CLAC's in Home Fleet

cthia wrote:Okay. Many of you seem poised to disagree with me. That's okay, Admirals think differently, varying views. Different strategies are presented to the Admiralty, or Commander in Chief.

Sigs originally proposes establishing CLAC bases in other systems, like Talbot, and he dispels the need for available CLACs in the Home system. I gave arguments against that.

I'd like to see arguments specifically pro or con Sig's original proposal and not just directed at me. If you disagree with how I'd like to allocate/position CLACs, give an alternative position(npi).

If the proposal you have in mind is having CLAC's, complete with LAC groups, available in systems other than Manticore, for use in case of emergencies out there - then yes, of course that's reasonable. That's exactly what Ninth Fleet and Tenth Fleet are doing out in Silesia and Talbott, or what any station smaller than one of them is doing, albeit in those cases with whole fleets rather than CLAC's alone.

The Home System is one place for reserve/emergency forces. Given the Junction, it's an unusually good one for the Star Empire. It's not the only one, what with the Empire sprawling quite a distance now.

Are you suggesting they should all be there in Manticore? I'm assuming not, just because that's ludicrous, but if not, I'm not sure what the dispute is.

And if it's looking like it's many people arguing with you instead of addressing Sigs' points as you see them, that may just be that your reading of his post, or emphases in it, is idiosyncratic.

cthia wrote:Okay. Many of you seem poised to disagree with me. That's okay, Admirals think differently, varying views. Different strategies are presented to the Admiralty, or Commander in Chief.

Sigs originally proposes establishing CLAC bases in other systems, like Talbot, and he dispels the need for available CLACs in the Home system. I gave arguments against that.

I'd like to see arguments specifically pro or con Sig's original proposal and not just directed at me. If you disagree with how I'd like to allocate/position CLACs, give an alternative position(npi).

I believe you are misunderstanding Sig's question. He wasn't saying anything about CLACs as bases elsewhere. He was asking why CLACs were being used in Home Fleet when CLACs were critically needed in fleets elsewhere. Not as bases--as fleet support. He is not talking about having a CLAC hanging around the Talbott cluster just to maintain the LACs based there.

We have already dealt with Sig's question, which was why CLACs are being used in Home Fleet. I think there is general agreement that it is useful to have CLACS in Home Fleet to allow more flexibility.

The reason discussion has focused on your proposal is because everyone is already in agreement on the answer to Sig's question.

SWM wrote:

cthia wrote:Okay. Many of you seem poised to disagree with me. That's okay, Admirals think differently, varying views. Different strategies are presented to the Admiralty, or Commander in Chief.

Sigs originally proposes establishing CLAC bases in other systems, like Talbot, and he dispels the need for available CLACs in the Home system. I gave arguments against that.

I'd like to see arguments specifically pro or con Sig's original proposal and not just directed at me. If you disagree with how I'd like to allocate/position CLACs, give an alternative position(npi).

I believe you are misunderstanding Sig's question. He wasn't saying anything about CLACs as bases elsewhere. He was asking why CLACs were being used in Home Fleet when CLACs were critically needed in fleets elsewhere. Not as bases--as fleet support. He is not talking about having a CLAC hanging around the Talbott cluster just to maintain the LACs based there.

We have already dealt with Sig's question, which was why CLACs are being used in Home Fleet. I think there is general agreement that it is useful to have CLACS in Home Fleet to allow more flexibility.

The reason discussion has focused on your proposal is because everyone is already in agreement on the answer to Sig's question.

Well now the disagreement seems to be over Sigs intention. Do reread his post, taking great care to absorb the second paragraph.

cthia wrote:Well now the disagreement seems to be over Sigs intention. Do reread his post, taking great care to absorb the second paragraph.

I have looked at it. In particular, I quote:

Sigs wrote:Carriers would be for offensive operations and in location where the base facilities are non existent.

The Talbott Cluster has base facilities. CLACs were not assigned to the Talbott Cluster--they were assigned to 10th Fleet as fleet support, just as I described.

