CLAC's in Home Fleet

Theemile wrote:

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 ship 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.

That's a better contingency, at least. Although, as you've stated, suboptimal. And you and I can think of instances where it could/would be fatal.

Though why use freighters in the place of already specialized transports is beyond me. Transports that are themselves armed.

You wouldn't adopt a CLAC itself as part of a regular wall of battle, but there may arise situations where you're glad that it's armed. Battle of Manticore. The King is protected on the chess board, but I've been involved in many skirmishes where my swashbuckling King held my chestnuts.

Against my niece, if your King doesn't have skills. You're toast if she finds out. And she will.

But that's another day in the War Room.

Home Fleet without CLACs is absurd.

A Home System never wants to uncover. But a complete fleet increases tactical and strategic flexibility in that regard as well. Should the unthinkable decision to do so is made.

In essence, a swashbuckling Queen, since Home Fleet is essentially her protection.

Grayson's Protectors Own makes him a swashbuckling King.

CLACs sharpen the swashbuckler's sword.

SharkHunter wrote: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.

Another example of the tactical and strategic flexibility provided by CLACs.

cthia wrote:Though why use freighters in the place of already specialized transports is beyond me. Transports that are themselves armed.

Because you don't have endless numbers of CLACs - if you tie them up for routine shipping of LACs then they aren't available to the various fleets that might need organic LAC support.


It's almost like asking why, in WWII, the US boxed up fighters and shipped them in merchant ships to the UK rather than placing them on carriers - where they could at least fly off if attacked (though admittedly they couldn't land again).
Well the US had relatively lots of merchant ships, and only a handful of carriers. The carriers need to be reserved for the jobs that only they can do. But moving LACs (or planes) in a relatively low threat environment when they're not needed for immediate action is one of the things that a normal freighter can do.

Now late in the war when the USN had a relative surplus of CVEs they did use some of them as glorified aircraft ferries. And even earlier in the war when it was strategically necessary they used carriers to deliver planes - such as the Malta resupply runs where it was safer to dash within one-way range of the island and fly the planes off; which obviously a freighter can't do.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Though why use freighters in the place of already specialized transports is beyond me. Transports that are themselves armed.

Because you don't have endless numbers of CLACs - if you tie them up for routine shipping of LACs then they aren't available to the various fleets that might need organic LAC support.


It's almost like asking why, in WWII, the US boxed up fighters and shipped them in merchant ships to the UK rather than placing them on carriers - where they could at least fly off if attacked (though admittedly they couldn't land again).
Well the US had relatively lots of merchant ships, and only a handful of carriers. The carriers need to be reserved for the jobs that only they can do. But moving LACs (or planes) in a relatively low threat environment when they're not needed for immediate action is one of the things that a normal freighter can do.

Now late in the war when the USN had a relative surplus of CVEs they did use some of them as glorified aircraft ferries. And even earlier in the war when it was strategically necessary they used carriers to deliver planes - such as the Malta resupply runs where it was safer to dash within one-way range of the island and fly the planes off; which obviously a freighter can't do.

I thought it was obvious that I meant that freighters shouldn't be considered a modus operandi - normal operations. Contingency and auxiliary plans are called that for a reason, sometimes diverting from official plans is unavoidable.

In theory you could transport new missiles in the magazines of Nikes instead of in ammo ships. Does it seem like a good use of your limited number of BCs to use them to haul missiles instead of the equipment designed to transport them?

cthia wrote:

JeffEngel wrote: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.
[snipping for quote management]
Could be. Anyway, reasons to have some LAC's on CLAC's even in the Home System have been given aplenty at this point. You, however, have seemed to be arguing that each and every LAC in the Home System - perhaps anywhere - ought to have a birth aboard a CLAC and anything less is a disgrace. If that's not your contention, I've misunderstood.

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.

I'd rather not get into a long discussion of what Sigs means - Sigs should be able to tell us, really - but I can say it's not an interpretation I took away. He just didn't count on the reasons it's useful to have CLAC's in a system (Manticore particularly, given that it's a binary with the Junction too) where LAC's are going to remain.

