Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests

CLACs

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
CLACs
Post by Dafmeister   » Fri May 16, 2014 8:29 am

Dafmeister
Commodore

Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:58 am

I've had a couple of thoughts about CLACs and I wonder what peoples' views are.

1) When you see CLAC on the page, how does your brain pronounce it? Do you read it as 'cee-ell-ay-cee'? I tend to read it as 'clack' or just 'carrier', which I suspect is because, being British, the USN-based hull number prefixes are a bit alien to me. For instance, when I see CA on the page my brain usually insists on saying 'heavy cruiser'. (I also hate the contraction of squadron names into XxxRon - in my head, BatRon 26 is always read '26th Battle Squadron'.)

2) What do people think is going to be the operating pattern for CLACs in the future? We know that there's been consideration of a split into two types, one to operate closely with the wall, carrying a smaller wing than a Minotaur, Hydra or Covington but more heavily armed and armoured and able to rearm the LACs during lulls in combat, and a second, much less well-defended type with a larger wing that drops its LACs off and retreats into hyper, with the 'battle carriers' servicing the LACs while in-system. We also know that LACs are increasingly supplanting destroyers and cruisers in the fleet screening role.

Given the rising importance of LAC, and assuming the split of types happens, would a logical next step be to give each battle squadron its own organic LAC support by incorporating the carriers directly into the battle squadrons? We could see the RMN return to eight-ship battle squadrons (side note: did the GSN ever switch to six-ship squadrons?), but instead of eight podnaughts it would be six podnaughts and a pair of carriers, with a combined wing of 100-150 LACs.
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by SWM   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:03 am

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

1) Interesting question. Since I pronounce LAC as "lack", I pronounce CLAC as "see-lack".
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by Whitecold   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:10 am

Whitecold
Commander

Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:13 am
Location: Switzerland

I'm not a native speaker, but like SWM I'd pronounce LAC as "Lack" and make it a "Cee-Lack" for the carrier.

For the operating pattern I see disadvantages of assigning carriers to battle squadrons. Logistical needs, training regimes are different.
It also fixes the LAC to SD ratio, and I'm not sure if this is advantageous.
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by Yow   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:11 am

Yow
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:32 pm
Location: North Carolina, United States

Dafmeister wrote:I've had a couple of thoughts about CLACs and I wonder what peoples' views are.

1) When you see CLAC on the page, how does your brain pronounce it? Do you read it as 'cee-ell-ay-cee'? I tend to read it as 'clack' or just 'carrier', which I suspect is because, being British, the USN-based hull number prefixes are a bit alien to me. For instance, when I see CA on the page my brain usually insists on saying 'heavy cruiser'. (I also hate the contraction of squadron names into XxxRon - in my head, BatRon 26 is always read '26th Battle Squadron'.)

2) What do people think is going to be the operating pattern for CLACs in the future? We know that there's been consideration of a split into two types, one to operate closely with the wall, carrying a smaller wing than a Minotaur, Hydra or Covington but more heavily armed and armoured and able to rearm the LACs during lulls in combat, and a second, much less well-defended type with a larger wing that drops its LACs off and retreats into hyper, with the 'battle carriers' servicing the LACs while in-system. We also know that LACs are increasingly supplanting destroyers and cruisers in the fleet screening role.

Given the rising importance of LAC, and assuming the split of types happens, would a logical next step be to give each battle squadron its own organic LAC support by incorporating the carriers directly into the battle squadrons? We could see the RMN return to eight-ship battle squadrons (side note: did the GSN ever switch to six-ship squadrons?), but instead of eight podnaughts it would be six podnaughts and a pair of carriers, with a combined wing of 100-150 LACs.


Usually I pronounce acronyms with a break up of the consonants from the consonants around the vowels ex. C - LAC.

Cthia's father ~ "Son, do not cater to the common belief that a person has to earn respect. That is not true. You should give every person respect right from the start. What a person has to earn is your continued respect!"
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by cthia   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:21 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Military entities and government agencies love acronyms. And they like practical acronyms that can be pronounced as a single word. Therefore CLAC would be Clack. IMO

Funny thing though, during informal 'field use' it would be Clack, but in formal requisition orders and reports it would be Carrier Light Attack Craft. It gives them an opportunity to hide the reality of costs within the verbose bullshit.

There's consideration of devloping a different close-in-combat CLAC? That saddens me, because I like the necessary tactic of having to hold back your CLACs. You don't want to strand those many LACs. It just doesn't seem possible to properly armor a LAC for close-in operation. That would be one huge S.O.L! Wouldn't it?