SWM wrote:

cthia wrote:Well now the disagreement seems to be over Sigs intention. Do reread his post, taking great care to absorb the second paragraph.

I have looked at it. In particular, I quote:

Sigs wrote:Carriers would be for offensive operations and in location where the base facilities are non existent.

The Talbott Cluster has base facilities. CLACs were not assigned to the Talbott Cluster--they were assigned to 10th Fleet as fleet support, just as I described.

Throws hands up in submission.

What I am questioning is the need to station upwards to 40% of your carriers with the one fleet that has integrated support bases. Granted when I asked the question initially I did not actually visualize the area of operation for Home Fleet but stationing 40% or more of your CLACs there seems a little excessive. But then again, if you require ships for one purpose, and that is to be able to move a large number of LACs to another part of the Home System then have unarmed/unarmoured carriers for just that purpose, drop in unload and then run.

If I'm not mistaking the Junction has it's own LAC's, as does I would assume Manticore A and B. If you require to consolidate your LAC's for one reason or another any one of those support bases could take care of the combined force, it would be taxing but it could be done. Besides I doubt that any one of those critical locations would be left undefended under any situation so there would always be a local strength of LACs if not larger vessels.

As for a central reserve, well Home Fleet is not it. I understand that it has been done frequently where one or more fronts would draw ships from Home Fleet but that is not what it is meant for. If there were a certain number of SD℗'s, CLACs, and escorts designated as central reserve seconded to home fleet then by all means have it but pillaging Home Fleet could have devastating consequences for the Home System.


To me carriers are mobile bases, anchoring them to a permanent or semi permanent stationary base misuses them. Having 16 CLACs in the Talbott Quadrant concentrated in one system or spread out amongst 2,4 or 8 systems means that you can at any one time bring upwards to several hundred CLACs as reinforcements from nearby nodal points. Having the ability to temporarily reinforce any threatened system seems to provide better use for those mobile platforms than keeping them on a tight leash to the Home system.

Sigs wrote:What I am questioning is the need to station upwards to 40% of your carriers with the one fleet that has integrated support bases. Granted when I asked the question initially I did not actually visualize the area of operation for Home Fleet but stationing 40% or more of your CLACs there seems a little excessive. But then again, if you require ships for one purpose, and that is to be able to move a large number of LACs to another part of the Home System then have unarmed/unarmoured carriers for just that purpose, drop in unload and then run.

If I'm not mistaking the Junction has it's own LAC's, as does I would assume Manticore A and B. If you require to consolidate your LAC's for one reason or another any one of those support bases could take care of the combined force, it would be taxing but it could be done. Besides I doubt that any one of those critical locations would be left undefended under any situation so there would always be a local strength of LACs if not larger vessels.

As for a central reserve, well Home Fleet is not it. I understand that it has been done frequently where one or more fronts would draw ships from Home Fleet but that is not what it is meant for. If there were a certain number of SD℗'s, CLACs, and escorts designated as central reserve seconded to home fleet then by all means have it but pillaging Home Fleet could have devastating consequences for the Home System.


To me carriers are mobile bases, anchoring them to a permanent or semi permanent stationary base misuses them. Having 16 CLACs in the Talbott Quadrant concentrated in one system or spread out amongst 2,4 or 8 systems means that you can at any one time bring upwards to several hundred CLACs as reinforcements from nearby nodal points. Having the ability to temporarily reinforce any threatened system seems to provide better use for those mobile platforms than keeping them on a tight leash to the Home system.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that this is indeed what you meant.

My reading comprehension is intact.

This is exactly what I was arguing against. What I propose, is at least 4 of those CLACs should remain at Home. To be quickly diverted elsewhere, by the Admiralty.

Maintaining tactical and strategic flexibility.

Anchoring them all in one quadrant misuses them as well. Whether you choose to formally call it that or not, at that point, they will all be based in the Talbot quadrant.

But I won't go through it all again. It's like pulling teeth.