I'll concede some reserve utility to Home Fleet as a place to draw packets as needed, and certainly CLAC's will be crucial in that role if LAC's are needed at all. And the fact that Home Fleet is near the Junction makes it one reserve node par excellence. But that's not the same as anyone claiming that it's supposed to be the central location for "spare" CLAC's and LAC's for the RMN everywhere.

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.

If you're near a Junction terminus, and you haven't got the rest of your station to draw on, certainly. But the RMN's got responsibilities far away - Silesia, Talbott - and those locations DO have their own fleets and DO have a whole lot of average distance from a Junction terminus. So not all emergencies will draw on Home Fleet.

Heck, with the SLN threat, you've got (1) classic SLN doctrine to call for an attack direct on Manticore (if/when they dare again), and (2) commerce raiding and picket assassination attacks clear across human-colonized space now. So Home Fleet is too crucial in-place in the one case and far too distant in the other.

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?

Talbot, the Manticoran Alliance system, or Talbott, the SEM quadrant?

The system isn't likely to be hit any time soon, and frankly, if everything there is wiped out, it's going to be a full relief fleet going to take it back. It's just not relevant if it's a CLAC or a fixed LAC base that got whacked there.

The quadrant has 10th Fleet for its protection. The systems closest to Lynx can call on the terminus picket or Home Fleet in a pinch, but for the most part, 10th Fleet is it.

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!

O-kay. But if you're never going to draw them out of a system anyway - if some portion represents the minimum defensive commitment there - then paying for flexibility you cannot ever safely use is a waste. I'm saying that a large portion of the LAC's in the Home System are exactly that minimum defensive component for the most important system in the Empire, much like the forts.

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...

Some of that, you really, honestly, can do without, and it's not free. I don't think the RMN wants the capability to exercise suicidal flexibility. They do seem to design their ships with an eye to making sure that drooling idiot admirals can't do too much damage, like trying to avoid weapons that can hurt capital ships on ships that can't survive fighting capital ships. RFC's made that clear, and if they're going to idiot-proof the ships, they'll idiot-proof Home Fleet and keep someone from withdrawing all the home system's defenses because reasons. And if it happens they save lots of money and crew doing that, even better.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Because you don't have endless numbers of CLACs - if you tie them up for routine shipping of LACs then they aren't available to the various fleets that might need organic LAC support.


It's almost like asking why, in WWII, the US boxed up fighters and shipped them in merchant ships to the UK rather than placing them on carriers - where they could at least fly off if attacked (though admittedly they couldn't land again).
Well the US had relatively lots of merchant ships, and only a handful of carriers. The carriers need to be reserved for the jobs that only they can do. But moving LACs (or planes) in a relatively low threat environment when they're not needed for immediate action is one of the things that a normal freighter can do.

Now late in the war when the USN had a relative surplus of CVEs they did use some of them as glorified aircraft ferries. And even earlier in the war when it was strategically necessary they used carriers to deliver planes - such as the Malta resupply runs where it was safer to dash within one-way range of the island and fly the planes off; which obviously a freighter can't do.

I thought it was obvious that I meant that freighters shouldn't be considered a modus operandi - normal operations. Contingency and auxiliary plans are called that for a reason, sometimes diverting from official plans is unavoidable.

Actually, I think you have it exactly backwards. Transporting by CLAC should not be the standard model. Why should you use a CLAC to transport LACs between safe harbors, when that same CLAC could be instead used to bring the fight to the enemy? Also, it costs less to transport them as cargo, and considering how many are going to be transported, even a small savings adds up.

There are only a few times when a CLAC is preferable to a cargo ship.
1) When transport time is absolutely critical, and a commercial hyperdrive is insufficient.
2) When you are entering a high threat area that can't be mitigated by standard convoy escorts.
3) When the LACs must be ready to use as soon as you enter a system, rather than a couple of hours after you make orbit.
4) When cargo ships are aboslutly unavailable.

The fact that one, two, and three are combined in combat ops means that that is where you want your CLACs. In most other cases, it would be somewhere between a waste and an actively bad idea to use a CLAC as a transport.

