CLAC's in Home Fleet

JeffEngel wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:It's an interim and expedient method to covering places you really need to cover but for which you do not have the available warships to place two or more (even DDs) in those systems.

Do you mean by "it" here using CLAC's to deliver full wings, trained for CLAC-based operations and in just about one CLAC wing's strength, or using LAC groups at all for system defense?

I ask because LAC's for system defense - along with missile pods - seems to be, and reasonably, a general emerging foundation.

I mean it is a short term measure to put fully funtional WINGS of LACs into systems needing defense. You send the CLACs - with their attached wings plus freighters with ammuntion, spairs and people to run a remote base operation. The question is if this is just running the LACs and then comming home empty to embark a newly formed WING and run it through training. You are trying to cover places that you can't afford to place a warship/warships at. Not that these are less important systems to the Empire, just there aren't enough modern warships available to cover everything needing coverage.

A LAC wing, (an actually trained, practiced and operational wing) is going to rip up most FF/BF light raiders up through a BC unless they show up in some considerable force. Without the CLAC in system, the wing is going to need help with system tactical information but may be able to deploy (from the CLAC and then maintain it) RDs to provide it. Or, some older and much less capable DD - not a modern one, just a tac platform- which has no business taking on something like a SL CA or BC but can function as system tactical.

It is "short term" solution. What you need to get to, once production is possible again, is more modern warships and system level LAC baseing with LACs trained specificaly for system defence. Those are also going to be one of the entry level paths for local system defence force (such as there may be plus "Quadrant Guard") to come into the RMN with ojt and work up from there.

Brigade XO wrote:It is "short term" solution. What you need to get to, once production is possible again, is more modern warships and system level LAC baseing with LACs trained specificaly for system defence. Those are also going to be one of the entry level paths for local system defence force (such as there may be plus "Quadrant Guard") to come into the RMN with ojt and work up from there.

Much would depend on how much training requirements vary for LAC's between CLAC and base operations, and system defense versus fleet operations. If there are pronounced training differences, then yes, it'd be a waste trying to train crews for functions they're not tasked with, or dropping them off where lots of critical, time-consuming training isn't used.

My guess though is that there isn't too much training difference there. The specifics of launching and landing aboard a CLAC haven't - to my recollection, I welcome correction - been made out as especially trying. (At least relative to launching and landing aboard immobile or trivially mobile bases: any LAC would have to be prepared to do one or the other at least.) I have to suspect that the idea that is IS difficult for crews and perhaps demanding for the LAC design goes back to that infernal comparison with aircraft carriers and jets, and that this is a place for it to trip us up.

As to system defense versus fleet ops, the RMN and as far as I know every other navy has used the same ships and crews flexibly for system defense and mobile operations. If there were demands to specialize, they are either negligible or something they've been content to reject. An exception would be Fortress Command, of course, but then, Fortress Command crews were a windfall for the fleet when the Junction forts could be decommissioned, so those crews at least weren't inappropriate for fleet duty.

There would remain a few issues I can see:
1 - Whole CLAC groups may be a poor fit for the basis of system defense: too much, too little, and/or not the best force mix. So clearly they're a short-term fix in that sense. But they may be a first part of the total system defense plan in the long-term - a group of LAC's for the core mobile element; system defense pods for the long-range firepower; a very small amount of hyper-capable small warships for policing out around and past the hyperlimit; and basing/tending facilities for those components.

A LAC group wouldn't be able to get whose bells and whistles filled, but it could still be a good core to start. It's also possible that they're not being dropped off in whole wings, but a CLAC drops a few here, a few there, and moves on.

2 - Why use a CLAC for this? If you're not out for combat delivery and continual high-grade support, it's overkill. Freighters could do the job, and bring along the prefab bases for the LAC's for the short to medium term. Best answer I can give here is that CLAC's were available and maybe, with so much distance between Talbott systems, you would want to go around with CLAC's working as, in effect, self-defending freighters.

JeffEngel wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:It is "short term" solution. What you need to get to, once production is possible again, is more modern warships and system level LAC baseing with LACs trained specificaly for system defence. Those are also going to be one of the entry level paths for local system defence force (such as there may be plus "Quadrant Guard") to come into the RMN with ojt and work up from there.

Much would depend on how much training requirements vary for LAC's between CLAC and base operations, and system defense versus fleet operations. If there are pronounced training differences, then yes, it'd be a waste trying to train crews for functions they're not tasked with, or dropping them off where lots of critical, time-consuming training isn't used.

My guess though is that there isn't too much training difference there. The specifics of launching and landing aboard a CLAC haven't - to my recollection, I welcome correction - been made out as especially trying. (At least relative to launching and landing aboard immobile or trivially mobile bases: any LAC would have to be prepared to do one or the other at least.) I have to suspect that the idea that is IS difficult for crews and perhaps demanding for the LAC design goes back to that infernal comparison with aircraft carriers and jets, and that this is a place for it to trip us up.

