What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

Hierarchy


All what you said is true of course, but you've just stated some of the logistical problems of managing and operating a SDF. I'm talking about those poor systems who are a far cry away from owning an SDF. But surely not so poor that they can't own what I presume should be the nominal requirements to keep you and yours safe, on planet. A fleet of atmospheric assault vehicles should be nominal. Especially when it is so easy to acquire heavy artilery to take out tanks and fortified positions, like in SoV. Heck, although I'm due a reread, Honor's inner circle was able to commandeer air breathers and assault military installations on a military owned and operated prison planet in . . . was that In Enemy Hands?

I admire and cheered for the quaint family of mountaineers who rebelled against the system and stuck it to the man in SoV, but I was gobsmacked how relatively easy it is for certain elements on-planet to rise up against the government and send it crying for help out-of-system. Needing assistance against a fleet of space born warships is one thing. But not being able to take care of business down below "in your own backyard" is inexcusable, IMO.

It simply seems like a planet or its valuables can be so easily commandeered or governments toppled by seemingly minimal arsenals.

All of this brings me right back to the obviously difficult objective question I posed in another thread as well as this one. What weight of metal comprises a Fleet in the Honorverse - right down to a System Defense Force? Perhaps then it would be easier to visualize a planet based force less than a SDF.

Naval fleet

Fleets are usually a fairly large group of ships, similar to an Army or a Division. One example is that the 6th Fleet of the US Navy is all of the US Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea. Squadrons are smaller groups of ships, usually of the same type. A Task Force is a group of two or more ships put together for a specific mission. A Carrier Task Force would have an Aircraft Carrier and support and screen ships. It might even have an attach sub or two assigned.

A fleet of warships is usually called a fleet, and it includes many auxiliary vessels as well as warships to keep the fleet supplied and operational. Over the centuries smaller units of warships have been known by various names; task force, task group, flotilla, squadron, armada, and others.


A fleet or naval fleet is a large formation of warships, which is controlled by one leader and the largest formation in any navy. A fleet at sea is the direct equivalent of an army on land.

Purpose

Fleets are usually, but not necessarily, permanent formations and are generally assigned to a particular ocean or sea. Most fleets are named after that ocean or sea, but the convention in the United States Navy is to use numbers.

A fleet is normally commanded by an admiral, who is often also a commander in chief, but many fleets have been or are commanded by vice admirals or even rear admirals. Most fleets are divided into several squadrons, each under a subordinate admiral. Those squadrons in turn are often divided into divisions. In the age of sail, fleets were divided into van, centre and rear squadrons, named after each squadron’s place in the line of battle. In more modern times, the squadrons are typically composed of homogeneous groups of the same class of warship, such as battleships or cruisers.

Since many smaller navies contain a single fleet, the term the fleet is often synonymous with the navy.

Multinational fleets are not uncommon in naval history. For example, several nations made up the Holy League fleet at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. In modern times, NATO has formed standing combined fleets and operations from several national navies such as Operation Active Endeavour.

The modern fleet

Modern fleets combine surface warships, submarines, support ships and ship-based aircraft to conduct naval operations at sea. Generally understood to be the blue water, or oceanic, green water or littoral versus the brown water or coastal/riverine forces. The fleets of larger navies are usually divided into smaller numbered or named fleets based on geographic operating areas or on administrative groupings of same type ships.

Modern fleets are usually administrative units. Typically, individual task forces are formed to conduct specific operations.

Perhaps in the Honorverse it would be more appropriate to relegate the designation surface combatant or surface ship to airbreathers down on the planet. And as double duty, any detachable space to ground ship.

Hierarchy

• Fleet - Possibly divided into several squadrons.
• Spanish equivalent of fleet.
• Task force
• Division
• Squadron
• Flotilla
• Screening Elements

Ship Types

Naval warfare

US Carrier Group Tactics - Includes Electronic Warfare (EW).

What are the differences between a Battleship and a Destroyer?

stewart wrote:

cthia wrote:BUT! IS a System Defense Force adequate protection for the denizens down on the planet?

'Cough'

Granted, it's a moot point where the SLN is concerned where they will NOT hesitate to Kew into Compliance. But for an outfit like the RMN who plays by certain oftentimes insurmountable political concerns???

-------------------

How large a SDF is will be dependent on (1) resources of the planet/system , (2) the estimated credible threats, (3) how much of those resources a planetary society is willing to spend and (4) if there is a nearby system that can act as a local Cop on the Beat.

In HAE -- Marsh/Sidemore likely "thought" they were OK until Warnecke and his squadron of CA's and DD's overwhelmed whatever Customs Patrol and Coast Guard they had. In Shadow of Sag -- several planets/systems noted a "navy" of LAC's. Noted as inadequate for known threats but all that was available.

