Insanity: Screening elements in the HV

tlb wrote:I have said before that there has to be some method of anti-recoil built into each and every pod. Consider a standard missile pod, that uses a mass driver to throw each missile out sufficiently before its wedge comes on. The total mass of the missiles probably is greater than the mass of the empty pod; so if the pod can recoil, then it might be going faster backwards after the last missile, than the speed at which the first missile was shoved forward. That is simply not what the books would say. A simple solution is if the mass driver is non-Newtonian; we already accept tractor and repeller beams.

True, pod-based control links and canisters might be viable, then. Would be interesting to see what they come up with.

Jonathan_S wrote:<snip>



On the other hand at Galton in TEIF the MAlign had some oversized multidrive Lorica CMs, paired with a new Scutum CM control relay -- "Scutum was designed to coordinate the fire of tightly grouped pods armed with multidrive counter-missiles."

The Lorica CMs were "a counter-missile much too large to be carried in shipboard magazines. Its designers had stuffed it into missile pods"

And then we're told "that multidrive counter-missile of theirs looks like a more fully developed version of the one Admiral Foraker and Admiral Hemphill are working on at Bolthole. The counter-missile pods were an unexpected touch, though"

So it does sound like Bolthole must have felt the threat environment causes the balance to tip towards accepting those tradeoffs to get an even deeper CM intercept basket; and has been working on a dual- or multi-drive CM. Though it doesn't seem like they were anticipating requiring pod launching of it.
Still, I'd be fairly shocked if they can get one small enough that the current Mk31/Viper launch tubes can handle it.

(So existing Grand Alliance ships might be limited to firing it in canisters or sabots from their normal missile tubes, if any -- oops Invictus. At least unless/until they get a substantial refit. However Bolthole might have been far enough along on the MDCM to at least be able to reserve the necessary upgrade space and wider armor openings for an easier refit to larger MDCM launcher on the new Alliance common SD(P) class(s). The ones being built in Bolthole and finished by Beowulf; which we haven't seen 'on screen' yet.)

I can honestly see older SD(P)s being retrofitted to be more CM-heavy in their control links, since they cant handle Keyhole II and Apollo. Maybe they would get a towed/modified version of Keyhole I in order to help direct CMs? I can definitely see the canister pods being used for MDCMs, though.

Zendikarofthewest wrote:Even being generous and giving them ~48 SDs, that is still not much - and may even be a downside. Non-MDM and Non-Apollo ships are nigh-useless against ships that have them, and maintaining them is likely to be a fairly decent strain on their budget. Its infeasible to convert them to SD(P)s or spider drive ships, so they will be effectively dead weight - really only good for antipiracy or convoy escort.

That's too generous.

While not explicit, I've inferred from the books and some of the things RFC said about "Top Tier Navy" that the BSDF was the biggest SDF and Navy out there, outside of the Haven Sector navies and the SLN itself. So I'd put the Mannerheim SDF at 24 at most, though the combined RFN might have been above 36 if some of the other components of the RF brought in a few more SDs.

SDs and even DNs are expensive to operate - properly at least. That's one of the things that RFC was talking about: aside from some warlord's vanity piece, most systems didn't go for SDs. They are meant for force projection projection against a peer power, which most systems won't ever need. Fixed defences may be a better investment against a regional neighbour that might have one ship of the wall. Systems inside of the League space (whether members or not) wouldn't need SDs in the first place because the SLN would have frowned upon someone doing fleet battles in its backyard. Fringe and Verge systems couldn't afford an SD.

From the descriptions of To End in Fire, I've revised down just how rich Mannerheim was. For some reason, it hadn't constituted itself as a unified republic government until after the 1720s or so - Zilwicki and Cachat's investigations that turned up the slave ships that transited the wormhole were said to happen during the time of the Mannerheim Association. So I don't want to give them more than 2 squadrons of 8 of the wall, and even then half of those may be DNs.

If anything the smaller units the sollies might give them would be more valuable, since I can see them being converted to carry DDMs - making them actually comparable to RMN designs. Hell, the Nevada-class would make a decent contender to the Saganami-C's given its modularity and tonnage advantage, and I can see their heavy cruisers being contenders with Rolands and Avalons once updated.

