CLAC's in Home Fleet

Hi, I'm new to the forum but I have been a fan of the series for a long time now but I have one question that I cannot see the reason behind and that is CLAC's in both Manticore and Grayson's Home Fleet. If Im not mistaking there are roughly 16 CLACs in Manticore and somewhat similar numbers in Grayson's Home Fleet. My question is why would the Carriers be stationed in systems where you can have the LAC's with proper support bases? Unless there is a choke point in the production and manning of LAC's the carriers do little to add to the firepower for both home fleets but could add tremendous firepower in the Talbott Quadrant with those 3200 LAC.


To me, a carrier is or should be a mobile base for fighter aircraft which basically the LACs represent for the series. Carriers would be for offensive operations and in location where the base facilities are non existent. This would be the equivalent of the US stationing their Carriers under the umbrella of an airforce base.


Thank You.

They might be there in order to provide some microjump capability for those 3200 LACs. Or their purpose is to provide Home Fleet with integrated LAC coverage, should it be caught transiting between, say, Sphinx and Gryphon.

Home Fleet is also an ideal place for carriers to work up after being completed or undergoing maintenancce before being rotated to the front lines. They've got all those system defense LACs and wallers to exercise against.

Sigs wrote:To me, a carrier is or should be a mobile base for fighter aircraft which basically the LACs represent for the series.

The very early Torpedo boat tenders are a better analogue for CLACs in my opinion. Particularly as torpedo boats are a better analogue for LACs than aircraft given the relative speeds v. conventional ships.

As to why have CLACs in Home Fleet? Well Home Fleet, or parts of it at least, has been used for operations outside the home system at times and having the ability to send CLACs along with detached portions would seem useful. Plus there's the "carry LACs along when micro-jumping" that's already been mentioned.

I don't have much to add - the high points have been hit already - but note also that those 16 CLAC's in Home Fleet would transport only about 1600 LAC's. That's only a fair chunk of the LAC's in Manticore. Most of the LAC's there are not provided that microjump capability, or are prepping or available as needed for service in other systems. Those reasons for CLAC's in a fleet mostly meant to remain in the same star system need not cover more than a fraction of the LAC's around.

In the Grayson case, the GSN simply isn't in the frame of mind of a single-system navy or of an imperial capital with interests elsewhere. As opposed to the first case, it doesn't expect to do its fighting mostly at home; as opposed to the second, it doesn't really organizationally divide itself between a force permanently to hold Yeltsin's Star and a remainder to do things elsewhere. The whole thing is meant to serve wherever Grayson's enemies can be found, consistent with retaining Yeltsin's Star. But what is doing which part where is flexible.

JeffEngel wrote:I don't have much to add - the high points have been hit already - but note also that those 16 CLAC's in Home Fleet would transport only about 1600 LAC's. That's only a fair chunk of the LAC's in Manticore. Most of the LAC's there are not provided that microjump capability, or are prepping or available as needed for service in other systems. Those reasons for CLAC's in a fleet mostly meant to remain in the same star system need not cover more than a fraction of the LAC's around.

In the Grayson case, the GSN simply isn't in the frame of mind of a single-system navy or of an imperial capital with interests elsewhere. As opposed to the first case, it doesn't expect to do its fighting mostly at home; as opposed to the second, it doesn't really organizationally divide itself between a force permanently to hold Yeltsin's Star and a remainder to do things elsewhere. The whole thing is meant to serve wherever Grayson's enemies can be found, consistent with retaining Yeltsin's Star. But what is doing which part where is flexible.

Hi Sigs, welcome to the bar, the first (virtual) drink is on us. Feel free to ask questions - we don't bite...much.

One other point hinted at but not mentioned by the others is Fleet intregity and training. Fleets units train with each other in cohesive units to optimize the abilities of the group. Sub-fleets from Homefleet routinely are rotated to the front or sent out on specific missions. Having cohesive groups at the squadron level and above allows for units to be instantly ready, not requiring time for the leadership to gel or teams to integrate and learn new tactics or requirements of the commander.

PalmerSperry wrote:

Sigs wrote:To me, a carrier is or should be a mobile base for fighter aircraft which basically the LACs represent for the series.

The very early Torpedo boat tenders are a better analogue for CLACs in my opinion. Particularly as torpedo boats are a better analogue for LACs than aircraft given the relative speeds v. conventional ships.