-- Stewart

When capturing a system, there is usually lots of ships and lives lost. One way to recover some of the losses is to raid the system - in orbit and on planet. In the case of the Peeps capturing Candor and Minette, they knew they wouldn't be able to hold the systems, but I'm sure they had plenty of time to confiscate precious metals in orbit and down on planet and whatever else their pilfering minds could think of.

There must be a panoply of precious metals in the Honorverse, already mined and stored. Get a load of the cost of Californium. It'd be crazy not to run off with a system's Californium. Or whatever the most expensive metal in the Honorverse is.


The World's 10 Most Expensive Metals

Many people mistakenly believe that the most expensive metals in the world – it’s platinum, gold and silver. But in fact there are other dense chemical elements that are hundreds of times greater than their cost. The highest bidder is determined by such factors as the rare, difficult and properties. Let’s have a look most expensive metals in the world.


10. Ruthenium - Ruthenium is actively used in jewelry, electronics and chemical industries. It is used for manufacture of electrodes, wires, contacts, etc. With the element prepared as chlorine and alkali. The cost of 1 gram of metal is estimated today at 1.5 US dollar.

9. Rhenium - Since the opening element (1925) it is actively used in the chemical and electronic industries. From it are made alloys for jet nozzles, turbine blades, rocket technology, etc. This is the only refractory element which does not form carbides. On average, 1 gram rhenium is estimated at $ 10.

8. Scandium - Scandium is one of the most expensive metals in the world. Element silver with a yellow tint was first discovered in 1879, thanks to the Swedish scientist Lars Nilsson, who named it in honor of Scandinavia. The most valuable isotope used in innovative technologies in the construction of rockets, robots, lasers, satellites and aircraft. From alloys with the sports equipment made element. The biggest deposits of scandium are concentrated in Madagascar and Norway. One gram of metal valued at $ 12.

7. Iridium - Iridium takes the seventh place among the most expensive metals in the world. Isotope silver-white color resembles tin. It is very heavy, solid and yet fragile. Iridium is most commonly used for the manufacture of alloys with other metals, such as platinum. Ornaments of this alloy is characterized by high wear resistance and are very beautiful. Iridium is widely used in the manufacture of electrical contacts, the precise chemical balance and surgical instruments. On the metal world I have learned through the British chemist S. Tennatu which it opened in 1803. Currently, it spent about a ton of iridium annually. Its supplier is in South Africa – this is where concentrated field. One gram of the isotope is estimated at about $ 20.

6. Paladium - Palladium – one of the most expensive metals in the world, which belongs to the platinum group. Silvery-white isotope differs fusible and plasticity. It lends itself perfectly polished, it does not lose luster over time and resistant to corrosion. It was opened by the British chemist William Wollaston in 1803. The scientist decided to separate the unknown metal from the platinum ore, which arrived from South Africa. Now palladium is widely used for making jewelry of different price categories. Also, it is widely used in medicine and industry, thanks to its anti-corrosive properties. One gram of metal is about 30 US dollars.

5. Gold - Gold has settled in the middle of dozens of the most expensive metals in the world. In nature, the noble isotope found only in pure form. Due to its ductility and durability of the gold is considered one of the most popular metal used for the production of jewelry. In addition, it is used in the electronics industry and dentistry. Some of the most expensive investment coins minted from gold. The cost of 1 gram of the noble element is estimated at US $ 45.

4. Platinum - Platinum takes the fourth place among the most expensive and precious metals in the world. It is a natural fusion of six isotopes, which has silvery-white hue. Platinum is one of the rarest elements. Its deposits are found mainly in Russia, USA, China, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Platinum is not only used for the production of jewelry, but also for medical and industrial purposes. Earlier, the metal silver ranked as low quality and often used to fake articles of silver and gold. To date, 1 gram of platinum on average is estimated at $ 70.

3. Rhodium - Rhodium opens three most expensive metals in the world. Since it has a high light reflectivity, it is used in the manufacture of glass and mirrors. In addition, it is used for the production and processing of jewelry. Rhodium gives the product luster and does not allow them to darken, due to its high resistance to oxidation. One gram of the isotope is estimated today at 225 dollars.

2. Osmium-187 - Osmium-187 takes the second place among the most expensive metals in the world. Its production is associated with certain difficulties and requires time of about 9 months. One of the rarest isotopes in the form of a black fine-grained powder is the most dense substance in the world. But despite this, the most valuable element is fragile. For scientific research osmium-187 is critical, since it is used as a catalyst in chemical reactions, as well as for the production of measuring devices with high precision. The cost of 1 gram of osmium-187 is 200 thousand US dollars.

