when the CLACs already serve that purpose? And are ready to be deployed on a moment's notice. Retaining both tactical and strategic flexibility. I'd rather build these LAC bases in other systems that need them - having the option.

I'm just scratching my head at the first questions there - I'm hoping it's harmless to stay curious til it goes away.

But why not have CLAC's to house every last LAC's in Manticore - price, in terms of build time, personnel, ongoing costs. If it doesn't need to be mobile and hypercapable, it's going to be cheaper. And if you are sure you will want to retain some LAC's in the home system (and you can be), it makes sense to make some of that basing for them (about 75-80% or so, by my rough guess from the BoMa LAC figures and 16 CLAC's) relatively inexpensive and/or tough permanent bases rather than CLAC's.

I worry that I'm missing something though, as it's not a point I'd expect to have to make so maybe it's not to the point.

Carriers are not intended to be used solely as bases. The operative word is mobile bases. You don't want to preordain CLACs to just sit in an area because it is a new stage of conflict. To what end? If you do so, you eliminate that tactical and strategic flexibility of quick redeployment, by essentially turning them into analogies of mobile homes that aren't mobile.

Well yes. Though there's a point in being potentially mobile - even if you happen not to move, the fact that, if need be, you could move, constrains enemy options and exists as insurance against even non-hostile phenomena.

And without the LAC bases in these forward deployed CLAC bases, what happens when LACs are damaged or down checked? Then your CLACs become storage facilities for useless hardware(until it's repaired) back in the Home system anyways. So what's the point?

Yes, I'm sorry, I've definitely lost the thread by this point, as I'm totally in the dark what you're getting at.

Jeff Engel:

Are you suggesting that all Home Fleet LACs should be housed in impeller drive capable bases?

It seems that you want to cut costs by having 'half-CLACs' that omit the 'bells and whistles' of a normal CLAC.

This is not a workable idea.

Firstly dropping a Hyper Generator/Alpha nodes means no wormhole transit and no micro-jump capability, including no quick transit options between Manticore A (Manticore & Sphinx), Manticore B (Gryphon & Unicorn Belt) and the Junction.

Dropping Sidewalls/Armour/Point Defense/Counter Missiles/ECM means they will be vulnerable to all kinds of weapons.

Given these two issues, it seems there are no places where you can sensibly 'cut corners' to make a 'in system' CLAC any cheaper than a full-capability CLAC.

There are construction (lack of slips) and crewing (shortage of trained personnel) issues as well. Given that there probably is a minimum level of LAC availability for Home Fleet/System defence it seems unnecessary to make most or even all of the Home Fleet LACs 'mobile' this way.

BobfromSydney wrote:Jeff Engel:

Are you suggesting that all Home Fleet LACs should be housed in impeller drive capable bases?

It seems that you want to cut costs by having 'half-CLACs' that omit the 'bells and whistles' of a normal CLAC.

This is not a workable idea.

Yes it is. They are called forts.

JeffEngel wrote:Bolding the bits in Sigs' post that are relevant - he's not questioning the mess of LAC's in Manticore - he's questioning the 16 CLAC's, for LAC's that (as he sees it) are permanently in the Manticore System anyway and can be serviced by bases instead.

cthia wrote:Indeed.


But why send off CLACs to other systems without LACs?

And why send away your CLACs, loaded with LACs, in the first place unless a skirmish arises where they're needed?

Now, therein, I was responding to why the Home system would be a better permanent base for CLACs rather than someplace else like Talbot.

On the heels of that reasoning, why build specialized LAC platforms in the Home system when the CLACs already serve that purpose? And are ready to be deployed on a moment's notice. Retaining both tactical and strategic flexibility. I'd rather build these LAC bases in other systems that need them - having the option.

JeffEngel wrote:I'm just scratching my head at the first questions there - I'm hoping it's harmless to stay curious til it goes away.

But why not have CLAC's to house every last LAC's in Manticore - price, in terms of build time, personnel, ongoing costs. If it doesn't need to be mobile and hypercapable, it's going to be cheaper. And if you are sure you will want to retain some LAC's in the home system (and you can be), it makes sense to make some of that basing for them (about 75-80% or so, by my rough guess from the BoMa LAC figures and 16 CLAC's) relatively inexpensive and/or tough permanent bases rather than CLAC's.