Not until someone else cracks the secret of the quantum baffle and thus the true multi-ring missile, which a shipboard launched missile requires. Nevadas and even Indefatigables could be converted to launch Mk16 DDMs, but the intersection of people who have access Nevadas and access to Mk16 (or Havenite or Andermani equivalent) is empty.

Until then, BCs would be launching equivalents of the Cataphract-B: that is, cruiser-grade warheads. Given that the Mk16 are designed to kill BCs (and are actually pretty good at killing SDs too!), the Cataphract-firing Nevada would not be in the same fighting league as a Saganami-C firing Mk16s. We saw just that during the Battle of Hypatia, when only two ships could fire Mk16: HMS Arngrim (a destroyer) and HMS Phantom (a Nike-class BC). A great deal of the launches was composed of Mk14 ERMs fired by the Saganami-Bs. They surely benefited from the Mk16 penaids seeded through the salvoes, but those Mk14s were killing Nevada-class battlecruisers by the job lots. And then when Arngrim was alone, she was killing one BC per launch with Mk16.

That technical edge will eventually go away and other navies will have access to true multi-ring missiles. But by then, will it be worth retrofitting a Nevada or would it be cheaper to buy a new battlecruiser, bigger than a Nevada, possibly in the range of an Agamemnon, designed to fire DDMs and have sufficient control links for massive salvoes? With off-bore launching capability, so they can make double-double salvoes, especially an alpha launch that might have included pods that had been limpetted to the hull? And especially with upgraded defences so they can withstand a launch from a Saganami-C?

I think the Nevadas aren't going to be useful for long. Their remaining use is only against an older cruiser, like a Havenite Mars-D or a Star Knight (assuming those aren't equipped with ERMs).

They'll soon be replaced with a new design from inferred knowledge of the Agamemnons and Nikes, with the little bit that Maya let intentionally escape of their own Marksman-class CL and Defiant-class BC designs.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Zendikarofthewest wrote:Even being generous and giving them ~48 SDs, that is still not much - and may even be a downside. Non-MDM and Non-Apollo ships are nigh-useless against ships that have them, and maintaining them is likely to be a fairly decent strain on their budget. Its infeasible to convert them to SD(P)s or spider drive ships, so they will be effectively dead weight - really only good for antipiracy or convoy escort.

That's too generous.

While not explicit, I've inferred from the books and some of the things RFC said about "Top Tier Navy" that the BSDF was the biggest SDF and Navy out there, outside of the Haven Sector navies and the SLN itself. So I'd put the Mannerheim SDF at 24 at most, though the combined RFN might have been above 36 if some of the other components of the RF brought in a few more SDs.

SDs and even DNs are expensive to operate - properly at least. That's one of the things that RFC was talking about: aside from some warlord's vanity piece, most systems didn't go for SDs. They are meant for force projection projection against a peer power, which most systems won't ever need. Fixed defences may be a better investment against a regional neighbour that might have one ship of the wall. Systems inside of the League space (whether members or not) wouldn't need SDs in the first place because the SLN would have frowned upon someone doing fleet battles in its backyard. Fringe and Verge systems couldn't afford an SD.

From the descriptions of To End in Fire, I've revised down just how rich Mannerheim was. For some reason, it hadn't constituted itself as a unified republic government until after the 1720s or so - Zilwicki and Cachat's investigations that turned up the slave ships that transited the wormhole were said to happen during the time of the Mannerheim Association. So I don't want to give them more than 2 squadrons of 8 of the wall, and even then half of those may be DNs.

If anything the smaller units the sollies might give them would be more valuable, since I can see them being converted to carry DDMs - making them actually comparable to RMN designs. Hell, the Nevada-class would make a decent contender to the Saganami-C's given its modularity and tonnage advantage, and I can see their heavy cruisers being contenders with Rolands and Avalons once updated.

Not until someone else cracks the secret of the quantum baffle and thus the true multi-ring missile, which a shipboard launched missile requires. Nevadas and even Indefatigables could be converted to launch Mk16 DDMs, but the intersection of people who have access Nevadas and access to Mk16 (or Havenite or Andermani equivalent) is empty.