1. Californium CA-252 - Topping the list of the most expensive metals in the world californium-252. The cost of 1 gram of California is estimated at 6.5 million dollars. Annually about 30-40 micro-grams element that justifies its inflated price. Only 8 grams of californium-252 was produced by Total. It was first produced in one of the University of California in 1951.

Now it creates in the laboratory with the help of nuclear reactors in the United States and Russia. The uniqueness of the isotope is its emitted energy, which power can be compared with the average nuclear reactor. It is actively used in medicine and nuclear physics. By using californium-252 treatment produced malignant tumors. Metal is able to detect damage to the reactors and the construction of the aircraft, which are not able to detect X-rays. In addition, the most expensive item used for the discovery of new oil fields, gold and silver.

cthia wrote:When capturing a system, there is usually lots of ships and lives lost. One way to recover some of the losses is to raid the system - in orbit and on planet. In the case of the Peeps capturing Candor and Minette, they knew they wouldn't be able to hold the systems, but I'm sure they had plenty of time to confiscate precious metals in orbit and down on planet and whatever else their pilfering minds could think of.

With the exception of Californium, which is laboratory created, what will be the Honorverse price for all these metals once we have widespread asteroid mining? They may be rare on Earth, but not necessarily in the Solar System. Consider iridium, its comparative abundance at a point in the layers of the geologic stratum triggered the idea of a massive meteor strike. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

Iridium is a very rare element in the Earth's crust, but is found in anomalously high concentrations (around 100 times greater than normal) in a thin worldwide layer of clay marking the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods, 66 million years ago.

If just one meteor can inject that much iridium into the environment, then how much more is up there waiting to be exploited? The idea that in a era when asteroid mining is common, then many more materials will be commonplace causes David Drake to write in his books about normal weapons shooting osmium bullets and having iridium barrels.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:When capturing a system, there is usually lots of ships and lives lost. One way to recover some of the losses is to raid the system - in orbit and on planet. In the case of the Peeps capturing Candor and Minette, they knew they wouldn't be able to hold the systems, but I'm sure they had plenty of time to confiscate precious metals in orbit and down on planet and whatever else their pilfering minds could think of.

With the exception of Californium, which is laboratory created, what will be the Honorverse price for all these metals once we have widespread asteroid mining? They may be rare on Earth, but not necessarily in the Solar System. Consider iridium, its comparative abundance at a point in the layers of the geologic stratum triggered the idea of a massive meteor strike. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

Iridium is a very rare element in the Earth's crust, but is found in anomalously high concentrations (around 100 times greater than normal) in a thin worldwide layer of clay marking the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods, 66 million years ago.

If just one meteor can inject that much iridium into the environment, then how much more is up there waiting to be exploited? The idea that in a era when asteroid mining is common, then many more materials will be commonplace causes David Drake to write in his books about normal weapons shooting osmium bullets and having iridium barrels.

You certainly could be correct. I, OTOH, don't think the BIG BANG consistently distributed materials evenly about the universe or galaxies in a convenient or considerate fashion.

I would also tend to think there are many materials that man has figured out how to make that is as expensive and rare as Californium.

We already know there are metals, or materials, out there we are not aware of courtesy of our UFO crashes.

Please take any lack of faith in God and UFO's to Free Range please.

E.g., one such man made material is handwavium. It takes some authors years to make it in the laboratory, even though it only requires a stoked imagination and a word processor.

tlb wrote:If just one meteor can inject that much iridium into the environment, then how much more is up there waiting to be exploited? The idea that in a era when asteroid mining is common, then many more materials will be commonplace causes David Drake to write in his books about normal weapons shooting osmium bullets and having iridium barrels.

In a younger star system, material "recently" in the solar fires would contain short lived radioactive isotopes which would be abundant. A young Earth had plutonium naturally, which since has decayed to down it's decay chain to lighter radioactives and inert elements.

So if such isotopes are required, mining in a system which still has an acreation disk might be a cheaper solution.

Theemile wrote:

tlb wrote:If just one meteor can inject that much iridium into the environment, then how much more is up there waiting to be exploited? The idea that in a era when asteroid mining is common, then many more materials will be commonplace causes David Drake to write in his books about normal weapons shooting osmium bullets and having iridium barrels.

In a younger star system, material "recently" in the solar fires would contain short lived radioactive isotopes which would be abundant. A young Earth had plutonium naturally, which since has decayed to down it's decay chain to lighter radioactives and inert elements.

So if such isotopes are required, mining in a system which still has an acreation disk might be a cheaper solution.

