Beating up Frontier Fleet, mercilessly

Theemile wrote:Supposedly the first dozen or two CLACs were constant tweaks on the original Minotaur design, addressing operational suggestions and incorporating design optimizations, with no 2 ships being identical. The questions is what was the importance of the Hydra? - was it the first ship with 108 LAC bays, the place were the design stabilized, or some other point that clearly demarked it from the Minotaurs?

12 more LAC's, no chase grasers, more broadside and chase defenses, less chase magazine space, more chase missile launchers. I think the first two points were the ones that elevated it from the next step of tweaking to something that merited a different class designation.

It's also probably the point where they really did come to terms with CLAC's as simply LAC platforms with appropriate survivability for the mission, rather than something intended to contribute direct anti-shipping firepower. Or if it has to, it's for short periods at extreme range, such as to make (e.g.) a frisky CA rethink molesting the CLAC when the LAC's are away.

The GSN arrived at that conclusion earlier, and it looks like the RHN had it from the start. One way the RMN's traditionalism may hurt it - they have a tendency to explore the unknown with ship design with baby steps. It prevents them from dropping lots of effort into craziness, and they learn what to do with the new gear while on a solid traditional platform - I don't want to make it out as all bad - but it does make for a lot of transitional designs where the destination may have been clearer to their GSN allies (at least) beforehand.

JeffEngel wrote:The GSN arrived at that conclusion earlier, and it looks like the RHN had it from the start. One way the RMN's traditionalism may hurt it - they have a tendency to explore the unknown with ship design with baby steps. It prevents them from dropping lots of effort into craziness, and they learn what to do with the new gear while on a solid traditional platform - I don't want to make it out as all bad - but it does make for a lot of transitional designs where the destination may have been clearer to their GSN allies (at least) beforehand.

I wouldn't call it earlier than the RMN - The RMN built a CLAC first and played with the hardware - hard. they then built 2 dozen CLACs while tweaking with the idea and sold 6 of them to the Graysons. Then the Graysons built their own. They had the assistance of the Manty playbook AND some of the hardware to assist in them building their doctrine Before they completed the Covingtons.

Besides, I've always seen CLACS as 2 types - an Assault type that functions on it's own and an Fleet type that functions with the Wall. The Assault type is the type that will patrol on it's own and be sent on "special" missions, while the Fleet type has numerous escorts and can drop it's brood at the hyperlimit and retreat with the fleet train and it's escorts.

Buying 6 Minotaurs allows the GSN to have a few "Special Ops" carriers which can take care of themselves in the Assault role, and the Home built Covingtons for fleet defense.

The RMN, of course, loves a generalist unit, so they want every unit to be able take care of itself so they can assign any unit any task required of it. The need for a space superiority LAC for fleet defense kinda snuck up on them, so they will be looking for ways to carry more LACs in the future.

Personally, I'm suprised the Covingtons are as small as they are - I would have designed them to use existing SD propulsion systems and maximize the # of LACs carried.- Since they will always travel with an SD fleet, it's not as if you need them to be any faster.

Theemile wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:The GSN arrived at that conclusion earlier, and it looks like the RHN had it from the start. One way the RMN's traditionalism may hurt it - they have a tendency to explore the unknown with ship design with baby steps. It prevents them from dropping lots of effort into craziness, and they learn what to do with the new gear while on a solid traditional platform - I don't want to make it out as all bad - but it does make for a lot of transitional designs where the destination may have been clearer to their GSN allies (at least) beforehand.

I wouldn't call it earlier than the RMN - The RMN built a CLAC first and played with the hardware - hard. they then built 2 dozen CLACs while tweaking with the idea and sold 6 of them to the Graysons. Then the Graysons built their own. They had the assistance of the Manty playbook AND some of the hardware to assist in them building their doctrine Before they completed the Covingtons.