Until then, BCs would be launching equivalents of the Cataphract-B: that is, cruiser-grade warheads. Given that the Mk16 are designed to kill BCs (and are actually pretty good at killing SDs too!), the Cataphract-firing Nevada would not be in the same fighting league as a Saganami-C firing Mk16s. We saw just that during the Battle of Hypatia, when only two ships could fire Mk16: HMS Arngrim (a destroyer) and HMS Phantom (a Nike-class BC). A great deal of the launches was composed of Mk14 ERMs fired by the Saganami-Bs. They surely benefited from the Mk16 penaids seeded through the salvoes, but those Mk14s were killing Nevada-class battlecruisers by the job lots. And then when Arngrim was alone, she was killing one BC per launch with Mk16.

That technical edge will eventually go away and other navies will have access to true multi-ring missiles. But by then, will it be worth retrofitting a Nevada or would it be cheaper to buy a new battlecruiser, bigger than a Nevada, possibly in the range of an Agamemnon, designed to fire DDMs and have sufficient control links for massive salvoes? With off-bore launching capability, so they can make double-double salvoes, especially an alpha launch that might have included pods that had been limpetted to the hull? And especially with upgraded defences so they can withstand a launch from a Saganami-C?

I think the Nevadas aren't going to be useful for long. Their remaining use is only against an older cruiser, like a Havenite Mars-D or a Star Knight (assuming those aren't equipped with ERMs).

They'll soon be replaced with a new design from inferred knowledge of the Agamemnons and Nikes, with the little bit that Maya let intentionally escape of their own Marksman-class CL and Defiant-class BC designs.

Mk 16 conversion - Mk 16s require the same special cofferdam for Fusion ignition as the Mk 25 does - IOW, installation will a complete removal of the armor, reworking of the missile feed tubes and gutting of the ship. Possible (but expensive) in CAs.... for a BC, practically as difficult as a SD.

Older mid-sized ships will be limited to the small DD warhead Cataphract.

Theemile wrote:
Mk 16 conversion - Mk 16s require the same special cofferdam for Fusion ignition as the Mk 25 does - IOW, installation will a complete removal of the armor, reworking of the missile feed tubes and gutting of the ship. Possible (but expensive) in CAs.... for a BC, practically as difficult as a SD.

Older mid-sized ships will be limited to the small DD warhead Cataphract.

Maybe. The main advantage the Nevada's have is their modularity - they were designed to be retrofitted with newer compenents as they came out, so I suspect it would be fairly possible to slot them in.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Not until someone else cracks the secret of the quantum baffle and thus the true multi-ring missile, which a shipboard launched missile requires. Nevadas and even Indefatigables could be converted to launch Mk16 DDMs, but the intersection of people who have access Nevadas and access to Mk16 (or Havenite or Andermani equivalent) is empty.

Until then, BCs would be launching equivalents of the Cataphract-B: that is, cruiser-grade warheads. Given that the Mk16 are designed to kill BCs (and are actually pretty good at killing SDs too!), the Cataphract-firing Nevada would not be in the same fighting league as a Saganami-C firing Mk16s. We saw just that during the Battle of Hypatia, when only two ships could fire Mk16: HMS Arngrim (a destroyer) and HMS Phantom (a Nike-class BC). A great deal of the launches was composed of Mk14 ERMs fired by the Saganami-Bs. They surely benefited from the Mk16 penaids seeded through the salvoes, but those Mk14s were killing Nevada-class battlecruisers by the job lots. And then when Arngrim was alone, she was killing one BC per launch with Mk16.

That technical edge will eventually go away and other navies will have access to true multi-ring missiles. But by then, will it be worth retrofitting a Nevada or would it be cheaper to buy a new battlecruiser, bigger than a Nevada, possibly in the range of an Agamemnon, designed to fire DDMs and have sufficient control links for massive salvoes? With off-bore launching capability, so they can make double-double salvoes, especially an alpha launch that might have included pods that had been limpetted to the hull? And especially with upgraded defences so they can withstand a launch from a Saganami-C?

