CLACs

Crown Loyalist wrote:There is also the question of whether you would want to replace CLAC storage space with extra armor and point defense lasers. Which provides more defense capability to a wall: the extended reach of the LACs, or the added in close-support of the carrier? I suspect that "optimizing the CLAC for the wall" doesn't involve turning the CLAC into a superdreadnought that can deploy LACs, it involves getting the CLAC out of the way while the LACs do all the work.

Well one problem with the current method of dropping all your LACs at the hyper wall and scooting the CLACs clear is that the LACs only have a limited number of CMs aboard and once they've shot dry your fleet's missile defense is seriously weakened.

I'd assumed that the "waller CLACs" were primarily to act as a mobile resupply point where LACs could quickly cycle back to restock on CMs. So the current lightly armored CLACs would still drop their charges and retreat while the "waller CLACs" would launch their (fewer) LACs and accompany the fleet to resupply all the LACs as needed.


It's too expensive and manpower intensive to switch entirely to armored CLACs, but when used in conjunction with the higher capacity unarmored ones they're a bit of a "force multiplier"

Jonathan_S wrote:Well one problem with the current method of dropping all your LACs at the hyper wall and scooting the CLACs clear is that the LACs only have a limited number of CMs aboard and once they've shot dry your fleet's missile defense is seriously weakened.

I'd assumed that the "waller CLACs" were primarily to act as a mobile resupply point where LACs could quickly cycle back to restock on CMs. So the current lightly armored CLACs would still drop their charges and retreat while the "waller CLACs" would launch their (fewer) LACs and accompany the fleet to resupply all the LACs as needed.


It's too expensive and manpower intensive to switch entirely to armored CLACs, but when used in conjunction with the higher capacity unarmored ones they're a bit of a "force multiplier"

I agree that it's a big problem that LACs tend to flush all their missiles quickly, which means their use as a defensive tool expires quickly. That's certainly true, and it will become a bigger and bigger problem with using LACs as the chief supplement of wall missile defense as the ability to absorb massive missile salvos increases.

So, yes, assuming the CLACs stay with the wall, that means the LACs could in theory come home, re-dock, re-load, and be sent back out again. But we don't know how hard it is to conduct a docking maneuver in a combat situation. There are a few questions I need to know the answers to because I can judge whether this would be feasible:

(1) Do carriers need to drop their sidewalls to allow LACs to dock or launch? If so, you're putting a CLAC in a terribly vulnerable position if you're allowing it to stay in the wall for the purposes of LAC resupply.

(2) How long does it take to reload a LAC's missiles from a carrier? 5 minutes? 10? If it can be done quickly, then you get get the LAC back out into the field quickly, but you're still constrained by the need for the LAC to return to the ship, dock, then return to its advance position.

You know, thinking about it from this perspective, in the long-run LACs may simply not be the best tool for missile defense. They just don't have the staying power for a slugging match between all-up SD(P) squadrons.

Disclaimer:
I have a habit of carrying along present day baggage, but it's all I have to draw on...

Having said that. I think of CLACs as modern day aircraft carriers. And the weaponry of aircraft carriers are in a defensive capacity...anti-aircraft weapons. Following too close to the action is going to expose them to attack, plus...make it impossible for emergency recover of damaged LACs. It recalls to mind many sea-ditched WWII aircraft because the carrier was burning. You don't want to give the enemy a chance to kill two birds with one stone. With the use of that kind of CLAC it seems imminent of evolving strategy and tactics to trap CLACs.

And to me it sounds like an oxymoron...a truly offensive carrier??? Beyond the offensive capability of what it carries.

With the GA's stealth technology. Is it possible to inconspicuously deploy, from CLAC's, automated space-pods of LAC missiles with location sent to LACs? Essentially these stealthy LAC refill pods will be like immobile holes in space.

Jonathan_S wrote:Well one problem with the current method of dropping all your LACs at the hyper wall and scooting the CLACs clear is that the LACs only have a limited number of CMs aboard and once they've shot dry your fleet's missile defense is seriously weakened.

...

It's too expensive and manpower intensive to switch entirely to armored CLACs, but when used in conjunction with the higher capacity unarmored ones they're a bit of a "force multiplier"

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just increase a LACs point defense laser clusters? If CMs were a LAC's only contribution to missile defense, you might have a point regarding magazine capacity, but a LAC's PDL clusters are probably more useful than their CMs (since they fire faster.)

1) Like most, I pronounce a LAC as "lack" and CLAC as "see-lack"

2) I forsee 3 jobs for CLACs in the future. While future construction will be the bulk "Fleet" carriers and the Hardened "Assault" carrier types David told us about, there will still be ~100 Minotaur/Hydra types in RMN service. This will probably fall into a middle "Patrol" or "Attack" type. These original types will be tasked in "lone" missions, either patrolling a region, ferrying replacement LACs to a forward region or a doing "stealth" LAC insertions into an enemy or disputed system.

They have the ability to look after themselves without overly compromising their ability to capture lACs - and I can see them being a little more aggressivly used than the Fleet type, but not in the middle of fleet combat situations where the assault type is destined when the new types are available.

Where does RFC talk about the different CLAC class possibilities?

Edit: nevermind, it's here: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/307/1

Weird Harold wrote:Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just increase a LACs point defense laser clusters? If CMs were a LAC's only contribution to missile defense, you might have a point regarding magazine capacity, but a LAC's PDL clusters are probably more useful than their CMs (since they fire faster.)

PDLC are only effective if the missiles are coming really close. Which means that a trivial course change by the missiles will put the LACS out of range if you are using a layered defense.

Lord Skimper wrote:See-lack.

It might be better to make one sided armoured smaller or skinnier CLAC. That way it can be fully armoured with lots of defensive fire pointed to the enemy and the hatches at the back/other side. One could have different sized lac or frigates serviced that way. Skinnier being 150 or so metres. Not much smaller but they need be faster too.

There's no point in that--you wouldn't have the sidewall toward the enemy. You would have the wedge toward the enemy. Enemy missiles could come around either side, so there's no point in protecting one broadside more than the other.

The wall of battle CLAC need faster compensators at least as fast as the pod layers but perhaps faster yet. Although a fore mounted 6 LAC dock on a new pod layer could solve the smaller wall of battle CLAC. Bucklers remove the need for most of the hammerhead armour.

CLACs already have the same compensators that the podlayers do, so they already have the same speed.

And David has already nixed the idea of a combined CLAC/podlayer.

Crown Loyalist wrote:Where does RFC talk about the different CLAC class possibilities?

Edit: nevermind, it's here: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/307/1

This is a gem of a Pearl.
Thanks.

Seems there very well might be specialized CLACS. Cool. Perhaps Alice Truman would get a chance to play a more active role in battles. I always thought she was a very underrated tactical genius.

Within the Pearls, this section is very interesting. It reminds me of the Battle of Midway, when the Japanese made an error of wasting too much time rearming their planes with torpedos and/or bombs. And got caught needing the opposite of which they had, which led to another rearming.

In addition to all of the above, the Manties are considering a “modular” LAC approach in which the same basic hull would be used to support a “plug in” weapons module which could be either a Shrike’s graser (for anti-shipping strikes) or a Ferret/Katana’s missile system (for space superiority/missile-defense operations). At the moment, it looks to BuShips as if the change would drive up basic LAC tonnage slightly, but it would give the RMN greatly enhanced tactical flexibility (especially combined with specialized forward support ships which could carry spare modules and change them out before a given engagement) and probably actually simplify and speed construction times. The question at this time is how much it would increase tonnage and how that would impact CLAC design and operations.