As to system defense versus fleet ops, the RMN and as far as I know every other navy has used the same ships and crews flexibly for system defense and mobile operations. If there were demands to specialize, they are either negligible or something they've been content to reject. An exception would be Fortress Command, of course, but then, Fortress Command crews were a windfall for the fleet when the Junction forts could be decommissioned, so those crews at least weren't inappropriate for fleet duty.

There would remain a few issues I can see:
1 - Whole CLAC groups may be a poor fit for the basis of system defense: too much, too little, and/or not the best force mix. So clearly they're a short-term fix in that sense. But they may be a first part of the total system defense plan in the long-term - a group of LAC's for the core mobile element; system defense pods for the long-range firepower; a very small amount of hyper-capable small warships for policing out around and past the hyperlimit; and basing/tending facilities for those components.

A LAC group wouldn't be able to get whose bells and whistles filled, but it could still be a good core to start. It's also possible that they're not being dropped off in whole wings, but a CLAC drops a few here, a few there, and moves on.

2 - Why use a CLAC for this? If you're not out for combat delivery and continual high-grade support, it's overkill. Freighters could do the job, and bring along the prefab bases for the LAC's for the short to medium term. Best answer I can give here is that CLAC's were available and maybe, with so much distance between Talbott systems, you would want to go around with CLAC's working as, in effect, self-defending freighters.

The best reason RFC gave for using a CLAC, was with the Wing being on a CLAC, not spread on several freighters with the LACS stored in airless holds, maintenance could continue on the birds and the crews could use the LACS as simulators to continue to train while in transit, something which would be useful for green units.

Theemile wrote:The best reason RFC gave for using a CLAC, was with the Wing being on a CLAC, not spread on several freighters with the LACS stored in airless holds, maintenance could continue on the birds and the crews could use the LACS as simulators to continue to train while in transit, something which would be useful for green units.

Ahh, thanks. So the CLAC gets used so that, in effect, the preparation time for the LAC's and crews can be spread out into the transit time far more effectively than aboard freighters.

If they yet had the LAC modules for freighters - which would plausibly offer similar simulator and maintenance conditions - freighters with those modules would serve this purpose much more economically. But here, with a CLAC to spare and without one of those "auxiliary CLAC's" ready, it's better than the existing alternatives. I take it none of the Trojan q-ships remain for this sort of thing? They'd make a dandy platform for it.

JeffEngel wrote:

Theemile wrote:The best reason RFC gave for using a CLAC, was with the Wing being on a CLAC, not spread on several freighters with the LACS stored in airless holds, maintenance could continue on the birds and the crews could use the LACS as simulators to continue to train while in transit, something which would be useful for green units.

Ahh, thanks. So the CLAC gets used so that, in effect, the preparation time for the LAC's and crews can be spread out into the transit time far more effectively than aboard freighters.

If they yet had the LAC modules for freighters - which would plausibly offer similar simulator and maintenance conditions - freighters with those modules would serve this purpose much more economically. But here, with a CLAC to spare and without one of those "auxiliary CLAC's" ready, it's better than the existing alternatives. I take it none of the Trojan q-ships remain for this sort of thing? They'd make a dandy platform for it.

They only fitted 12 of the Series 282 LACs, not the far larger Shrike/Ferret/Katana series with their specialized front dock mount. The AMCs were written off the books in ~1920.

That is not to say they could not be retrofitted for the Shrikes, but each only held 12 LACS and had a crew of ~2000. As LAC bases, they were kind of inefficient, though well armed (but their defense sucked!).

Theemile wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Ahh, thanks. So the CLAC gets used so that, in effect, the preparation time for the LAC's and crews can be spread out into the transit time far more effectively than aboard freighters.

If they yet had the LAC modules for freighters - which would plausibly offer similar simulator and maintenance conditions - freighters with those modules would serve this purpose much more economically. But here, with a CLAC to spare and without one of those "auxiliary CLAC's" ready, it's better than the existing alternatives. I take it none of the Trojan q-ships remain for this sort of thing? They'd make a dandy platform for it.

They only fitted 12 of the Series 282 LACs, not the far larger Shrike/Ferret/Katana series with their specialized front dock mount. The AMCs were written off the books in ~1920.

That is not to say they could not be retrofitted for the Shrikes, but each only held 12 LACS and had a crew of ~2000. As LAC bases, they were kind of inefficient, though well armed (but their defense sucked!).

I think Jeff was referring to RFC's offhand comment that the Manties might build a module that could fit into the access hatch of a normal merchant's cargo hold to let it carry and deploy a few LACs for convoy defense. (Not resurrecting the old Wayfarer AMC concept).

But those would be even less capable of supporting training than the Wayfarer-class would have been. And only carry a few LACs, not the entire wing you could host and train on a CLAC.