I think the Nevadas aren't going to be useful for long. Their remaining use is only against an older cruiser, like a Havenite Mars-D or a Star Knight (assuming those aren't equipped with ERMs).

They'll soon be replaced with a new design from inferred knowledge of the Agamemnons and Nikes, with the little bit that Maya let intentionally escape of their own Marksman-class CL and Defiant-class BC designs.

I think that obtaining Haven- or Andermani-based versions of the DDM would be feasible, as should reverse-engineering them. As for their usefulness - I think they would have use, especially in second-rate navies. Refitting them will be vastly cheaper then just making a new ship (Its not like converting SDs to SD(P)s, or pre-keyhole to Keyhole II), and it gives them a pretty damn level playing field.

Against a Saganami-C, a modified Nevada would likely still be inferior - twenty-eight missiles a broadside compared to the practical forty a broadside the Saganami-C has, as well as likely slower fire rate. Refit variants would likely have more LCs and CMs then the Saganami, though, and thats still quite a bit, especially from a double broadside. If they can get off-bore firing on em - which is mainly up to the missiles themselves - then they would stand even, spitting fifty-six to the Saganami's forty. (Though at a lower fire rate.)

They would still be pretty damn decent though, and cheap to acquire given the fall of the Solarian League. Will they suffer compared to more modern designs, and will they be replaced? Absolutely, but that takes time, and they serve as quite cheap and decently effective stopgaps.

I am not so sure about the other ones, though - modifying a Kutuzov or Mikasa to take DDMs via roland-style bow launches would be possible, but is much more significant then any retrofit of the Nevadas would be. (Both to the lack of built-in modularity, and because of limited hammerhead space and missile feeds.)

Theemile wrote:Mk 16 conversion - Mk 16s require the same special cofferdam for Fusion ignition as the Mk 25 does - IOW, installation will a complete removal of the armor, reworking of the missile feed tubes and gutting of the ship. Possible (but expensive) in CAs.... for a BC, practically as difficult as a SD.

Older mid-sized ships will be limited to the small DD warhead Cataphract.

That's if they go for an actual Mk16. Someone else cracking the secret of the quantum baffle may still be thwarted by the secret of the mini-fusion power plants that those have. So instead they may be using regular plasma capacitors - I wouldn't be surprised this is what the RHN first deployed at the beginning of the Second War, in Operation Thunderbolt, though I don't recall the details. If so, retrofitting might be worthwhile.

In fact, making it worthwhile may be a market in itself: some arms manufacturer may want to do exactly that, for navies and SDFs with ships that can't afford an extensive retrofit. It would allow them to have BC-grade warheads in BCs, instead of CA-grade, and have the range to fight a peer power who did only have CA-grade DDMs.

The fact that in the long run this may be a losing proposition is not a deal-breaker. Politicians may look at their short-term expenditures and go for that, instead of sinking more money with a longer build time for a whole new ship.

Zendikarofthewest wrote:I think that obtaining Haven- or Andermani-based versions of the DDM would be feasible, as should reverse-engineering them. As for their usefulness - I think they would have use, especially in second-rate navies. Refitting them will be vastly cheaper then just making a new ship (Its not like converting SDs to SD(P)s, or pre-keyhole to Keyhole II), and it gives them a pretty damn level playing field.

I'm not so sure. The time for stealing those is past, now that both of those polities have joined the GA. They do not want to seed someone else with ideas that could fight them and will keep a close eye on their plans. They're also not deploying those any more.

The RHN was sharing some technology with the League still at the beginning of the Theisman leadership. But once they got in with Erewhon and actual RMN/GSN tech, they gave the League the boot. We have not heard about the IAN needing to go outside for technical expertise and it doesn't fit with their profile either.

However, the GA itself may decide to start selling export versions of its hardware. Knowing the quantum baffle will eventually be broken, they can be ready to capture that market. They don't need to expedite it, though.

Against a Saganami-C, a modified Nevada would likely still be inferior - twenty-eight missiles a broadside compared to the practical forty a broadside the Saganami-C has, as well as likely slower fire rate. Refit variants would likely have more LCs and CMs then the Saganami, though, and thats still quite a bit, especially from a double broadside. If they can get off-bore firing on em - which is mainly up to the missiles themselves - then they would stand even, spitting fifty-six to the Saganami's forty. (Though at a lower fire rate.)