They're ahead of the Manticoran curve when it comes to downplaying weaponry and maximizing LAC carriage. The GSN bought Minotaurs in 1914 and started commissioning Covingtons in 1915. HoS has it that they were inspired by the mining craft tenders used in Yeltsin's Star in designing it, so it wasn't just drawing from RMN Minotaur (or Trojan class Q-ship) experience. On the RMN side, the 1914 and forward Hydras still have the anti-shipping chase armament and only tweak it with the 1920 changes. (Plus, of course, the various smaller tweaks along the way - those are just the points of design changes HoS picks out.)

So yes, it does look like the RMN is peeling weapons off CLAC's and emphasizing LAC carriage slower than the GSN is. That was near the end of the first war and during the High Ridge Government, so the two navies weren't cooperating too much for the early Covington years. With cooperation back on the menu, the Covingtons and their Katanas are filling the fleet defense CLAC role particularly for mixed fleets.

Besides, I've always seen CLACS as 2 types - an Assault type that functions on it's own and an Fleet type that functions with the Wall. The Assault type is the type that will patrol on it's own and be sent on "special" missions, while the Fleet type has numerous escorts and can drop it's brood at the hyperlimit and retreat with the fleet train and it's escorts.

Buying 6 Minotaurs allows the GSN to have a few "Special Ops" carriers which can take care of themselves in the Assault role, and the Home built Covingtons for fleet defense.

They're two missions, at least, and the Minotaur and Covington classes are each better at one than they are at the other. But I don't think either navy intends either class as a fully satisfactory answer to either mission in particular. The fleet defense CLAC doesn't need speed better than an SD/SD(P), and it does have a use for all the defenses any other part of the wall can use. (A variation on it may operate from near the wall but behind it, where lighter defenses are all right.) And I'm not sure how often you would want or need a dedicated "assault" CLAC, as opposed to a BC, several DD's/CL's/CA's, and/or a handful of small hypercapable warships and one CLAC of any type.

The RMN, of course, loves a generalist unit, so they want every unit to be able take care of itself so they can assign any unit any task required of it. The need for a space superiority LAC for fleet defense kinda snuck up on them, so they will be looking for ways to carry more LACs in the future.

Yes. It's peculiar - they are well aware that wallers, for instance, won't be operating alone, but don't want to design any hypercapable warship so that it's only meant to serve a (crucial) role in a larger group. It may come from having to struggle for years to get funding out of a coalition of political groups with very different ideas about what the RMN is supposed to be and do.

Personally, I'm suprised the Covingtons are as small as they are - I would have designed them to use existing SD propulsion systems and maximize the # of LACs carried.- Since they will always travel with an SD fleet, it's not as if you need them to be any faster.

While they're more suitable for that fleet defense role, I don't think they were meant to be always with the wall either. Many of the additional LAC's are earmarked for remaining with the Covington for its own protection. That's not relevant for something in the middle of the wall. It is relevant for something meant to drop the brood at the hyperlimit and let them go take care of things, or to participate from outside the wall but in cooperation with it. A bit more acceleration to remain outside trouble could be handy there. And it may be a compromise between large efficiency and granularity, where the GSN wants to be able to respond to something with a single CLAC and an SD sized one would be excessive and limit the number of such incidents they can respond to.

RHN LAC's are just built to eliminate other LAC's and missiles. They haven't the legs for the more independent work GSN and RMN LAC's have, so it's an easier choice for the RHN with their CLAC's: they are fleet defense ones - or at least, they're for that plus possibly punching out systems relying mostly on LAC groups for protection. Either way, they may as well build them as SD sized units. (Or close enough not to bother; theoretically, a bunch of systems with LAC groups not worth hitting with 200 LAC's but fine for using 100-125 on would argue for some DN range CLAC's. I'm sure they can live with that.)