I worry that I'm missing something though, as it's not a point I'd expect to have to make so maybe it's not to the point.

Carriers are not intended to be used solely as bases. The operative word is mobile bases. You don't want to preordain CLACs to just sit in an area because it is a new stage of conflict. To what end? If you do so, you eliminate that tactical and strategic flexibility of quick redeployment, by essentially turning them into analogies of mobile homes that aren't mobile.

Well yes. Though there's a point in being potentially mobile - even if you happen not to move, the fact that, if need be, you could move, constrains enemy options and exists as insurance against even non-hostile phenomena.

And without the LAC bases in these forward deployed CLAC bases, what happens when LACs are damaged or down checked? Then your CLACs become storage facilities for useless hardware(until it's repaired) back in the Home system anyways. So what's the point?

Yes, I'm sorry, I've definitely lost the thread by this point, as I'm totally in the dark what you're getting at.

****** *


I don't see a problem in being curious. That's what questions are for. Let's see if I can connect more of the dots of my reasoning.

Do realize that I'm just one of many Fleet Admirals. Admirals don't always agree.

First off, let's make sure we are on the same page. Because many are missing the original question by Sigs, or somehow fail to realize that that is what I was responding to.

Cthia:
Now, therein, I was responding to why the Home system would be a better permanent base for CLACs rather than someplace else like Talbot.

JeffEngel:
But why not have CLAC's to house every last LAC's in Manticore - price, in terms of build time, personnel, ongoing costs. If it doesn't need to be mobile and hypercapable, it's going to be cheaper. And if you are sure you will want to retain some LAC's in the home system (and you can be), it makes sense to make some of that basing for them (about 75-80% or so, by my rough guess from the BoMa LAC figures and 16 CLAC's) relatively inexpensive and/or tough permanent bases rather than CLAC's.

Holy LAC count Batman! I didn't do the math. I didn't realize just how right I am! A significant part of the strength of the Manticoran navy, certainly when they were first introduced against Haven and still remains is the available number of LACs. They are an easy to build platform as you yourself noted. However, if the practice of sending your LAC-transports away to sit and operate as LAC bases in other systems is exercised across the board, then you have none remaining at Home to utilize 80 % of your inventory!

I see that as a major blunder of the strategic kind. You've effectively assisted your enemy by eliminating
1. access - quick, tactical access to 80 % of your inventory,
2. your wormhole advantage of quick deployment,
3. and your tactical and strategic flexibility in one fell swoop!

Scenario.
The Mesan Alignment's Rolex says it's time to make Manticore pay the piper. For whatever reason known only to the Alignment, Grayson will be the initial strategic objective. The MALign hypers in with a horde of ships. The fearless Graysons are fighting relentlessly and are holding their own. Of course, the plea for assistance arrives at Manticore. The most effective response would include as many LACs as you can quickly put in the Yeltsin system, but alas, your transports are all preoccupied acting as bases in other - non critical systems! You have built those LACs, among other things, to provide tactical and strategic flexibility, but you've effectively gutted that tactical and strategic flexibility by removing your CLACs.

I'm an avid chess player. I would imagine that most, Generals and Admirals at least, are as well. And I cannot help but reducing many decisions to analogies on the chess field, just to help assist tactical and strategic reasoning. And in this case, what I see with your CLACs sitting off in other areas of conflicts as bases, is the analogous mistake of many chess players of deploying their rooks away from R1 too quickly to be of any use to Q1! Or, to be of any use to other magnified threat areas in the arena of conflict. Then, the time consuming logistics of recalling your rooks, and the time consumed in the redeploying of these rooks - after the decision is made, is crucial. Oftentimes, on the chess board against a worthy opponent. It is fatal. And your rooks, as your CLACs, represent a significant portion of your combat effectiveness that is capable of being deployed quickly. It is formally phrased as "effective allocation of your available resources."

Continuing on. Let's say that the MALign has done it's homework and conceived of a devastating simultaneous attack on Haven. Word quickly reaches Manticore, but the RMN can't send them any LACs either, because they have no transports for 80 % of the total available RMN LACs sitting at Home. And remember, Haven's CLACs are elsewhere as well, if you're going to carryout the practice of deploying CLACs at 2nd and 3rd tier system bases.