That's quite unlikely to happen in a refit. The costs are mounting and we may be getting to the point of purchasing a whole new BC.

Erewhon and their Carlucci Industries are not bound by the GA agreements. They can sell an export version of the Defiant-class BC and I'm sure it's superior in all aspects to a Nevada. Carlucci is probably looking for more markets anyway, because Erewhon and Maya aren't big enough.

And the RHN could sell whatever surplus it has of BCs. We didn't get a name for the RHN class following the Warlord and Warrior classes that may have incorporated the ability to fire DDMs and had the improved defences and other doctrine that the Havenites had learnt. But since the Warlords were already bigger than a Reliant, one would assume this follow-up class was even bigger and would be in all aspects better than a Nevada.

They would still be pretty damn decent though, and cheap to acquire given the fall of the Solarian League. Will they suffer compared to more modern designs, and will they be replaced? Absolutely, but that takes time, and they serve as quite cheap and decently effective stopgaps.

Right, if you didn't have something remotely close, a Nevada would be a great addition to your fleet.

However, the Frontier Fleet ships weren't that bad. Outdated compared to the Haven Sector navies, but they were pretty good. I don't see the SLN disposing of them, even with the pulling in of FF and dismantling of the OFS, until they have a replacement design. And if there is a replacement design, then those who can afford BCs would be placing orders for those, not Nevadas.

I am not so sure about the other ones, though - modifying a Kutuzov or Mikasa to take DDMs via roland-style bow launches would be possible, but is much more significant then any retrofit of the Nevadas would be. (Both to the lack of built-in modularity, and because of limited hammerhead space and missile feeds.)

Bow-launched missiles only? That's going to be two or at most four per launch. Talk about going back to the 16th century!

We don't know when missiles became small enough or the ships big enough to launch from broadsides. During Travis' time, they were all bow- or stern-launched (and stern launches only in battleships I think). We also don't know the original specs of the Ad Astra-class DNs that the RMN built in the 1650s, only that they had been massively refitted and had grown a lot by Honor's time (by King Roger's build-up I guess). We'll know more when Jacob Holo and RFC write the novels about Edward Saganami.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Not until someone else cracks the secret of the quantum baffle and thus the true multi-ring missile, which a shipboard launched missile requires. Nevadas and even Indefatigables could be converted to launch Mk16 DDMs, but the intersection of people who have access Nevadas and access to Mk16 (or Havenite or Andermani equivalent) is empty.

Until then, BCs would be launching equivalents of the Cataphract-B: that is, cruiser-grade warheads. Given that the Mk16 are designed to kill BCs (and are actually pretty good at killing SDs too!), the Cataphract-firing Nevada would not be in the same fighting league as a Saganami-C firing Mk16s. We saw just that during the Battle of Hypatia, when only two ships could fire Mk16: HMS Arngrim (a destroyer) and HMS Phantom (a Nike-class BC). A great deal of the launches was composed of Mk14 ERMs fired by the Saganami-Bs. They surely benefited from the Mk16 penaids seeded through the salvoes, but those Mk14s were killing Nevada-class battlecruisers by the job lots. And then when Arngrim was alone, she was killing one BC per launch with Mk16.

That technical edge will eventually go away and other navies will have access to true multi-ring missiles. But by then, will it be worth retrofitting a Nevada or would it be cheaper to buy a new battlecruiser, bigger than a Nevada, possibly in the range of an Agamemnon, designed to fire DDMs and have sufficient control links for massive salvoes? With off-bore launching capability, so they can make double-double salvoes, especially an alpha launch that might have included pods that had been limpetted to the hull? And especially with upgraded defences so they can withstand a launch from a Saganami-C?

There are hints that the MAlign might finally have done cracked the baffle.

Their Lorica CM was described as a "multidrive counter-missile" -- though this could just be sloppy terminology; maybe like the Cataphract it is actually just multi-staged.