In about 8 years of CLAC operations, the RMN and GSN haven't yet commissioned SD-range CLAC's. I'm sure the Covington benefited from being a departure from the Minotaur only in arrangement and not arrangement and scale, and that SD range CLAC's are, or would have been, a much bigger design and engineering step up than the little fiddles with the Minotaur/Hydra series progress have been. But I do think both those navies will be following the RHN's lead that way with some or all the upcoming CLAC's. If they still have a use for DN range ones, the existing Minotaurs, Hydras, and Covingtons should fill the roles well enough for a long time.

JeffEngel wrote:

Theemile wrote:Besides, I've always seen CLACS as 2 types - an Assault type that functions on it's own and an Fleet type that functions with the Wall. The Assault type is the type that will patrol on it's own and be sent on "special" missions, while the Fleet type has numerous escorts and can drop it's brood at the hyperlimit and retreat with the fleet train and it's escorts.

Buying 6 Minotaurs allows the GSN to have a few "Special Ops" carriers which can take care of themselves in the Assault role, and the Home built Covingtons for fleet defense.

They're two missions, at least, and the Minotaur and Covington classes are each better at one than they are at the other. But I don't think either navy intends either class as a fully satisfactory answer to either mission in particular. The fleet defense CLAC doesn't need speed better than an SD/SD(P), and it does have a use for all the defenses any other part of the wall can use. (A variation on it may operate from near the wall but behind it, where lighter defenses are all right.) And I'm not sure how often you would want or need a dedicated "assault" CLAC, as opposed to a BC, several DD's/CL's/CA's, and/or a handful of small hypercapable warships and one CLAC of any type.

Henke sent a CLAC to Mobius, to serve as the base for an amphibious (space/ground) Marine force. What do the Marines normally use?

Bill Woods wrote:

JeffEngel wrote: And I'm not sure how often you would want or need a dedicated "assault" CLAC, as opposed to a BC, several DD's/CL's/CA's, and/or a handful of small hypercapable warships and one CLAC of any type.

Henke sent a CLAC to Mobius, to serve as the base for an amphibious (space/ground) Marine force. What do the Marines normally use?

Broadsword CA's, Kamerling CL's - both specialized marine transports with warship weaponry still on hand. Or a bunch of (older) cruisers and/or battlecruisers with their classic marine complements. Or a troop transport not based on a warship, accompanied by a warship escort.

The CLAC in this case is a bit of an odd selection. LAC's aren't built for atmospheric combat. Granted, they'll be a fine in-system escort for a large warship with the personnel space for a lot of marines, and a waller's typical boat bay. The LAC's can be about as good for orbital fire support as some hypercapable warships would be. But in this case, it's more than anything else a matter of improvising on the basis of what 10th Fleet had, I'd say, and a CLAC presented a combination of adequate life support and space with its own inherent escort. Or life support and personnel capability and more escort - I don't believe it was the only RMN hypercapable presence for Mobius.

JeffEngel wrote:The CLAC in this case is a bit of an odd selection. LAC's aren't built for atmospheric combat.

The Marines had their assault shuttles for that.

Granted, they'll be a fine in-system escort for a large warship with the personnel space for a lot of marines, and a waller's typical boat bay. The LAC's can be about as good for orbital fire support as some hypercapable warships would be. But in this case, it's more than anything else a matter of improvising on the basis of what 10th Fleet had, I'd say, and a CLAC presented a combination of adequate life support and space with its own inherent escort. Or life support and personnel capability and more escort - I don't believe it was the only RMN hypercapable presence for Mobius.

By no means -- Terekhov also had four of his cruisers and eight destroyers.

Bill Woods wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:The CLAC in this case is a bit of an odd selection. LAC's aren't built for atmospheric combat.

The Marines had their assault shuttles for that.

Granted, they'll be a fine in-system escort for a large warship with the personnel space for a lot of marines, and a waller's typical boat bay. The LAC's can be about as good for orbital fire support as some hypercapable warships would be. But in this case, it's more than anything else a matter of improvising on the basis of what 10th Fleet had, I'd say, and a CLAC presented a combination of adequate life support and space with its own inherent escort. Or life support and personnel capability and more escort - I don't believe it was the only RMN hypercapable presence for Mobius.