SWM wrote:

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.

Yes, you contact the Home system. That's what I have been saying. The Home system dictates tactical and strategic policy. What I am saying, is that in a pinch you send for help in the Home system for certain! Whether you contact other bases as well, or have the option to do so, is simply extra icing. But contacting the Home system is a must! As well as your first obligation. That was utilized throughout the books.

"Detach one of the tin cans to the Admiralty for reinforcements, and one to System X and System B, to alert those COs, if we can spare them."

And you want the Home system(Admiralty) to be able to respond, and to at least thrust the responsibility of logistics and decision upon his shoulders. Nearby fleets may be busy themselves, have been diverted elsewhere, destroyed or redeployed. I never said that reinforcements should come from Home fleet. I am saying that the Home system, which just happens to hold Home fleet, is where you send for help.

Are you forgetting the Case Zulu sent by Harrington from Yeltsin? She didn't have the luxury to pussyfoot around with the logistics of availability of nearby forces, nor could Honor make the decision to divert those forces at the time, IIRC, as many COs on the spot wouldn't have that authority to do so. And having to convince another station Commander to do so in an emergency, may utilize more time than Murphy allows. Honor sent for help directly Home. Hell, she didn't even have the available ships to spare to send all over Honorverse's or Hell's creation.

Remember also, Alice Truman when she disabled the safety interlocks. Where did she run to? She ran her sweet ass Home, as quickly as her safety interlocks would take her. She didn't pass go, didn't take time to collect 200 credits, and she didn't bother checking with other fleet bases.

SWM:
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.

Glad that was cleared up.

Now, let me make sure I understand everyone.

Are you all saying that you agree with Sigs that CLACs should be stationed as bases in other systems, besides at Home until need arises? Just curious.

I wonder what RFCs reasoning is?

.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Because you don't have endless numbers of CLACs - if you tie them up for routine shipping of LACs then they aren't available to the various fleets that might need organic LAC support.


It's almost like asking why, in WWII, the US boxed up fighters and shipped them in merchant ships to the UK rather than placing them on carriers - where they could at least fly off if attacked (though admittedly they couldn't land again).
Well the US had relatively lots of merchant ships, and only a handful of carriers. The carriers need to be reserved for the jobs that only they can do. But moving LACs (or planes) in a relatively low threat environment when they're not needed for immediate action is one of the things that a normal freighter can do.

Now late in the war when the USN had a relative surplus of CVEs they did use some of them as glorified aircraft ferries. And even earlier in the war when it was strategically necessary they used carriers to deliver planes - such as the Malta resupply runs where it was safer to dash within one-way range of the island and fly the planes off; which obviously a freighter can't do.

I thought it was obvious that I meant that freighters shouldn't be considered a modus operandi - normal operations. Contingency and auxiliary plans are called that for a reason, sometimes diverting from official plans is unavoidable.

crewdude48 wrote:Actually, I think you have it exactly backwards. Transporting by CLAC should not be the standard model. Why should you use a CLAC to transport LACs between safe harbors, when that same CLAC could be instead used to bring the fight to the enemy? Also, it costs less to transport them as cargo, and considering how many are going to be transported, even a small savings adds up.

There are only a few times when a CLAC is preferable to a cargo ship.
1) When transport time is absolutely critical, and a commercial hyperdrive is insufficient.
2) When you are entering a high threat area that can't be mitigated by standard convoy escorts.
3) When the LACs must be ready to use as soon as you enter a system, rather than a couple of hours after you make orbit.
4) When cargo ships are aboslutly unavailable.

The fact that one, two, and three are combined in combat ops means that that is where you want your CLACs. In most other cases, it would be somewhere between a waste and an actively bad idea to use a CLAC as a transport.

We're on the same page here. Someone else brought up freighters as transports. I agree they have their use. But not as a regular MO. Modus operandi that entails diverting a force to attack.

In fact, I said exactly what you are saying when I said that CLACs, if operating for extended periods of time as CLAC bases, may end up storing a large percentage of down checked LACs for transport back to the Home system. In time of war, freighters may not be appropriate, as you want them away from the theater of conflict.