Which is in keeping with my sentiment that some systems may have asteroid belts that are veritable "Gold Mines" of rare material resource. I always imagined some really advanced technology to be the result of new materials with "Eureka-like" properties.

tlb wrote:If just one meteor can inject that much iridium into the environment, then how much more is up there waiting to be exploited? The idea that in a era when asteroid mining is common, then many more materials will be commonplace causes David Drake to write in his books about normal weapons shooting osmium bullets and having iridium barrels.

Theemile wrote:In a younger star system, material "recently" in the solar fires would contain short lived radioactive isotopes which would be abundant. A young Earth had plutonium naturally, which since has decayed to down it's decay chain to lighter radioactives and inert elements.

So if such isotopes are required, mining in a system which still has an acreation disk might be a cheaper solution.

cthia wrote:Which is in keeping with my sentiment that some systems may have asteroid belts that are veritable "Gold Mines" of rare material resource. I always imagined some really advanced technology to be the result of new materials with "Eureka-like" properties.

Certainly there is no reason to expect elements to be spread evenly, so I am sure you are right that some systems may have asteroid belts that are rich in exotic materials.
It is my understanding that the current theory of element creation expects that the big bang may have distributed mostly hydrogen, helium and lithium. As stars age they cook up the heavier elements ending with iron. When they explode the heaviest elements are produced and all are distributed to the galaxy. So the solar flares of young stars may not have the short lived radioactives that you expect. Better to search systems in the neighborhood of recent supernovas or send mining ships closer to the galaxy core.

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:If just one meteor can inject that much iridium into the environment, then how much more is up there waiting to be exploited? The idea that in a era when asteroid mining is common, then many more materials will be commonplace causes David Drake to write in his books about normal weapons shooting osmium bullets and having iridium barrels.

Theemile wrote:In a younger star system, material "recently" in the solar fires would contain short lived radioactive isotopes which would be abundant. A young Earth had plutonium naturally, which since has decayed to down it's decay chain to lighter radioactives and inert elements.

So if such isotopes are required, mining in a system which still has an acreation disk might be a cheaper solution.

cthia wrote:Which is in keeping with my sentiment that some systems may have asteroid belts that are veritable "Gold Mines" of rare material resource. I always imagined some really advanced technology to be the result of new materials with "Eureka-like" properties.

Certainly there is no reason to expect elements to be spread evenly, so I am sure you are right that some systems may have asteroid belts that are rich in exotic materials.
It is my understanding that the current theory of element creation expects that the big bang may have distributed mostly hydrogen, helium and lithium. As stars age they cook up the heavier elements ending with iron. When they explode the heaviest elements are produced and all are distributed to the galaxy. So the solar flares of young stars may not have the short lived radioactives that you expect. Better to search systems in the neighborhood of recent supernovas or send mining ships closer to the galaxy core.

Part of the current solar formation theory is that after a pre-stellar mass compresses and fusion starts, the heavier material from the fusion start is ejected and forms the accreation disk, which then forms planets. New radioactives are created in the solar fires at this point and become part of the new planet's makeup - and decay over time, hence what we have seen in the Earth's geologic record. Those materials are again thrown off by old stars as they die and the fusion processes fail. SO I guess such interest should be focused on both old and young stars.

Theemile wrote:In a younger star system, material "recently" in the solar fires would contain short lived radioactive isotopes which would be abundant. A young Earth had plutonium naturally, which since has decayed to down it's decay chain to lighter radioactives and inert elements.

So if such isotopes are required, mining in a system which still has an acreation disk might be a cheaper solution.

cthia wrote:Which is in keeping with my sentiment that some systems may have asteroid belts that are veritable "Gold Mines" of rare material resource. I always imagined some really advanced technology to be the result of new materials with "Eureka-like" properties.

tlb wrote:Certainly there is no reason to expect elements to be spread evenly, so I am sure you are right that some systems may have asteroid belts that are rich in exotic materials.
It is my understanding that the current theory of element creation expects that the big bang may have distributed mostly hydrogen, helium and lithium. As stars age they cook up the heavier elements ending with iron. When they explode the heaviest elements are produced and all are distributed to the galaxy. So the solar flares of young stars may not have the short lived radioactives that you expect. Better to search systems in the neighborhood of recent supernovas or send mining ships closer to the galaxy core.

Theemile wrote:Part of the current solar formation theory is that after a pre-stellar mass compresses and fusion starts, the heavier material from the fusion start is ejected and forms the accreation disk, which then forms planets. New radioactives are created in the solar fires at this point and become part of the new planet's makeup - and decay over time, hence what we have seen in the Earth's geologic record. Those materials are again thrown off by old stars as they die and the fusion processes fail. SO I guess such interest should be focused on both old and young stars.

Thank you for the correction of my inadequate understanding.