And TIEF also mentioned the Alignment has a new, latest, anti-ship missile -- the Ninurta. While all we know of it is Gail was denied the use of it for the defense of Galton and she considered the latest Cataphracts (which she was allowed to use) inferior to it.
But I don't see why they'd change the name without a significant step change in capability. An obvious such step change would be a proper MDM instead of a staged missile; but I guess that's not the only such change that might have triggered a name change.


And back to the Nevada as a ersatz Sag-C.
Don't forget that the Nevada is grossly inferior in acceleration. A Nevada's “maximum acceleration was less than four hundred and ninety gravities” [SftS] (from its mass I'd calculate 487.6g), whereas even as designed (before any refits to even newer compensators) a Sag-C's maximum acceleration was 726.2g; so basically 50% quicker.
(And it's even worse since the League is still sticking to 80% at their normal safe acceleration while Manticore is now IIRC using 90% -- giving the Sag-C nearly 70% quicker accel at their respective max non-emergency settings)

That sluggish performance going to be an issue in some heavy cruiser use cases.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Theemile wrote:Mk 16 conversion - Mk 16s require the same special cofferdam for Fusion ignition as the Mk 25 does - IOW, installation will a complete removal of the armor, reworking of the missile feed tubes and gutting of the ship. Possible (but expensive) in CAs.... for a BC, practically as difficult as a SD.

Older mid-sized ships will be limited to the small DD warhead Cataphract.

That's if they go for an actual Mk16. Someone else cracking the secret of the quantum baffle may still be thwarted by the secret of the mini-fusion power plants that those have. So instead they may be using regular plasma capacitors - I wouldn't be surprised this is what the RHN first deployed at the beginning of the Second War, in Operation Thunderbolt, though I don't recall the details. If so, retrofitting might be worthwhile.

In fact, making it worthwhile may be a market in itself: some arms manufacturer may want to do exactly that, for navies and SDFs with ships that can't afford an extensive retrofit. It would allow them to have BC-grade warheads in BCs, instead of CA-grade, and have the range to fight a peer power who did only have CA-grade DDMs.

The fact that in the long run this may be a losing proposition is not a deal-breaker. Politicians may look at their short-term expenditures and go for that, instead of sinking more money with a longer build time for a whole new ship.

A capacitor DDM would be massive - as large as or larger than a Capital missile. Yes, you can build a build a CA/BC with said missiles, but you would need to build larger missile openings, feed tubes and magazine spaces, and hold fewer missiles. Rebuilding current ships would be expensive.

Zendikarofthewest wrote:

Theemile wrote:
Mk 16 conversion - Mk 16s require the same special cofferdam for Fusion ignition as the Mk 25 does - IOW, installation will a complete removal of the armor, reworking of the missile feed tubes and gutting of the ship. Possible (but expensive) in CAs.... for a BC, practically as difficult as a SD.

Older mid-sized ships will be limited to the small DD warhead Cataphract.

Maybe. The main advantage the Nevada's have is their modularity - they were designed to be retrofitted with newer compenents as they came out, so I suspect it would be fairly possible to slot them in.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Not until someone else cracks the secret of the quantum baffle and thus the true multi-ring missile, which a shipboard launched missile requires. Nevadas and even Indefatigables could be converted to launch Mk16 DDMs, but the intersection of people who have access Nevadas and access to Mk16 (or Havenite or Andermani equivalent) is empty.

Until then, BCs would be launching equivalents of the Cataphract-B: that is, cruiser-grade warheads. Given that the Mk16 are designed to kill BCs (and are actually pretty good at killing SDs too!), the Cataphract-firing Nevada would not be in the same fighting league as a Saganami-C firing Mk16s. We saw just that during the Battle of Hypatia, when only two ships could fire Mk16: HMS Arngrim (a destroyer) and HMS Phantom (a Nike-class BC). A great deal of the launches was composed of Mk14 ERMs fired by the Saganami-Bs. They surely benefited from the Mk16 penaids seeded through the salvoes, but those Mk14s were killing Nevada-class battlecruisers by the job lots. And then when Arngrim was alone, she was killing one BC per launch with Mk16.