The ability to quickly get LACs to critical important axis of threats via their intended transports of CLACs - dumping them off and withdrawing from the system to ferret more is eliminated by your own strategic blunder! That blunder has doubled with a two-pronged threat axis.

Continuing to connect the dots. Sigs acknowledged that in the Manty Home system there exists in place facilities to service the LACs (and CLACs). Here my reasoning may be lacking, but I don't imagine that a CLAC can supply the kind of LAC support as the Home system's base. And a CLAC surely cannot repair itself. What's going to happen, is that eventually - as a result of CLACs operating for extended time periods as bases - there are going to be an inordinate number of LACs down checked, damaged, etc., for various reasons. Unless you are considering these LACs throwaway/disposable items, what are you going to do when, let's say 20 % or more of your LACs become disabled - besides storing them on your CLAC? After a while, you've got a star system with a CLAC that needs to make a trip back home to repair 20 % of its inventory, because I can't hazard a guess at what percentage of down checked, damaged LACs now held within the CLAC base becomes a hindrance to efficient CLAC operation. Of course, you can inefficiently send a covering force or another CLAC, if you had one in system.

Many navies made many an error of tactical and strategic blunders of the small details.

In summary, failing to retain CLACs at your main base of operations, the Home system eliminates tactical and strategic flexibility. A blunderous mistake of the first kind.

Now I ultimately have no problem with specialized LAC bases in the Home system. I posted some time ago, that I'd love to see huge LAC bases that spewed them out like flies during an attack on the Home system. And I can imagine this home LAC base to be fully ready and fully worked up at all times tricked out with the latest upgrades with tons of man hours training. But you don't want to have to be faced with "Grayson & Haven is under attack send for the CLACs!, in the backwoods Talbot Quadrant. Quickly!"

I don't know why this discussion reminds me of the fatal mistake Admiral Yamamoto made against Admiral Nimitz in the battle of Midway by blunting his own carriers ability at a quick and decisive response at the spotted American fleet.

cthia wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Yes, I'm sorry, I've definitely lost the thread by this point, as I'm totally in the dark what you're getting at.

****** *


I don't see a problem in being curious. That's what questions are for. Let's see if I can connect more of the dots of my reasoning.

Do realize that I'm just one of many Fleet Admirals. Admirals don't always agree.

First off, let's make sure we are on the same page. Because many are missing the original question by Sigs, or somehow fail to realize that that is what I was responding to.

Cthia:
Now, therein, I was responding to why the Home system would be a better permanent base for CLACs rather than someplace else like Talbot.

Right... Ahh. I took Sigs point to be why have CLAC's in Home Fleet when the LAC's there would not plausible be going anywhere. You're suggesting that they are there, with their LAC's, as... a central reserve?

I think what's puzzling me is that you're maybe arguing about where CLAC's are located and maybe arguing about the utility of LAC's without CLAC's (and claiming it is zero). And there's a lot of verbiage about chess and flexibility but it's still just not clear what you're claiming or taking yourself to be arguing against, much less how that relates to what's been posted. I'm up from totally clueless to a vague glimmer.

Here's what I'd want to claim:
1 - If you're always going to want a certain amount of LAC's in the Home System to defend the Home System, the only role for CLAC's there for that portion of the LAC count is microjumps. Quite likely there is still some minimum portion for which that isn't an important capability.
2 - Forts for LAC support are cheaper per LAC in many values than CLAC's - by a large margin.
Therefore:
3 - Some chunk of Home Fleet's LAC's will be, should be, stationed on forts instead of CLAC's, else you are throwing out hulls, manpower, and money to no good effect.

4 - Some LAC's in Home Fleet should have CLAC's, for microjumps, for use elsewhere, for use in Manticore A or B or near the Junction.

As a corollary of 2:
5 - CLAC's ought to be where LAC's are and where hypercapability is a useful option worth the expense. (It looks like cthia is insisting on this; I just don't see where anyone is disagreeing, or would.)

cthia wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Yes, I'm sorry, I've definitely lost the thread by this point, as I'm totally in the dark what you're getting at.

****** *


I don't see a problem in being curious. That's what questions are for. Let's see if I can connect more of the dots of my reasoning.

Do realize that I'm just one of many Fleet Admirals. Admirals don't always agree.

First off, let's make sure we are on the same page. Because many are missing the original question by Sigs, or somehow fail to realize that that is what I was responding to.