That said, I'm not sure how often a few extra weeks of in-transit simulation training would justify diverting a CLAC to ship LACs to a base.
Though if the base is being newely established the CLAC could be assigned to do triple duty and transport, training facility, and part (or all) of the system defense while the base is completed. But if the base is already built I suspect a freighter would be the normal way of delivering its LAC contingent.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:They only fitted 12 of the Series 282 LACs, not the far larger Shrike/Ferret/Katana series with their specialized front dock mount. The AMCs were written off the books in ~1920.

That is not to say they could not be retrofitted for the Shrikes, but each only held 12 LACS and had a crew of ~2000. As LAC bases, they were kind of inefficient, though well armed (but their defense sucked!).

I think Jeff was referring to RFC's offhand comment that the Manties might build a module that could fit into the access hatch of a normal merchant's cargo hold to let it carry and deploy a few LACs for convoy defense. (Not resurrecting the old Wayfarer AMC concept).

But those would be even less capable of supporting training than the Wayfarer-class would have been. And only carry a few LACs, not the entire wing you could host and train on a CLAC.

But Jeff did talk about the Wayfarers. TheEmile was responding to JeffEngel's question about the Trojan Q-ships--i.e. the Wayfarers. Jeff asked whether they were still around, and TheEmile answered.

SWM wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I think Jeff was referring to RFC's offhand comment that the Manties might build a module that could fit into the access hatch of a normal merchant's cargo hold to let it carry and deploy a few LACs for convoy defense. (Not resurrecting the old Wayfarer AMC concept).

But those would be even less capable of supporting training than the Wayfarer-class would have been. And only carry a few LACs, not the entire wing you could host and train on a CLAC.

But Jeff did talk about the Wayfarers. TheEmile was responding to JeffEngel's question about the Trojan Q-ships--i.e. the Wayfarers. Jeff asked whether they were still around, and TheEmile answered.

Oops - somehow my eyes skipped right over his last two sentences; where he mentioned them.

Jonathan_S wrote:I think Jeff was referring to RFC's offhand comment that the Manties might build a module that could fit into the access hatch of a normal merchant's cargo hold to let it carry and deploy a few LACs for convoy defense. (Not resurrecting the old Wayfarer AMC concept).

But those would be even less capable of supporting training than the Wayfarer-class would have been. And only carry a few LACs, not the entire wing you could host and train on a CLAC.


That said, I'm not sure how often a few extra weeks of in-transit simulation training would justify diverting a CLAC to ship LACs to a base.
Though if the base is being newely established the CLAC could be assigned to do triple duty and transport, training facility, and part (or all) of the system defense while the base is completed. But if the base is already built I suspect a freighter would be the normal way of delivering its LAC contingent.

(ignoring the Trojan Faux Pas )

Those were RFC's comments not mine, but I do agree with you. Personally, If the training period is so important to LAC formations, I'm suprised that a "Fleet" CLAC on a 8.5 Mton Merchie hull has not been built between the needs of setting up LAC bases and supporting the fleet trains.

We know that literally 10s of thousands of Shrike variant LACs have been produced and emplaced in the last ~8 years - using "Attack" CLACs to move all their primary formations (ignoring spares in freighters) just seems wasteful.

Theemile wrote:Those were RFC's comments not mine, but I do agree with you. Personally, If the training period is so important to LAC formations, I'm suprised that a "Fleet" CLAC on a 8.5 Mton Merchie hull has not been built between the needs of setting up LAC bases and supporting the fleet trains.

We know that literally 10s of thousands of Shrike variant LACs have been produced and emplaced in the last ~8 years - using "Attack" CLACs to move all their primary formations (ignoring spares in freighters) just seems wasteful.

I'm sure most of those have been sent out on freighters. But it's entirely possible that, if you had CLAC's available, if you had a real use for that additional prep time that a CLAC could provide and available freighters could not, and if you were sending them out where combat capability off the bat may be relevant - then a CLAC for the purpose may be worth it.

That's a lot of if's, enough for us to figure this isn't a typical use of a CLAC unless we've got some compelling reason to suppose it is. But it's also a series of conditions that's not so outlandish that it's a scandal if a CLAC ever draws glorified freighter duty.

For fleet train and distant base support, I suspect military-spec freighters with LAC modules, or conversions for comparable capabilities, are likelier than a 8.5 Mton platform. It'd be too often too large for the mission. But such an SD-range CLAC for providing a group of wallers their regular, more or less dedicated LAC screen and participate in the wall's close-in defense - that's likely to be coming along soon. It's just different every way but size.

And yes, the Trojan suggestion was just some use for them if they were still available, nothing to re-build such things just to do. "Light Bulb Wayfarers" if you will. LAC module freighters would have been more the planned solution moving forward, though a kind of mil-spec freighter-based "rear area CLAC" would shade into that too and could do good service. The Trojan conversions could just possibly be a starting point for those. Maybe they'd be better than a blank slate, maybe not.