As to why have CLACs in Home Fleet? Well Home Fleet, or parts of it at least, has been used for operations outside the home system at times and having the ability to send CLACs along with detached portions would seem useful. Plus there's the "carry LACs along when micro-jumping" that's already been mentioned.

Especially since both the GSN and RMN home fleets have areas to defend that are outside the hyper limit - and they might need, or want, to try to pin attackers between their mobile forces and the fixed defenses of the Blackbird Yards or the Junction (respectively).

That means you can't rely on drawing LACs from forts/bases out there; you'd have to bring them along.

Similarly, if the Manticore-A detachment of RMN Home Fleet had to respond to an incursion in Manticore-B they'd be coming in from out-system behind the intruders - again wanting organic LAC ability, rather than needing LACs from in-system to break past the intruders to rendezvous with them.

Sigs wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the forum but I have been a fan of the series for a long time now but I have one question that I cannot see the reason behind and that is CLAC's in both Manticore and Grayson's Home Fleet. If Im not mistaking there are roughly 16 CLACs in Manticore and somewhat similar numbers in Grayson's Home Fleet. My question is why would the Carriers be stationed in systems where you can have the LAC's with proper support bases? Unless there is a choke point in the production and manning of LAC's the carriers do little to add to the firepower for both home fleets but could add tremendous firepower in the Talbott Quadrant with those 3200 LAC.


To me, a carrier is or should be a mobile base for fighter aircraft which basically the LACs represent for the series. Carriers would be for offensive operations and in location where the base facilities are non existent. This would be the equivalent of the US stationing their Carriers under the umbrella of an airforce base.


Thank You.

Welcome Sigs! Old Tilman on the House. Don't worry, Honor Harrington picks up the tab. She's loaded.

The way I see it, the proper support base for the LACs and CLACs would be the Home system.

The LACs do not add much firepower to the Home system? I'm not so sure about that, but I am sure that they add much more tactical and strategic flexibility. And, humbly, LACs are more expendable and you must surely consider that your Home system should be your primary concern. Why deny your Home system any available flexibility? Tactical or strategic? Also, it seems you forget about their defensive role as effective screening elements, missile defense. If someone visits your Home system, they're going to come loaded for bear utilizing what they think is sound strategy. LACs could blunt much of their firepower and can be positioned, repositioned quickly thus negating said strategy. I'd certainly want them around in the Home system if a new ship design comes a-hypering in, to test the waters.

Another point is that US Air force bases are strategically placed for easy and quick access to hand out measured ass-whippings. If the US had access to quick delivery systems like wormholes to other countries from the US, I think those carriers would sit right here at Home, until needs arose. No need to forward deploy if you can just as well quickly deploy where needed.

All of this doesn't mean that a few CLACs aren't needed in the Talbot quadrant.

cthia wrote:

Sigs wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the forum but I have been a fan of the series for a long time now but I have one question that I cannot see the reason behind and that is CLAC's in both Manticore and Grayson's Home Fleet. If Im not mistaking there are roughly 16 CLACs in Manticore and somewhat similar numbers in Grayson's Home Fleet. My question is why would the Carriers be stationed in systems where you can have the LAC's with proper support bases? Unless there is a choke point in the production and manning of LAC's the carriers do little to add to the firepower for both home fleets but could add tremendous firepower in the Talbott Quadrant with those 3200 LAC.


To me, a carrier is or should be a mobile base for fighter aircraft which basically the LACs represent for the series. Carriers would be for offensive operations and in location where the base facilities are non existent. This would be the equivalent of the US stationing their Carriers under the umbrella of an airforce base.


Thank You.

Welcome Sigs! Old Tilman on the House. Don't worry, Honor Harrington picks up the tab. She's loaded.

The way I see it, the proper support base for the LACs and CLACs would be the Home system.

The LACs do not add much firepower to the Home system? I'm not so sure about that, but I am sure that they add much more tactical and strategic flexibility. And, humbly, LACs are more expendable and you must surely consider that your Home system should be your primary concern. Why deny your Home system any available flexibility? Tactical or strategic? Also, it seems you forget about their defensive role as effective screening elements, missile defense. If someone visits your Home system, they're going to come loaded for bear utilizing what they think is sound strategy. LACs could blunt much of their firepower and can be positioned, repositioned quickly thus negating said strategy. I'd certainly want them around in the Home system if a new ship design comes a-hypering in, to test the waters.