Cthia:
Now, therein, I was responding to why the Home system would be a better permanent base for CLACs rather than someplace else like Talbot.

JeffEngel wrote:Right... Ahh. I took Sigs point to be why have CLAC's in Home Fleet when the LAC's there would not plausible be going anywhere. You're suggesting that they are there, with their LAC's, as... a central reserve?

I think what's puzzling me is that you're maybe arguing about where CLAC's are located and maybe arguing about the utility of LAC's without CLAC's (and claiming it is zero). And there's a lot of verbiage about chess and flexibility but it's still just not clear what you're claiming or taking yourself to be arguing against, much less how that relates to what's been posted. I'm up from totally clueless to a vague glimmer.

Here's what I'd want to claim:
1 - If you're always going to want a certain amount of LAC's in the Home System to defend the Home System, the only role for CLAC's there for that portion of the LAC count is microjumps. Quite likely there is still some minimum portion for which that isn't an important capability.
2 - Forts for LAC support are cheaper per LAC in many values than CLAC's - by a large margin.
Therefore:
3 - Some chunk of Home Fleet's LAC's will be, should be, stationed on forts instead of CLAC's, else you are throwing out hulls, manpower, and money to no good effect.

4 - Some LAC's in Home Fleet should have CLAC's, for microjumps, for use elsewhere, for use in Manticore A or B or near the Junction.

As a corollary of 2:
5 - CLAC's ought to be where LAC's are and where hypercapability is a useful option worth the expense. (It looks like cthia is insisting on this; I just don't see where anyone is disagreeing, or would.)

Seems obvious to me Jeff, that Sigs is championing stationing CLACs as bases in other systems, and using the fact that the LACs in the Home system having their own supporting infrastructure as a supporting argument for that decision.

Sigs:
Hi, I'm new to the forum but I have been a fan of the series for a long time now but I have one question that I cannot see the reason behind and that is CLAC's in both Manticore and Grayson's Home Fleet. If Im not mistaking there are roughly 16 CLACs in Manticore and somewhat similar numbers in Grayson's Home Fleet. My question is why would the Carriers be stationed in systems where you can have the LAC's with proper support bases? Unless there is a choke point in the production and manning of LAC's the carriers do little to add to the firepower for both home fleets but could add tremendous firepower in the Talbott Quadrant with those 3200 LAC.

Just because Grayson and the Manty Home systems have proper LAC support bases does not nullify the need to have CLACs in those systems as well.

If not you have destroyed your own tactical and strategic flexibility. To micro jump, you have to have available CLACs to micro jump with. And since strategic and tactical policy comes out of Home systems, and fleets are dispatched from the Home system, as reinforcement, or as an initiating maneuver, telling your CO that you'll send him other needed elements in his order of battle(in this case CLACs) ASAP is not optimal. We've seen that mistake throughout the books.

JeffEngel:
As a corollary of 2:
5 - CLAC's ought to be where LAC's are and where hypercapability is a useful option worth the expense. (It looks like cthia is insisting on this; I just don't see where anyone is disagreeing, or would.)

What Sigs is questioning/disagreeing with, and at least you it seems, as opposed to myself, is that the main base of operations for CLACs/ LACs should be the Home system.

If I am a fleet commander, CO, Captain, whatever, operating in an important system and I get wind of an attack, I'm going to send for help in the Home system. Grayson is going to send for help in the Home system. If the Home system, first has to send message to another system to divert CLACs, that wouldn't be as responsive or optimal as sending them directly from the Home system. Time is of the essence in engagements.

Likewise, if a drawn out battle destroys LACs in a system like Talbot - where Sigs is arguing for a CLAC base, and more LACs are needed. Then what is Talbot going to do? send that slow CLAC round trip back to the Home system to re-arm? Why not send a much faster whip back to the Home system that already has CLACs/LAC ready to go?

Can you imagine Caparelli pondering matters in the War Room, moving Fleets and screening elements around until he makes a decision to divert a large force but there are no CLACs at Home?

And no, I am not claiming that the utility of LACs without CLACs is zero. That's absurd. I'm claiming that tactical and strategic flexibility of LACs without CLACs is zero!

I have no problem with LACs on forts. Even a fort full of LACs. But, for tactical and strategic flexibility, you must maintain ready transport for those LACs for a quick response in turnaround time, so as you can quickly divert as much of that LAC force to where needed. Checkmate!