That technical edge will eventually go away and other navies will have access to true multi-ring missiles. But by then, will it be worth retrofitting a Nevada or would it be cheaper to buy a new battlecruiser, bigger than a Nevada, possibly in the range of an Agamemnon, designed to fire DDMs and have sufficient control links for massive salvoes? With off-bore launching capability, so they can make double-double salvoes, especially an alpha launch that might have included pods that had been limpetted to the hull? And especially with upgraded defences so they can withstand a launch from a Saganami-C?

I think the Nevadas aren't going to be useful for long. Their remaining use is only against an older cruiser, like a Havenite Mars-D or a Star Knight (assuming those aren't equipped with ERMs).

They'll soon be replaced with a new design from inferred knowledge of the Agamemnons and Nikes, with the little bit that Maya let intentionally escape of their own Marksman-class CL and Defiant-class BC designs.

I think that obtaining Haven- or Andermani-based versions of the DDM would be feasible, as should reverse-engineering them. As for their usefulness - I think they would have use, especially in second-rate navies. Refitting them will be vastly cheaper then just making a new ship (Its not like converting SDs to SD(P)s, or pre-keyhole to Keyhole II), and it gives them a pretty damn level playing field.

Against a Saganami-C, a modified Nevada would likely still be inferior - twenty-eight missiles a broadside compared to the practical forty a broadside the Saganami-C has, as well as likely slower fire rate. Refit variants would likely have more LCs and CMs then the Saganami, though, and thats still quite a bit, especially from a double broadside. If they can get off-bore firing on em - which is mainly up to the missiles themselves - then they would stand even, spitting fifty-six to the Saganami's forty. (Though at a lower fire rate.)

They would still be pretty damn decent though, and cheap to acquire given the fall of the Solarian League. Will they suffer compared to more modern designs, and will they be replaced? Absolutely, but that takes time, and they serve as quite cheap and decently effective stopgaps.

I am not so sure about the other ones, though - modifying a Kutuzov or Mikasa to take DDMs via roland-style bow launches would be possible, but is much more significant then any retrofit of the Nevadas would be. (Both to the lack of built-in modularity, and because of limited hammerhead space and missile feeds.)

The Fusion MDM missile feeds require a special armored fusion spin up chamber for each missile tube, as well as a wider missile opening in the armor and the tubes. Armor on modern ships is grown in place with no seems, which is why The Nike required the removal of multiple decks and digging from the ventral side to replace a reactor - it would have taken longer to just cut through the armor than the entire job done at Hanckcock. It took longer and more $ to modify a brand new Gryphon to fire MDMs than to build a new MDM Tube firing SD. We know a handful were done, but not how many.

As I said above, a capacitor DDM would require a similar gutting for bigger missile feeds and openings (The missiles would be the size of Capital SDMs or larger). Again, doable, but far cheaper and easier to just build new.

The systems in a ship might be modular, but the outer armor isn't, limiting what can be done economically.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:<snip>
Until then, BCs would be launching equivalents of the Cataphract-B: that is, cruiser-grade warheads. Given that the Mk16 are designed to kill BCs (and are actually pretty good at killing SDs too!), the Cataphract-firing Nevada would not be in the same fighting league as a Saganami-C firing Mk16s. We saw just that during the Battle of Hypatia, when only two ships could fire Mk16: HMS Arngrim (a destroyer) and HMS Phantom (a Nike-class BC). A great deal of the launches was composed of Mk14 ERMs fired by the Saganami-Bs. They surely benefited from the Mk16 penaids seeded through the salvoes, but those Mk14s were killing Nevada-class battlecruisers by the job lots. And then when Arngrim was alone, she was killing one BC per launch with Mk16.
<snip>

SLN BCs (and CAs) normally use cruiser weight missiles, and the Cataphracts used in a Cruiser weight tube is the Cataphract A - the DD sized base missile and warhead.

Cataphract Bs use the Cruiser weight missile as a base with the cruiser weight warhead, and fit in Capital sized tubes (BB, DN and SD)

Cataphract Cs use the Capital missile as the base and warhead, and only fit in outsized pods.

For reference, We saw the ex-SLN BCs at Torch in the PRNiE attack firing Cataphract As.