****** *

Sigs, I appreciate your post. Your decision to allocate all of the CLACs to the Talbot quadrant is your right. And who is to ultimately say that it could not turn out to be the right decision. I personally do not think so. But military advisors differ in their opinions. That is why leaders are surrounded by many. To gain a varied perspective, and in hopes that their strategists will communicate with each other.

I also appreciate that you liken CLAC/LACs to the US Navy aircraft carriers/fighter jets. Interesting. I appreciate that angle.

In this case, I had hopes of igniting a tactical/strategic discussion regarding the use of CLACs. Which I think, at least peripherally, was your intention as well.

An officer can dream.


****** *


When I consider the placement of CLACs, I visualized Sir Thomas and Admiral Givens standing around "the Pit" in the Central War Room analyzing data, forming strategy and making the hard call to move fleets around the theater of warfare. Having CLACs available at Home, not a part of Home fleet, but sitting at home ready to go broadens the strategic and tactical horizon. I also see a need to have a similar force of some determined size sitting at home , separate from Home fleet, available to be diverted. Although, I realize that a lack of sufficient ships does not always make this possible.

But the Admiralty is who benefits from a collection of tactical and strategic data. It is they who have benefit of the big picture. And there are times that the Admiralty needs to make the big call, the hard call, and, time, may be of the essence.

Chapter 23 of The Short Victorious War encompasses that "feel" to me. And underlines the need for tactical and strategic flexibility.

I simply love this Chapter, for sooooooo many reasons.

http://baen.ghostwheel.com/Honorverse/T ... 37__23.htm

Here is how this Armchair Admiral would handle LACs.

Each system would have LAC bases and/or forts to handle pirate suppression, customs, patrolling, system defense and the like. These would not have to move from the system and would be dedicated to system defense.

The wall of battle, based in system or not, ready reserve or tied to the system defense, would have CLACs for organic support duties.

Task forces expected to do raiding, cruisers and destroyers and the like would have CLACs for extra support.

Replacing losses of any of the above would be the job of freighters. Emplacing a LAC base would be by freighter, unless there is the imminent possibility of attack before the base is ready.

Sigs wrote:What I am questioning is the need to station upwards to 40% of your carriers with the one fleet that has integrated support bases. Granted when I asked the question initially I did not actually visualize the area of operation for Home Fleet but stationing 40% or more of your CLACs there seems a little excessive.

I must have missed something.

Where did it say that 40% of the active duty CLACs were assigned to Home Fleet? (And at what timeframe?)


I agree that that does seem an awfully high percentage; I wouldn't have expected more than 20 to maybe 30%. There are pretty powerful fleets in at least Talbott and Trevor's Star; which should have their own powerful CLAC forces.



I guess, right at the end of the Python lump that 40% of the active CLACs might have been in the Manticore system - but only because a larger number of newly launched units were still working up and weren't ready to ship out or be assigned to fleets yet.
Or when Fileretta anticipated invasion showed up they may have pulled many of the units back from Trevor's Star - the combined Home Fleet + 3rd/8th fleet CLACs might amount to 40% of the active classes...
But I can't see perminatly keeping 40% of your CLACs around Manticore - that puts them too far from the fronts. 'When days count Manticore is only weeks away'

Jonathan_S wrote:

Sigs wrote:What I am questioning is the need to station upwards to 40% of your carriers with the one fleet that has integrated support bases. Granted when I asked the question initially I did not actually visualize the area of operation for Home Fleet but stationing 40% or more of your CLACs there seems a little excessive.

I must have missed something.

Where did it say that 40% of the active duty CLACs were assigned to Home Fleet? (And at what timeframe?)

I agree that that does seem an awfully high percentage; I wouldn't have expected more than 20 to maybe 30%. There are pretty powerful fleets in at least Talbott and Trevor's Star; which should have their own powerful CLAC forces.

I guess, right at the end of the Python lump that 40% of the active CLACs might have been in the Manticore system - but only because a larger number of newly launched units were still working up and weren't ready to ship out or be assigned to fleets yet.

Yeah - agreed that 40% of the CLAC's there would be a peculiarly high number in both senses - a bad decision and an unlikely reading of the total text evidence.