What Sigs is proposing would eliminate this...

JeffEngel:
4 - Some LAC's in Home Fleet should have CLAC's, for microjumps, for use elsewhere, for use in Manticore A or B or near the Junction.

cthia wrote:<snip>
Likewise, if a drawn out battle destroys LACs in a system like Talbot - where Sigs is arguing for a CLAC base, and more LACs are needed. Then what is Talbot going to do? send that slow CLAC round trip back to the Home system to re-arm? Why not send a much faster whip back to the Home system that already has CLACs/LAC ready to go?

Can you imagine Caparelli pondering matters in the War Room, moving Fleets and screening elements around until he makes a decision to divert a large force but there are no CLACs at Home?

And no, I am not claiming that the utility of LACs without CLACs is zero. That's absurd. I'm claiming that tactical and strategic flexibility of LACs without CLACs is zero!

I have no problem with LACs on forts. Even a fort full of LACs. But, for tactical and strategic flexibility, you must maintain ready transport for those LACs for a quick response in turnaround time, so as you can quickly divert as much of that LAC force to where needed. Checkmate!

Let's not forget that there are other ways to move LACS.

LACS cnn be moved on normal freighters to reprovision forces. Frieghters with spare LACs regularly follow fleet trains to resupply CLACs which have damaged or diminished birds from raids. Hauling LACs on freighters goes all the way back to the Minotaur having her brood shiped to Hanock station ahead of her.

The only limitation is that while LACS can be shipped on a normal freighter, they are not able to used immediately (they would require unpacking, maintenance and arming prior to use.) as they would on a CLAC, and they are not able to be armed or maintained while in shipment. The crews most likely will be shipped separately, and would not have acess to the LAC systems for training during the voyage (No networked LAC bridges playing simulated wargames like you could do in a CLAC).

When Talbot was acquired and we found out the systems were getting LAC wings, RFC told us that they were being shipped via CLAC and basing would be built in system. The reason why they were shipped via CLAC and not freighters was to allow the wing to continue to train together and practice maintaining the LACS while in route, which would not be possible with using freighters and passenger liners for the purpose.

However, in the absense of a CLAC, Wings of LACS could be loaded into RMNT freighters and shipped wherever they were needed with the same strategic speed of a CLAC (but with longer loading/offloading times and lower readiness.

cthia wrote:If I am a fleet commander, CO, Captain, whatever, operating in an important system and I get wind of an attack, I'm going to send for help in the Home system. Grayson is going to send for help in the Home system. If the Home system, first has to send message to another system to divert CLACs, that wouldn't be as responsive or optimal as sending them directly from the Home system. Time is of the essence in engagements.

Likewise, if a drawn out battle destroys LACs in a system like Talbot - where Sigs is arguing for a CLAC base, and more LACs are needed. Then what is Talbot going to do? send that slow CLAC round trip back to the Home system to re-arm? Why not send a much faster whip back to the Home system that already has CLACs/LAC ready to go?

I think this is one mistake you are making. Home Fleet is NOT the source for reinforcements. If you expect an attack, or need replacements for lost ships, you do not contact Home Fleet. You contact the nearest regional Fleet base. If they don't have any (or you are yourself the regional Fleet base), then you contact Manticore, but you do not contact Home Fleet. The ships you get will almost certainly not come from Home Fleet, unless the situation is most dire. They would come from other ships stationed at the regional base, or at Manticore, but not part of Home Fleet. Headquarters may have to shuffle assignments. The RMN often has entire fleets specifically to provide reinforcements. But Home Fleet is not a reservoir for replacements. Home Fleet must be maintained at full capacity unless the situation gets very bad indeed.

Certainly it makes sense to have some CLACs in Home Fleet for flexibility. But Home Fleet should never be considered a source for reinforcements.

By the way, I think you got a mistaken impression earlier. When JeffEngel talked about 75-80% of LACs being on bases rather than CLACs, he was saying that of the LACs in the Manticore System 75-80% of them are stationed on bases (mostly forts) rather than CLACs. He was not saying that 80% of the LACs in the RMN are in Manticore. In fact, a majority of LACs are based outside of Manticore. The LACs which are part of Home Fleet are not intended to be used elsewhere.