Another point is that US Air force bases are strategically placed for easy and quick access to hand out measured ass-whippings. If the US had access to quick delivery systems like wormholes to other countries from the US, I think those carriers would sit right here at Home, until needs arose. No need to forward deploy if you can just as well quickly deploy where needed.

All of this doesn't mean that a few CLACs aren't needed in the Talbot quadrant.

Bolding the bits in Sigs' post that are relevant - he's not questioning the mess of LAC's in Manticore - he's questioning the 16 CLAC's, for LAC's that (as he sees it) are permanently in the Manticore System anyway and can be serviced by bases instead.

cthia wrote:

Sigs wrote:Hi, I'm new to the forum but I have been a fan of the series for a long time now but I have one question that I cannot see the reason behind and that is CLAC's in both Manticore and Grayson's Home Fleet. If Im not mistaking there are roughly 16 CLACs in Manticore and somewhat similar numbers in Grayson's Home Fleet. My question is why would the Carriers be stationed in systems where you can have the LAC's with proper support bases? Unless there is a choke point in the production and manning of LAC's the carriers do little to add to the firepower for both home fleets but could add tremendous firepower in the Talbott Quadrant with those 3200 LAC.


To me, a carrier is or should be a mobile base for fighter aircraft which basically the LACs represent for the series. Carriers would be for offensive operations and in location where the base facilities are non existent. This would be the equivalent of the US stationing their Carriers under the umbrella of an airforce base.


Thank You.

Welcome Sigs! Old Tilman on the House. Don't worry, Honor Harrington picks up the tab. She's loaded.

The way I see it, the proper support base for the LACs and CLACs would be the Home system.

The LACs do not add much firepower to the Home system? I'm not so sure about that, but I am sure that they add much more tactical and strategic flexibility. And, humbly, LACs are more expendable and you must surely consider that your Home system should be your primary concern. Why deny your Home system any available flexibility? Tactical or strategic? Also, it seems you forget about their defensive role as effective screening elements, missile defense. If someone visits your Home system, they're going to come loaded for bear utilizing what they think is sound strategy. LACs could blunt much of their firepower and can be positioned, repositioned quickly thus negating said strategy. I'd certainly want them around in the Home system if a new ship design comes a-hypering in, to test the waters.

Another point is that US Air force bases are strategically placed for easy and quick access to hand out measured ass-whippings. If the US had access to quick delivery systems like wormholes to other countries from the US, I think those carriers would sit right here at Home, until needs arose. No need to forward deploy if you can just as well quickly deploy where needed.

All of this doesn't mean that a few CLACs aren't needed in the Talbot quadrant.

JeffEngel wrote:Bolding the bits in Sigs' post that are relevant - he's not questioning the mess of LAC's in Manticore - he's questioning the 16 CLAC's, for LAC's that (as he sees it) are permanently in the Manticore System anyway and can be serviced by bases instead.

Indeed.

But why send off CLACs to other systems without LACs?

And why send away your CLACs, loaded with LACs, in the first place unless a skirmish arises where they're needed?

Now, therein, I was responding to why the Home system would be a better permanent base for CLACs rather than someplace else like Talbot.

On the heels of that reasoning, why build specialized LAC platforms in the Home system when the CLACs already serve that purpose? And are ready to be deployed on a moment's notice. Retaining both tactical and strategic flexibility. I'd rather build these LAC bases in other systems that need them - having the option.

Carriers are not intended to be used solely as bases. The operative word is mobile bases. You don't want to preordain CLACs to just sit in an area because it is a new stage of conflict. To what end? If you do so, you eliminate that tactical and strategic flexibility of quick redeployment, by essentially turning them into analogies of mobile homes that aren't mobile.

And without the LAC bases in these forward deployed CLAC bases, what happens when LACs are damaged or down checked? Then your CLACs become storage facilities for useless hardware(until it's repaired) back in the Home system anyways. So what's the point?

Beyond training and working up with Home Fleet forces, a reason for stationing CLACs at Manticore would be to provide LAC support for fleets or task forces sent through any of the wormholes for the Junction in responce to needs or problems at the other ends of the wormholes.