By no means -- Terekhov also had four of his cruisers and eight destroyers.

So, yeah. The CLAC ends up being appropriate for the Mobius job primarily as a make-do thing - the LAC's may not have had all that much to do. It's just that, in 10th Fleet's inventory, it was something with the space for the Marines and a capital ship boat bay was probably a better home for the assault shuttles than those cruisers and destroyers. If there were any old SD's or DN's in 10th Fleet, they'd've likely been much better. A couple old Star Knights, perhaps as good. One Kamerling or Broadsword, much better.

A CLAC, 4 very modern CA's, 8 similar DD's - decidedly overkill for anything in Mobius, but if you can spare it, it's a lot better side to err on.

JeffEngel wrote:They're two missions, at least, and the Minotaur and Covington classes are each better at one than they are at the other. But I don't think either navy intends either class as a fully satisfactory answer to either mission in particular. The fleet defense CLAC doesn't need speed better than an SD/SD(P), and it does have a use for all the defenses any other part of the wall can use. (A variation on it may operate from near the wall but behind it, where lighter defenses are all right.) And I'm not sure how often you would want or need a dedicated "assault" CLAC, as opposed to a BC, several DD's/CL's/CA's, and/or a handful of small hypercapable warships and one CLAC of any type.

For all those planets where you want extra missile defense with your BC's. Medium planets. The "not sure what the have, but gotta probe and we know they have had pods previously" planets.

Why? You know full well the BC's + CL etc do not have enough missile defense to take on the pods + ships, but a CLAC or two full of LAC's along with their missile defenses should do the job.

JeffEngel wrote:So, yeah. The CLAC ends up being appropriate for the Mobius job primarily as a make-do thing - the LAC's may not have had all that much to do. It's just that, in 10th Fleet's inventory, it was something with the space for the Marines and a capital ship boat bay was probably a better home for the assault shuttles than those cruisers and destroyers. If there were any old SD's or DN's in 10th Fleet, they'd've likely been much better. A couple old Star Knights, perhaps as good. One Kamerling or Broadsword, much better.

A CLAC, 4 very modern CA's, 8 similar DD's - decidedly overkill for anything in Mobius, but if you can spare it, it's a lot better side to err on.

You pull a 20,000 ton LAC out of a bay you can fit several 500-1000 ton assault shuttles in its place. So pull a squadron or four, you have the marines in the LAC crew and support crew quarters.

kzt wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:So, yeah. The CLAC ends up being appropriate for the Mobius job primarily as a make-do thing - the LAC's may not have had all that much to do. It's just that, in 10th Fleet's inventory, it was something with the space for the Marines and a capital ship boat bay was probably a better home for the assault shuttles than those cruisers and destroyers. If there were any old SD's or DN's in 10th Fleet, they'd've likely been much better. A couple old Star Knights, perhaps as good. One Kamerling or Broadsword, much better.

A CLAC, 4 very modern CA's, 8 similar DD's - decidedly overkill for anything in Mobius, but if you can spare it, it's a lot better side to err on.

You pull a 20,000 ton LAC out of a bay you can fit several 500-1000 ton assault shuttles in its place. So pull a squadron or four, you have the marines in the LAC crew and support crew quarters.

Would expect any ship with 3000 people on it is going to have pretty large boat bays as it is. It is not easy as replace LAC with shuttles. Shuttles have to be tied down somehow and collars for LAC's do not hold shuttles. Can be modified? Yup. Easy? Yup. Makes sense? Not sure. Why would a large ground marine contingent need 100 LAC's? Take over a planet orbitals + a tiny portion of the ground and stay a while? Take over orbitals but not sure if you can really stay so must keep the CLAC around to collect all the pieces in case your intel went into the crapper.