Question:
Can anyone who has played the game tell me if LACs and CLACs are used?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by Lord Skimper   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:22 am

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

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.

The larger CLAC might be better as a modular freighter. One day it can be a CLAC with drop and scoot and the next month a freighter doing the ________ run. Too many one use ships. In the wall of battle yes OK. But outside you just need to haul stuff be it biscuits or missiles or LAC.

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.



As for the smaller ships all you need are Nike and not that many. Add accessory frigates and you need nothing less.
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:25 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8320
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

SWM wrote:1) Interesting question. Since I pronounce LAC as "lack", I pronounce CLAC as "see-lack".

Oddly while I also pronounce LAC as "lack" CLAC becomes "clack" (like "click and clack")


As to the question of how LACs will be used. Obviously they'll continue to be an important part of fleet anti-missile screens. But I wonder how much offensive use we'll see out of them; certainly that aspect had been minimized by the end of the Haven war.


They can rip up a system protected by nothing heavier than CAs, but is it worth diverting what's effectively a capital ship (the CLAC), with screen, to hit such a minor system?

And if you did want to divert that big a ship couldn't an SD(P), with screen and recon drones (for standing off while locating targets), do pretty much the same damage; at lower risk to your personnel?

Similarly for LACs attached to a larger fleet I doubt there's much reason for them to mount offensive sweeps away from the wall. The SD(P)s can do more damage, in less time, over a ludicrous range. So why send LACs out to, for example, engage a CruRon sweeping around the flanks when the ranges are such that your SD(P)s will likely be done with the main battle before the cruisers could get into possition to be even an annoyance (at which time the SD(P)s can swat them with MDMs)


I think the double impact of vastly increased missile ranges, from MDMs, and vastly enhanced recon drone endurance, from Ghostrider micro-fusion, combined to undermine a lot of the roles that fleet attached LACs might have been assumed to take. You don't need to use them for scouting; recon drones do it better. You don't need to use them to deal with secondary targets far from your fleet; your MDMs can reach those too.



I'm sure in the system defense role LACs will still get chances to tangle with lighter units, but I'm having a hard time seeing it happening offensively. (Especially since we've been told that Manticore isn't looking at "escort CLACs" which could lower the 'opportunity cost' of offensive raiding)
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by Crown Loyalist   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:33 am

Crown Loyalist
Commander

Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:52 pm

I also pronounce LAC as "lack" and CLAC as "see-lack".

In terms of their future use, I think it's possible we could see a division of CLACs into the "waller-CLACs" and the "cruiser-CLACs", but I'm not sure it'd really be worth it. What mission would a lesser-armored and defended CLAC with a larger LAC wing be able to carry out that a more heavily-armored and defended CLAC with a smaller LAC wing not be able to?

There seem to be three major missions for CLACs that I can think of off the top of my head:

(1) Fleet point defense: providing countermissile tubes and point defense lasers from the ship's hull, as well as the squadrons of LACs for extending the fleet's defense radius.

(2) Force multiplication: the ability to supplement a squadron of lighter units with LACs that can't pose a direct threat to ships of the wall, but can be a major threat to any formation that doesn't have anything larger than a battlecruiser and has the ability to be in more than one place at the same time

(3) Ferry service: shipping LACs to systems which aren't going to get (either because of lack of ships or because of lack of need) hyper-capable units for their own defense


Would optimizing CLACs for (1) seriously hurt their ability to do (2) or (3)? And are CLACs the best option for (2) or (3) in the long run?


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.
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by cthia   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:39 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

A Q-CLAC? :o

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: CLACs
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri May 16, 2014 9:40 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8320
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

cthia wrote:Question:
Can anyone who has played the game tell me if LACs and CLACs are used?
The Tales of Honor: Secret Fleet mobile game?
No not really. It's set back contemporaneous with On Basilisk Station, so there wouldn't be modern LACs or CLACs. I think one or two of the earliest, weakest, opponents might have been called LACs (I remember at least one was a Frigate) but aside from the name, and the fact that they (and you) were less powerful than in later fights, the combat mechanics are fixed enough that the fight doesn't work any differently.

It's always been a one on one fight. Pick your offensive missile type (if you have any besides the default) and pick which defense to use against each incoming missile wave.
I found it kind of fun, but it's not a Honorverse combat simulator, very simplified formalized combat (no maneuvering beyond 'roll ship')

(Oh and the story clearly doesn't play into the real cannon or Manticore would have been in a fight with the League for blowing up way too many corrupt OFS ships :D)
Top

Return to Honorverse